Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 22/01/2020

Item: 05

Subject: DA2019 - 513.1 Demolition of Existing Buildings and Construction of New Service Station - Lots 5, 6 and 7 DP 18259, 34 and 36 Munster Street and 59 Gordon Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Benjamin Roberts

Applicant: RCI Group

Owner: V I Trotter and C J Pickering

Estimated Cost: $1,870,000

Parcel no: 35857, 35856, 14335

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2019 - 513.1 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of new service station at Lots 5, 6 and 7, DP 18259, No. 34 and 36 Munster Street and 59 Gordon Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for demolition of existing buildings and construction of new service station at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to the conditions included as Attachment 1.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 1,834m².

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Demolition of existing buildings.

· Construction of a new service station, including a 193m2 convenience store building containing customer service counter, retail floor space, office, store room, cool room, amenities, and service yard.

· 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) and their related infrastructure.

· Installation of four (4) double sided fuel dispensers (appropriately bunded) and overhead canopy.

· Construction of 13 car parking spaces, including one accessible space and x 1 air / water bay.

· Installation of x 1 freestanding 6m high ‘Mobil’ internally illuminated pylon sign, located within south-western corner. 1.9m in width and 0.4m in depth.

· Construction of an underground Puraceptor and Stomscak system for wastewater discharge management.

· Construction of an underground OSD tank (47.7m3) for stormwater discharge control.

· Installation of a signage tower and indicative business identification signage on the south-west face of the convenience store.

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

· Planting of landscaping around the perimeter of the service station and adjacent to the proposed building.

· Screened waste storage area.

· Loading Zone adjacent to waste storage area.

· Minor excavations to accommodate vehicle accesses/exits.

· The service station is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days/week and employ 2 staff Mon-Friday and 1 staff for night and weekend shifts.

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

Application Chronology

· 12 July 2019 - Application lodged.

· 22 July to 5 August 2019 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

· 7 August 2019 - Additional information request.

· 9 August 2019 - Additional information response.

· 20 August 2019 - Additional information request.

· 27 August 2019 - Additional information response.

· 10 October 2019 - Additional information request.

· 14 November 2019 - Additional information response.

· 18 November 2019 - Additional information request.

· 29 November 2019 - Additional information response.

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. 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

This policy 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 the policy 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 are 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

The site is mapped as a potentially contaminated site based on previous historic use as a service station.

The application is accompanied by an environmental site assessment, prepared by NEO Consulting, dated 20 May 2019. The report found no evidence of any soil or water contamination from the historic use of the site as a service station.

In accordance with clause 9 of this policy and based on the findings of the environmental site assessment the site is suitable for the intended use.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

Given the nature of the proposed development, proximity to waterways 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 located within a coastal environment area.

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

Having regard to clause 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 will not 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 located within an area zoned for mixed use purposes.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 - Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes the erection of the following signage:

· ‘Mobil’ pylon sign – 6m in height, 1.8m in width and 0.4m in depth.

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

· One (1) indicative internally illuminated sign on the west façade of the service store.

· One (1) tower sign with two (2) indicative internally illuminated business signs (south-west face).

In accordance with clause 7, this policy 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 B4 Mixed Use 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 area. Similar scale signage is provided on other service stations in the area 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 proposal incorporates an illuminated signage panel on a tower building element on the south-western part of the convenience store building. This element extends well above the roofline of the building and while the building element itself provides some architectural interest it is not considered appropriate for an illuminated signage panel to be located upon it well above the roof line. Other signage proposed which includes a 6m pylon sign and forecourt canopy signage clearly identifies the site. Subject to the illuminated signage panel shown above the roof line on the tower building element being removed 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 on a nearby service station on the corner of Lord Street.	Yes, subject to no illuminated signage panel on the tower building element. Consent condition recommended.
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, subject to no illuminated signage panel on the tower building element. Consent condition recommended.
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 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

In accordance with clause 104 of this policy the proposal is not considered to be traffic generating development. Specifically, the proposed service station does not contain any heavy vehicle refuelling or maintenance services and does not have access to a classified road.

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 B4 Mixed Use.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the B4 zone land use table - The proposed development for a service station is a permissible land use with consent.

The following land use in the LEP is 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.

· The objectives of the B4 zone are as follows:

o To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

o To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

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

· 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 provide a mixture of compatible land uses in the area;

o The proposal will satisfactorily address the public domain and streetscape.

· Clause 4.3 - The overall height of the building and forecourt structures are below the 19m maximum building height control applicable to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.105:1.0, which complies with the maximum 2:1 floor space ratio applicable to the site.

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

· Clause 7.3 - The site is located within the mapped flood planning area. The application was accompanied by a Water Cycle Management Plan prepared by Eclipse Consulting Engineers, dated 11 July 2019. This plan has regard to the flood impacts of the proposal and specifically the development has been designed to meet minimum finished floor levels. Councils’ flood engineers have reviewed the proposal and supporting report and are satisfied that the development:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b) is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(d) 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, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

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

No draft instruments apply.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

The relevant provisions of the plan are addressed as follows:

*DCP 2013: Business & Commercial Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.4.3.1	Setbacks: A zero metre setback to ground floor is preferred in all business zone developments.	The convenience store building is setback 15m from the Gordon Street boundary and approximately 35m from the Munster Street boundary. This is preferable having regard to the nature of the use proposed.	No but considered appropriate for the proposed use.
3.4.3.2	Where a zero setback cannot be achieved, such as where parking can only be provided between the building and the street, a minimum 3.0m pedestrian setback is provided between the edge of the car park and the building. · The 3.0m pedestrian setback must be: open and accessible for pedestrians for its entire length and width; · clear of columns (other than awning posts where provided) and other obstructions; · has a pavement matching the gradient of the adjoining footpath and connects pedestrian areas on neighbouring sites; and · connects without any lip or step to adjoining footpaths or abutting pedestrian areas on neighbouring sites.	Parking is proposed between the building and the street. The building is setback 15m from Gordon Street. Adequate pedestrian pavement and thoroughfare is provided.	Yes
	Steps, escalators, ramps or lifts are set back a further 1.2m to maximise pedestrian flow and safety and allow for adequate waiting space.	None proposed.	N/A
	Automatic Teller machine within front Setback: · Must be set back 1.5m in addition to the building line; · Must be well illuminated at all times.	No ATM proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.3	Roof Form: Variations in roof form including the use of skillions, gables and hips are to be provided in the development.	Roof form considered appropriate.	Yes
	Variations in roof materials shall be used.	Roof material considered appropriate.	Yes
	Parapets and flat roofs should be avoided.	Flat roof proposed.	No but considered acceptable for the use.
	In an established street, roof form and materials shall be consistent or complementary to those developments in that street.	Roof form and materials appropriate.	Yes
	Lift over-runs and service plant shall be concealed within roof structures. All roof plant must be represented on plans and elevations.	None proposed.	N/A
	Outdoor recreation areas on flat roofs shall be landscaped and incorporate shade structures and wind screens to encourage use.	None proposed.	N/A
	Roof design shall generate an interesting skyline and be visually interesting when viewed from adjoining developments.	Roof form and materials appropriate.	Yes
3.4.3.4	Colours, construction materials and finishes should respond in a positive manner to the existing built form, character and architectural qualities of the street	Colours and materials proposed are appropriate.	Yes
3.4.3.5	Shopfront widths are to be between 15 and 20 m.	No shop front adjoining the street proposed.	N/A
	Widths up to a maximum of 30 may be considered where the building achieves superior built design and streetscape outcomes.	No shop front adjoining the street proposed.	N/A
	The maximum length of any similar façade treatment is 22m.	No shop front adjoining the street proposed.	N/A
	Side and rear facades are to be treated with equivalent materials and finishes to the front façade.	The side and rear facades are to be treated with appropriate materials.	Yes
	Building facades should be designed to reflect the orientation of the site incorporating environmental control devices, e.g. sun shades, ventilation vents, overhangs, building recesses, eaves, as an integrated design feature of the building.	Building facades appropriately designed.	Yes
	An articulation zone of between 1.8-4.0m is provided for the front façade of all floors containing residential and tourist uses.	No residential or tourist use proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.6	Any security grilles shall be provided inside the building, behind glazing and designed to ensure transparency to the interior.	No security grilles proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.7	Infill development or alterations should respect the form, scale and massing of existing traditional buildings.	Scale and form of building appropriate.	Yes
3.4.3.7	Where traditional frontages and facades set the architectural theme for parts of a Centre, infill buildings or alterations respect and reflect the architectural qualities and traditional materials of those buildings, but do not necessarily imitate historical architectural styles.	There is no historic or architectural theme established in this area.	N/A
3.4.3.8	Active Frontages: (Note: An active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises or retail premises.) Ground floor levels shall not be used for residential purposes in B1, B2, B3 and B4 zones.	No residential use proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.9	A minimum of 50% of the ground floor level front facade is to be clear glazed.	Adequate glazing is proposed to the convenience store facades facing the street.	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.	The layout proposed provides sufficient activation for the nature of the use proposed.	Yes
	Active ground floor uses are to be accessible and at the same level as the footpath.	Convenience store directly accessible form street level.	Yes
	Restaurants, cafés and the like shall provide openable shop fronts to the footpath but must not encroach into footpath.	Forecourt area and convenience store directly accessible form footpath.	Yes
	Colonnade structures shall not be used unless it is demonstrated that the design would not restrict visibility into the shop or commercial premise or limit natural daylight along footpaths and do not create opportunities for concealment.	None proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.15	Landscaping: A landscape plan shall be submitted with the development application and include: · Existing vegetation; and · Existing vegetation proposed to be removed; and · Proposed general planting and landscape treatment; and · Design details of hard landscaping elements and major earth cuts, fills and any mounding; and · Street trees; and · Existing and proposed street furniture including proposed signage.	Landscaping plan provided which is acceptable and appropriate. It is noted that minimal to nil landscaping currently exists on the site.	Yes
3.4.3.15	Vegetation is provided on top of podium levels, on tops of car parks, and on balconies and verandas fronting the street below podium level.	No podium levels proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.16	All street plantings are to be selected from Council's Indigenous Street and Open Space Planting List from the relevant vegetation community adjacent to the Development.	No street tree plantings proposed or required.	N/A
3.4.3.17	Large trees and spreading ground covers are provided in all landscape areas within the site.	Appropriate species selected in landscaping plan.	Yes
	Large screening shrubs of an appropriate density and size to complement the scale and bulk of the subject building are provided in areas where screening is a priority.	No screening required.	N/A
	Where car parking cannot be provided under or behind the building and Council has agreed to permit some or all of the parking in the front setback, a landscaped strip with a minimum width of 3.0m is provided along the entire frontage/s of the site.	A 2m wide landscaping perimeter is proposed around the corner of the site to which customer parking is located behind.	No but 2m is consider acceptable having regard to the nature of the use and visibility required for safe traffic movement.
3.4.3.18	At grade car parking incorporate water sensitive urban design principles to drain pavement areas.	At grade parking and water management acceptable.	Yes
3.4.3.19	Fencing for security or privacy shall not be erected between the building line and the front boundary of a site.	No fencing is required or proposed along street frontages. The existing black diplomat style security fencing surrounding the site will be removed.	Yes
3.4.3.22	Any ramps are to be integrated into the overall building and landscape design.	Given the level nature of the site, no ramps are proposed or required.	N/A
3.4.3.22	The development complies with AS1428—Design for Access and Mobility.	Disabled access can be provided. Details will be illustrated on Construction Certificate plans.	Yes
3.4.3.23	Gateways & Landmark Sites: The design of buildings on corner sites or at the ends of business or commercial zones shall emphasise the importance of the corner as a focal point.	The design and location of the buildings is appropriate having regard to the nature of the use proposed.	Yes
	Corner sites or at the ends of business or commercial zones shall be constructed to boundary or with a minimal setback with no car parking or servicing between the site boundary and the building.	The design and location of the buildings and car parking is appropriate having regard to the nature of the use proposed.	Yes
	Design devices such as; · increased wall heights, · splayed corner details, · expression of junction of building planes, · contrasting building materials; and · other architectural features; shall be used to reinforce the way finding attributes and significance of focal points.	The building design, siting and materials are appropriate.	Yes
	Shopfronts shall wrap around corners and entrances located centrally to the corner.	No shopfronts at boundary.	N/A
	The tallest portion of the building shall be on the corner.	This is not appropriate given the nature of the use.	N/A
3.4.3.24	Waste management: A waste management plan for the construction and/or occupation of the development is provided that: · Recycles and reuses demolished materials where possible; · Integrates waste management processes into all stages of the project; · Specifies building materials that can be reused and recycled at the end of their life; · Uses standard components and sizes to reduce waste and facilitate update in the future.	A waste management plan supported the application. A private collection services is proposed and adequate bin storage area is available onsite.	Yes
3.4.3.25	Separate storage bins for collection for organic waste and recyclable waste are provided in the development.	Capable of being provided and condition recommended.	Yes
3.4.3.26	Bulk waste facilities must be stored in a designated area that is physically and visually integrated into the development at ground or sub-basement level that: · is not visible from the street or public domain; · is easily accessible to businesses; · may be serviced by collection vehicles; · has water and drainage facilities for cleaning and maintenance; and · does not immediately adjoin onsite employee recreation area; and · be maintained to be free of pests.	Adequate bin storage area is available onsite.	Yes
	Cardboard compactors are provided for large retail and commercial developments.	Not a large retail or commercial development.	N/A
	Where waste facilities cannot be collected at the street, evidence that the site can be serviced by a waste collection service must be provided.	Private waste collection can be provided.	Yes
3.4.3.27	Vehicular Access Location and Design: No direct vehicular access to at grade or basement car parking from the active street frontage will be permitted in B1 zones.	The site is not within a B1 zone.	N/A
	The number of vehicular crossovers shall be kept to a minimum and appropriate sight lines provided to ensure safe integration of pedestrian and vehicular movement.	Number of vehicular crossovers is being rationalised onsite from the 4 existing down to 2. The proposed layout provides for safe pedestrian and vehicular movement.	Yes
	Any car park ramps are located largely within the building footprint.	No car park ramps are proposed.	N/A
	Underground car parks must be designed to enable all vehicles to access and egress in a forward direction.	No underground car parking proposed.	N/A
	Vehicular entrances to underground car parks are to be; · Located on minor streets; · Have a maximum crossover of 6.0m; · Shall be signed and lit appropriately; · Shall be designed so that exiting vehicles have clear sight of pedestrians and cyclists.	No underground car parking proposed.	N/A
	At-grade / surface car parking areas adjacent to streets shall be generally avoided or at least adequately softened by appropriate landscaping.	At grade parking adjoining the street frontages is proposed to be adequately landscaped.	Yes
	All stairs and elevators in the parking structure are clearly visible.	No stairs or elevators proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.28	The street level frontage of car parking structures (including multi-level car parks) where adjoining public places, including streets, share ways and laneways, shall present an active frontage along the entire frontage less any car park entry.	The proposal will provide an active frontage to both Gordon and Munster streets.	Yes
3.4.3.30	Pedestrian Entries & Access: The development complies with AS1428—Design for Access and Mobility.	Disabled access can be provided. Details will be illustrated on Construction Certificate plans.	Yes
3.4.3.31	Pedestrian and vehicle movement areas are separated to minimise conflict.	Number of vehicular crossovers is being rationalised onsite from the 4 existing down to 2. The proposed layout provides for safe pedestrian and vehicular movement.	Yes
3.4.3.31	Changes in pavement material, levels, lining or tactile treatments are used to distinguish changes between vehicle and pedestrian access ways.	Driveways and footpaths will be clearly distinguished.	Yes
3.4.3.32	Parking areas are adequately illuminated (naturally and/or artificially) during the time period the centre is open.	Adequate lighting will be provided to the site and parking areas.	Yes
	Signage is provided at the entries to the development detailing the services available within the centre and where they are located.	Adequate signage is proposed that clearly identifies the business and services available.	Yes
	Signage to key public spaces accessible from the centre such as car parks, food courts must be provided within the centre.	The development is not of a scale or nature that warrants such signage.	N/A
	Signage to key facilities such as rest rooms, Centre Management, baby change rooms must be provided within the centre.	The development is not of a scale or nature that warrants such signage.	N/A
3.4.3.35	Commercial Development Adjoining Residential Land uses: The development is designed so that all vehicle movement areas and servicing areas are located away from adjoining residential areas.	The proposed layout, access and design has regard to adjoining residential land to the north.	Yes
	Where this cannot be achieved, visual and acoustic treatment of the interface is required.	Acoustic fencing treatment recommended and required along northern boundary of the site.	Yes
	The building elevation adjoining the residential area must be; · Articulated, with changes in setback at intervals no greater than 10m; · Use a variety of materials and treatments; · Be setback a minimum of half the height of the wall or a minimum of 3.0metres whichever is greater.	The convenience store building is single storey in nature, 193m²in area and setback 17m from the northern boundary. Suitable materials and finish is proposed.	Yes
	Waste areas are located and managed to minimise pests, noise and odour.	Suitable area exists onsite for waste/bin storage.	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	The site is relatively flat and minimal cut and fill is required or proposed. While the civil plans indicate a retaining wall across the Gordon Street frontage the applicant indicated during assessment that the wall was picked on survey and is existing. The applicant also confirmed the retaining wall would be removed as part of the proposal. Site inspection indicated that no retaining wall actually exists along the Gordon Street frontage.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	None proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.2	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	No retaining wall >1m in height proposed.	N/A
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	No trees to be removed.	N/A
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater.	Refer to main body of report.	Yes
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical.	The site currently has two driveway crossovers from the Gordon Street frontage and two driveway crossovers from Munster Street. The proposal seeks to rationalise access to the site by: · Reconstructing and widening the existing driveway to Munster Street adjoining the northern boundary. This will be an entry and exit driveway. The existing driveway closest to the roundabout becoming redundant. · Reconstructing and widening the existing driveway to Gordon Street adjoining the eastern boundary. This will be a left in and out driveway only. The existing driveway closest to the roundabout becoming redundant.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking.	Driveway crossings are being rationalised which will provide additional street parking opportunity.	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	The application is accompanied by a Traffic and Parking Impact Study. The proposal comprises no work bays and 2 employees only. With the additional of the required minimum 2 customer spaces a total of 4 spaces is required under this plan to serve the development. The plans identify 13 parking spaces, including one disabled space, which comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS2890) and therefore exceed the numerical DCP requirements by 9 spaces. The RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002) includes a further recommendation for convenience stores associated with service stations to provide additional parking at a rate of 5 space per 100m² of gross floor area. The proposed convenience store is 193m² in area, which would equate to 10 additional parking spaces. Incorporating the recommendations of the RTA guide with DCP requirements a total of 14 spaces would be required to serve the development. Having regard to the RTA guide being a ‘guide’ only and compliance with DCP provisions the 13 spaces proposed is considered sufficient to accommodate the proposed development.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Customer parking to be easily accessible.	Customer parking is easily accessible.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1.	Capable of complying. Certification of compliance required prior to issue of any Construction 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.	One accessible parking space 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.	Stormwater management plan provided and stormwater can be adequately managed onsite.	Yes
2.5.3.17	No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain	Development will contain onsite detention with discharge via the piped drainage system in Gordon Street.	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.	The proposed loading bay for the Service Station measures 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.	No additional commercial development proposed.	N/A
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.	By their nature, service stations contain open style hardstand and parking areas. The loading zone is incorporated into the hardstand area and located back from the main covered forecourt area.	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

(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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601

Demolition of the existing buildings is capable of compliance with AS2601. A condition of consent has been 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 with primary street frontage to Gordon Street and a secondary frontage to Munster Street. The site is located within an established area and primarily adjoins a mixture of commercial land uses to the south, west and east. The site also adjoins high-density residential zoned land to the north. This land currently contains single dwellings with two storey residential units diagonally adjacent to the north-west.

· 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 site has road frontage to Gordon Street and Munster Street. Gordon & Munster Streets are sub-arterial roads that are both under the care and control of Council.

Gordon Street is dual carriageway with street parking both sides of the road and a median strip separating east and westbound traffic. Gordon Street is a sealed road with upright kerb and a pavement width of approximately 22m.

Munster Street is single carriageway with angle parking both sides of the road. Munster Street is a sealed road with upright kerb and a pavement width of approximately 22m.

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Intersect Traffic dated, July 2019. This assessment made the following conclusions:

· 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 112 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.

· Sidra modelling of the Gordon Street / Munster Street roundabout has shown continued satisfactory operation post development and through to and beyond 2029.

· The proposed access arrangements for the development are satisfactory and compliant with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 2004 Parking facilities – Part 1: Off-street car parking and the Port Macquarie Hastings DCP (2013).

· The proposed access arrangements for the development which reduces the number of accesses to the site will have a positive safety effect on the road network by reducing potential vehicle and pedestrian conflict points on the road network and giving Council the opportunity to provide additional on-street car parking in Munster Street.

· Suitable queuing areas exist from the bowsers to the site accesses such that the risk of vehicles queuing back onto the road network is minimal.

· The proposed development by providing 13 on-site car parks including an accessible car space provides sufficient and suitable car parking to meet the requirements of the Port Macquarie Hastings DCP (2013), NSW RMS and Australian Standard AS 2890.1-2004 “Parking Facilities Part 1 – Off street car parking”.

· The servicing facilities provided within the site are satisfactory and allow convenient servicing of the site with forward entry and exit from the site for the fuel tankers and service vehicles. This has been demonstrated with the provision of swept turning paths on the plans.

· No additional public transport facilities will be needed resulting from the development as little demand for such services will be generated by the development and suitable public transport services and infrastructure already exists within the vicinity of the site.

· Whilst this type of development may generate a very small amount of pedestrian and cycleway traffic, it would not be sufficient to require additional infrastructure.

Council’s development engineering staff have reviewed the traffic assessment and consider the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts within the immediate locality in terms access, transport and traffic. It is anticipated that the existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any potential increase in traffic generation from the development.

Council’s development engineering staff have concluded due to the nature, scale, location and condition of public infrastructure surrounding the site that the following additional works are required as part of the proposed development:

· Restoration of kerb and gutter at unused driveways along the Munster and Gordon Street frontages of the site;

· Provision of kerb ramps to existing pedestrian crossing refuges along the Munster and Gordon Street frontages of the site;

· Landscaping to match into existing along the Munster Street frontage;

· Line marking of on-street parking spaces along the Munster and Gordon Street frontages of the site;

· Upgrading of concrete foot paving (minimum 1.5m wide) along the Munster and Gordon Street frontages of the site.

Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring these additional works.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 13 parking spaces, including 1 disabled space are proposed 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.)

In terms of on-street parking it is noted the site currently contains 4 driveway crossovers. The proposal is to utilise two existing driveways and remove the other two. The existing driveway to be utilised in Munster Street is proposed to be widened to 9m (currently 5m). There are no marked on-street parking spaces along the Munster Street frontage. However, a review of historic aerial photography indicates that rear to kerb angled parking typically occurs along this frontage, which typically provides for 4 vehicles. The proposed increased driveway width would result in loss of at least 2 of these informal on-street angled parking spaces. The removal of the other existing driveway on Munster Street, closest to the roundabout, will not provide any increased on-street parking opportunity. This is due to proximity to the intersection and associated safety issues. The existing driveway to be used in Gordon Street is currently approximately 9m in width and therefore no loss in on-street parking will result. The removal of the other driveway crossover in Gordon Street closest to the roundabout and approximately 10m in width will provide for at least one additional parallel space. The proposal will therefore result in a net loss to informal on-street public parking along the street frontages of the site. This net loss to informal on-street parking is acceptable on the premise of the following:

· The on-street parking is not formalised or line marked;

· Surplus off-street parking (9 spaces beyond DCP provisions) is proposed;

· Rationalisation of the 4 existing driveways down to 2 provides a safer traffic and access outcome for the site;

· Required upgrade works to kerb and gutter, footpaths, kerb ramps, landscaping and line marking of on-street spaces will provide a better public benefit.

Water Supply

Council records indicate that the development site has multiple 20mm sealed water services to each lot. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the 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. Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

Sewer Supply

Council records indicate that the development site is 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. Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the Gordon Street frontage and is currently serviced via an existing direct connection to the public piped drainage system.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s stormwater pit located on the corner of Gordon Street and Munster Street.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via Councils piped network on Gordon Street, which is consistent with the above requirements.

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

Gordon Street has known localised catchment stormwater related issues, which includes ponding and overland flows along the Gordon Street frontage of the development site. The stormwater flows are generated in the localised catchment area, and are separate to the Wrights Creek flood extents.

Council requires hydrological modelling (DRAINS) to be provided demonstrating that adequate freeboard be provided between top water level reached during the 100-year storm event and FFL’s of proposed building and refuel area.

Councils Eastport catchment area stormwater concept DRAINS model was provided to the applicant, following their request to attain a copy of the existing model. The model was updated by the applicant to the latest Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 methods, requirements, ground proofed to match existing conditions, and latest rainfall data, as requested by Council. The applicant stated that the model was updated to reflect proposed site frontage levels used to determine the extent of inundation from Gordon Street overland flows. The applicant has provided DRAINS modelling demonstrating that the re-fuel areas and proposed building finished floor areas are above the modelled 100-year top water level.

Additional modelling will be required prior to construction certificate demonstrating that refuelling areas have freeboard consistent with Councils Flood Policy FPL2, which is the 100-year level plus 10% rainfall increase (for climate change).

The development site does not trigger standard water quality treatments as per AUSPEC D7, for areas excluding refuelling areas, due to being smaller than 2500m² proposed impervious area, however, refuelling areas require specifically designed oil separation treatment systems, following the EPA Best Practise Guidelines.

A SPEL water quality device has been proposed to treat any captured stormwater in high risk / refuelling areas, prior to discharge to the public piped system. This system has been indicatively shown on the plans submitted. Further detail is required for S68 and Construction Certificate for this system, which must include the specific make and model, size of storage, pipe sizing, and maintenance requirements set out by the manufacturer. The applicant has proposed that all surface inlet pits within the development will be provided with a filtration sleeve / sack for additional water quality treatment, to collect debris prior to discharge to the public piped system.

On-site detention (OSD) is required by Council for this development, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no improvement to downstream catchments. The applicants engineer demonstrated by DRAINS modelling that there is only a very small improvement to downstream conditions if OSD were provided for the site. In addition, due to the high tailwater levels modelled in Gordon Street during major storm events, the likely location of the OSD (south-western corner of the site) will not function due to high tailwater levels, therefore, being inoperable.

The site has an existing interallotment drainage system, which benefits Council and private properties upstream of the development site. Council requires that no enclosed structures be built over this easement to permit unrestricted access if required for future maintenance. The development proposed has indicated that the existing interallotment pipe system will be relocated, including the easement, which is demonstrated on the plans submitted. The proposed interallotment system is AUSPEC D5 compliant.

Council requires that the applicant demonstrate how the management of upstream catchment flows and any associated risks to inundation be shown on DA plans.

Private properties located on the north side of the development site, naturally grade towards the site. The applicant has shown on DA submitted plans that a drain be installed on the northern boundary to capture natural (grassed, unconcentrated) overland runoff from upstream catchments directed into the interallotment pipe drainage system.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site. Evidence of satisfactory arrangements with the relevant utility authority for provision and or upgrade of services is required prior to occupation or issue of any occupation certificate. Refer to recommended conditions of consent.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

The proposal is consistent with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010. Specifically, a multi-level risk assessment supported the application. While not required by the regulation stage 1 Vapour Recovery (VR1) is proposed to manage fuel vapours from the underground storage tanks during fuel delivery. Given the proximity to residential receivers adopting VR1 measures is supported by Council staff. Conditions of consent are recommended to re-inforce VR1 measures and ensure they are in place prior to any occupation or issue of any occupation certificate. It is noted that stage 2 vapour recovery (VR2) is not required in this region by the regulation and is not proposed under this application.

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

Flora and fauna

The site does not contain any trees or vegetation and subsequently construction of the development will not require removal/clearing of any vegetation. There is also no impact to any public landscaping or street trees.

The application was supported by a landscaping plan, which proposes landscaping within and along all boundaries of the site including a variety of shrubs and 4 medium mature water gums.

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 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 application was accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Reverb Acoustics, dated June 2019. The assessment concluded and recommended the following noise control measures to meet suitable noise amenity criteria:

· The service station and convenience store may trade over the full 24 hour period;

· Fuel tanker deliveries are to be restricted to 5am-12am;

· General store deliveries are to be restricted to 5am-12am;

· Preference should be given to installing a RFP Retail Forecourt Inflator with inbuilt compressor, in preference to a separate compressor. If a separate compressor is preferred it must be located in the service yard;

· Acoustic fences are to be erected along the northern boundary at the nominated heights:

A gap of 50-75mm is permitted at ground level to aid in drainage. An acoustic fence is one which is impervious from the ground to the recommended height, and is typically constructed from lapped and capped timber, Hebel Powerpanel, or similar. No significant gaps should remain in the fence to allow the passage of sound below the recommended height. Other construction options are available if desired, providing the fence or wall is impervious and of equivalent or greater surface mass than the above construction options.

· Perimeter walls to the service yard must be impervious from the ground to a height of 2200mm above FGL. Construction may consist of Colorbond or similar. A gap of 50-75mm may be left at ground level to aid in drainage, cleaning, etc. The entry gate must be constructed similar to walls.

· Any proposed or future roof-top exhaust plant that produces a sound pressure level (SPL) in excess of 65dB(A) at a distance of 1 metre must have acoustic barriers constructed at the fan discharge. The barriers must fully enclose at least three sides towards any residence. In our experience, a more efficient and structurally secure barrier is one that encloses all four sides. The barrier must extend at least 600mm above and below the fan centre and/or the highest point of the discharge outlet. The barrier must be no closer than 500mm and no further than 1200mm from the edges of the exhaust. Barrier construction should consist of Acoustisorb panels (available through Modular Walls). Note that variations to barrier construction or alternate materials are not permitted without approval from the acoustical consultant. Barrier construction is based solely on acoustic issues. Visual, wind load issues must be considered and designed by appropriately qualified engineers.

· No acoustic modifications are required to plant that is located within the service yard.

· The contractor responsible for supplying and installing mechanical plant must provide evidence that installed plant meets this noise emission limit, or that noise control included with the plant is effective in reducing the sound level to the specified limit. Once the plant layout has been finalised, details should be forwarded to the acoustic consultant for approval.

· It is strongly recommended that waste collection be restricted to weekdays 7.00am to 6.00pm.

· Construction Certificate documentation must be forwarded to Reverb Acoustics to ensure all recommendations within this report have been incorporated into the design of the site.

Subject to the installation of the recommended noise control measures and restrictions surrounding both fuel/store delivery and waste collection times no significant adverse noise impacts are anticipated to nearby receivers. Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring installation of the noise control measures and operational restrictions surrounding fuel and store delivery hours and waste collection 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 adverse 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

Subject to appropriate site management measures 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

Three (3) written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
There are currently pedestrian and vehicular conflicts at the Munster Street crossing and intersection. The proposal will result in further traffic and pedestrian impacts.	Refer to assessment comment under roads, traffic and transport heading within this report.
The convenience store will deprive from adjoining local businesses.	Business competition is not a relevant planning consideration.
Safety concerns for the Port Macquarie Community Preschool with no substantial safety barriers protecting the children’s outdoor play area from vehicles.	The proposal will not increase any vehicular risk to the outdoor play area of the preschool.
Safety concerns for children in the outdoor playground at the preschool that may be subject to fumes from the petrol bowsers and vehicles.	The front boundary of the preschool is located approximately 60m from the proposed forecourt and fuel vents. Vapour recovery (VR1) is proposed for fuel deliveries. Given the separation distance to the preschool, vapour recovery and that tank filling is unlikely to coincide with the opening hours of the preschool there no significant adverse vapour impacts anticipated.
Safety concerns for children, the elderly, pedestrians and residents within proximity from fire, explosions, noise and traffic associated with the development.	As addressed throughout this report the impacts have been assessed and the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. There are no significant adverse impacts that would warrant refusal of this application.
Environmental impacts of petroleum leaks into nearby creek.	Wrights Creek is located approximately 150m from the site. Refer to details comments under stormwater heading of this report. The proposal is also required to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (Regulation 2019) which contains specific installation, leak detection and monitoring requirements for underground fuel storage tanks. Subject to compliance with legislation, no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
Loss of on-street parking.	Refer to specific comments under parking and manoeuvring heading of this report. The proposal will result in no net loss to on-street public parking.
Oversupply of service stations in Gordon Street.	Business competition is not a relevant planning consideration.

(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

· Due to existing contribution credit for previous uses approved on the site contributions are not required towards augmentation of town water supply and sewerage system head works under Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993.

· Development contributions will be required under Section 7.12 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 section of this report.

Attachments

1 View. DA2019 - 531.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Revised Architectural Plans

3 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Development Contribution Estimate

4 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Revised Stormwater Concept Plan

5 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Dangerous Goods Site Layout Plan

6 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Water Cycle Management Plan

7 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Landscape Plan

8 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Landscape Specifications

9 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Environmental Site Assessment Report - Contamination

10 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Multi Level Risk Assessment Report

11 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Multi Level Risk Assessment Screening Threshold Summary.

12 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Noise Impact Assessment

13 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Preliminary Hazards Analysis and Summary

14 View. DA2019 - 513.1 SEPP 33 Risk Screening Summary

15 View. DA2019 - 513.1 SoEE

16 View. DA2019 - 513.1 Traffic and Parking Assessment

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 22/01/2020

Item: 06

Subject: DA2019 - 761.1 Dwelling and Swimming Pool including Clause 4.6 Objection to Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, Lot 60 DP 261991, No 14 Phoenix Crescent, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Robert Slater

Applicant: Morr Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner: C J Hamilton

Estimated Cost: $900,000

Parcel no: 9745

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 761.1 for a dwelling and swimming pool including Clause 4.6 Objection to Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 60, DP 261991, No. 14 Phoenix Crescent, Port Macquarie by determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, two (2) submissions were 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 2602m².

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:

Three (3) storey dwelling and swimming pool

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

Application Chronology

· 18 October 2019 - Application lodged

· 4 November 2019 - Public notification of application

· 4 November 2019 - External referral to RFS

· 7 November 2019 to 20 November 2019 - Notification period

· 14 November 2019 - RFS submission acknowledgement

· 14 November 2019 - Submission received

· 14 November 2019 - Submission acknowledgement

· 20 November 2019 - Access request to 42 Ocean view Tce

· 20 November 2019 - Additional information request

· 21 November 2019 - Late submission received

· 21 November 2019 - Late submission acknowledgement

· 9 October 2019 - Additional information request

· 2 December 2019 - Site inspection

· 9 December 2019 - Revised Plans / SOEE 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.

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

Having regard to clause 11 of the SEPP and clause 5.5 of the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 the proposed development is on land identified as “proximity area” for coastal wetlands. The proposed residential development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

1. Any adverse impact on the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or

2. Any adverse impact on the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.

The dwelling has been located in the north-western corner of the development site to avoid the mapped littoral rainforest. Recommendations have been included within the submitted ecological impact assessment prepared by Biodiversity Australia to ensure impacts are minimised and avoided.

The proposed on-site stormwater management measures are considered to be adequate to direct roof and surface waters from the site to the existing street stormwater infrastructure.

Having regard to clauses 13 and 14 of the SEPP the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

1. Any adverse impact on integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment;

2. Any adverse impacts coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes;

3. Any adverse impact on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

4. Any adverse impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places;

5. Any adverse impacts on the cultural and built environment heritage;

6. Any adverse impacts the use of the surf zone;

7. Any adverse impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;

8. Overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

9. 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

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

3. The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

Clause 4.3 - This clause establishes the maximum “height of a building” (or building height) that a building may be built to on any parcel of land. The term “building height (or height of building)” is defined in the LEP to mean “the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like”. The term “ground level (existing)” is also defined in the LEP to mean “the existing level of a site at any point”.

The building height limit for the site is identified on the Height of Buildings Map as being 8.5m. The proposed development exceeds the numerical height standard by 0.5m, which represents a variation of 5.8 %.

Figure1: Map HOB_013FA of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011

The submitted plans have identified which areas of the building that exceed the height limit.

Figure 2: Elevation indicating height exceedances.

Figure 3: Height poles in the location of the two proposed height exceedances. The pole to the right of frame has a total height of 9m (0.5m or 5.8% exceedance), whilst the pole to the left has a total height of 8.76m (0.26m or 3% exceedance).

Clause 4.6 - This clause establishes a degree of flexibility for certain development standards in certain circumstances, which have demonstrated that a better planning outcome will occur from that flexibility.

In this regard, the proposal seeks a variation to the building height standard as identified under clause 4.3 of this report. Assistance on the approach to variation to this standard is also taken from NSW Land and Environment Court and NSW Court of Appeal decisions in:

§ Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 (Wehbe);

§ Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council (2015) NSWLEC 1009; and

§ Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd (2018) NSWCA 245

Having regard to specific requirements of clause 4.6(3) and 4.6(4) the following assessment comments are provided:

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Comments: The Applicant has submitted a request in writing to justify the contravention of the building height standard for the following reasons (as summarised):

§ The proposed height exceedances are considered minimal, occurring only in the south eastern corner of the proposed rooves on the third storey;

§ The site slopes consistently from west to east at a grade of approximately 24 degrees;

§ The proposed dwelling has been designed to generally match the slope of the site, stepping down in sections as the building moves to the east;

§ The proposed roof pitch has been minimised, 3 degree skillion, to ensure that the proposed overall height of the building is reduced;

§ Due to the dwellings position, it will not have a detrimental impact by manner of over shadowing on any structures to the south or east;

§ Due to the dwellings elevation below adjoining Lot 42 (west) it will not have a detrimental impact by manner of overshadowing on the existing adjoining dwelling;

§ The proposed height encroachment is not considered to have a detrimental impact on broader views or vistas towards the coastline (east of the site);

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3),

Comments: Having regard to: 3(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case:

In Wehbe ‘five methods’ have been developed to test whether a compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. Having regard to the ‘five methods’, any of which could support consideration of the variation, the following comments are provided:

§ The objectives of the height standard are achieved notwithstanding the non- compliance with the numerical 8.5m height standard.

§ The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

§ The underlying object or purpose would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable.

§ The development standard hasn’t been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting a consent to the proposal departing from the 8.5m standard and hence compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary.

§ The zoning of the particular land is reasonable or appropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also reasonable and necessary as it applies to the land.

§ There is no detrimental impact by manner of overshadowing on the existing adjoining dwelling

Having regard to 3(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard of the basis of the following:

§ The proposed development will meet the objectives of maximum building height discussed above. The building will not have any identifiable adverse impacts to adjoining properties. The proposed variation will not result in a development that is out of character with that envisioned for the locality.

On this basis, it is considered that the Applicant’s clause 4.6 variation has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3).

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

Comments: Consideration of the proposal’s consistency with the objectives of height of buildings standard is provided as follows:

a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

5. Comments: Several buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site are characterised as being two and three storey having with similar overall heights above ground level, due mainly to the steepness of the land. Additionally, there a number precedents where Council has approved a variation to the standard height limit of 8.5m. Three such examples are to be found at 40 Oceanview Terrace and number 9 and 12 Phoenix Crescent, Port Macquarie.

7. A key aspect of this proposal is that it still presents as a two-storey dwelling to the street/public domain.

9. Based on the above, the proposed height, bulk and scale of the development is considered compatible with the existing and future character of the locality.

10.

b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

Comments:

The visual impact of the building is considered satisfactory for the following reasons:

§ The variation in the height limit will not be readily visible from the public domain or neighbouring properties as it is only minor in nature i.e. 5.8% variation only affects a small section of the upper storey in the south eastern corner.

§ The main variations are located behind the facade of the building and are therefore less distinctive.

§ The building height is similar to the existing dwellings in the area and will therefore not be visually dominant.

§ The variation is created by the land sloping steeply away from the street.

§ Potential privacy impacts are considered under the relevant DCP provisions below and have been satisfactorily addressed in the building design.

§ The floor to ceiling heights are not excessive, in fact the Department of Planning’s Apartment Design Guide – Part 4C -1 recommends a minimum ceiling height of 2700mm for habitable rooms.

§ The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the property immediately to the south of the subject property receives adequate mid-winter solar access. The proposed height variation will have negligible effect on shadows cast on the property.

In conclusion, the proposed development and minor height variation do not create any adverse overshadowing to the adjoining properties.

View impacts is considered elsewhere in this report under ‘View Sharing’.

c) to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

11.

Comments: The site does not contain any known heritage items or sites of significance.

12.

d) to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity within the area covered by this Plan.

13.

14. Comments: The proposed height is consistent with other dwellings in the area. The minor variation does not compromise this intent of the standard.

15.

16. The development is consistent with the zoning and height objectives of the LEP 2011 and is unlikely to have any implications on State related issues or the broader public interest.

e) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

Comments: As per the Planning Circular PS 08-003, Council can assume the Director’s Concurrence for variations to building height standards. In addition, the variations are less than 10% and able to be determined under delegated authority of DAP

Having regard to the above requirements it is recommended that the height variation using clause 4.6 be supported.

17. Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is approximately 0.21:1, which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

18.

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

19.

20. Clause 7.5 – Koala Habitat applies to the site. Refer to comments under SEPP 44 heading.

21.

22. 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	No ancillary development proposed		Yes
3.2.2.2		Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 4.5m local road	Front building line setback is 5.5m and compliant with the minimum 4.5m front setback requirements. Note Phoenix Crescent is a private access road.		Yes
3.2.2.3		Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Garage door setback is compliant with the minimum front setback requirements. Garage door recessed.		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	Driveway crossing/s width are compliant with the maximum width requirements		Yes
3.2.2.4		4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	37m		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	4.9m 4.9m The building wall articulation is satisfactory to address the objective intent of the development provision.		Yes Yes Yes
3.2.2.6		35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area, which has 5% max. grade	The dwelling contains > 35m² open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.		Yes
3.2.2.10		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. i.e. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc. which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. No privacy screens are 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		The site preparation and earthworks will require cut and fill > 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	No
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage		None proposed	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer		No retaining wall likely >1m Condition recommended to require engineering certification if one is required.	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway		No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees		One hollow bearing tree (small leaved Fig) was identified on-site. The HBT was assessed under the DCP HBT protocol determined that the HBT is located outside the development footprint and will be retained in situ.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)		Six trees are proposed to be removed. · 1 Norfolk Island Pine · 4 Bangalow Palm · 1 Cheese Tree (refer comments under Flora and Fauna)	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		Driveway crossing minimal in width including maximising 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		Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. No specific landscaping requirements recommended.	N/A
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified		Sealed driveway proposed	Yes
2.5.3.15 and 2.5.3.16	Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length		Driveway grades capable of satisfying Council standard driveway crossover requirements. Condition recommended for section 138 Roads Act permit	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.		Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.	Yes

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

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

NSW Coastal Policy 1997 - The proposal does not conflict with the strategic intent of the Policy. The site is zoned for residential use.

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

None relevant

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

Context and Setting

The development site is zoned R1 General Residential and has an area of 2,602m² which is adjoined by dwelling houses to the west and north and vegetated public reserves to the east and south. The site slopes from west to east towards the vegetated public reserve (Littoral Rainforest), with a fall of 16.5m or 24%.

The site is accessed via Phoenix Crescent which is a private road access extending from the cul-de-sac head of Oceanview Terrace and transverse the north-western corner of the site.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with other residential development in the locality and while variations are proposed, the design adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

View Sharing

During the public exhibition period two submissions were received from the adjoining owners of 42 Phoenix Crescent and 40 Oceanview Terrace who raised concerns regarding the proposed development including loss of views, predominantly towards Tacking Point Lighthouse and Lighthouse Beach.

Views have been assessed from key areas within the subject properties. The attached photos are taken from primary living areas include decks.

Photo 1 View looking south east from the deck of 40 Oceanview Tce

Photo 2: View looking east from the deck of 42 Phoenix Crescent

Photo 3: View from dining room of 42 Phoenix Crescent

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

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

Step 1

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

Comments: The impacted view corridor is situated to the north - north east and south east of the Tacking Point lighthouse including the Lighthouse itself which is situated approximately 686m and 680m from the respective properties.

Both 40 Oceanview Tce and 42 Phoenix Cres currently enjoy 180 degree Ocean views. The views include the Tacking Point lighthouse. Tacking Point Lighthouse is considered to be a local landmark. The view of the lighthouse will lost completely from the primary livings area of 42 phoenix Crescent and to a lesser extent from 40 Oceanview Tce. Both properties have distance views that show a direct interface with the land and ocean.

Step 2

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

Comments: The ocean and lighthouse views including the land/ocean interface are enjoyed from the eastern elevation of 42 Phoenix Crescent and the south eastern and north eastern elevation of 40 Oceanview Terrace albeit across their rear and side boundaries respectively. The views are enjoyed from both standing and sitting positions from various living areas of both residences.

Step 3

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

Comments: The extent of the impact upon the views enjoyed from 42 Oceanview Terrace are considered to be moderate. The views from 40 Oceanview Terrace is considered to be minor. The existing views of the Tacking Point Lighthouse will be virtually lost from key living areas and balcony areas currently enjoyed by 42 Phoenix Crescent, while the view of lighthouse is retained by 40 Oceanview Tce. Additionally, views to the Taking Point Lighthouse and the Ocean views beyond are already partially obscured from both dwellings, due to the existing vegetation, which limits the scale of the view available.

The existing views of the land and water interface will be retained from key living areas and verandah/decks from both properties. Substantial views of the ocean will be retained by both properties, however views to the south east will be partially obscured from 40 Oceanview Terrace. While view loss will occur, it is not considered to be of such a significance where it adversely impacts on the overall vista or land/water interface. Substantial ocean views will be retained from primary living areas of both properties.

The proposed variations to the numerical height standards do not exponentially impact on view loss. It is considered that a building with a compliant ridge height would have a similar impact on views. Additionally, the majority of the proposed dwelling is below the height limit on the higher section of the property.

Step 4

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

Comments: The proposal contains variation to the numerical height standard. However, it is considered that the variation is minor (maximum 0.5m or 5.8%) and does not result in any adverse loss of broader ocean views. As detailed above, key ocean views from primary living areas will stll be retained from both dwellings.

A compliant or re-designed development would have minimal improvement if any to that which is proposed. In addition, the variation has been addressed in this report and deemed to be acceptable and in keeping with previously approved variations to building heights in the immediate vicinity. There is considered to be insufficient grounds to refuse the application on view loss impacts.

Figure 4:Looking west from 14 Phoenix Crescent

Figure 5: Looking south east from Phoenix Cres

Figure 6: Phoenix Crescent as viewed from Oceanview Tce, looking east

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

The site is within the Biodiversity Values Map. However, Clause 7.3(4) of the Biodiversity Regulations turns off the Biodiversity Values Map for lots created before the Act commenced and where the test of significance is acceptable.

A 5-part test has been carried out by Biodiversity Australia and determined that it is unlikely to result in a significant impact on the Littoral Rainforest. Recommendations have been provided by Biodiversity Australia to minimise edge effects.

In this case, the test of significance has revealed no adverse impact and a BDAR is not required.

A total of six trees are proposed to be removed to establish the development. These comprise the following:

· 1 Norfolk Island Pine

· 4 Bangalow Palm

· 1 Cheese Tree

The removal of these trees is unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on potential occurring threatened fauna species.

No Koala Food Trees were identified on the site and therefore no replacement replanting’s are required.

The site is <1ha and therefore the PMHC DCP provisions for EECs and riparian buffers do not apply.

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 BAL Certificate prepared by a Certified Consultant.

As the assessment has determined that a BAL 40 construction is required, referral to the Local Rural Fire has been made. The RFS have reviewed the proposal and made recommendations which will be required to be imposed via conditions of consent.

Management of bushfire risk is acceptable subject to BAL 40 construction levels being implemented and APZ being maintained. An appropriate condition is recommended.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

While there may be some standard short term impacts associated with a construction site (i.e. loss of off street parking due to construction workers, construction noise etc.), no long term impacts to neighbouring properties will occur. In addition, standard conditions will be recommended to restrict hours of construction and protection of adjoining properties during 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.

As detailed in the report above, the area along Oceanview Terrace and Phoenix Crescent contains a unique mixture of single and two-three storey development. In particular, there are a number of two storey developments which include minimal setbacks to Phoenix Crescent being a private access road.

The unique character of the immediate area is bound by the aforementioned streets. It is considered that any future development beyond the intersections would be outside the unique precinct and therefore unlikely to create a large scale cumulative impact on development controls within the overall Port Macquarie area.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

While there are a number of variations proposed, it is considered that suitable justification has been provided in this case to ensure the development is consistent with other development in the area. In this regard, the development is considered to still satisfy relevant planning controls for the area and is not expected to impact adversely on the wider public interest.

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

Two 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
Concerns about the building exceeding the maximum height limits in the DCP	The applicant has submitted an application for a Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the PMHC LEP 2011 for Council’s consideration. (refer body of report)
Lack of information on the plans with particular regard to AHD levels to show the particular height of building location on the site and what the final overall height will be	The applicant has erected height profiles on the site to AHD that relate to proposed overall height of the proposed building.
A view plan should be provided taken from 42 Ocean view Terrace with particular emphasis given to the eastern verandah and living room to show potential impacts the proposed development will on the existing primary view corridor the iconic light house.	The issue of potential loss view has been dealt with in detail under the heading of “View Sharing” in the body of the report.
Concerns relating to height and impact on view have been underestimated	There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has under estimated impacts relating to building height and view loss in relation to the proposed dwelling. As mentioned above height profiles have been erected to AHD relative to the roof heights and View loss has been addressed under separate heading “View Sharing” in the body of the report.
Potential impact of roof structures such as antennas, dishes, solar panels, hot water.	Roof structures would need to satisfy the exempt provisions of the codes SEPP or alternatively be applied for via a development application (DA). Impacts would need to be assessed as part of any future DA.

(e) The public interest

As detailed throughout the above report, the proposed development suitably satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Contributions do not apply as the site has credit from the existing residential zoned property.

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.

Attachment 1.

Attachments

1 View. DA2019 - 761.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 761.1 Plans

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 22/01/2020

Item: 07

Subject: DA2019 - 713.1 Torrens Title Subdivision 2 Lots into 3 - Lots 705 and 706 DP 1228141, Nos. 41 and 43 Yaluma Drive, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Love Project Management

Owner: Pearr Corp Pty Ltd & Richmond Horizons Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $0

Parcel no: 66297 and

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 713.1 for a 2 into 3 lot Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 705 and 706, DP 1228141, No. 41 and 43 Yaluma Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a 2 into 3 Lot Torrens Title Subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, 3 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 1,609m².

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:

· 2 into 3 lot Torrens Title Subdivision

· Proposed lot sizes vary from 524.5m²to 548.9m²

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

Application Chronology

· 4 October 2019 - Application Lodged

· 24 October to 06 November 2019 - Public Notification Period, 3 submissions received

· 5 December 2019 - Additional information received

· 6 December 2019 - Developer offered to hold meetings with adjoining landowners to alleviate concerns

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

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land is less than 1 hectare (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP not apply to the development proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is located within a coastal environment area.

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

Having regard to clauses 13 and 14 of the SEPP the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h) overshadowing, wind 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 the land or any other land.

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 will provide an additional residential lot to meet the housing needs of the community.

· Clause 4.1 - The lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from 524.5m2, 537.2m2 and 548.9m2. All proposed lots comply with the minimum lot sizes identified in the Lot Size Map relating to the site.

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

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: 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 plan submitted.	Yes
3.6.3.2	Torrens title lots minimum width of 15m when measured at a distance of 5.5m from front property boundary.	All proposed lots vary between 15.335m to 15.305m in width on the front boundary	Yes
	Minimum width of 7m when boundaries are extended to kerb line.	N/A	N/A
	Minimum depth of 25m.	Minimum depth of 33m	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.	Slope of the land is consistent in the locality, orientation of the existing frontages and driveway grades have been achievable on adjoining lots.	Acceptable
	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.	None proposed.	N/A
3.6.3.3	Council may consider permitting Torrens Title battleaxe allotments for ―infill development where it is demonstrated that; · a Torrens Title lot, that is not a battleaxe lot, cannot be achieved; and · the number of crossovers do not reduce the amenity of the street or on street parking; and · the impact of noise, dust and headlights on the land owners adjoining the driveway is addressed by the construction of an acoustic fence for the full length of the driveway; and · addresses privacy between the rear lot and the rear open space of the front lot by the provision of · adequate screening, larger lot size and setbacks; and · extends utilities to the end of the axe handle; and · there is sufficient space for garbage collection on the frontage.	N/A	N/A
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.	Proposed lots are capable of accommodating a dwelling without excessive cut/fill.	Yes
	Lot sizes increased for sloping sites in accordance with Table 3.6.1.	Lot size complies with minimum area for slope category.	Yes
	Additional information provided for slope categories in accordance with Table 3.6.2.	Adequate information provided.	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.	N/A - Existing street.	N/A
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 orientation and width provides opportunity for 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)	Existing kerb and gutter and street drainage.	Yes
3.6.3.13	Development for the subdivision for land or major residential development should provide footpaths on both sides of all collector and arterial roads.	Development does not have frontage to a collector road	N/A
3.6.3.17 - 3.6.3.19	An application for subdivision should be accompanied by a Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by a certified practicing engineer and in accordance with Council’s adopted Aus-Spec design specification documents. The finished floor level of buildings should be above the 100 year ARI flood level (plus freeboard) and in accordance with the council’s current flood policy.	Existing stormwater easement along rear of lot capable of servicing proposed lots.	Yes
3.6.3.20	Water supply to meet Council’s design specifications.	See comments under Water Supply Connection later in this report.
3.6.3.21 - 3.6.3.22	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 later in this report.
3.6.3.25	Extension of sewer infrastructure at cost of developer.	See comments under Sewer Connection later in this report.
3.6.3.26 - 3.6.3.27	Erosion and sediment control plan to be provided.	Minimal works anticipated. Standard condition recommended requiring erosion and sediment control.	Yes
3.6.3.34	All service infrastructure should be underground unless otherwise approved by Council.	Standard condition recommended requiring satisfactory arrangements certification from service providers.	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.

*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 is unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. All lots have street frontage.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	No earthworks proposed for this subdivision	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	N/A	N/A
2.3.3.2	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	N/A	N/A
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None present	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	No clearing required	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	Access to local road.	Yes
2.5.3.11	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

N/A

(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 has a general northern street frontage orientation to Yaluma Drive.

Adjoining the site to the north is E3 Environmental Management zoned land.

Adjoining the site to the east and west is vacant residential land

Adjoining the site to the south are residential dwellings.

The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts to existing adjoining or 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.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Yaluma Drive. Adjacent to the site, Yaluma Drive is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council. Yaluma Drive is a local road with a 5.5m formation within a variable Road Reserve Width with SE kerb and gutter adjacent to the development site.

Traffic and Transport

The site is approved for two (2) residential lots permitted to generate approximately 14 daily trips. This development proposes to add one (1) additional lot, which will generate seven (7) additional daily trips. The addition in traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

Site Frontage and Access

Direct access is available to all proposed lots to Yaluma Drive.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has two existing 20mm sealed water services from the 100 PVC water main on the same side of Yaluma Drive. Each proposed lot requires an individual metered water service. Any alterations to Council’s water supply infrastructure including relocation of water services and hydrants, shall occur at no cost to Council. Details are to be shown on the engineering plans.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has two connections to Councils sewer system. Each proposed lot shall be individually connected to sewer. Existing sewer manholes that will be located within the proposed driveways shall be upgraded to facilitate trafficable conditions at no cost to Council.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the rear and is currently serviced via an existing interallotment drainage system. The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is a direct connection to the existing interallotment drainage system servicing the site.

Stormwater from the proposed development can be accommodated via direct connections to the interallotment system. With proposed lot boundary changes, existing easements will need to reformed along new lot boundaries. Conditions have been imposed to address.

A detailed site stormwater management plan will be required to be submitted for assessment as part of any subdivision works construction certificate application.

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

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

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will 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

Future development will address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of BASIX. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Section 100B - Rural Fires Act 1997, the application proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be used for residential purposes. As a result, the applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant. The report was forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service who have since issued a Bushfire Safety Authority subject to conditions, which will be incorporated into the consent.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The increase in likely future housing density 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 not considered to have any significant adverse social impacts.

Economic impact in the locality

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

Two (2) written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Subsequently one (1) submission was formerly withdrawn after consultation with the Developer. 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
Purchased block on the basis of a particular development approach that had been accepted by Council. This established a standard of residence that justified the price of the blocks. A variation of the DA to enable smaller blocks (and residences) appears, to compromise the integrity of the planning and approval system.	All proposed lots comply with the minimum lot sizes identified in the Lot Size Map in the Port Macquarie Hastings Environmental Plan 2011 and subdivision design requirements of Development Control Plan 2013 relating to the site.
Understood that Council will not consider covenants on the land. However, it should be noted that Council is currently named as the person empowered to release, vary or modify restriction firstly and secondly referred to in the plan" on our sales contract. This contract stipulates the various covenants put in place to preserve the integrity, look and feel of Lots 701 to 772 Yaluma Drive. On this basis, Council should be interested to ensure that it maintains a consistent approach to its earlier position on this subdivision and its responsibilities in terms of the existing covenants on contracts.	Council is empowered to release, vary or modify restrictions firstly and secondly referred to in the S88b instrument, which relates to Part 1 and Part 1A, which refers to Easements to Drain Water. The Developer is the named person(s) empowered to release, vary or modify restrictions or positive covenants thirdly referred to in the plan in Part 2. This is the section of the instruments created to control amenity of the original subdivision. In this instance, the Developer is the current owner and has provided consent to the proposed development. The Applicant has demonstrated that the reduced size of the lots are capable of complying with the current covenants and restrictions as referred to in the s88b instrument.
Lot shape and size - The development application does not show the fall of the land. Impact of future retaining walls and Fences have not been adequately considered. There will be engineering difficulties for future residential buildings.	Site contours have been demonstrated on the proposed plans. The lots will have the capability for suitable future dwellings, which has been discussed in the DCP section of this report and is considered to be consistent with the residential pattern of the area.
The narrow frontage of each block would pose issues providing for sufficient car parking off street.	Road, traffic and Access have been discussed in Part (iv)(b) of this report and considered to not have any identifiable adverse impacts. Each lot has capability to provide dwellings in the future with compliant off street parking.
There has been real concern among the residents of the whole Crestwood Estate about the adequacy of exit points in case of an emergency evacuation. This is fresh in our minds after the recent fires.	The additional lot does not pose any significant increase risk to future occupants and the NSW Rural Fire Service has issued bushfire safety comments. Traffic and transport has been satisfactorily address earlier in this report.
Concerns regarding Section 88B Instrument… Street trees planted by the developers shall not be removed, interfered or "fall into a state of disrepair." And followed by no waste or garbage receptacle shall be permitted to be visible from the public street. These covenants were created to avoid an unsightly street and living conditions for the residents of Crestwood neighbourhood and Yaluma Drive that purchased from Richmond Horizons.	No street trees are proposed to be removed as part of this Application. This can be satisfied by a standard condition protecting the existing street trees along the sites street frontage.

(e) The Public Interest

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

· Development contributions will be required 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.

· 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 - 713.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 713.1 Plan

3 View. DA2019 - 713.1 Contributions Estimate

4 View. DA2019 - 713.1 SoEE

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 22/01/2020

Item: 08

Subject: DA2019 - 694.1 Home Business - Hair Salon, Lot 108 DP 1214480, No. 4 Sunrise Place, King Creek

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: S & S Mitchell

Owner: S Mitchell

Estimated Cost: $8000

Parcel no: 64920

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 694.1 for a Home Business - Hair Salon, at Lot 108, DP 1214480, No. 4 Sunrise Place, King Creek, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a Home Business - Hair Salon, 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, 2 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 4,623m².

The site is zoned R5 - Large Lot 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:

· Applicant seeking development approval for a home business - hair salon.

· 1 garage bay of the attached 3 bay garage has been converted into a hair salon.

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

Application Chronology

· 29 September 2019 - Application submitted

· 18 October to 30 October 2019 - Public Notification Period, 2 Submissions received

· 15 November 2019 - Additional Information Requested

· 26 November 2019 - Additional information and revised plans received

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes a business identification sign. For the purposes of this policy, the proposed signage is considered consistent with Division 2 Advertising and Signage Exempt Development Code of the SEPP (Exempt and Complying development codes) 2008. One sign displayed to the street frontage, total area less than 2.5m2 and mounted against the existing retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. Conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure compliance with 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 R5 Large Lot Residential.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R5 zone landuse table - The proposed development for a Home Business is a permissible landuse with consent.

home business means a business that is carried on in a dwelling, or in a building ancillary to a dwelling, by one or more permanent residents of the dwelling and that does not involve:

(a) the employment of more than 2 persons other than those residents, or

(b) interference with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, traffic generation or otherwise, or

(c) the exposure to view, from any adjacent premises or from any public place, of any unsightly matter, or

(d) the exhibition of any signage (other than a business identification sign), or

(e) the sale of items (whether goods or materials), or the exposure or offer for sale of items, by retail, except for goods produced at the dwelling or building,

but does not include bed and breakfast accommodation, home occupation (sex services) or sex services premises.

Conditions have been recommended restricting the business to the relevant criteria above so that the use remains compatible with the residential locality.

The objectives of the R5 zone are as follows:

o To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

o To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future

o To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

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 landuse.

o The proposal does not have an identifiable adverse impacts on the existing amenity. Impacts are considered minor and manageable.

· Clause 5.4 – The home business is less than 60m² in area and therefore complies with this Clause.

· Clause 7.13 - Satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, on-site sewage management, 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: 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
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1	Required: Table 2.5-1 requires 1 space per dwelling + 1 visitor space + 1 space per 2 employees for home businesses. The proposal includes one employee and therefore 2.5 parking spaces are required. Proposed: The site plan contains 4 useable garage parking spaces as well as 4 hardstand spaces within the driveway. No employees are presently proposed. Overall, the parking provision onsite exceeds the minimum required and allows for cars to enter and exit in a forward direction. Appropriate signage will be conditioned	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Existing concrete driveway.	Yes

Based on the above assessment, the proposal satisfies the provision of the DCP.

(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

Nil

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

The site has a general western street frontage orientation to Sunrise Place.

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

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

Access, Traffic and Transport

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

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of four (4) parking spaces have been provided on-site. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Water Supply Connection

No Change to Existing

Sewer Connection

No new sewerage works proposed.

Stormwater

No change to existing

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

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.

Noise and vibration

The construction and/or operations of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Condition of consent proposed to manage hours of operation.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone however the proposal does not increase the risk of bushfire. Adequate defendable space and egress from the property is available in the event of a bushfire.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any security/crime risk.

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.

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality by not being visually dominate from the street.

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. Standard conditions are considered adequate to control main concerns of hours of operation, off street car parking and noise.

(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

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
The objective of R5 zoning is to "provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on.....scenic quality." The operation of a hairdressing salon and the associated increased traffic will impact on our scenic quality and is not in keeping with the objectives of the zoning. There are only nine residences in our cul de sac. If Council allow this business to operate, thereby setting a precedent, the street would no longer be residential in a very short space of time once other people started to operate a business from home.	Home Businesses/Occupations and Business identification signage are permitted with consent within R5 large lot residential zoned land. The home business is proposed to be only staffed by the home occupant.
The applicants are already advertising the business as operating from 9.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Friday. This is outrageous. How can a business, that has not even been approved, be operating as late as 9.00pm each week night?	The Statement of Environmental Effects provided with this application identifies proposed hours of operation to be 9am to 5 pm Monday to Friday. Concern can be addressed with appropriate standard condition restricting hours of operation.
The intersection of Sunrise Pl and King Creek Rd is poorly lit, on a sweeping bend and quite dangerous at best of times. Increased traffic leaving our cul de sac at night increases public risk and noise.	Applicant has confirmed hours of operation will be between 9am and 5pm, there will be no impacts during night periods. Operating outside the approved hours can be the subject of enforcement by Council. The home business will only have one staff, which will restrict the number of clients and frequency of traffic movements during operating hours. Due to the scale of the home business, there is likely to be no adverse traffic generation and the applicant has demonstrated that there is opportunity for more than the required off street car parking within the driveway, which will be available at all times for customers to ensure no on street car parking.
The intersection of Sunrise Pl and King Creek Rd is on a sweeping bend and quite dangerous. Vehicles parked in Sunrise Place often make entering the cul de sac dangerous as they create a blind spot to vehicles leaving the cul de sac. Vehicles leaving the cul de sac need to drive on the wrong side of the road around parked vehicles and a head on accident could occur as a result.	The Applicant has demonstrated sufficient off street car parking is available within the site and proposes directional signage to indicated off street customer car parking is available. Standard condition requiring off street car parking and customer parking signage is considered adequate to ensure no additional impact to the street amenity and existing traffic movement issues.
The developer has constructed a very aesthetically pleasing stone wall greeting residents and visitors to our cul de sac. This wall belongs to everyone in our cul de sac not the owners of number 4. Consequently, any signage placed on or near the street will detract from our scenic quality and breach the objectives of R5 zoning. And, because it's a cul de sac, there is no other entry point that other residents can use to enter the street in order to avoid an unsightly sign.	The mentioned sign has been removed and was not present at the time of the site inspection. The Applicant agreed to locate a business identification sign with parking directions adjacent to the existing driveway against the existing masonry retaining wall. The size of the proposed sign will be consistent with what is considered exempt development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. The subject stone wall and entrance signage will not be obstructed.
This business should not be allowed to operate, as it will set a precedent. The street only has 9 residences and if each one wished to operate a home business, we may as well be zoned retail / commercial. There are many opportunities to operate a hair salon in Wauchope town centre with a large number of vacant retail sites.	Home Businesses are permitted with consent within R5 large lot residential zoned land and are compatible with the residential use of the land and the neighbourhood.
We have major concerns about the ability of the sites septic system to handle the additional effluent/chemicals from a hair salon. The existing septic system was designed to handle effluent from a 5-bedroom house. Already the residents have increased the number of rooms by building a separate 3 bedroom "flat" (without consent) which is fully occupied. The same system is being expected to also manage waste from a business.	The onsite waste management system has the capacity handle the Home Business requirements. The Applicant has statement that the chemical waste will be similar to standard domestic usage and they are conscious of the impact chemicals may have on the operation cycles of the septic system and want to avoid overloading and the system failing. The regular maintenance program of the septic system should be sufficient to ensure it is working efficiently. Note: During the onsite inspection, the Applicant explained the ancillary shed was part used as a temporary residence during construction of the primary dwelling. The area continued to be used from time to time for family to stay. The bedrooms have now been removed to make more available workshop space and storage. The kitchen and bathroom are still connected to services, as it is convenient when working in the shed. The area was not furnished or appeared to be occupied. The Applicant was undecided of the future of the space and was going to seek further private advice over potentially submitting a future Development Application to formalise the use of the space. This space or ancillary use is not part of the current assessment.

(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: Cost of works are not greater than $100,000 and due to the small floor area S64 water headworks charges are under the $2,000.00 cap and considered exempt.

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 - 694.1 Recommended Conditions

2 View. DA2019 - 694.1 Plans

3 View. DA2019 - 694.1 SOEE

date of meeting:		Wednesday 22 January 2020
location:		Function Room
time:		2:00pm

Member	25/09/19	09/10/19	23/10/19	13/11/19	27/11/19	11/12/19
Paul Drake	P	P	P	Cancelled	P	P
Robert Hussey		P
David Crofts (alternate member)	P		P		P	P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) (alternates) - Development Assessment Planner	P	A P	P		P	P

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Noise issues, paling fence has no noise cancelling construction, refrigeration unit left going and noise and vibration disturbing whilst unloading.	Noted. A condition of consent is proposed recommending: -Compliance with the acoustic report -Turning off refrigeration units prior to entering the site -The installation of an acoustic lined panelling to the existing fence or a solid masonry fence for the full length of the southern boundary - Use of quacker reversing beepers on trucks - Limitation to 2 deliveries to the site per night - Lining of the delivery dock With the above mitigation measures in place, impacts are considered to be acceptable and not of a significance that would justify refusal of the application.
History of non-compliance with delivery hours and noise limitations.	It is acknowledged that there is some history of non- compliances and that the proposed conditions will establish clear controls.
Current deliveries are disturbing to neighbours- even within approved times.	It is considered that the recommended conditions will minimise the impacts to the residents within the caravan park.

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.