Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

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 11/12/2019

Item: 05

Subject: DA2019 - 248.1 Telecommunications Facility (Tower) - Lot 1 DP 834401, No. 10 Holland Close Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Catalyst ONE Pty Ltd

Owner: Formarcus Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $250,000

Parcel no: 12462

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019/248.01 for a Telecommunications Facility at Lot 1, DP 834401, No. 10 Holland Close, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a Telecommunications Facility (Tower) at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, one submission 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 2.23 hectares.

The site is zoned RU1 Primary Agriculture 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:

· A 42.73m high monopole telecommunications tower and ancillary equipment shelter and security fence around base of tower.

Refer to Attachment 2 at the end of this report for plans of the proposed development.

Application Chronology

· 04 April 2019 - Application Lodged.

· 16 April 2019 to 02 May 2019 - Public notification period. One submission received.

· 23 October 2019 - Additional information received including Amended Statement of Environmental Effects, Amended Plans, and Visual Impact Assessment.

· 11 November 2019 - Additional information received including Amended Plans, Landscaping Plan, and Amended Statement of Environmental Effects.

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

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land has is greater than 1 hectare and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Circular No. B35, Section 1.5 states that “In relation to affected development applications it is the intention of the policy that investigations for ‘potential’ and ‘core’ koala habitats be limited to those areas in which it is proposed to disturb habitat”.

The application has demonstrated that no habitat will be removed or modified 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 proximity to 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 impacts on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

j) 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.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 115(1). In accordance with this clause, telecommunications facilities are permissible in all zones within Port Macquarie-Hastings Council area with consent. The proposed telecommunications facility is consistent with the Infrastructure SEPP definition and is considered as development permitted with consent.

Clause 115(3). Determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure has prepared the NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline (2010) to:

(a) provide a guide to the State wide planning provisions and development controls for telecommunications facilities in NSW contained in the SEPP;

(b) provide guidance to assist the facilitation of the roll-out of broadband in NSW.

The detailed principles of the Guideline are under the following broad headings:

· Principle 1: A telecommunications facility is to be designed and sited to minimise visual impact.

· Principle 2: Telecommunications facilities should be co-located wherever practical.

· Principle 3: Health standards for exposure to radio emissions must be met.

· Principle 4: Minimise disturbance and risk and maximise compliance.

The proposal is compliant with the Site Selection, Design, Construction and Operation Principles for Telecommunications Facilities based on the above information. In particular, the Applicant has provided the following details to demonstrate satisfactory consideration of this guideline:

· Detailed planning response to each planning principle, satisfactorily demonstrating compliance with the guideline (See Section 6 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) attached).

· An analysis of other potentially suitable sites concluded that the site chosen is the most suitable. Co-location of the equipment on existing structures in the locality was not achievable technically or structurally at the required height to meet the coverage objectives of the facility and proximity to existing dwellings without adverse impacts. (Section 4 of the SOEE attached).

· The estimated calculated radio frequency electromagnetic energy (EME) levels are well below the mandatory standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The maximum cumulative EME level at 1.5m above ground level for all carriers at this site is 0.36% of the ARPANSA exposure limits.

· The Visual Impact Assessment adequately supports the preferred location. The site provides a significant setback from existing residential buildings and undeveloped residential zoned land in the locality. (See Visual Impact Statement attached).

Refer also to further additional comments under visual impact, context and setting later in this report. It is important to also note from this guideline that 'the considered scientific opinion about possible health effects from this type of infrastructure is that the weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that radio frequency emissions associated with living near mobile phone base station of telecommunications towers poses a health risk' (Australian Communications and Media Authority).

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 RU1 Primary Production.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the RU1 zone land use table.

The proposed development for a Telecommunications Facility is permissible land use with consent. The objectives of the RU1 zone are as follows:

o To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

o To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

o To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

o To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

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

o The proposal is a permissible land use.

o The proposal will not interrupt the natural resource value of the site.

o Potential perceived conflicts have been minimised with separation and landscaping.

o The proposal will provide valued telecommunication coverage to adjoining areas.

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

· Clause 7.1. The site is mapped as potentially containing Class 5 acid sulphate soils. The proposed development is unlikely to expose any such soils therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur.

· Clause 7.3. The site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus the applicable climate change allowance and relevant freeboard). In this regard the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.3, Council’s Flood Policy 2015, the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Lands Policy and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

o The proposal is compatible with the flood hazard of the land taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change.

o The proposal will not result in a significant adverse effect on flood behaviour that would result in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties.

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

o The proposal is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses.

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

· Clause 7.7. Airspace operations. The site is located approximately 1.8km from the site. Correspondence from Port Macquarie airport operator confirmed the facility will not penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) contour. Council’s airport staff have recommended a condition requiring a survey of the ‘as built’ structure and a precautionary condition regarding the use of cranes during construction.

· Clause7.13. Satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services to service the development.

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(a)(iii) Any DCP in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline	Adequate access proposed for the facility from Holland Close. The utility area / yard will be adequately fenced to secure the site from trespassers. Security lighting and video surveillance can be installed if required.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Less than 1m cut/fill proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.23	Parking to be provided as per table 2.5.1.	The proposal will not generate any parking demand. The site is accessible for maintenance purposes without any identifiable traffic impacts.	Yes

(a)(iii)(a) Any planning agreement or draft planning agreement

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

(a)(iv) The regulations

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

(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

The site is a corner block with a primary orientation to Holland Close. Adjoining the site to the north is the Oxley Highway. Adjoining the site to the east are residential dwellings. Adjoining the site to the south is John Oxley Drive and undeveloped R1 General Residential zoned land. Adjoining the site to the west is undeveloped IN2 Light Industrial land.

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. Specifically, there are no identified iconic or special views that would be impacted by the proposed structure.

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts. A consent condition has also has been recommended surrounding anticipated security lighting.

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

Roads, Traffic and Transport

No change to existing access proposed from Holland Close or John Oxley Drive. The proposal will not result in any increase in traffic generation to the site.

Sewer Connection

No sewer connection proposed.

Stormwater

The proposed structure will not generate any additional stormwater to that which the current hardstand area it is being placed upon.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any 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 Section J of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has addressed a proposed Asset Protection Zone in the Statement of Environmental Effects and by the site design. In line with RFS recommendations for telecommunications infrastructure, a 10m asset protection zone (APZ) is proposed around the monopole and equipment cabinet. The establishment and maintenance of the APZ will not require the removal of any trees.

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.

The perceived health risks associated with RF EME are not substantiated by ‘the weight of national and international scientific opinion’ (ARPANSA 2008). Further, the Land and Environment Court has previously ruled in favour of telecommunications base stations where residents raised concerns regarding RF EME (Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, Telstra Corporation Limited v City of Ryde Council [2009] NSWLEC 1130).

The proposal would also have likely positive social impacts, which can be attributed to the delivery of improved mobile phone and broadband coverage/services for existing and developing residential areas.

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain and/or improve telecommunication coverage to the broader community, which will lead to flow impacts for personal or business use of technology.

Site design and internal design

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

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.

Natural Hazards

No identifiable impacts apparent.

(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

Following exhibition of the application in accordance with DCP 2013, one submission was received.

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
There are multiple errors in the Statement of Environment report. This would indicate that due diligence may not have been done and lends argument as to the accuracy of their report.	Original Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) incorrectly referred to another Local Government Area. However, the report had the correct address references to the subject site and adjoining investigation sites. This reference was a minor miss description only. Errors in the original reports have been corrected in the current SOEE attached to this report. (Attachment 6)
The vegetation identified in figure 9 (page 35) with a large note "Vegetation Screening" and figure 10 (page 36) will shortly be removed as part of long standing consultation with council to subdivide several properties in close proximity of this proposed tower. The vegetation will shortly be replaced with dwellings, leaving little or no screening of the proposed tower.	At the time of lodgement, there was no Development Application approving the clearing of the mentioned vegetation screening. A residential subdivision has since been lodged and approved on adjoining land to the South, impacting the vegetation screening mentioned in the Statement of Environmental Effects and Visual Impact Assessment. The Applicant has acknowledged the difficulty in balancing the need for the telecommunication facilities, and the broader community benefit, a location with minimal identifiable impacts and personal reward preferences. The attached Visual Impact Assessment provided as additional information, adequately demonstrates a detailed review of potential visual amenity impacts and provides sufficient justification as a preferred location with site attributes to justify the proposed land use. It is noted that no iconic, panoramic or landmark views will be impacted by this proposal. It is also noted by the Applicant that it is not always possible to locate this type of facility in visually sympathetic locations when also considering telecommunication coverage requirements. The Applicant has demonstrated the subject location, adjacent to the Oxley Highway, adjoining light industrial zoned land and maximum setback from adjoining residential land, is considered to be the most appropriate location for the proposed development given the sights constraints and other available investigation locations to service the northwest vicinity of Port Macquarie. The supportive documentation provided adequately information to remove any ground of refusal based on visual amenity.
Other sites have been discarded as being too close to residential premises. We ask that the same consideration be given to existing dwellings and the imminent residential subdivisions.	The revised Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) has outlined the site selection process. See Clause 4.2 of the attached SOEE for the reasons justifying the selection of Holland Close as the preferred site.
Where exactly would this tower be built?	See Overall Site Plan (Drawing No. S2296-G2) attached to this report. (Attachment 2)
Reference to benefit to community is very bland on facts, who are the beneficiaries of such a project and at what detriment to local amenity?	Clause 2 of the attached Statement of Environmental Effects has satisfactorily demonstrated the purpose of the development, broader community need to accommodate adequate telecommunication coverage and demand.

(e) The public interest

The proposed development will be in the wider public interest servicing additional housing.

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and will not adversely impact 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 the need to retain 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.

Additional Comments

Technological Hazards – Radio Frequency (RF) Electromagnetic Energy (EME)

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), is a Federal Government agency charged with responsibility for protecting the health and safety of people, and the environment, from the harmful effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) also mandates exposure limits for continuous exposure of the general public to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) from mobile phone base stations.

The levels of electromagnetic fields from mobile phone telecommunication base stations must comply with safety limits imposed by the ACMA. The limits are given in the Radio communications (Electromagnetic Radiation — Human Exposure) Standard 2003.These limits are based on the Australian Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3khz to 300GHz which sets public and occupational limits for exposure to EME fields.

The maximum EME levels from the proposed telecommunications facility have been estimated in 360 degree circular bands at a distance up to 500 metres away from the proposed site and at 1.5m above ground level. These estimates have been made in accordance with the procedures developed by ARPANSA and are represented as a percentage of the maximum ARPANSA public exposure limit which equates to 100%.

The maximum level of EME generated by the proposal, which occurs at distance of 250.18 metres from the proposed location of the antennas, was estimated as equivalent to 0.36% of the ARPANSA public exposure limits. Calculations of EME closer to the tower were estimated to be lower.

As a result, the proposed telecommunications facility complies with the Australian Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3khz to 300GHz.

Site inspection date: November 2019

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

· A copy of the contributions estimate is included as Attachment 3.

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 1 of this report.

Attachments

1 View. DA2019 - 248.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 248.1 Plans

3 View. DA2019 - 248.1 Contributions Estimate

4 View. DA2019 - 248.1 Correspondence from Airport Manager & Airservices

5 View. DA2019 - 248.1 EME Report

6 View. DA2019 - 248.1 SOEE

7 View. DA2019 - 248.1 Visual Impact Assessment

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

Item: 06

Subject: DA1991 - 485.2 Modification to Residential Subdivision at Lot 3 & 4 DP 205451, Lot X, Y & Z DP409518, Lot 28 DP 23418, No 211-213 High Street and Pead Street, Wauchope

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Chris Gardiner

Applicant: Land Dynamics Australia

Owner: Horizon Beach Development Corp Pty

Estimated Cost: Nil

Parcel no: 8863, 9062, 20302, 20303, 36140, 9064

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA1991 - 485.2 for Modification of Residential Subdivision at Lot 3 & 4 DP 205451, Lot X, Y & Z DP 409518, and Lot 28 DP 23418, No. 211-213 High Street and Pead Street, Wauchope, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for modification to an approved residential subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, three (3) submissions were received.

This report recommends that the development consent be modified as detailed in the attached modified conditions.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 8.9 hectares.

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

Development consent for DA1991 - 485 was originally granted on 18 February 1992 by Hastings Municipal Council and permitted residential subdivision containing 82 lots, plus a public reserve. A copy of the approved subdivision plan is included below.

Key aspects of the proposed modification include the following:

· Changes to road and lot layout, including a new road connection to Leaders Way.

· Reduction in minimum lot size.

· Introduction of staging:

o Stage 1 - 1 lot, plus residue;

o Stage 2 - 25 lots, plus residue;

o Stage 3 - 33 lots, plus residue;

o Stage 4 - 24 lots.

· Payment of a monetary contribution in lieu of dedication of a public reserve.

· Removal of Lot 28 DP 23418 and Lot X DP 409518 from the development.

· Modification to conditions of consent.

Refer to Attachment 2 at the end of this report for plans of the proposed development.

Application Chronology

· 1 April 2019 - Application lodged.

· 5 April 2019 to 18 April 2019 - Neighbour notification.

· 17 May 2019 - Applicant response to submissions received.

· 20 May 2019 - Sewer Strategy received.

· 7 June 2019 - Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 11 June 2019 - Comments and conditions from NSW Rural Fire Service received.

· 28 June 2019 - Comments from NSW Roads and Maritime Services received.

· 20 September 2019 - Additional information submitted by Applicant.

· 15 October 2019 - Further comments from NSW Roads and Maritime Services received.

· 26 November 2019 - Amended plans received.

· 2 December 2019 - Additional stormwater modelling received.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.55(2)(a) Is the proposal substantially the same?

Section 96 (now Section 4.55) has been described as “beneficial and facultative” in Houlton v Woollahra Municipal Council (1997) 95 LGERA 201 at [213] and North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd (1998) 97 LGERA 433 at [440]. Accordingly, the provisions of s 96 (4.55) should not be artificially constrained by allowing a narrow construction.

In Vasic Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8, Stein J held that "substantially" meant "essentially all material or having the same essence."

In Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298 at [56] Bignold J held that the task for determining whether a development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the consent granted was as follows:

"The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as currently approved and modified where that comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather, the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted)."

In the context of the current application, the proposal can be considered to be substantially the same as the development to which consent was originally granted for the following reasons:

· The modified development occupies substantially the same footprint as the subdivision originally granted consent.

· The modified development would not result in any increase in the overall number of lots approved for the original development

· The modified proposal remains as a subdivision for the purpose of residential uses and is consistent with the essence of the original development.

· The impacts of the modified development, including the extent of vegetation clearing, earthworks, demolition, and remediation of land remain similar to the approved development.

· The modified development would not create any increased demand on public infrastructure or services compared with the original approved development.

· The payment of a monetary contribution for any shortfall in land dedicated for the purpose of public reserve is envisaged in the conditions of the original consent.

Section 4.55(2)(b) Are there any condition(s) of consent imposed by a Minister, government or public authority that require modification?

The consent does not include any conditions imposed by a public authority. However, further consultation has been carried out with the NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW Roads and Maritime Services in relation to the modified proposal.

Section 4.55(2)(c) Does the application require notification/advertising in accordance with the regulations and/or any Development Control Plan?

Neighbour notification has been undertaken in accordance with the regulations and Council’s DCP.

Section 4.55(2)(d) Any submissions made concerning the modification

Three (3) written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

Key issues raised in the submissions received and comment are provided in the table below:

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Oppose deletion/modification of condition 3 of the consent, which restricts minimum lot size to 600m². Studies have shown that smaller lot sizes result in congestion, pollution, road safety issues, pressure on infrastructure, devaluation of adjoining properties, impact on wildlife or trees, character and design, insufficient landscaping or recreational areas, and general lack of amenity.	Since the consent was originally granted, the planning controls for the area have changed and the land is now subject to a minimum lot size of 450m². The LEP zone objectives for the R1 General Residential zone include providing for a variety of housing types and densities, and the proposal in consistent with this objective. The impacts of the development, including traffic impacts, infrastructure servicing, environmental impacts, and amenity have been considered in the assessment of the application and considered capable of being appropriately managed.
Request confirmation that Council will enforce compliance with issues such as noise pollution, dust accumulation and working hours.	Condition 22 of the current consent includes a requirement for erosion and sediment control during the construction phase. It is recommended that this condition be expanded to cover standard construction site management, including the issues noted in the submission. The condition would be enforceable by Council’s Compliance staff.
Tree removal/lopping in this desirable area should be kept to a minimum and with Council and resident approval.	A tree removal plan has been approved by Council under the existing consent, and the majority of tree removal completed.
It is understood that payment of a contribution for reserves will be made. Request for plan of public reserves, play areas, landscaping and tree planting to be provided, including details of the timing of works.	The contribution referred to in the current conditions of consent were levied under an earlier contributions scheme and do not relate to any of the scheduled works in the current Open Space Contributions Plan. The funds received could therefore be spent on projects deemed to be of broader benefit to residents in the locality. The timing of works will depend upon the progress of the subdivision, as the contributions will be collected in stages, based on the number of lots released. There is also an option for the developer to make an offer to Council for works as material public benefit to be carried out as an offset to the development contributions.
Loss of property values for adjoining properties.	Case law has confirmed that loss of property value is not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of a development application.
Adjoining properties to the south along High Street slope towards the site and have no formal drainage. What is proposed to be implemented within the subdivision to manage stormwater runoff from these properties?	The application proposes interallotment drainage servicing the lots along High Street.
The proposal is not substantially the same as the development that was originally granted consent for the following reasons: · Average lot size reduced from 600m² to 500m², which will increase housing density and associated noise and traffic impacts. · While the development does not include addition lots, it will result in an increase in the number of dwellings. · Potential future commercial developments on Lot 101 and Lot X have not been disclosed or considered in the application. · A bio-retention basin has been added to the application, which will result in additional tree removal and health risks associated with vermin and mosquitos. · Additional street access to Leaders Way and significant realignment of all the roads within the subdivision. · Removal/deletion of proposed public reserve. · Significant changes to the staging of the development. · Removal of various restrictions stated in the original consent including but not limited to 88B instruments. A new development application should be required.	See comments earlier in this report for reasons that the development can be considered to be substantially the same as the original development having regard to relevant case law. The Section 4.55 application provides for the consent authority to consider the relevant impacts of the modified development in the same way that they would be considered under a new development application.
The proposed bio-retention basin will increase the bush fire hazard to buildings recently constructed at No. 5 Kookaburra Place, Wauchope. The buildings were constructed on the assumption that the site would be cleared residential lots. The submitted bushfire assessment notes that the basin would have vegetation similar to grassland.	The existing site adjoining the eastern boundary of No. 5 Kookaburra Place is currently grassland and would remain as such if the development does not proceed. A bio-retention basin has the same specification as grassland would therefore not increase the risk to the buildings on No. 5 Kookaburra Place compared with the current situation. The bushfire assessment submitted with DA2017 - 999.2 for the construction of a new shed at No. 5 Kookaburra Place did not identify the neighbouring land as being ‘managed land’ and there are no easements in place for the maintenance of an asset protection zone on Lot 3 DP 205451 for the purpose of protecting the shed. As part of the assessment of DA2017 - 999.2 the NSW Rural Fire Service agreed to an alternative solution and allowed the shed to be constructed with no BAL rating on the basis that it is separated by more than 6m from the dwelling. The NSW Rural Fire Service has also reviewed the bushfire assessment for the modified proposal and did not raise any concern regarding impacts on neighbouring property.

Section 4.55(3) Any matters referred to in section 4.15 (1) relevant to the modification, and the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent sought to be modified.

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land is greater than 1 hectare (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

The land has been cleared in accordance with the original development consent and does not contain the required composition of Schedule 2 food trees to be considered potential koala habitat. No further consideration of the SEPP is required.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The site was previously used as a plywood factory that was developed post World War 2 (late 1940’s to early 1950’s) and operated through until approximately the early 1980’s. The previous land use is a potentially contaminating activity in accordance with the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines.

The original assessment of the application did not included detailed consideration of potential land contamination, but the consent currently includes the following conditions relating to the investigation and remediation of the site:

4. The submission of a report prepared in consultation with and endorsed by the State Pollution Control Commission indicating that the land is not contaminated by any chemical residue or any other substances as a result of previous activities on the site.

8. Completion of any remedial works necessary to comply with condition 4.

Legislation regarding the management of contaminated land has changed since the original consent was granted, and it is now necessary to consider the provisions in Clause 7 of SEPP 55.

The Applicant has submitted a Stage 2 Site Contamination Assessment prepared by Regional Geotechnical Solutions and dated 20 August 2019. The investigations revealed concentrations of chemicals of concern (including asbestos, lead, hydrocarbons, nickel, copper and formaldehyde) exceeding the adopted health investigation criteria for a Residential A site in several locations.

The report concludes that the site is able to be made suitable for the proposed residential use, subject to appropriate remediation of the contaminated parts of the site. A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) will be required to be submitted prior to remediation commencing, and a Validation Report will be required to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the first Subdivision Certificate.

It is recommended that conditions 4 and 8 of the consent be modified accordingly.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 104 - The application has been referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS).

The RMS advice and other matters requiring consideration under clause 104(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) are considered in the assessment of access, traffic and parking impacts later in this report.

Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987

At the time of determination of the original development application the Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987 (LEP) applied. The subject site was zoned 2(v) Village under the LEP and the original development was considered to be consistent with the LEP provisions.

Clause 26 required a minimum lot size of 450m² for the erection of a dwelling.

For comparison the proposal has also been assessed against the provisions of the current Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 below.

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.

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

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

· Clause 4.1 - The lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from 500.9m² to 1799.9m². All proposed lots comply with the minimum lot size of 450m² identified in the Lot Size Map relating to the site. In accordance with subclause (3A), the lot sizes have been calculated excluding the area of the battleaxe handle for proposed Lots 203 and 309.

· Clause 5.10 – The site does not contain or adjoin any mapped 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 overall development. Provision of electricity will be subject to obtaining satisfactory arrangements certification prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate as recommended by a condition of consent.

Stage 1 of the development proposes to create 2 lots that will not be connected to sewer infrastructure, or stormwater drainage. Access to one of the lots is proposed via a right of access. The Applicant has provided evidence of a contractual arrangement to connect all relevant services following registration of the plan of subdivision, and easements are proposed to ensure that both lots will have the legal right to access and construct such services. Both lots are also of sufficient area to accommodate on-site wastewater management. On this basis, it is considered that satisfactory arrangements are in place for essential services to the Stage 1 development.

(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

Hastings Development Control Plan No. 17 - Subdivision Code

This DCP applied at the time of the determination of the original development application. The original assessment report did not include a detailed analysis of the DCP controls and addressed compliance through the conditions of consent.

The modified proposal remains generally consistent with the provisions of DCP No. 17, with the exception of provision 4.2.1, which required lots in residential zones to have a minimum lot size of 600m² and a minimum width of 19m. Condition 3 of the original development consent confirmed this requirement. The modification application seeks to vary this DCP provision (and delete the consent condition) on the basis that the modified proposal is consistent with the provisions of the current DCP 2013.

A detailed analysis of the current DCP provisions is included below, and it is recommended that the variation to DCP No. 17 be supported on this basis.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Chapter 3.6 - Subdivision*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.6.3.1	A site analysis is required for all development and shall illustrate: · microclimate; · lot dimensions; · north point; · existing contours and levels to AHD; · flood affected areas; · overland flow patterns, drainage and services; · any contaminated soils or filled areas, or areas of unstable land; · easements and/or connections for drainage and utility services; · identification of any existing trees and other significant vegetation; · any existing buildings and other structures, including their setback distances; · heritage and archaeological features; · fences; · existing and proposed road network, including connectivity and access for all adjoining land parcels; · pedestrian and vehicle access; · views to and from the site; · overshadowing by neighbouring structures; and · any other notable features or characteristics of the site.	Adequate site analysis provided with subdivision plan.	Yes
3.6.3.2	Torrens title lots minimum width of 15m when measured at a distance of 5.5m from front property boundary.	Lots 223, 310-321 less than 15m wide at a distance of 5.5m Lots 310 - 321 include minor variations (14.7m to 14.8m wide), which are not likely to affect the ability for the lots to accommodate a future dwelling. Lot 223 is a wedge-shaped lot and is approximately 10m wide at 5.5m from the front boundary. The lot widens to 15m wide at a setback of approximately 14m from the front boundary. The lot provides for a suitable building envelope for a future dwelling.	No, but acceptable
	Minimum width of 7m when boundaries are extended to kerb line.	All proposed lots comply with this requirement.	Yes
	Minimum depth of 25m.	All proposed lots comply with minimum depth requirement.	Yes
	For lots where average slope of the site is equal to, or exceeds 16%, indicative road and driveway grades are required demonstrating satisfactory access.	No proposed lots exceed 16% grade.	N/A
	Subdivision of dual occupancy development or multi dwelling housing where permissible in the LEP may create allotments smaller than 450m² if: · Each lot to be created is part of a community or strata title scheme, or · Is part of an integrated Torrens title housing development.	N/A	N/A
3.6.3.3	Battleaxe lots discouraged in greenfield development.	The proposal includes 2 battleaxe lots, which is consistent with the number of battleaxe lots in the original approval.	No, but acceptable
3.6.3.4	Lots are to be designed to allow the construction of a dwelling, which does not involve more than 1m cut, or fill, measured from natural ground level, outside the dwellings external walls.	The site is gently sloping and the lots are not likely to require substantial cut or fill for future dwellings.	Yes
	Lot sizes increased for sloping sites in accordance with Table 3.6.1.	All proposed lots are Slope Category A and comply with the minimum lot size and dimensions.	Yes
	Additional information provided for slope categories in accordance with Table 3.6.2.	Satisfactory information submitted.	Yes
3.6.3.5	Wherever possible orientate streets to maximise the number of east, west and south facing lots and to minimise the number of narrow north facing lots. Residential street blocks should preferably be orientated north-south with dimensions generally limited to 60-80m by 120-150m as illustrated in Figure 3.6-2.	Road and lot layout considered generally satisfactory having regard to the original approved subdivision.	Yes
3.6.3.5	Lot size and shape are to reflect orientation to ensure future dwelling construction has optimal opportunity for passive solar design.	Lot sizes and shapes are suitable for future passive solar design.	Yes
3.6.3.6	Kerb and guttering, associated street drainage, pavement construction and foot paving across the street frontages should be constructed as part of the subdivision works where these do not exist (may be varied subject to criteria in this clause)	Conditions require such work.	Yes
3.6.3.20	Water supply to meet Council’s design specifications.	See comments under Water Supply Connection	Yes
3.6.3.21	All lots connected to reclaimed water if available.	Not available.	N/A
3.6.3.24	Separate sewer junction provided for each lot.	See comments under Sewer Connection	Yes
3.6.3.27	Erosion and sediment control plan to be provided.	Condition recommended requiring erosion and sediment control plan.	Yes
3.6.3.34	All service infrastructure should be underground unless otherwise approved by Council.	Condition recommended requiring confirmation of satisfactory arrangements from relevant authorities.	Yes
	All service infrastructure should be installed in a common trench.
	Conduits for the main technology network system should be provided in all streets.
	Conduits are to be installed in accordance with the National Broadband Network Company Limited’s ‘Guidelines for Fibre to the Premises Underground Deployment’.
	Access pits are to be installed at appropriate intervals along all streets.
3.6.3.51	Street trees should be provided along all road frontages generally at a rate of 1 per 20m interval.	Condition recommended requiring street trees to Council’s standards.	Yes
3.6.3.51	Street trees should not affect solar access.
3.6.3.52	Street trees from Council’s list.

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The subdivision and road layout will provide for dwellings that overlook public spaces.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	Existing consent permits clearing of all existing trees on the site. No additional clearing is proposed as part of the modified development.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	Existing consent permits clearing of all existing trees on the site. No additional clearing is proposed as part of the modified development.	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	The previously approved subdivision provided for access via a single access road from the Oxley Highway. The modified proposal includes a second road connection to Leaders Way on the northern side of the site and is considered an improved access arrangement.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.

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

(iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Clause 92 - Demolition of buildings (AS 2601)

Demolition of all the existing buildings on the site has been approved under the existing consent. It is recommended that the existing conditions of consent be modified to require demolition to comply with the Australian Standard and relevant practices relating to the management of asbestos.

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

Roads

The site has road frontage to High Street and Leaders Way.

High Street is an RMS classified road under the care and control of RMS. High Street is an Arterial, with a road formation width of approximately 12m within a road reserve width of approximately 21m. There is parallel parking available both sides of the road. The road includes SA kerb and gutter, with 1.2m wide footpath along part of the southern side of the road.

Leaders Way is a relatively new local road under the care and control of Council. Leaders Way has a road formation width of approximately 6.5 - 7m within a road reserve width of approximately 15m. The road includes SE kerb and gutter.

Traffic and Transport

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment from SECA Solution dated 13 September 2019. The study addressed the combined residential development with the aged housing. Findings of the study determined:

“From the site work completed and the above assessment, the additional traffic generated by the residential subdivision and proposed residential aged care facility will have a minimal and acceptable impact upon the surrounding road network with no change to the existing level of service or operation of High Street, or its intersection with Pead Street.

Whilst no turn treatments are proposed at the intersection of High Street / Pead Street or the new access off High Street, given the low speed environment, adequate sight lines on each approach, consistency with other intersections along this corridor and no history of rear end crashes involving right turning vehicles slowing or stopping within the through lanes on High Street, it is concluded that these are not required on road safety or capacity grounds.”

Council staff noted that the report did not examine the warrants of intersection treatments adequately. A comparison of the traffic consultant’s assessment and the staff assessment in included below:

Traffic Counts:

SECA Traffic Counts (two-way flow)

Council Traffic Counts (two-way flow)

Peak Hour Traffic =714vph morning

730 vph evening

8500AADT (Year 2016)

Using 1.5% growth the

AADT for 2019 = 8888AADT

Peak Hour Traffic = 1155vph

(i.e. 13% of AADT according to AUSTROADS)

Traffic Generated from Development:

SECA

Council (RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development)

Residential

0.71 vph (vehicles per hour) AM peak

0.78 vph (vehicles per hour) PM Peak

7.4 vpd (vehicles per dwelling)

Original DA = 82 lots (traffic generated from development)

· Peak Traffic

82 x 0.78 = 63.96 vph, and

· Daily Traffic

82 x 7.4 = 606.8 vpd

Residential

0.71 vph (vehicles per hour) AM peak

0.78 vph (vehicles per hour) PM Peak

7.4 vpd (vehicles per dwelling)

Original DA = 82 lots (traffic generated from development)

· Peak Traffic

82 x 0.78 = 63.96 vph, and

· Daily Traffic

82 x 7.4 = 606.8 vpd

The SECA report has assessed the turning movements into and out of the development as follows, assuming 100% traffic through the new road off High Street. Refer to Figure 5 below:

Assessing the SECA traffic counts of 714vph morning / 730vph evening, with the turn movements into and out of the development (Figure 5 above) the warrants for turn treatments can be assessed. The left and right turn movement were assessed using the information below:

	SECA	COUNCIL
2019	730vph	8888 AADT (i.e. 8500 x 1.5% growth factor)
2029	981vph	10315 AADT (assuming 1.5% growth factor)
Peak Hour 2029 (approx.. 10% AADT with a 50:50 split)	981vph	1340vph (i.e. 13% of AADT according to AUSTROADS)

The warrants for intersection treatments are therefore:

Q_Mright turn	= Q_T1+ Q_T2 = 981vph SECA (Green line) = 1340 vph Council (RED line)
Q_L	=12vph
Q_R	=36vph
Q_T2	= 302vph SECA = 670vph Council (50:50 split in the traffic)

Transposing the details onto Figure A10: Warrants for turn treatments on the major road at un-signalised intersections Austroads Part 4, it is clear that the development requires turn treatments; a channelised right turn and an auxiliary left turn treatment on High Street, refer to the diagram below (SECA Green and Council Red).

The warrants for this development indicate that a CHR (agreement between SECA report and Council) and an AUL (according to Council traffic counts) are required on High Street to manage the traffic generated by the development. Given that Council traffic counts are taken over a longer period of time, they are more representative of the actual traffic on the road. On this basis, the application is recommended to be conditioned for both a CHR and an AUL(s) intersection treatment. Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment. These works shall require a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) with RMS.

Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

Consistent with RMS requirements, the proposal was referred to the RMS on 2/04/2019. RMS’ review of the proposal determined:

· The proposed modification will amend the subdivision layout, including the configuration of lots and internal roads, with no increase in the approved number of allotments. The amendment is not an enlargement or extension of the development pursuant to Clause 104 of the ISEPP, however it is noted that the approved subdivision is of a scale considered to be traffic generating development. Whilst the development has commenced, it has been 28 years since the approval was granted and it is recommended that Council take into consideration any potential traffic safety, road congestion or parking implications of the development under current and future conditions.

· It is understood that the design of internal roads will be consistent with Council’s Subdivision Code. We note that connection of Road 1 to the Oxley Highway will require approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act for works within the Oxley Highway road reserve. Roads and Maritime will require the Developer to enter into a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) to obtain approval of the detailed design and construction of these works.

· The proposed amendments to the approved subdivision include a secondary access connection to Pead Street, which generates changes in the distribution of trips generated by the subdivision. It is recognised that trips via the Pead Street and Oxley Highway intersection are likely to be a small proportion of overall development traffic, and are likely to contribute a small minor increase in peak hourly movements at the intersection. The majority of traffic generated by the approved subdivision will access the Oxley Highway via Road No.1 and future dwellings will be reliant on this connection.

· Roads and Maritime support Council’s proposal to include a condition clarifying the required scope of treatment at the Oxley Highway and Road No. 1 intersection, having regard for the likely opening and future traffic volumes at the intersection. The assessment of recent traffic count data identifies that a channelised right-turn (CHR) and an auxiliary left-turn (AUL) treatments are warranted in accordance with the Austroads Guidelines. The installation of this treatment will require suitable pavement in the existing parking lanes to carry through traffic movements, sufficient storage length for vehicles turning during peak periods and all associated lighting, signage and delineation. The design will need to have consideration for existing driveway accesses and changes to on-street parking. We understand that development is to provide connectivity for active and public transport users. We recommend the intersection design incorporate a suitable pedestrian refuge linking footpaths to public transport services travelling in both directions along the Oxley Highway.

· For all works required in the Oxley Highway road reserve, the Developer will be required to enter into a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) with Roads and Maritime prior to the issue of any Civil Construction Certificate. All works under the WAD are to be completed to the satisfaction of Roads and Maritime. Written advice from Roads and Maritime of practical completion of all works under the WAD is to be provided to Council prior to issue of any Subdivision Certificate. All works under the WAD are to be designed and constructed in accordance with current Austroads Guidelines, Australian Standards and Roads and Maritimes Supplements. The Developer will be responsible for all costs associated with the works and administration for the WAD. It is recommended that developers familiarise themselves with the requirements of the WAD process. Further information can be accessed using the following link: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/planning-principles/index.html

Site Frontage & Access

There are two proposed accesses to the site, via High Street and Leaders Way, both of which are serviced by proposed Road 1. This main road runs generally north-south through the development site with a number of local internal roads branching off this road. The minimum width of this pavement to permit 2-way traffic flow, and parking to the residential side would be 9m wide.

In accordance with bushfire requirements, the local roads need to comply with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006, which stipulates a minimum 8m wide road.

Road Name	Pavement / Reserve Width	Road Standard
Road 1	9/16m	Local
Road 2	8/16m	Local
Road 3	7/15m	Local
Road 4	8/16m	Local
Road 5	7/15m	Local

High Street is a Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) classified road and will require a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) from the RMS prior to works on this road. Details shall be provided as part of a Roads Act (Section 138) application to Council.

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

· Footpath paving providing connection to local bus stops in High Street.

· concrete footpath paving (minimum 1.2m wide) along Leaders Way to provide connection to the existing footpath on Pead Street, including pram ramps.

Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Condition 27 of the current consent requires provision of reticulated water supply to each lot within the proposed subdivision. A conceptual water supply strategy has been submitted with the modified proposal, which includes extension of water mains from the existing mains in High Street and Leaders Way. The strategy is acceptable in principle to Council’s Water & Sewer Section.

Detailed water reticulation plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 / Subdivision Works Certificate application for each stage of the development.

Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

Condition 28 of the current consent requires provision of sewerage to each lot within the proposed subdivision. A sewer strategy has been submitted with the modified proposal, which includes extension of sewer mains from the existing sewer pump station in Leaders Way. The strategy is acceptable in principle to Council’s Water & Sewer Section.

Detailed sewer reticulation plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 / Subdivision Works Certificate application for each stage of the development. Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Stage 1 of the development proposes a boundary adjustment and consolidation of the four existing lots to create two lots having areas of 2.195 hectares and 5.284 hectares. The modified proposal does not include connection of sewer to the two lots, but proposes the creation of an easement to drain sewage, which would allow either lot to be connected to sewer in the future if the subsequent stages of the development do not proceed. Council’s Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that both lots have sufficient area to accommodate an on-site wastewater management system for a single dwelling.

It is recommended that condition 28 of the consent be modified to clarify that sewer connection is not require for Stage 1 of the development.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the northwest and is currently un-serviced by a formal point of discharge. In this regard, stormwater runoff from the current undeveloped site would likely discharge as sheet flow across the width of the northern property boundary, with existing adjoining fence lines concentrating a portion of this flow to the vegetated reserve downstream of the northwest corner of the site.

The original development application (DA1991 - 485) did not include any details of the proposed stormwater servicing strategy for the development; however the site topography would dictate that a strategy similar to that employed by the current modification would have been required to manage stormwater runoff from the site, in that the site and internal roads/flowpaths all naturally grade to the northwest corner of the site.

In particular, the development proposes to construct a new stormwater drainage basin in the northwest corner of the development lot. This basin serves to perform two functions, being to manage the risks associated with water quality and the quantity of stormwater discharge from the site. Concept plans have been provided indicating that all road drainage and lot drainage is directed to this proposed basin. All lots are proposed to be provided with a direct connection to the piped system.

A stormwater model (prepared using the DRAINS software program) has been prepared by the applicant in support of the sizing of the proposed stormwater detention basin and demonstrates that the basin conceptually has capacity to limit peak post development stormwater flows to rates less than pre-development. Furthermore, a conceptual water quality model has also been prepared (using MUSIC) to demonstrate that the quality of stormwater discharge from the development site achieves compliance with Council’s AUSPEC specifications.

Detailed review of these models has revealed that the volume and rate of discharge from the proposed stormwater basin had potential to inundate a portion of the road reserve downstream of the site in Whipcrack Terrace and a small portion of an adjoining lot (Lot12 DP 1228142). When made aware of these concerns, the Applicant prepared a 2D model of the overland flowpath from the proposed stormwater basin utilising the HEC-RAS software program, which confirmed that the development and basin discharge had potential to inundate the downstream road reserve and private property as feared. It is noted, however, that this flowpath is existing and the rate of discharge from the basin is less than pre-development rates, indicating that the identified flooding is an existing previously un-identified downstream issue.

Following identification of this downstream issue, the Applicant undertook further modelling to identify options to mitigate the risks associated with flooding downstream of the site. In this regard, an updated model has demonstrated that a low earthen berm (40m in length and max 500mm in height) can conceptually function to restrict proposed stormwater discharges to the existing vegetated reserve located downstream of the site. Council’s Senior Stormwater Engineer has inspected the location of the proposed berm and confirms that this is a feasible solution that can be readily accommodated within the existing road reserve area at this location, subject to detailed design.

A detailed site stormwater management plan and updated stormwater models will be required to be submitted for assessment with the application for a Subdivision Works Certificate.

Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

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

Heritage

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

At the time of the original Development Application the site was identified in a Draft Heritage LEP as being of potential heritage significance. The assessment at the time determined that the land was unlikely to be of a significance that would warrant listing of the site as a heritage item. However, to ensure that the historical importance of the mill and its relationship with rainforest logging in the region was recorded, a condition of consent was imposed requiring archival recording of the buildings prior to their demolition by an Industrial Archaeologist.

The Applicant has requested that the wording of the condition be broadened to allow for the archival work to be carried out by an appropriately qualified Heritage Consultant, and that the number of hard copies required to be submitted is reduced.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the modified proposal and provided the following comments:

“It is agreed that it is possible that a suitable Heritage Consultant could provide a suitable Archival Record of the site.

The need for copies should be as follows – one (1) hard copy to be provided for inclusion in the Local Studies section of the Port Macquarie Library and an electronic copy provided in PDF format be provided either on DVD or USB storage device. Photos accompanying the report should be referenced by number on an accurate key plan of the site and be provided in a TIFF format.”

The condition of consent is recommended to be modified accordingly.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

The modified proposal does not include any significant additional clearing to that authorised by the original consent.

In accordance with Clause 30A(2)(c) of the Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017, a biodiversity development assessment report is not required to be submitted if the consent authority is satisfied that the modification will not increase the impact on biodiversity values. As the majority of clearing authorised by the original consent has been completed, and the extent of vegetation removal for the sewer extension is to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the existing conditions of consent, it is considered that there would be no increase in impact.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables.

Contaminated waste and asbestos containing material will need to be appropriately managed on site and disposed of at an appropriately licenced waste facility, and conditions have been recommended confirming this requirement.

Energy

The proposed subdivision layout would provide for a range of lots that are suitable for the construction of future energy efficient buildings.

Noise and vibration

The approved subdivision included a landscaped acoustic mound along the rear of adjoining light industrial uses in High Street as part of the public reserve. The modified proposal does not include the landscaped acoustic mound or the buffer that was originally provided by the public reserve.

The Applicant has submitted acoustic advice prepared by Matrix Thornton Consulting Engineers. The advice confirms that a similar acoustic outcome could be provided by constructing a 1.8m high Colorbond steel or timber lapped and capped fence on the boundary of the adjoining light industrial land.

A condition is recommended requiring a suitable fence to be constructed on the boundary between proposed Lot 101 and Lot 1 DP 1239847 prior to the issue of the Stage 4 Subdivision Certificate.

Condition also recommended restricting construction to standard construction hours.

Bushfire

At the time that the original development application was determined, the land was not mapped as being bushfire prone. However, subsequent changes to legislation and bushfire mapping have resulted in the land now being identified as bushfire prone.

The applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by a bushfire consultant. The report was forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service who have provided recommended conditions. These conditions are recommended to be incorporated into the modified consent.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The subdivision and road layout will provide for dwellings that overlook public spaces.

Social impacts in the locality

The modified proposal is unlikely to result in any additional social impacts to the development originally granted consent.

Economic impact in the locality

Economic impacts of the modified proposal are expected to be similar to the development originally granted consent.

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.

(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) written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

Key issues raised in the submissions received are addressed earlier n this report.

(e) The Public Interest

The proposed development will be in the wider public interest with provision of appropriate serviced land for future housing. The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest.

The development originally granted consent included dedication to Council of a public reserve having an area of approximately 0.91 hectares. The modified proposal includes removal of the proposed public reserve and payment of a development contribution, as provided for in condition 30 of the original consent.

In determining an appropriate value for the contribution, consideration has been given to a Valuation Report prepared by IPN Valuers submitted by the Applicant, and a peer review prepared by First State Property Valuers Pty Ltd obtained by Council staff.

Funds collected from the development contributions will be able to be spent on works that are of benefit to residents in the locality. While no works are scheduled at this stage, it would be intended to prioritise improvements to public open space access and/or facilities that would be in the broader 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 in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

Development contributions for public open space have been calculated on the basis specified in condition 30 of the original consent. The condition provides that the contribution is to be calculated as the value, on the current land value as determined by the Valuer General at the date of release of the linen plan for each stage of the subdivision, of the deficiency assessed using a requirement of 3ha per 1,000 head of population generated by the subdivision.

The valuation report prepared by IPN Valuers for the Applicant has been reviewed along with the assessed value of $35 per m² (Page 22 & 23). The IPN value would equate to a monetary of contribution of $4,200 per lot for the purposes of condition 30 of the consent. The methodology used by IPN relies heavily on Valuer General assessments for open space zoned land. The value of open space land is lower than could be expected for residential zoned land. The IPN value has not been accepted.

Based on a peer review and advice from Council’s valuer, a value of $49.50 per m², which equates to a contribution of $5,940 per lot is considered acceptable in the case that condition 29 (requiring dedication of the public reserve) is removed from the consent.

In order to provide clarity for the developer and Council in the future, it is recommended that condition 30 be amended to include the contribution amount per lot at the date of determination of the modification application and to provide for indexation of the amount in accordance with CPI movements.

· A copy of the contributions estimate is included as Attachment 3.

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

Attachments

1 View. DA1991 - 485.2 Recommended Modification to Consent

2 View. DA1991 - 485.2 Plans

3 View. DA1991 - 485.2 Contributions Estimate

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

Item: 07

Subject: DA2019 - 651.1 Additional Dwelling to Create Dual Occupancy and Strata Title at Lot 1 DP 570012,No. 6 Home Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Fiona Tierney

Applicant: J & G MIDDLEBROOK

Owner: J & G MIDDLEBROOK

Estimated Cost: $330,000

Parcel no: 9579

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 651 for an additional dwelling to create a dual occupancy and strata title subdivision at Lot 1, DP 570012, No. 6 Home Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, one submission was received.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to the attached conditions (Attachment 1).

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 795.4m².

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:

· Construction of an additional two storey dwelling in the rear yard

· Strata title subdivision.

Refer to Attachment 2 for plans of the proposed development.

Application Chronology

· 12 September 2019 - Application lodged.

· 30 September -15 October 2019 - Neighbour notification

· 2 October 2019 - Additional information request. Profile and Shadow diagrams.

· 6 November 2019 - Additional information received.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is located within a coastal use area / 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 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.

In accordance with Clause 15 the proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other 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 zoned for residential purposes.

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

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2. The subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone land use table. The (dwelling or ancillary structure to a dwelling) is a permissible land use 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 land use 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 6.161m which complies with the standard height limit of 11.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4. The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.3:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

· Clause 4.6. Exceptions to development standards.

· 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 to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development*
		Requirements	Proposed		Complies
3.2.2.1		Ancillary development: • 4.8m max. height • Single storey • 60m2 max. area • 100m2 for lots >900m2 • 24 degree max. roof pitch • Not located in front setback	Water tank is appropriately located. No other ancillary development proposed.		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	No elements within the articulation zone. The dwelling is located at the rear of the site.		N/A
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 existing.		Existing
3.2.2.3		Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided			Yes
		6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door/s are compliant with the maximum width requirements		Yes
		Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Existing		Yes
3.2.2.4		4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	4m.		Yes
3.2.2.5		Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	The minimum side setback requirements are complied with. The building is setback 1.5m and the applicant has demonstrated through shadow diagrams that overshadowing is not adverse given the North/South orientation and existing shading from fencing.		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 of open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.		Yes
3.2.2.7		Front fences: • If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping • 3x3m min. splay for corner sites • Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings • 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances	No fences proposed		N/A
3.2.2.8		Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	N/A
3.2.2.10		Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	The development will not compromise privacy in the area due to a combination of lack of windows on side/rear boundaries, having high sill windows that face side/rear boundaries, limiting living areas that face adjoining living areas/open space, compliant separation and use of screening/fencing. It is however recommended that the kitchen window adjoining the eastern boundary be provided with a privacy screen as there is potential for overlooking of private open space areas. An appropriate condition is recommended.		Yes
*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements		Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline		No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls		Cut >1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls. A 1.4m retaining wall ( Max 1.84m level change) is proposed well inside boundaries to the south and east of the proposed dwelling.	No- however considered acceptable, reduces impact to adjoining properties.
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage		None proposed	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer		Condition recommended to require engineering certification	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway		No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees		No hollow bearing 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)		A few small trees/bushes proposed to be removed and a Mango tree.	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		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		There are 2 existing driveway crossings. The street is very wide with low demand for on street parking.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. 1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)		1 or capacity for more than 1 parking space behind the building line has been provided for.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions		Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas		Dual occupancy and strata only with 2 domestic driveways. 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.		Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to cut and fill.

The relevant objectives are:

· Minimise the extent of site disturbance caused by excessive cut and fill to the site.

· Ensure there is no damage or instability to adjoining properties caused by excavation or filling.

· Ensure there is no adverse alteration to the drainage of adjoining properties.

· Ensure that the privacy of the adjoining dwellings and private open space are protected.

· Ensure that adequate stormwater drainage is provided around the perimeter of buildings and that overflow paths are provided.

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

· The retaining wall is proposed at a maximum of 1.4m (1.84m maximum cut) and reduces along the length of the site. A significant block retaining wall exists along the eastern boundary with a boundary fence erected above.

· The cut is proposed close to the external walls of the proposed dwelling and over 1.5m from any side boundaries. The retaining wall is to be designed by a structural engineer and surface inlet pit drainage is proposed.

· Council’s engineer has recommended conditions to ensure the integrity of the sewer is maintained.

Based on the above assessment, the variation proposed to the provisions of the DCP are considered acceptable and the relevant objectives have been satisfied. The variation does not amount to an adverse impact of 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

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

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

(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 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 a 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.

Sewer Connection

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Flora and fauna

Waste

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

Energy

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

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 and the NSW RFS have issued a Bushfire Safety Authority, which has been incorporated in the recommended conditions of consent.

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.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

Social impacts in the locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is 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 of bushfire have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

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

One written submission was received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Height of building	The dwelling is a two storey building that is significantly below (>5m) the 11.5m height limit allowable under the LEP. The upper level of the neighbouring dwelling is well above the roofline of the proposed dual occupancy.
Overshadowing	The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams that indicate the additional shadowing as a result of the dwelling is minimal given the existing fence and the proposed dwelling will be set well below the adjoining building.
Loss of privacy	The upper level windows are highlight windows and the applicant has agreed to install a louvre privacy screen to the kitchen window.
Noise from rumpus room- request sound proofing to rumpus room	The proposed rumpus room is not proposed for any commercial or industrial use and is not anticipated to result in undue noise issues. It is most appropriate to deal with nuisance noise issues on a case by case basis when and if they occur.
Request building be moved	The siting of the building complies with the setback provisions of the DCP and does not give rise to an unacceptable privacy or overshadowing impact.

(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.

· A copy of the contributions estimate is included as Attachment 3.

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 - 651.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 651.1 Plans

3 View. DA2019 - 651.1 Contributions Estimate

4 View. DA2019 - 651 SOEE

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

Item: 08

Subject: DA2019 - 324.1 Industrial Subdivision at Lot 21 DP 811254, Bago Road, Wauchope

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Fiona Tierney

Applicant: HOPKINS CONSULTANTS

Owner: KEMPSEY TIMBERS (SAWMILLING) PTY LTD

Estimated Cost: $2,500,000

Parcel no: 17809

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 324 for an industrial subdivision at Lot 21, DP 811254, Bago Road, Wauchope, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, four (4) submissions were received.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to the attached conditions (Attachment 1).

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 8.097Ha.

The site is zoned IN1-General Industrial 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:

· Staged Industrial Subdivision- Stage 1- Lots 1-16, Stage 2- Lots 17-29, Stage 3- Lots 30-35, Stage 4- Lots 36-40.

· Construction of acoustic wall southern boundary.

Refer to Attachment 2 at the end of this report for plans of the proposed development.

Application Chronology

· 7 May 2019 - Application lodged.

· 16-29 May 2019 - Neighbour notification.

· 12 June 2019 - Response to submissions.

· 11 July 2019 - BDAR Review received NSW Planning, Industry and Environment

· 15 July 2019 - Additional information noise barrier requested.

· 2 August 2019 - Discounted offset request denied

· 11 September 2019 - Amended Traffic Impact Assessment received - sight distances.

· 1 October 2019 - Amended fence detail received.

· 9 October 2019 - Amended BDAR response Hopkins.

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

In accordance with clauses 6 and 7, the subject land has an area of more than 1 hectare in size (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

SEPP 44 defines “core koala habitat”, as “an area of land with a resident population of koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a population”.

A report prepared by Biodiversity Australia has been submitted that identifies that the site contains Tallowwood which is listed as a locally preferred Koala primary browse tree. Tallowwoods comprise >15% of the canopy species on the site. As such the site qualifies as Potential Koala Habitat and a Core Koala Habitat Assessment was required.

The ecology report identifies the site contains potential foraging resources for Koalas. A field survey including scat searches, spotlighting and call playback were undertaken within the site which failed to identify any evidence of Koalas or Koala scats. No recent sightings or historical recordings were identified. The area is therefore not defined as Core Koala Habitat.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The application does not have frontage to a classified road and does not trigger any relevant clauses under the SEPP.

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 IN1-General Industrial.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the IN1 zone land use table.

The proposed development for a staged industrial subdivision is a permissible land use with consent. The objectives of the IN1 zone are as follows:

o To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

o To encourage employment opportunities.

o To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

o To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

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

o the proposal is a permissible land use.

o the proposal will provide additional land for industrial use and economic benefits to the community.

· Clause 4.1. The lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from 1000m2 to 2130m2. All proposed lots comply with the minimum lot sizes identified in the Lot Size Map relating to the site.

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

o the site does not contain any known items of aboriginal or other cultural significance.

o appropriate conditions of consent are proposed to manage the impact of the works.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

Chapter 3.6 Subdivision
Objective	Provisions	Comments	Complies
3.6.3.38	Any industrial allotment created by Torrens title subdivision should satisfy the following standards: • Comply with minimum subdivision requirements of clause 4.1 of LEP 2011. • Minimum width of 20m. • Minimum depth of 40m. • The depth to width ratio should not exceed 3 to 1.	Minimum subdivision lots and sizes and dimensions generally complies with the requirements.	Variations considered acceptable.
	Lots are to be generally rectangular in shape and lot boundaries should have regard to the landform and the character of the site.	Lots are generally rectangular in shape and boundaries have regard to the landform and character of the site, including existing access locations.	Yes
	Battleaxe allotments should not be permitted.	There are no battle-axe lots proposed.	Yes
3.6.3.39	All water and sewer services are to be constructed in accordance with Council’s Aus-Spec design specifications. Subsequent development of the land may require the installation of a larger water service when the potential water demand is known.	See comments later in this report under Water Supply Connection.
3.6.3.39	Industrial subdivision should not be supported on land with slope greater than 15%.	The slope of the lot is less than 15%.	Yes
3.6.3.40	Lots are to front constructed, dedicated roads.	The lots will front a constructed, dedicated road.	Yes
	Street layout and design should be in accordance with current Council’s Aus-Spec design specifications.		Yes
	Cul-de-Sacs in industrial estates should not be approved unless a 5 metre wide laneway with a minimum 4 metre wide carriageway is provided to a public road, to permit through vehicular access.	N/A	N/A

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	The site may require up to 1.5m of cut to obtain suitable levels.	No- however considered acceptable in industrial location and well away from any other boundaries with suitable drainage proposed.
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	The ecological assessment identifies that 2 hollow bearing trees are present on site and the trees scored 10 & 11.5 in accordance with the HBT assessment protocol. Both trees are identified within the development footprint and so are impractical to retain. The Applicant has proposed to provide 2 Glider nest boxes and 2 Microbat nest boxes within the remaining buffer vegetation on the site. Conditions requiring compliance with the recommendations of the ecology report are recommended.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside building footprint	The proposal includes removal of existing trees to establish practical building envelopes for future development on each of the lots. The tree removal includes 22 Koala food trees, all of which have DBH > 150mm and are required to be offset in accordance with the DCP (2:1 ratio). Compliance with the biodiversity scheme is considered to justify variation to the DCP. Conditions are recommended confirming these requirements.	Variation considered acceptable noting conditions of consent requiring compliance with biodiversity offset scheme.
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 excessive new accesses proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.

(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

Not applicable.

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

The existing site has a general western street frontage orientation to Bago Road.

Adjoining the site to the north and east are industrial subdivisions.

Adjoining the site to the south is a rural residential subdivision

Adjoining the site to the west is the north coast railway and rural land.

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 development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Bago Road. Adjacent to the site Bago Road is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council. Bago road is a Sub-arterial road with a 6.5m road formation within a 25m road reserve.

Traffic and Transport

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment from Streetwise Road Safety & Traffic Services on 23/4/2019. Findings of the study determined:

“This assessment has determined that Bago Road and the local road network has the capacity to cater for the future traffic volumes generated by the proposed industrial development, with safety, efficiency and with minimal impacts. The following recommendations should be considered to further improve road safety in the vicinity of the future industrial development:

· Construct the proposed intersection as prepared by Hopkins Consultants and

included in Appendix B of this report. Ensure the layout caters for vehicles up

to and, including, semi-trailers. Ensure the intersection is well delineated with

appropriate line-marking and reflectors. Monitor the intersection regularly and

refresh line-marking regularly.

· Provide signage on Bago Road, at both north and south approaches, to ensure drivers are aware of the upcoming intersection.

· Bago Road should be monitored and maintained regularly to ensure roadside

vegetation that may reduce sight distance in the vicinity of the development is

removed or otherwise controlled.

· To maximise sight distance and improve awareness of vehicles utilising the

future intersection, it is recommended that:

1. The grass and other vegetation on the opposite side of Bago Road be

removed or regularly maintained

2. The existing Bago Road be widened to include a minimum 1m wide sealed shoulder

3. Signage be provided on Bago Road, on both approaches to the future

intersection, to warn motorists of the upcoming intersection.

· Consideration should also be given to reducing the current 80kmh speedzone

on Bago Road to 60 or 70kmh, to reduce the sight distance requirements, but

also in regard to:

1. The current alignment with multiple curves and undulations in the vicinity of the industrial precinct

2. The number of existing roadside hazards within the 80kmh clear-zone

3. The number of intersections within the existing industrial precinct, particularly the sub-standard intersection with King Creek Road

4. The minimal width of Bago Road, and lack of edge-lines and other delineation.

In summary, StreetWise recommend that the proposed industrial development

as being a suitable development, given that the number of vehicle trips to be

generated by the development will not have a significant impact on the efficiency

or safety of the local road network, and that the local roads and intersections

have the capacity to cater for the additional trips generated by the development.”

In this regard appropriate conditions have been included in Attachment 1 to provide for the intersection line marking and signage. Roadside vegetation will be managed by Councils Road Maintenance department and scheduled with the rest of Bago Road. Speed limit reduction is a matter for review by Councils Traffic Engineer and is not considered part of this application.

Site Frontage & Access

Site frontage to Bago Road requires the construction of an intersection. Preliminary designs have been included and appear satisfactory and are consistent with the existing intersection located at Production Drive. Sight distance in both directs exceeds the 181m required under Austroads requirements for intersections. Appropriate conditions have been included.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate the proposed development can be serviced by the 150mm PVC water main on Bago Road. The required extension of the water main to supply the development site is to be at no cost to Council.

A new metered water service will be required for each allotment as part of the Torrens Title Subdivision.

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

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent included in Attachment 1.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that a new sewer main extension is required to drain the proposed subdivision through Lot 11 DP 1084479 and Lot 32 DP 1084479. It is recommended that a deferred commencement consent be issued requiring the respective owner’s consent to be provided before the final and operational consent is issued. Works to be at no cost to Council. Details to be provided on the Engineering plans.

A separate sewer connection to Councils main is required for each Torrens Title lot.

Refer to relevant conditions of consent included in Attachment 1.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the north-west and south eastern corners and has a crest traversing the site. It is currently unserviced and drains out to Bago Road and to North Coast Rail Corridor at the rear.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as discharge (not exceeding pre development flows) to Bago Road and North Coast Rail Corridor.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via two retention basins, 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 controls.

· Provision of inter-allotment drainage to allow the proposed development to drain to the nominated point of discharge via a single suitably sized conduit.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

The proposed development includes clearing of approximately 7.8 ha. hectares of native vegetation. The Biodiversity Offset Scheme applies for the following reasons:

· The extent of clearing is above 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

The Applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report prepared by an authorised person. The report has been reviewed and it is considered that adequate measures have been taken to avoid or minimise impacts, and the development would not result in serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity.

The development will require the retirement of the following ecosystem credits and/or species credits to offset the impacts of the development:

Impacted plant community type

Number of ecosystem credits

IBRA sub-region

Plant community type(s) that can be used to offset the impacts from development

1268-Tallowwood open forest of the coastal ranges of the NSW North Coast Bioregion

Macleay Hastings,Carrai Plateau, Coffs Coast and Escarpment, Comboyne Plateau, Karuah Manning, Macleay Gorges, Mummel Escarpment and Upper Manning. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site.

Northern Hinterland Wet Sclerophyll Forests (including PCT's 690, 697, 698, 755, 1092, 1262, 1267, 1268, 1281, 1385, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1556, 1557, 1558, 1564, 1565, 1580, 1582, 1584, 1585, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1914 )

And in any of below trading groups

Northern Hinterland Wet Sclerophyll Forests - < 50% cleared group (including Tier 7 or higher).

Conditions have been recommended requiring evidence of retirement of the relevant credits prior to the commencement of any clearing on the land.

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

Noise and vibration

It is proposed to construct a forty (40) lot industrial estate on a largely cleared lot on Bago Road adjacent to other industrial areas to the North & NW (Business Circuit & Production Drive) and residential development in Reservoir & Isabel Places to the South & SW.

There is an easement approximately 20m wide along the southern boundary with the residences in Isabel Place. Lots have been constructed with designated building envelopes that provide for additional buffer distance between the industrial and residentially zoned land. It was proposed to construct a 3m high noise attenuation barrier (ie fence) along the southern boundary as part of the development, as soon as possible/practical after the necessary site establishment and earthworks have been completed. During the advertising process concerns were raised in relation to the height of the retaining wall and the visual impact this would have within the landscape. Discussions with the applicant and the acoustic consultant showed that the excavation within the site would lower the requirements for the noise wall to 1.5-2m.The acoustic engineer has verified and modified his report.

SEPP (Exempt & Complying) Schedule 8 “Conditions applying to complying development certificates under the Commercial and Industrial (New Buildings and Additions) Code” has Operational Requirements relating to hours of operation and noise which should, in theory, ensure required/relevant noise levels are achieved at the adjoining or nearby residences, and hours of operation are appropriate

Details of the noise barrier, including any landscaping or treatments should be submitted at CC stage.

It is considered unlikely that the proposed development will have any significant adverse environmental health impacts, subject to the imposition of conditions of consent as recommended.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. Given the industrial nature of the subdivision, impacts are considered manageable. Adequate access and defendable space is available to the site.

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. Future development on the allotments will require security consideration.

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. The development will facilitate future employment opportunities by providing industrial land.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

Four written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Oversupply of industrial units exists in the locality.	The proposed development is permissible in the zone to be constructed in four stages to cater to demand in an orderly manner.
3m high wall is an eyesore.	Applicant has lowered fencing to 2m from existing ground level. The proposed sites will be excavated up to 1.5m and the acoustic engineer has supported this with a revised assessment.
Access for B doubles inappropriate.	The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Streetwise Road Safety and Traffic Services concludes that “vehicles turning in and out of the future industrial subdivision should be able to do so safely and efficiently”. The intersection has been designed in accordance with Austroads guidelines and the proposed sight distances are acceptable.
Previous stage had issues with compliance.	Whilst it is noted concerns are raised, suitable conditions are proposed to be applied and appropriate compliance action is available.
Noise assessment inaccurate because of train component.	No allowance has been factored into the acoustic assessment for the train component. Section 3.1.2 of the Acoustic Report states that the noise criteria specified for industrial sources “relate only to other continuous industrial-type noise and do not include road, rail or community noise”.
Sewer is not available to the site.	Applicant is proposing to provide sewer to the site from the north. It is understood an agreement is yet to be finalised with the property owners to the north. Given this, it is recommended that a deferred commencement consent be issued to requiring owner’s consent to be provided before the final and operative consent is issued.

(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 not be required under S64/S7.11 for the following reasons:

· The site is for an industrial subdivision. Water and sewer contributions are applied at development stage for each of the lots based on approved use.

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 - 324.1 Plans

2 View. DA2019 - 324.1 SOEE

3 View. DA2019 - 324.1 Ecology

4 View. DA2019 - 324.1 Acoustic Report

5 View. DA2019 - 324.1 - Recommended conditions

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

Item: 09

Subject: DA 2019 - 285.1 Service Station and Take Away Food and Drink Premises at Lots 1 - 3 DP 407749 and Lot D DP 376568. 15 Ocean Drive Port Macquarie and 39 - 43 Ackroyd Street Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Beau Spry

Applicant: RCI Group

Owner: Judy Plunket Pty. Ltd; Ghawdex Pty. Ltd.

Estimated Cost: $2,020,000

Parcel no: 9341, 90, 92

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 285.1 for a Service Station and Take Away Food & Drink Premises at Lots 1- 3 DP 407749 and Lot D DP 376568. 15 Ocean Drive Port Macquarie and 39 - 43 Ackroyd Street Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a service station and take away food and drink premises 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, two (2) submissions were received.

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

This application was previously referred to the Development Assessment Panel on 27 November 2019 with a recommendation that the development application be approved subject to the conditions. Determination of the application was deferred by the DAP to address a number of issues. The DAP resolution and commentary on the applicant’s response is provided below:

CONSENSUS:

That DA2019 - 285 be deferred to enable the applicant to further address and better

manage residential zoning interface impacts by reviewing:

1. Hours of operation.

· Comment:

Revised hours of operation from 5am-12 midnight seven (7) days a week has been proposed for the service station component. The food & drink premises component is still proposed for 6am to 12-midnight seven (7) days a week.

2. Hours of deliveries.

· Comment:

Hours of deliveries are proposed from 5am-12 midnight with no parking permissible in adjoining streets outside these hours. This is in line with the supplied acoustic report and the Council Environmental Officer review, which concludes that noise from the site will be either within the criterion or generally below the existing noise levels in the area for the majority of the time, as well as the preference for fuel tanker deliveries to take place outside of peak times.

3. Landscaping and treatments to better manage privacy, noise and lighting impacts arising from the car parking area servicing the food and drink premises.

Comment:

It is noted that the landscape plans indicate a series of dense semi-mature native trees are proposed to be established on the southern boundary of both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 carpark fronting Ackroyd Street, with mature sizes estimated at 5x9m. The eastern and northern boundary is also subject to a 2m high acoustic fence. In addition, the Ackroyd St driveway access is sited predominantly opposite 19 Ocean Drive which is currently Chiropractic Consulting rooms that is set well back from its Ackroyd Street frontage.

The Ackroyd Street landscaping also slopes down from south to north, with the proposal siting considerably lower than the properties situated on the southern side of Ackroyd Street. The properties at No. 36 opposite the proposal are also setback approximately 15m from Ackroyd Street and front the street with a fenced courtyard. Adequate landscaping and separation is considered to be provided.

4. Ackroyd St access.

Comment:

Its noted that the Ackroyd St driveway exists predominantly opposite 19 Ocean Drive which is currently Chiropractic Consulting rooms. The building on this site is setback approximately 11m from its Ackroyd Street boundary and approximately 24m from the southern side of Ackroyd Street, with the Ackroyd street frontage a yard space with a large dense well-established tree in the northwest corner opposite the anticipated driveway access. It should also be noted that Ocean Drive is anticipated to be the primary access to the site, and also the designated access for fuel trucks to enter and exit in a forward manner.

The proponent has indicated that they are amenable to a reviewable condition restricting Ackroyd street access to entry only.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to the attached conditions (Attachment 1).

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The combined site has an area of 2983.95m².

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:

Stage 1: Service Station

· Installation of underground fuel tanks (1 x 50,000 litre diesel, 1 x 30,000 litre Ethanol 10, 1 x 30,000 litre Premium Unleaded 98, 1 x 40,000 litre Unleaded 91 and 1 x 30,000 litre Premium 95);

· Installation of four (4) double sided fuel dispensers (appropriately bunded) and overhead canopy their related infrastructure;

· Construction of 16 car parking spaces, including one accessible space and x 1 air / water bay;

· Installation of x 1 freestanding 8m high ‘Mobil’ internally illuminated pylon sign, located within south-eastern corner;

· Construction of an underground Puraceptor and Stomscak system for waste water discharge management;

· Construction of an underground OSD tank (22.5m3) for stormwater discharge control;

· Installation of indicative business identification signage on the south face of the convenience store;

· ‘Mobil’ pylon sign – 8m in height, 1.9m in width and 0.4m in depth;

· Two (2) illuminated ‘Mobil’ signs on the ‘south’ and ‘east’ faces of the car refuelling canopy;

· Landscaping around the perimeter of the service station and adjacent to the proposed building;

· Landscaping between the Stage 1 and Stage 2 buildings;

· Screened waste storage area;

· Loading zone adjacent to waste storage area;

· Minor excavations to accommodate vehicle accesses/exits.

· Hours of operation 5am to 12 Midnight, 7 days a week for the service station and 6am to 12 midnight 7 days a week for the food and drink premises.

Stage 2: Food and Drink Premises

· Two tenancies for future food and drink premises;

· Development comprises x 2 units 100m2 of GFA, plus 4 internal seats for each and shared 12 external seats;

· New hard stand and parking area for an additional 17 car parking spaces, including 1 disabled car parking space;

· Indicative location of internally illuminated business identification signs on the southern elevation of the proposed outlets;

· Screened waste storage area;

· Loading Zone adjacent to waste storage area;

· Excavations to accommodate vehicle accesses/exits.

· Operating hours 6am to midnight, 7 days a week.

Refer to Attachment 2 for plans of the proposed development.

Application Chronology

· 18 April 2019 - Application lodged.

· 2 May 2019 - Application notified.

· 10 - 15 May 2019 - Submissions received.

· 22 June 2019 - Site inspection.

· 22 June - 11 November - Further information requested and submitted.

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. 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

The subject SEPP was introduced to clarify the definitions for hazardous and offensive industries and to apply guidelines for the assessment of industries that have the potential to create hazards or an offence.

Clause 12 of SEPP 33 requires that a Development Application for the purposes of a potentially hazardous industry must include a preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) in accordance with the current circulars or guidelines published by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

The Department has published Hazardous and Offensive Development Application

Guidelines – Applying to SEPP 33 (January 2011). Appendix 3 of The Guideline

identifies Petrol Stations as industries, which may be potentially hazardous. The primary sources of hazard is identified as liquid fuel leaks/spills resulting in possible impacts such as fire and explosions.

Appendix 2 of The Guideline includes a list of information required in

relation to the SEPP 33 risk screening method as follows:

- Hazardous Materials involved in the Proposed Development;

- Dangerous Goods classifications for all Dangerous Goods held on site;

- Quantities of dangerous goods and otherwise hazardous materials involved in

the proposed development;

- Distance from the boundary for each hazardous substance;

- Weekly and annual number of deliveries (and the quantities) of dangerous

goods and otherwise hazardous materials to and from the facility;

- Site Layout plan showing proposed development and any existing

development on site; and

- Locality Plan showing immediate neighbours and their activities and also

showing the nearest residential property.

In this case, the development has the potential to be hazardous given the proposal to store petrol, diesel and ethanol on the site and the provisions of the SEPP apply.

The above information has been satisfactorily addressed in the SEPP 33 Preliminary Hazards Analysis and Summary and the Multi-Level Risk Assessment included in submitted information with the application. Having considered the SEPP, the Multi-Level Risk Assessment, the Preliminary Hazard Analysis, and with the imposition of conditions, the consideration of the SEPP is satisfied.

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. The application has demonstrated that no habitat will be removed or modified therefore no further investigations are required.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposed development involves the erection of signage across two (2) stages in the form of business/building identification, advertising and wayfinding signage, including;

Stage 1

· ‘Mobil’ pylon sign – 8m in height, 1.9m in width and 0.4m in depth.

· x 2 illuminated ‘Mobil’ signs on the ‘south’ and ‘east’ faces of the car refuelling canopy.

· x 1 indicative internally illuminated sign on the south façade of the service store.

· x 1 tower sign with x 2 indicative internally illuminated business signs (south face).

Stage 2

Two indicative internally illuminated business signs on the southern fascia of the take away/cafes.

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 B2 Local Centre zone contains a variety of commercial land uses. The proposed signage is considered to be compatible with the existing and future character of the locality. Proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of the SEPP.	Yes
Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.	In assessing signage and compatibility with character of an area, elements such as scale and any amenity impacts should be considered. In this case the proposal is consistent with the established character of the local centre area. Similar scale signage is evident nearby and potential amenity impacts (such as illumination) can be appropriately managed via conditions.	Yes
Schedule 1(2) Special areas.	The proposed signage does not detract from any areas of environmental or cultural importance. There are no such areas in direct proximity to the subject land.	Yes
Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.	The proposed signage does not obscure or compromise important views, dominate the skyline or reduce the quality of any views or vistas. The proposed signage has no impact on existing signage in close proximity to the site.	Yes
Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The signage is considered to be acceptable in terms of scale, height, and appearance, and is compatible with the streetscape setting. Similar scale signage is evident nearby at Gordon Street.	Yes
Schedule 1(5) Site and building.	The signage is seen to be standard for a service centre and is considered to be acceptable in terms of scale, height, and appearance. The proposed signage is not considered to detract from important features of the site, proposed building or surrounding development. The location of the proposed signage is considered suitable for the proposed use and appropriate given the proposed service stations position, proposed access arrangements and parking.	Yes
Schedule 1(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	The proposal includes signage which is Intended to ultimately include logos and symbols representing facilities and services offered.	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Illumination.	Low impact lighting is proposed to illuminate the signage at night. These signs will be required to be illuminated at appropriate LUX levels so as to ensure that the signage will not result in unacceptable glare. The proposed illuminated signage is not considered likely to provide a significant safety concern for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft. Condition recommended requiring lighting to comply with AS4282 - Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Safety.	The proposed service station signage is not considered likely to reduce road safety for pedestrians, cyclists or any vehicles utilising a public road. Sightlines to and from the site are not considered likely to be affected.	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 104(3)(b)(ii) and (iii). The DA has been referred to the NSW Roads and

Maritime Service (RMS). The RMS’ advice and other matters requiring

consideration are considered in the assessment of access, traffic and parking

impacts addressed later in this report.

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 land use table. The proposed development for a service station and take away food and drink premises are a permissible land use with consent.

The following land uses in the LEP are relevant to determine and characterise the proposed use:

service station means a building or place used for the sale by retail of fuels and lubricants for motor vehicles, whether or not the building or place is also used for any one or more of the following:

(a) the ancillary sale by retail of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles,

(b) the cleaning of motor vehicles,

(c) installation of accessories,

(d) inspecting, repairing and servicing of motor vehicles (other than body building, panel beating, spray painting, or chassis restoration),

(e) the ancillary retail selling or hiring of general merchandise or services or both.

food and drink premises means premises that are used for the preparation and retail sale of food or drink (or both) for immediate consumption on or off the premises, and includes any of the following:

(a) a restaurant or cafe,

(b) take away food and drink premises,

(c) a pub,

(d) a small bar.

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 land use;

o The service station will encourage employment opportunities;

o The proposal will not have any noticeable adverse impacts on other developments in the precinct;

o The proposal will satisfactorily address the public domain;

o The proposal will provide facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of the surrounding workers/residents.

· Clause 4.3. The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 8m for the pylon, 5.5m for the canopy and 4.8m for the building. The building heights complies with the standard height limit of 14.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4. The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.13:1.0, which complies with the maximum 1.50:1 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 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: Business & Commercial Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.4.3.8	Active Frontages: Ground floor levels shall not be used for residential purposes in B1, B2, B3 and B4 zones.	Proposal does not include any ground floor residential use.	Yes
3.4.3.9	A minimum of 50% of the ground floor level front facade is to be clear glazed.	More than 50% clear glazing.	Yes
	Active frontages must consist of one or more of the following: · A shop front. · Commercial and residential lobbies. · Café or restaurant if accompanied by an entry from the street. · Public building if accompanied by an entry from the street.	Active frontage consistent with these requirements.	Yes
	Restaurants, cafés and the like shall provide openable shop fronts to the footpath but must not encroach into footpath.	Proposal includes takeaway food premises within the site boundaries. It does not include a cafe opening onto street frontage/footpaths.	Yes
3.4.3.22	The development complies with AS1428—Design for Access and Mobility.	Capable of complying. Details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	A bulk earthworks plan has been supplied with the application. This plan indicates a cut/fill factor of 1:1 across the site with a maximum 2m cut in localised parts. The above is considered acceptable having regard to the scale of the buildings. Conditions recommended requiring engineering certification of the proposed retaining wall and detailed design of stormwater drainage.	No, but acceptable Variation sought below.
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	None proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.2	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	Max retaining proposed 2.0m adjacent the northern boundary. Condition recommended confirming this requirement.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None proposed to be removed.	N/A
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	11 trees proposed to be removed across the site. These include 2x Melaleuca Quinquinervia which are listed as ‘Other Browse’ species on Table 2.6-1 Koala Food Trees of DCP 2013, and are required to be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. The 11 removed trees are proposed to be replaced by 15 medium mature trees, including: · 8x Bush Cherry · 5x Water Gum · 2x Weeping Lilly Pilly These 15 replacement trees also include the replacement KFT species.	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.	The site currently has 1x shared driveway existing from Ocean Drive and 1x shared driveway existing from Ackroyd Street. The proposal seeks: · Entry only on Ocean Drive- (northbound – new access point). · Exit only on Ocean Drive - (northbound – includes expansion of existing access). · A combined entry / exit to Ackroyd Street – (east and west bound - includes expansion of existing access).	No * Refer to traffic assessment details later this report.
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking.	Driveway crossings are minimal to the site which proposes a circular functioning driveway.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Service Station: 3 per workbay + 1 per employee + min 2 customer Takeaway onsite seating with no drive through: 1 per 5 seats (int/ext) or 1 per 2 seats (int).	The application is accompanied by a Traffic and Parking Impact Study. The proposal comprises two components: Service Station = 3 per workbay + 1 per employee + 2 customer spaces: Workbays = 0 Employees = 1 Customer = 2 (min) Total req 3 spaces Take-Away food and Drink for onsite seating with no drive through, 1 per 5 seats (int/ext) or 1 per 2 seats (int). The specific tenancy of each food premise is unknown so the high rate ‘take away’ will be applied at 12 per 100m2 GFA + seating at 1 per 2 seats. 200m2 GFA = 24 spaces internal for 8 = 4 seats Total required = 28 The overall parking demand of the development is therefore 31 spaces. The submitted plan identifies 32 parking spaces, including 2x disabled spaces, and complies with the minimum requirement.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Customer parking to be easily accessible.	Parking design proposed is at the front of the site and is easily accessible.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1.	Capable of complying. Certification of compliance required prior to Construction Certificate and Occupation Certificate.	Yes
2.5.3.8	Aged and disabled persons and persons wheeling prams or trolleys are provided with suitable access and parking in accordance with AS 2890.1 and AS 2890.2.	Two (2) accessible parking spaces proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.9	Bicycle and motorcycle parking considered and designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS 2890.3	Motorcycles can utilise car spaces and area exists onsite to cater for informal bicycle spaces.	Yes
2.5.3.10	Parking concessions possible for conservation of heritage items	No heritage exists onsite.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Satisfactory perimeter landscaping proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Condition recommended confirming requirement for sealed surface.	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 permits steeper grades)	Capable of complying with Council driveway standards. Details to be submitted with CC/S138 applications.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying. Details to be submitted with CC/S138 applications.	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Concept plans provided. Detailed stormwater management plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes
2.5.3.17	No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain	Development required to be connected to the piped drainage in Ackroyd Street. Detailed stormwater management plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes
2.5.3.19	Off street commercial vehicles facilities are provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.2	Capable of complying.	Yes
	Loading bays will be provided in accordance with the following requirements; · Minimum dimensions to be 3.5m wide x 6m long. (This may increase according to the size and type of vehicle). · Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of 5m. · Adequate provision shall be made on-site for the loading, unloading and manoeuvring of delivery vehicles in an area separate from any customer car parking area. · A limited number of ‘employee only’ car parking spaces may be combined with loading facilities. · Loading areas shall be designed to accommodate appropriate turning paths for the maximum design vehicle using the site. · Vehicles are to be capable of manoeuvring in and out of docks without causing conflict with other street or on-site traffic. · Vehicles are to stand wholly within the site during such operations.	There are 2x loading bays proposed, one each for the Service Station and the Take Away. The loading bay for the Service Station measures 8.8 x 4m, with the Take Away measuring 8.8 x 3.5m. The submitted plans demonstrate that delivery vehicles are able to manoeuvre within the site and exit driving forwards.	Yes
	Other commercial development shall provide one loading bay for the first 1,000m² floor space and one additional bay for each additional 2,000m².	There are 2x loading bays proposed, one each for the Service Station and the Take Away.	Yes
2.5.3.20	The location and design of loading bays should integrate into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.	The location and design of the loading bay integrates into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.	Yes
2.5.3.20	Where visible from the public domain, loading bays are located behind the building.	The nature of the proposal as a service station that traditionally has an open well surveilled carpark area, as well as the integration of the loading bays into the overall carparking design mean this is considered acceptable.	Yes
2.5.3.21	Plans to confirm vehicular access, circulation and manoeuvring in accordance with AUSTROADS and AS 2890.	Submitted plans demonstrate that satisfactory circulation and manoeuvring areas are available.	Yes
	Adequate area provided for loading/unloading and manoeuvring of B-Doubles where access is available from approved B-Double routes.	B-Double access not proposed. Fuel deliveries will be via articulated vehicle.	n/a
	Ingress and egress in a forward direction.	Site allows ingress and egress of vehicles in a forward direction.	Yes
	Driveways >6m from tangent point of kerb radius and >1.5m from common side boundary with another lot.	Driveway design acceptable.	Yes
	Driveways not located within intersection or restricted areas, and adequate sight distance available.	Driveway location acceptable.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to 2.3.3.1 - Cut and Fill. The relevant objectives are: To ensure that design of any building or structure integrates with the topography of the land to:

· Minimise the extent of site disturbance caused by excessive cut and fill to the site;

· Ensure there is no damage or instability to adjoining properties caused by excavation or filling;

· Ensure that there is no adverse alteration to the drainage of adjoining properties;

· Ensure the privacy of adjoining dwellings and private open space are protected;

· Ensure that adequate stormwater drainage is provided around the perimeter of buildings and that overflow paths are provided;

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

· The site topography slopes gently down from west to east by approximately 2m.

· The cut/fill is required to level the site appropriately for the proposal with a cut/fill factor of 1:1 across the site;

· The bulk of the site requires minimal cut/fill or cut/fill not exceeding 1m;

· No adverse impacts are identified to neighbouring properties to north and south.

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

(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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 92

Demolition of the existing buildings on the site are capable of compliance with this Australian Standard. An appropriate standard consent condition is recommended.

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

Context and Setting

The site is a corner block and has a general easterly street frontage orientation to Ocean Drive and southerly street frontage orientation to Ackroyd Street. The site is located within an established B2 local centre area and adjoining the site to the north, east, and west are further B2 local centre zoned premises and to the south are R1 general residential.

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

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

· The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts subject to complying with recommended conditions;

· There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

Roads, Traffic and Transport

The proposal has frontage to Ocean Drive and Ackroyd Street. These roads are sealed public roads under the care and control of Council. Ocean Drive is classified as an Arterial road while Ackroyd Street is classified as a Local road.

The site currently has 1x shared driveway existing from Ocean Drive and 1x shared driveway existing from Ackroyd Street. The proposal seeks:

· Entry only on Ocean Drive- (northbound – new access point).

· Exit only on Ocean Drive - (northbound – includes expansion of existing access).

· A combined entry / exit to Ackroyd Street – (east and west bound - includes expansion of existing access).

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment from Intersect Traffic Pty Ltd on 17 April 2019. Findings of the study determined:

· The local and state road network is currently operating within its two-way mid-block technical capacity therefore has spare capacity to cater for development in the area.

· The proposed development could generate up to 144 vtph to and from the site during peak periods of which 75 % of this traffic would be passing trade.

· The local and state road network will not reach its two-way mid-block technical capacity resulting from this development and it is reasonable to conclude the development will not adversely impact on the state and local road network subject to satisfactory intersection performance.

· The proposal will not adversely impact on the operation of intersections within the local and state road network as additional traffic volumes on the road network are less than 2 % of existing traffic flows therefore are considered insignificant.

· The access points are sufficient to allow safe access and manoeuvring for all vehicles.

Deliveries are proposed to be restricted to be form 5am to 12am (midnight) only.

Key issues or recommendations are to be addressed by conditions.

Consistent with RMS requirements, the proposal was referred to the RMS on 13/05/2019. RMS’ review of the proposal determined:

RMS Comment	Response
Ocean Drive is an approved B-Double Route. The site has not been designed to cater for these larger fuel tankers.	The proposal is not aimed at catering to truck stop / highway service centre traffic, of which significant large-truck movements occur.
The site does not provide any parking for longer light vehicles with trailers.	The proposal is aimed at catering to refuelling vehicles predominantly. There is sufficient room under the canopy for longer vehicles to park temporarily.
The area used to unload fuel by a semi-trailer will need to be coned-off during these operations. This will block traffic entering and exiting to Ocean Drive and could result in queuing.	Refuel movement times are capable of being conditioned to occur in off-peak periods.
The swept paths for a semi-trailer will require the use of all three lanes of Ocean Drive. The site should be designed so a service vehicle can enter and leave from the kerbside lane of Ocean Drive.	Revised entry and exit layout provided and swept paths demonstrating entry and exit is achievable from within the kerbside lane of Ocean Drive.
Any regulatory facility will need to be referred to Council’s Traffic Committee for a recommendation prior to installation.	No regulatory facility proposed.
Council should be satisfied the site will operate safely and efficiently for the density of development being proposed.	Reviewed by Council’s Engineering team and noted.
The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates a Section 138 of the Roads Act will be triggered. Concurrence from Roads and Maritime will need to be obtained prior to the approval of Construction Plans. The above matters will be considered and influence Roads and Maritimes decision in respect to issuing a concurrence.	Reviewed by Council’s Engineering team and noted.

Key issues or recommendations to be addressed by conditions included in Attachment 1.

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

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 32 parking spaces, including 2 disabled spaces have been provided on-site. Parking and driveway widths on-site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that two of the development sites each have a 20mm sealed 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. Existing water services no longer required are to be disconnected at the main and a request for this is to accompany the application for water meter hire. Any water main fittings (hydrants, stop valves etc.) shall be moved clear of driveways if required, at no cost to Council.

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 sites are traversed by a 150mm AC sewer line with four existing junctions. The AC sewer main within the development site shall be removed and replaced with a PVC main in accordance with Council’s Auspec engineering specifications at no cost to Council. Any other abandoned sewer junctions are to be capped off at Council’s sewer main. Footings and/or concrete slabs adjacent to sewer lines are to be designed so that no loads are imposed on the infrastructure.

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

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards Ocean Drive street frontage and is currently serviced by a drainage system to piped public infrastructure at 15 Ocean Drive for an existing building, and on-site disposal for existing dwelling at 43 Ackroyd Street.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s stormwater pit/pipeline within Ocean Drive, near the north-eastern extent of the development site. The public drainage system drains to the south east, via a mixture of pipe, culvert, and swale systems, eventually into Koolonbung Creek. Throughout the downstream catchment are known stormwater related issues.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via a 375mm pipeline to an existing surface inlet pit located on Ocean Drive, at the north eastern corner of the development site, which is consistent with the above requirements.

On-site detention (OSD) is required to limit total site discharge for the proposed development to pre-development (Greenfield) conditions. The development site currently has two buildings, which are impervious areas. Existing stormwater related issues are known throughout the downstream catchment area, therefore, providing on-site detention for the development site to limit discharge to greenfield conditions will provide a positive effect to downstream catchment systems.

The proposed design demonstrates that a below ground OSD tank (38.4m³volume) will be used. Submitted pre versus post development flow calculations indicate that post development site discharge is less than greenfield conditions, conforming to the requirements of AUSPEC D5.

Water quality provisions for the development site are required, as the site area is greater than 2500m². The proposed design demonstrates that water quality modelling using MUSIC software has been conducted. The results from MUSIC modelling demonstrate that proposed treatment systems, which include internal sand filtration in OSD tank and SPEL storm sacks in surface inlet pits, meet the water quality targets set out in AUSPEC D7.

Treatment of stormwater captured from high risk (refuelling) areas is required, which typically utilises a SPEL Puraceptor oil separation system (or equivalent), prior to water entering the stormwater system.

A SPEL Puraceptor oil separation system has been proposed to treat water captured within the refuelling area prior to the water being discharged to the stormwater system. The refuelling area is roofed, and plans indicate that surrounding hardstand areas are grading away from the refuelling catchment, therefore minimising expected flows to the oil separation unit. The SPEL Puraceptor unit is typical for service station applications.

Interallotment drainage is required to provide a legal point of connection for neighbouring upstream properties 45 Ackroyd Street and 164 Gordon Street, which naturally grade towards this development.

Interallotment drainage has been proposed in the design, which is demonstrated in stormwater plans to traverse the western and northern boundaries of the development site as a piped system, as per interallotment specification in AUSPEC D5.

As the proposed development will consist of two separate Torrens Lots (Food outlet one Lot, Service station second Lot), the creation of appropriate easement to drain water is required over the downstream Lot.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will require removal/clearing of eleven (11) trees. The following comments are provided to justify the appropriateness of recommending support to the removal of the subject trees:

· The site is zoned B2 local centre and surrounded by existing urban and commercial development. The existing vegetation is an isolated patch and is not mapped in biodiversity values mapping. 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 existing trees is considered acceptable.

Subject to the offset planting to be completed prior to occupation 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 by private waste collection. 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

The Acoustic Report provided undertaken by Reverb Acoustics recommends acoustic barriers to be erected at the perimeter of roof-top exhaust plant of the food tenancies; a 2100mm high acoustic fence to be erected on the west site boundary and solid fencing required for the service yards. These are incorporated into the conditions.

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

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The nature, orientation and design of the proposal will improve natural surveillance within the locality.

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 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.

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

Two (2) written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Concern regarding potential for polluting elements including noise pollution, air pollution and light pollution.	Noise considerations and the Noise Impact Assessment were reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, with concerns addressed via conditions. Condition D037 regards restrictions on noise during construction. Condition E197 references the need for noise certification of the site operations in line with the endorsed Noise Impact Assessment Report No.19-2288-R1, to be supplied prior to issue of Occupation Certificate. Condition F024 references restrictions noise generation as part of the ongoing operation of the development. Condition A197 requires the that the design, installation, testing and commissioning of the Underground Petroleum Storage System (UPSS) is carried out by Duly Qualified Person(s) in accordance to relevant Australian Standard(s), UPSS Regulation 2019, Clean Air Regulation, 2010 - VR1, relevant NSW EPA requirements, guidelines, codes of practice, etc., and industry best practice. Condition E196 requires the Stage 1 Vapour Recovery (VR1) system to be certified by a qualified practitioner to requirements set out under the POEO (Clean Air) Regulation 2010 and relevant EPA standards prior to issue of Occupation Certificate. Condition F036 restricts the impact of exterior lighting on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill. Condition F037 regards the illumination of signage and prohibits flashing and requires signage illumination to dim by 50% at 9pm.
Traffic congestions, particularly associated with Ackroyd and Ocean Drive intersections.	Council’s Engineers and the RMS have reviewed the proposal and have addressed the concerns through both revised plans and conditions.
Concerns around perceived inadequacy of landscaping.	The proposal includes a detailed landscaping plan prepared by a landscaping consultant. The proposal includes landscaping along perimeters and within the site including screening service areas. The plan proposes >500 plantings of varying sizes including a high proportion of native species and native medium mature trees as well as the required 2x KFT replacements. Condition E061 requires landscaping to be completed prior to issue of Occupation Certificate.

(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 in accordance with Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A copy of the contributions estimate is included as Attachment 3.

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 - 285.1 Recommended Conditions.

2 View. DA2019 - 285.1 Plans

3 View. DA2019 - 285.1 Contributions Estimate

4 View. DA2019 - 285.1 Acoustic Report

5 View. DA2019 - 285.1 SoEE

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 11/12/2019

Item: 10

Subject: DA2007 - 74.2 - Modification to Previous Approved Staged Alterations and Additions to Motel at Lot 2 DP 1107888, No. 1 Stewart Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planning Coordinator, Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Applicant: Encompass Drafting

Owner: Elanor Funds Management

Estimated Cost: $75,000

Parcel no: 52606

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2007 - 74.2 for a modification to previous approved staged alterations and additions to motel at Lot 2, DP 1107888, No. 1 Stewart Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers an application for a modification to previous approved staged alterations and additions to a motel at the subject site. This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, fourteen (14) submissions were received with one (1) of these withdrawn during the assessment of the application.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 1806.5m2.

The subject DA was originally approved by Council’s Development Assessment Panel on 14 May 2007. The approval permitted a nett increase of 30 motel units over 2 stages. ‘Stage One’ is approved to include a nett increase of 20 rooms and ‘Stage Two’ is approved to include a nett increase of 10 rooms.

‘Stage One’ has been previously detailed to include (as currently approved):

· Retention of 42 of the existing 44 motel rooms.

· Construction of 5 storey west wing containing 22 motel units.

· Refurbishment of existing kitchen and laundry facilities.

· Construction of 2 level basement carpark and retention of archaeological remains.

‘Stage Two’ has been previously detailed to include (as currently approved):

· Additional 2 levels of motel units (16 units) on existing eastern wing.

· Alteration to Stewart Street elevation.

· Guest lounge and dining room (breakfast only).

· Internal refurbishment (decrease) of existing motel units on levels 2 and 3 to create 7 ‘family’ sized motel rooms.

· Reconfiguration of parking on Lord Street and associated landscaping.

· Building identification signage.

The total number of motel units was detailed to be 74 as currently approved in the description of the development. However, it has been identified during the assessment of the modification application that 75 motel units were approved.

‘Stage One and Stage Two’ of the approved development have not been yet completed.

The proposal is for a modification to propose an initial ‘substage 1A’ within ‘Stage One’ of the approved development, which will bring forward two (2) motel units to be constructed within the eastern-most existing motel building. The proposed ‘substage 1A’ will reduce the ‘Stage One’ west wing from 22 motel units down to 20 units.

The modification application does not propose to change the nett total number of 75 motel units as currently approved.

The modification application proposes the following staging of the development:

· Stage 1A: 2 additional motel units or 46 motel units in total.

· Stage One: 18 new additional motel units or 64 motel units in total.

· Stage Two: 11 new additional motel units or 75 motel units in total.

In 2007, at the time of lodgement of the original DA, the site was zoned 2(t1) residential tourist in accordance with the Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2001. The zoning of the site and immediate locality is shown in the following zoning plan:

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the locality is shown in the following aerial photograph (Nearmap 21 June 2019):

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Modify the staging of previous approved alterations and additions to introduce an additional ‘Sub-Stage 1A’ (currently 2 stages approved) to construction 2 motel units within an existing Level 3 common room area.

· Removal of two (2) motel units from a section of the ‘Stage Two’ to be proposed to be a gymnasium instead of accommodation rooms. The total number of approved motel rooms remains the same as currently approved.

Refer to Attachment 2 at the end of this report for plans of the proposed development.

The proposal has been ‘physically commenced’ by way of refurbishment of the existing kitchen as part of Stage 1 prior to 15 May 2012 (the 5 year lapsing date for the consent).

Application Chronology

· 11 September 2019 - Modification application lodged with Council.

· 24 September to 7 October 2019 - Neighbour notification of proposal.

· 15 October 2019 - Assessing Officer meeting with 2 neighbours to discuss concerns.

· 28 October 2019 - Copies of submissions forwarded to Applicant for consideration and additional information requested to address staging implications.

· 5 November 2019 - Clarification of physical commencement with Applicant.

· 7 November 2019 - Clarification provided from Applicant on staging and intentions for completion of remainder of stage works under approval.

· 8 November 2019 - Site inspection by Assessing Officer.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

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

Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modification into three categories - 4.55(1) for modifications involving minor error, mis-description or miscalculation; 4.55(1A) for modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and 4.55(2) for other modifications. Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.

Is the proposal substantially the same?

The subject application is being considered under the provisions of Section 4.55(1A). The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to and the changes will have minimal environmental impact. Specifically, the use of the site as a motel with the footprint and building envelope of the approved alterations remaining relatively unchanged. The fundamental characteristics and essence of the development remains essentially the same notwithstanding the internal design changes and changes to staging. The total nett number of 75 motel units will remain.

Does the application require notification/advertising in accordance with the regulations and/or any Development Control Plan?

Neighbour notification has been completed in accordance with Development Control Plan 2013.

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

Fourteen (14) submissions have been received with one (1) being withdrawn following completion of the neighbour notification period. The issues raised in the submissions received are considered later in this report.

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 - Coastal Protection

The original approved development was assessed and approved against the matters for consideration under clauses 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16. The assessment details provided as part of the original assessment remain acceptable to address the modified proposal. The modified proposal remains to be unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of the coastal environment. The modified proposal remains to adequately respond to the existing and planned development in the precinct.

The requirements of this SEPP remain satisfied.

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

The modified proposal does not include any change to the approved building heights of both ‘Stage One’ and ‘Stage Two’. No tall building concurrence is required from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

The requirements of this REP remain satisfied.

Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2001

In 2007, at the time of lodgement of the original DA, the site was zoned two(t1) residential tourist in accordance with the Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2001.

Motels are permissible in the two (t1) zone as originally assessed and approved.

Essential services remain available to the site pursuant to clause 13 of this LEP.

The modified proposal does not trigger any reassessment of any potential impacts to the heritage item (historic well) and archaeological features of the site (historic Port Macquarie Gaol).

The requirements of this LEP remain satisfied.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Development Control Plan No. 18 - Off Street Parking Code

The following assessment comments were provided in the Council assessment report in 2007:

Having regard to the above, the following assessment comments are provided:

· The total number of motel units resulting from the completion of ‘Stage One’ and ‘Stage Two’ will remain the same at 75 units with the introduction of the new ‘Sub-Stage 1A’.

· There will be no nett increase in total parking demand at the completion of the development based upon what has been approved. 75 parking spaces remain (as detailed in the original assessment report).

· The objectives of the DCP will not be contravened as a result of the modification changes.

· The above assessment details that there are currently 48 parking spaces approved for the 44 motel rooms approved on-site under BA1969 - 193 and BA1974 - 131. Using the 1 parking space requirement per motel unit approach rate (RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development) there is parking capacity for the additional 2 x motel units with the same number of staff being 4 staff (1 parking space per 2 staff). The calculated parking capacity is considered acceptable as the overall nett development has effectively approved the 2 parking space shortfall which the modification proposal can utilise for the new Sub Stage 1A.

· There is no nett increase in any calculated parking shortfalls at the completion of the development.

The requirements of this DCP (as in force at the time) remain satisfied.

Development Control Plan No.46 - Town Beach Precinct

The modified proposal does not include any changes which require reassessment against the development provisions as originally considered. The floor space ratio remains the same.

The requirements of this DCP remain satisfied.

(iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into.

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

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

Context and Setting

The proposal as modified will be consistent with the locality and adequately addresses planning controls (as in force at the time) for the area.

The density of the modified proposal is appropriate and will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties or the public domain. The proposal remains sufficiently compatible with other higher density developments in the locality.

Traffic

The assessment of the original proposal detailed that the increase in traffic (estimated to be 90 vehicles per day) will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road infrastructure or traffic volumes.

The modified proposal does not propose any increase in the total nett number of the 75 motel units therefore the traffic assessment implications remain satisfactory.

Water Supply and Sewer servicing

A detailed site water supply and sewer servicing plan will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 application and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for this ‘Substage 1A’.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The modified proposal will fit into the locality. Site constraints including heritage have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent maintained as originally consented to.

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

Fourteen (14) written submissions (one withdrawn) were been received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
General objection to current approved 5 storey building and 2 level underground carpark.	The proposal is for a modification previously approved alterations and additions which includes the two main stages of redevelopment. This component of the development approval is unable to be revisited as this was approved and is not the subject of this modified DA.
Query whether substantial commencement has occurred under the 2007 approval.	Whilst not substantial, ‘physical commencement’ has occurred with refurbishment of the existing kitchen. This is sufficient physical works to keep the consent active as recognised under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The Historic Well located on this 1840 gaol site should be preserved and protected.	The proposal is for a modification to previous approved alterations and additions where the original application assessed the potential impacts on the Historic Well heritage item. The modification does not change any of the potential impacts on this Historic Well heritage item.
There is insufficient parking for the conversion of common room to two motel units.	Refer to consideration of parking demand impacts addressed earlier in this report. The modification proposal will, at completion of the development not change the approved nett increase in parking demand under this DA at completion of ‘Stage Two’. The existing motel provides for a minimum acceptable amount of parking which can address the majority of peak demands as previously addressed.
Cars park frequently on the nature strip and roadside in front of the Motel.
An increase in demand for parking will be hazardous on the corner of Stewart and Lord Streets.
Stewart Lane is not built to carry two-way traffic for the planned underground two level car park entrance and exit for the motel. There will be an increase in noise and congestion on units behind the IBIS motel.	The proposal is for a modification to previous approved alterations and additions where the original application assessed traffic impacts. The modification does not change any of the likely traffic impacts as the nett number of motel units at the completion of the development is not proposed to change. The Norfolk Island tree referred to is not proposed to be removed as part of this application.
A unique tree is positioned at the eastern end of Stewart Lane, behind the Motel, which would be negatively impacted by a significant increase in traffic accessing a two level underground carpark for the Motel.
A new DA should be lodged.	The Applicant has chosen to lodge a modification application to change a previous approval which has not yet been completed. The subject application is consistent with S4.55 of the EP&A Act.
Neighbours were not notified of kitchen works completed in 2012.	There is no requirement for community consultation to renotify the proposal to neighbours at construction stage.
Loss of views and privacy to owner of Unit 1/2 Joffree Street.	The proposal is for a modification previously approved alterations and additions. The modification proposal does not propose to change any extent of the building footprint as currently approved or what is currently existing on-site. No further consideration or reconsideration of view sharing impacts is required.
Delivery vehicles to the Motel have limited access now and this will reduce with the proposed improvements.	The modification proposal does not change the existing and approved access and parking arrangements to the site. Formalised bus parking is not available on-site.
Several bus tours are using the Motel and always park on the street when the carpark is full. The new units will cause buses to have to use the street which is unsafe as the passengers and luggage are unloaded.

(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

Contribution payments will be required to reflect the amended staging. A copy of the contributions estimates are included as Attachments 4 and 5.

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. DA2007 - 74.2 Recommended Modification of Consent

2 View. DA2007 - 74.2 Plans

3 View. DA2007 - 74.1 Original Approved Plans

4 View. DA2007 - 74.1 Contributions Estimate Stage 1A

5 View. DA2007 - 74.2 Contributions Estimate - Total

date of meeting:		Wednesday 11 December 2019
location:		Committee Room
time:		2:00pm

Member	11/09/19	25/09/19	09/10/19	23/10/19	13/11/19	27/11/19/19
Paul Drake	P	P	P	P	Cancelled	P
Robert Hussey	P		P
David Crofts (alternate member)		P		P		P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) (alternates) - Director Development & Environment - Development Assessment Planner	A P	P	A P	P		P

1.0 OBJECTIVES

2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS

Delegated Authority of Panel

3.0 MEMBERSHIP

3.2 Non-Voting Members

3.3 Obligations of members

3.4 Member Tenure

3.5 Appointment of members

4.0 TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

5.0 MEETING PRACTICES

5.2 Decision Making

5.3 Quorum

5.4 Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

5.5 Secretariat

5.6 Recording of decisions

6.0 CONVENING OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS

7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

8.0 LOBBYING

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.