Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 06/05/2020

Item: 06

Subject: DA2019 - 883.1 Dwelling at Lot 14 DP 28743, No. 24 Coral Street, North Haven

Report Author: Building Surveyor, Ross Frazier

Applicant: J M & M A Rose

Owner: J M & M A Rose

Estimated Cost: $559,000

Parcel no: 5143

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2019 - 883.1 for a dwelling at Lot 14, DP 28743, No. 24 Coral Street, North Haven be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for the construction of a new 2 storey dwelling with attached garage at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application one (1) submission was received.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to the attached included in Attachment 1.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 682.9m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Construction of new 2 storey dwelling and attached garage

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

Application Chronology

· 2 December 2019 - Application lodged.

· 13 December 2019 Application placed on notification.

· 5 January 2020 - Additional information required (ecological report; Shadow diagrams)

· 31 January 2020 - Site inspection - 31/1/2020

· 9 March 2020 -Amended plans received to address concerns in submissions.

· 17 March 2020 - Amended plans re-notified.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. There are a number of trees indicated on the plans to be removed. An ecological report and impact statement has been completed to address the effect of removal of these trees. The report was reviewed by council’s Natural resource team and found to be satisfactory in its content. It was recommended that the trees be approved for removal with no provision for compensatory planting required due to the inability to provide suitable areas.

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 environment area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is 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.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 45 – Development in proximity to electricity infrastructure – the development appears clear of infrastructure. Overhead power lines are located on the opposite street frontage.

Clause 101 refers to development with frontage to a classified road. In this case, the clause does not apply

The development does not trigger any of the traffic generating development thresholds. Referral to the RTA is not required.

Based on the above, the proposed development addresses relevant clauses in the SEPP and will not to create any significant adverse conflict in terms of traffic or noise.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

Except as indicated in Cl 4.3, the proposal is consistent with the LEP. A variation application under Cl 4.6 has been sought.

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

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

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

· Clause 2.7 - No demolition proposed.

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

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 57.8 %, which complies with the maximum 65 % floor space ratio applying to the site.

· Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards. Nil proposed.

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

· Clause 7.1 - The site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils. The proposed development includes the construction of a new dwelling which may require excavation extending more than 1m below the natural surface level is proposed. Works to be undertaken in accordance with Councils policy for minor works.

· Clause 7.3 - The site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus the applicable climate change allowance and relevant freeboard). The flood planning level for the site is 3.83m AHD. The proposed first floor level of 5.7m AHD therefore provides sufficient flood immunity, noting that the ground floor is limited to a laundry, which is permitted under the Flood Policy. The following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.3, Council’s Flood Policy 2015, the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Lands Policy and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

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

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

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

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

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

· Clause 7.13 - Satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development.

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
3.2.2.1	Ancillary development: • 4.8m max. height • Single storey • 60m2 max. area • 100m2 for lots >900m2 • 24 degree max. roof pitch • Not located in front setback	Water tank is appropriately located.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	No elements within the articulation zone. The dwelling is setback 4.5m from the front boundary to the stairs servicing the dwelling	N/A
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 4.5m local road	4.5m setback proposed	Yes
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	8m setback proposed 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	12.24m setback proposed	Yes
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	The minimum side setback requirements are not complied with. Proposed setback 1.2m each side. Includes upper level setback at same distance. Shadow diagrams provided to demonstrate overshadowing is not adverse. Wall length - 17.83m. No articulation. Use of materials / textures in upper and lower levels creates variation and separation and is seen to meet the objectives of the clause.	DCP Variation
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	The dwelling contains 35m² open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.	Yes
3.2.2.7	Front fences: • If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping • 3x3m min. splay for corner sites • Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings • 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances	No fences proposed	N/A
3.2.2.8	Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	N/A
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No privacy screens are recommended. The development will not compromise privacy in the area due to windows on side boundaries being high sill windows that face side boundaries. Main living areas that face front and rear areas and open space. Rear deck provided with 1m high wall with 700mm louvres above. This provides screening to 1.7m on side elevations of rear deck. Setback of deck to rear boundary indicated at 13.44m.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline	No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	None proposed	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	No retaining wall likely >1m	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	No hollow bearing tree proposed to be removed	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)	Trees are proposed to be removed. Ecological report prepared and submitted. Natural resource team have assessed and provided approval for removal.
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Acid sulphate soil class 3 indicated on site. No engineer designs provided. Unsure of need for deep excavation. Condition to be placed on DA to comply council ASS policy for minor works	Yes
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

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provisions relating to:

· Clause 3.2.2.5 (b) - Setback of first floors from side boundaries to be a minimum of 3m unless it can be demonstrated that adjoining properties are not adversely affected by overshadowing.

· Clause 3.2.2.5 (c) - Walls are to step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm

The relevant objectives are:

· To reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy.

· To provide for visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

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

· Proposed construction and located 1200mm from side boundaries. Shadow diagrams provided indicate that the shadow effect is not dissimilar to the shadow provided by existing trees.

· No windows are located in affected wall of the adjacent property. Privacy will be maintained.

· Use of materials / textures in upper and lower levels creates variation and separation and is seen to meet the objectives of the clause.

· Insulation is required within the external wall to meet BASIX requirements. This insulation will assist with noise attenuation.

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

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

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

New South Wales Coastal Policy

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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 92

No demolition proposed.

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

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

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

Due to the height and extent of existing trees within the immediate locality the provision of natural sunlight to the affected properties is limited. The proposal is not considered to significantly worsen the ability for the adjoining property to receive 3 hours of sunlight to private open space areas between 9am and midday on 21 June. It is acknowledged that overshadowing will be increased between midday and 3pm. It is additionally noted that the adjoining property does not have any primary living room windows on the northern elevation of the building.

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.

Management of acid sulphate soils will need to be implemented as Class 3 soils are indicated as being present. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure the excavation complies with Council Acid Sulphate Soil Minor Works Policy

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 proposed development will require removal of 2 small groves of broad leaf paperbark melaleuca. Additionally, a tree located on the road reserve may be impacted by the proposed driveway. An ecological report has been prepared and submitted with the application. Council natural resource team have evaluated the report and confirmed that the requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Act have been satisfied and the impacts are acceptable.

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared as a self-assessment.

An assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 12.5 shall be required. Any external timber used in decks, stairs, landings and the like will be required to comply with Appendix 3 of Planning for Bushfire Protection.

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

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse economic impacts on the locality. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment in the construction industry, which will lead to flow impacts such as expenditure in the area.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

One (1) written submissions was received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The bulk, scale and size of the dwelling, which is considerably larger and not in keeping with existing residential development	Excepting for Cl 3.2.2.5 - Side setbacks, the proposed development meets the criteria of PMHC DCP 2013. Shadow diagrams have been prepared to assess overshadowing and have satisfactorily demonstrated that impacts are not significantly worsened. Side setbacks to ground floor has been increased to 1200mm.
The removal of all 40 trees on the site and the impact it will have on the local environment;	The lot is an existing infill lot. An ecological assessment has been prepared and reviewed by council natural resource team. Although unfortunate, the removal is acceptable.
The impact of the proposed development and associated tree removal on the large paperbark trees within our backyard;	The construction zone will be approx.13m from the rear boundary. The ecological report did consider the trees on adjoining lots and found no concerns.
Privacy concerns relating to the design of the dwelling overlooking private open space within our backyard.	The proposed dwelling will be located approx. 13m from the rear boundary. This distance exceeds Council DCP requirement of 4m for rear building setback and 12m radius between primary living areas. It is considered that there will be no adverse privacy impacts.

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

The bulk, scale and size of the dwelling, which is considerably larger and not in keeping with existing residential development

Excepting for Cl 3.2.2.5 - Side setbacks, the proposed development meets the criteria of PMHC DCP 2013. Shadow diagrams have been prepared to assess overshadowing and have satisfactorily demonstrated that impacts are not significantly worsened. Side setbacks to ground floor has been increased to 1200mm.

The removal of all 40 trees on the site and the impact it will have on the local environment;

The lot is an existing infill lot. An ecological assessment has been prepared and reviewed by council natural resource team. Although unfortunate, the removal is acceptable.

The impact of the proposed development and associated tree removal on the large paperbark trees within our backyard;

The construction zone will be approx.13m from the rear boundary. The ecological report did consider the trees on adjoining lots and found no concerns.

Privacy concerns relating to the design of the dwelling overlooking private open space within our backyard.

The proposed dwelling will be located approx. 13m from the rear boundary. This distance exceeds Council DCP requirement of 4m for rear building setback and 12m radius between primary living areas. It is considered that there will be no adverse privacy impacts.

(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 reason: Single dwelling located on existing approved lot.

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 to be 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. Attachment 1

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2019 - 883.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2019 - 883.1 Plans

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 06/05/2020

Item: 07

Subject: DA2020 - 122.1 Alterations and Additions to Dwelling at Lot 20 DP 262273, No 11 Timber Ridge Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Robert Slater

Applicant: A Wilcox

Owner: A Wilcox

Estimated Cost: $950K

Parcel no: 24056

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2020 - 122 for dwelling additions and alterations at Lot 20, DP 262273, No. 11 Timber Ridge, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a dwelling additions and alterations 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 conditions included in Attachment 1.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 2633m².

The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Alterations and additions to existing dwelling

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

Application Chronology

· 24 February 2020 - Application lodged

· 4 March 20202 - Application notified

· 25 March 2020 Window boundary offset plan details provided

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 not located within a coastal use area / coastal environment area.

The site has part mapped littoral rainforest and proximity mapping applying to the property.

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 littoral rainforest. The proposed residential development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

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

(b) 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 existing and 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.

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

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2 - The subject site is zoned E4 Environmental Living.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the E4 zone landuse table - The alterations and additions to the dwelling is a permissible landuse with consent, being development ancillary to a dwelling.

· The objectives of the E4 zone are as follows:

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

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

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is a permissible landuse and consistent with the established residential locality. The proposal will not result in any identifiable adverse ecological, scientific or aesthetic impacts.

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.7m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 does not apply to the site.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

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	The proposed water tanks and swimming pool are appropriately located		Yes
3.2.2.2		Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	No elements within the articulation zone.		N/A
		Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 4.5m local road	Front building line setback is compliant with the minimum 4.5m front setback requirements. Battle-axe block with long access handle.		Yes
3.2.2.3		Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Being on a battle-axe allotment, 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	No change to existing driveway.		Yes
3.2.2.4		4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	The rear setback requirements are complied with.		Yes
3.2.2.5		Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	The minimum side setback requirements are complied with. Western Elevation:4.988m Eastern Elevation: Approx. 9.5m 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	The development will not compromise privacy in the area due to a combination of living spaces having high sill windows that face side/rear boundaries, limiting living areas that face adjoining living areas/open space, compliant separation and use of boundary fencing and vegetative screens. See window schedule and window to boundary offset plan below this table*. 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		Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	N/A
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	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
2.5.3.3	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.
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified		No change to existing driveway.	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		No change to existing driveway.	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

*Window boundary offset plan detail:

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

New South Wales Coastal Policy

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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 92

None prescribed.

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

Context and Setting

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

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

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

Access, Traffic and Transport

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

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

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

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a BAL Certificate prepared by a Certified Consultant.

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

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.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

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

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

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

No. 10 Timber Ridge

Upper south facing windows W34, W35, W36, W37, and W38, will directly overlook the rear of our property.

The identified windows will look directly on to the swimming pool area and into our private courtyard, rear garden, bedrooms and main living and dining area

Window schedule provided below for information.

W34 (1418) is situated in a first floor wall which is setback 13.025m from the side boundary and is situated above a living room sink.

To address the potential for overlooking into the adjoining property’s private open space and living areas the applicant has submitted amended plans which show W34 being replaced with a (0918) highlight window having a minimum sill height above the floor level of 1500mm.

W35 (1418) and W36 (1418) are situated in a first floor wall having a setback 15.12m and 16.4m respectively from the side boundary. The windows are so positioned as to provide natural light via a non-trafficable void to the ground floor living areas

W37 (1418) and W38 (1418) are situated in a first floor wall which is setback 18.257m and 19.676m respectively from the side boundary. The windows provide natural light to the corridor which provides a path of travel to a bedroom

W39 (1209) and W40 (1418) are situated in a first floor wall which is setback 20.630m and 22.146m respectively from the side boundary and situated in a bedroom.

	W41 (1409) is situated in a first floor wall which is setback 24.156m from the side boundary and located in the wake-in-robe. Based on the above assessment of the window to boundary offset the DCP objective to protect the visual privacy of on-site and nearby residents the applicant has adequately addressed the objective.
The proposed development will negatively impact our privacy and is an invasion of it.	It is conceded that the protection of complete privacy in this situation is made the more difficult as the development site being a battle axe block with a long access handle sharing a common boundary with seven (7) other adjoining properties. Therefore, greater emphasis is placed on maintaining privacy between and in living areas and private open space than for bedrooms. The hours of occupancy and the ability of the occupant to exercise some control of the extent of overlooking when indoors, through their choice of such window screening as curtains or blinds offset the priority for privacy. In combination with the proposed treatment to W34(0918) and compliant separation distances to the adjoining southern boundary, it is considered that the applicant has successfully addressed the issue/s of direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces of property adjoining the southern boundary
Timber Ridge is a prestigious road with large individual homes built on large lots to maximise privacy.	This issue is not a matter for consideration under section 4.15. The issue of privacy has been addressed previously. The proposal is permissible with consent in the zone and has satisfactorily responded to relevant planning controls.
The proposed development will negatively affect the value of our property due to a lack of privacy.	Property values are not a matter for consideration under section 4.15. The proposal is permissible with consent in the zone and has satisfactorily responded to relevant planning controls.
The proposed development will negatively impact the quiet peace privacy and enjoyment we currently have by overlooking and removing the privacy.	The proposal is permissible with consent and complies with Council’s planning controls. There are considered to be insufficient grounds to refuse the application.
No. 12 Timber Ridge Whilst the designer has limited the size of the windows overlooking our pool area there does not seem to be a privacy screen of the western side of the balcony on the northern side of the bedroom.	The first floor balcony has a compliant boundary setback of 8.530m and is off the main bedroom. In accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 No 203 - 4.15 Evaluation Clause (3A) Development Control Plans (a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development. A privacy screen to the western end of the first floor balcony is not recommended.
The bedroom area adjacent to the pool area that consideration be given to creating additional sound proofing in this area. The privacy screen may need to have acoustic qualities.	No privacy screens are recommended as the separation distance from the bedroom window to the boundary is compliant with the DCP.

WINDOW SCHEDULE& 1^st floor Balcony
No:	Room	Orientation	Dimensions	Distance Off Boundary
W41	WIR	South	1409	24.156m
W40	Bed 1	South	1418	22.146m
W39	Bed 1	South	1209	20.630m
W38	Void	South	1418	19.676m
W37	Void	South	1418	18.257m
W36	Void	South	1418	16.440m
W35	Void	South	1418	15.120m
W34	Lounge	South	0918	13.025m
W47	Ensuite	West	0915	13.981m
W46	Void	West	1818	14.809m
W45	Shower	West	0918	5.071m
W44	WC	West	0912	5.044m
W43	Living	West	0621	14.743m - Ground Floor
W42	Living	West	0621	14.699m - Ground Floor
Balcony	bedroom	West	16.1m²	8.530m
Balcony	living	East	19.5m²	10.0m approx.

(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 are not applicable for this development under S64Policy /S7.11 Plans.

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development and the proposal adequately addresses relevant planning controls. The development is not considered to be contrary to the public's interest and will not result a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report (Attachment 1).

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2020 - 122.1 Recommended Conditions.

2 ⇩. DA2020 - 122.1 Plans.

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 06/05/2020

Item: 08

Subject: DA2020 - 63.1 Dwelling at Lot 2 DP 1143498, No. 4A Hibiscus Cresent, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: A N Webb & R Topschij C/- Collins W Collins

Owner: A N Webb & R Topschij

Estimated Cost: $537,425.00

Parcel no: 59044

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2020 - 63.1 for a dwelling at Lot 2, DP 1143498, No. 4A Hibiscus Crescent, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

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

Following the notification period, amended plans were received in consideration of the submissions.

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 451m²

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:

· Single dwelling

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

Application Chronology

· 04 February 2020 - Application lodged

· 17 February to 02 March 2020 - Public notification period. 2 submissions received

· 03 March 2020 - Additional information requested

· 20 March 2020 - Revised plans submitted

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019

Clause 15 - A Development Application made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Policy in relation to land to which this Policy applies must be determined as if this Policy had not commenced. The application was made and not finally determined prior to the commencement of this policy, and the application is therefore required to be assessed under the relevant provisions of State Environmental Policy No 44 - Koala Habitat Protection. See assessment comments below.

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 not located within a coastal use area/coastal environment area.

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

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

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.65m, which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5 m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.55:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
3.2.2.1	Ancillary development: • 4.8m max. height • Single storey • 60m2 max. area • 100m2 for lots >900m2 • 24 degree max. roof pitch • Not located in front setback	Water tank is appropriately located	Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	The dwelling contains a deck within the articulation zone. The deck does not exceed 25% of the articulation zone and is still setback over 3m.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 4.5m local road	Front building setback is 4.526m	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 setback 4.526m, which encroaches the minimum front setback requirements and is not recessed. See justification below*.	No*
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door, 5m wide, is compliant with the maximum width requirements However, it is 60% of the width of the building. Due to site constraints of the block being only 11.5m wide, garage opening being no greater than a standard double garage, and consist with the neighbouring property to the north, this variation is acceptable in this instance. There are no identifiable adverse impacts	Acceptable
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Driveway crossover is 43%, but no larger than a standard double garage driveway crossover, provides stacked offstreet car parking in front of the garage doors, this variation is considered acceptable and consistent with the objectives of this clause.	Acceptable
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Rear setback 8.517m.	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	Ground Floor: N: 3.15m S: 1.8m First Floor N: 2.34m S: 1.7m 12m max. unarticulated wall length N:12.2 S:23.79 Adequate justification, demonstrating that consideration has been provided to meet the objectives of this clause. See justification below.	No, but acceptable- no adverse impacts identifiable
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 to the main balcony, with dimensions of 3m x 8.2m space. There will be access to the rear yard which contains an additional area greater than 35m² with a 4m x 4m area, however, due to the slope it is impracticable to achieve a level area within the yard. The area on the balcony achieves the objectives of this clause.	Yes
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	The proposed dwelling has no primary living area directly adjoining or overlooking neighbouring primary living areas. The proposed Bed 3/Study south facing windows is will be approximately 7.2m from an adjoining secondary living area, being the first level bedroom and balcony. The amended plans have provided privacy screening between the proposed study and the adjoining first level balconies. The development will not compromise privacy in the area and adjoining private open space or living areas due to a combination of positioning of windows not overlooking side boundaries, having high sill windows or highlight windows that face side boundaries, limiting living areas that face adjoining living areas/open space and use of privacy screening over adjoining windows.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline	No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	Maximum of 1m	Yes
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	Condition recommended to require engineering certification	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	Cleared building envelope. No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)	No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	No new access proposed to arterial or distribution road.	N/A
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Driveway crossing 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.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to 3.2.2.3 Garage door setback.

The relevant objectives are:

· To minimise the impact of garages and driveways on the streetscape, on street parking and amenity.

· To minimise the visual dominance of garages in the streetscape.

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

· Due to the narrow width and the slope of the site the location of the garage is considered to be acceptable.

· The proposed garage is positioned in line with the front building line. The positioning and width of the garage and driveway are standard dimensions for a double garage and driveway.

· Whilst the proposed garage and driveway are inconsistent with the DCP provisions, the proposal is consistent with the neighbouring property to the north.

· The proposed design minimises the visual dominance of the garage to the street frontage through the integration of materials and finishes on the façade, along with feature window treatment.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to 3.2.2.5 Side setback variations.

The relevant objectives are:

· To reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy.

· To provide for visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

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

· The proposal provides a minimum setback of 2.34m from the proposed upper floor to the northern boundary, increasing to 3.154m.

· The proposed setback to the southern boundary is 1.7m minimum, increasing to 1.8m.

· The subject area of dwelling encroaching the northern side setback is adjacent the neighbouring property’s garage and will have minimal visual impacts to the neighbouring property. The subject wall contains no windows and as such, will have no impacts on residential privacy.

· The neighbouring property to the south has their driveway positioned adjacent the common boundary line with the dwelling positioned towards the rear south-eastern corner.

· The proposed setback to the southern boundary will have minimal impact on the neighbouring property as the subject wall, for the majority, will be along the battle-axe driveway.

· There is a multi-dwelling development on the southern side of the development. It is noted these dwellings have a second storey balcony and floor to ceiling windows directly overlooking the battle-axe driveway and the subject development site.

· Shadow diagrams demonstrate that no adverse overshadow will occur of any private open space or main living areas of any adjoining dwelling.

· The proposed southern wall has an unarticulated length of 23.79m. Visually, the southern elevation has varying heights, integrates varying materials which will soften the bulk and scale.

· The existing boundary fence will provide an element of screening and no proposed living areas will open to or overlook the southern boundary.

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

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 92

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

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

Access, Traffic and Transport

Water Supply Connection

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Sewer Connection

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Condition included regards proximity to exist sewer line, engineering details noted on plans.

Stormwater

Service available at the rear of the property – 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

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a BAL certificate prepared by a Certified Consultant.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

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 size and bulk of the proposed study above the garage, given its location and height.	The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.65 m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5 m applying to the site. Sheet 5 of the plan set demonstrates the height compliance.
Providing the southern adjoining property is a narrow battle-axe, no consideration has been provided to the adjoining Multi Dwelling Units on the other side of the battle-axe handle with regards to overshadowing.	Sheet 13 and 14 of the revised plans demonstrates the proposed overshadowing indicating the building outline of the adjoining multi dwelling housing. The shadow diagrams do not indicate the existing 1.8m high fence line, which appears would have an overshadowing impact. From review of the overshadowing diagrams, there are no identifiable adverse impacts caused by the proposed development shadow path.
There are a number of windows on the Southern Elevation directly overlooking into bedrooms. Which will be intrusive and significantly raise lifestyle and amenity issues.	The Applicant has provided revised plans reducing the amount of windows on the upper floor above garage and provided directional privacy screening panels to avoid viewing towards the townhouses and the overlooking balconies and floor to ceiling windows. It is also noted that the adjoining neighbouring balcony and windows are secondary living areas and the rooms that face towards the proposal are bedrooms not main living areas. The revised plans also indicate the existing fence line elevation which demonstrates the current fence line will provide some privacy screening. This eliminates the need for screening of the bed 2 as requested. A reduction in size and providing fixed directional screening will provide adequate privacy.
The bulk and scale of the development.	Adequate justification has been discussed earlier in this report. In regards to the articulation of the southern side for the house, consideration should be given to the restrictive nature of this block being only 11.5m wide and having significant fall from front to back. The revised plans indicate that the majority of the subject wall will be screened by the existing fence and varying heights will soften the impact. No adverse impacts are identifiable.

(e) The Public Interest

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

· Development contributions will not be required under S64/S7.11 for the following reasons: The subject lot was a Council approved lot. The proposal will not create more than one single dwelling.

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 ⇩. DA2020 - 63.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2020 - 63.1 Plans

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 06/05/2020

Item: 09

Subject: DA2019 - 277.1 Cafe and Associated Car Parking at Lot 5 DP 524972, Parklands Close, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Chris Gardiner

Applicant: Land Dynamics Australia

Owner: J W Crowe

Estimated Cost: $120,000

Parcel no: 20183

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Koala Plan of Management prepared by Biodiversity Australia (Rev 1.2, dated January 2020) be approved.

2. That DA2019 - 277.1 for a Café and Associated Car Parking at Lot 5, DP 524972, Parklands Close, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a café and associated car parking 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 on two separate occasions, 40 submissions were received.

The site is core koala habitat and the application includes a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM). The report recommends that the KPoM be approved and that appropriate conditions be imposed to ensure consistency with the Plan.

The proposal has been amended during the assessment of the application in response to assessment and submission issues.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 1.683 hectares.

The site is zoned RE2 Private Recreation, R1 General Residential, and E2 Environmental Conservation 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:

· Convert existing castle building from former Fantasy Glades amusement park into a café, including outdoor dining; and

· Construction of a new access road connecting to the end of Wandella Drive and off-street car parking.

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

Application Chronology

· 16 April 2019 - Application lodged.

· 30 April 2019 to 13 May 2019 - Neighbour notification.

· 13 June 2019 - Response to submissions received from Applicant.

· 1 July 2019 - Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 9 October 2019 - Additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 31 October 2019 to 13 November 2019 - Amended proposal re-notified.

· 3 December 2019 - Amendments to ecological assessment and Draft Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) requested.

· 10 December 2019 - Amended Koala Plan of Management and ecological assessment submitted.

· 17 December 2019 - Koala Plan of Management forwarded to NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment for approval in accordance with SEPP 44.

· 30 January 2020 - Amended Koala Plan of Management submitted in response to queries from NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment.

· 1 April 2020 - Correspondence received from NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment confirming approval of Koala Plan of Management.

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 (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019

Clause 15 - A development application made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Policy in relation to land to which this Policy applies must be determined as if this Policy had not commenced. The application was made and not finally determined prior to the commencement of this policy, and the application is therefore required to be assessed under the relevant provisions of State Environmental Policy No 44 - Koala Habitat Protection. See assessment comments below.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

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

The Applicant has submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by Biodiversity Australia and dated March 2019. The assessment includes consideration of SEPP 44.

The vegetation on the site consists of greater than 15% Schedule 2 Koala food trees and therefore meets the definition of ‘potential koala habitat’.

The ecologist carried out further investigations to determine whether the site is ‘core koala habitat’, including:

· Koala Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) surveys;

· Passive Infrared Camera sampling;

· Spotlighting and torch surveys;

· Call Playback and detection; and

· Active Searches.

The investigations identified scats under two of the Tallowwood trees and a passive infrared camera recorded a Koala passing through the site. The caretaker at the site has also observed Koala activity on the site. The report concludes that due to the extent of recent Koala sightings and the availability of KFTs within the property, it is considered that the site forms part of a larger area of Core Koala Habitat. The figure below shows the extent of the Core Koala Habitat within the subject site:

In accordance with Clause 9 of the SEPP, a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) prepared by Biodiversity Australia has been submitted with the Application. The KPoM is included at Attachment 4 and includes the following recommended ameliorative measures:

· General clearing measures including tree identification and tree protection fencing;

· Pre-clearing survey and clearing supervision;

· Retention of all primary/preferred Koala food trees, with only ‘other browse species’ (Flooded Gum and Broad-leaf Paperbark) proposed to be removed for the development;

· Habitat replacement at a ratio of 1:1 primary/preferred Koala food tree for each ‘other browse species’ proposed to be removed;

· Prohibition of domestic pets, with signage to inform café patrons not to bring pets onto the property;

· Management of food waste disposal to discourage feral animals from entering the site;

· Road signage and speed controls for the proposed new internal road and parking area;

· Control of artificial lighting;

· Processes for reporting sick or injured Koalas; and

· Removal of barbed wire fencing.

In accordance with Clause 13(2) of the SEPP, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment has approved the KPoM in a letter dated 1 April 2020. The KPoM has also been reviewed by Council’s Natural Resources staff and is considered satisfactory. Accordingly, it is recommended that the KPoM be approved by Council’s Development Assessment Panel.

Conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the approved KPoM.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposed development does not include any advertising or signage. Standard condition recommended requiring separate consent for any future signage that is not Exempt Development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is located within a coastal use area, and partly within a coastal environment area. The part of the site within the coastal environment area is limited to the access handle from Parklands Close, and the proposed development does not include any works in this location.

Parts of the site are also mapped as coastal wetland, and proximity area to both coastal wetland and littoral rainforest (as shown below). The works associated with the development are clear of the coastal wetland and its proximity area, but the proposed café car park will be partly within the proximity area for littoral rainforest.

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

Having regard to clause 11 of the SEPP, the proposed development is not likely to significantly impact the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or affect the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest. The mapped littoral rainforest is located on the eastern side of Pacific Drive and separated from the site by the road corridor and a row of residential uses fronting Pacific Drive. Stormwater from the site drains generally to the west (away from the littoral rainforest) and adequate measures are proposed to manage stormwater quality and quantity from the development.

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 impacts 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; and

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

The bulk, scale and size of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment.

In accordance with Clause 15, the proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the land or 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 RE2 Private Recreation, R1 General Residential, and E2 Environmental Conservation. The main aspects of the development including buildings, parking areas and internal access roads are located within the RE2 zone. However, the proposal relies on an access road through the E2 zone in the Wandella Drive road reserve.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the RE2 zone landuse table - The proposed development for a cafe is permitted with consent.

Development for the purpose of roads is permissible in the E2 zone land use table. Relevant case law in Site Plus Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2014] NSWLEC 125 confirms that public roads are able to be characterised as roads, while private access roads should be characterised as being part of the associated land use. The proposed road works in Wandella Drive are therefore considered to be permissible in the E2 zone.

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.

The objectives of the RE2 zone are as follows:

o To enable land to be used for private open space or recreational purposes.

o To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

o To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

The objectives of the E2 zone are as follows:

o To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

o To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

o To protect coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests.

o To protect land affected by coastal processes and environmentally sensitive land.

o To prevent development that adversely affects, or would be adversely affected by, coastal processes.

o To enable development of public works and environmental facilities where such development would not have an overall detrimental impact on ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

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

o The development does not include any works in the R1 General Residential zone and is therefore not inconsistent with the zone objectives for this part of the site.

o The proposed café and carpark have a small footprint in the context of the overall site area and would not significantly affect the potential for the land to be used for a range of recreational uses in the future.

o The ecological assessment has demonstrated that the impact of the development on the natural environment is satisfactory.

o The proposed public works at the western end of Wandella Drive have been designed to minimise impact on existing vegetation and the Wrights Creek riparian zone.

o The proposal does not impact areas of mapped coastal wetland.

· Clause 4.3 - The proposal would not result in any increase in the overall height of the building above ground level (existing).

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

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

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

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

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

o The proposal is not likely to 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 to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Business & Commercial Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.4.3.18	At grade car parking incorporate water sensitive urban design principles to drain pavement areas.	Concept design provided in stormwater management plan.	Yes
3.4.3.22	Any ramps are to be integrated into the overall building and landscape design.	No ramps proposed.	N/A
3.4.3.22	The development complies with AS1428—Design for Access and Mobility.	The application includes a BCA assessment, which indicates that the current building does not comply with the Australian Standard. The report provides a number of recommendations for works required to bring the building into compliance. Details will be required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.	Yes
3.4.3.25	Separate storage bins for collection for organic waste and recyclable waste are provided in the development.	Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that waste will be stored in the storage area at the rear of the building and collected from the loading area by a private waste contractor. A condition is recommended requiring the waste to be collected in the three different waste streams. The Koala Plan of Management requires bins containing food waste to be sealed and locked to prevent access by feral animals.	Yes
3.4.3.26	Where waste facilities cannot be collected at the street, evidence that the site can be serviced by a waste collection service must be provided.	Condition recommended confirming requirement for private waste collection service.	Yes
3.4.3.27	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.	One crossover to Wandella Drive.	Yes
3.4.3.27	At-grade / surface car parking areas adjacent to streets shall be generally avoided or at least adequately softened by appropriate landscaping.	Majority of off-street parking located behind the building, with the exception of 2 spaces. These 2 spaces are setback 25m from the front boundary and adequately screened by existing landscaping.	Yes
3.4.3.30	Pedestrian Entries & Access: The development complies with AS1428—Design for Access and Mobility.	Capable of complying. The application includes a BCA assessment, which indicates that the current building does not comply with the Australian Standard. The report provides a number of recommendations for works required to bring the building into compliance. Details will be required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.	Yes
3.4.3.32	Parking areas are adequately illuminated (naturally and/or artificially) during the time period the centre is open.	The proposed hours of operation are 6.00am to 6.00pm, which will generally be in daylight hours. Some minor lighting of the parking area is expected during the winter months, but is unlikely to affect the amenity of adjoining residents given the short period.	Yes
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.	Loading dock proposed on eastern side of the building closest to residential properties.	No (see below)
	Where this cannot be achieved visual and acoustic treatment of the interface is required.	Submitted plans show ‘mass planted landscape beds’ between loading area and the eastern boundary. A condition is recommended requiring the plantings in this location to be of sufficient height to visually screen the loading area. An acoustic assessment has been submitted with the application, which concluded that the development can comply with relevant noise criteria without any additional mitigation measures.	Yes
	Waste areas are located and managed to minimise pests, noise and odour.	Screened waste storage area located adjacent to loading bay.	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. The increased activity and supervision of the area is likely to improve safety and reduce the potential for anti-social behaviour. Lighting will be required for internal access roads and parking areas for short periods during winter. The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the Applicant intends to install CCTV for the cafe building and car parking area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Maximum 0.9m cut along eastern side of parking area.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	No significant retaining proposed along the road frontage.	Yes
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	N/A	N/A
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	No front fence and retaining wall combination exceeding the maximum height proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.4	a) For coastal floodplain endangered ecological communities a minimum, fully vegetated buffer of 35m must be provided. b) For Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplain endangered ecological community a fully vegetated buffer of 100m is to be provided. c) For all other endangered ecological communities, a fully vegetated buffer of 50m must be provided. d) Stormwater management facilities may be considered within buffer areas only where the applicant can demonstrate the proposal is justified on the basis of practical engineering related site constraints and where it is adequately demonstrated that the applicable objectives are achieved. e) Fully vegetated buffers cannot contain road infrastructure or an asset protection zone. f) Where different buffers (including riparian buffers) apply to an area, the greater of the buffer widths applies.	The proposal would not satisfy the minimum EEC buffer. However, the development relates to an existing building and managed land that are already located within the buffer area. The proposal includes appropriate access control to the EEC and a regeneration area to improve the existing buffer.	No, but acceptable
2.3.3.5	a) Any habitat/vegetation which will be lost as a consequence of development is to be offset through the dedication of suitable land utilising expert ecological knowledge to determine the impact and offset based on the principle of ‘improve and maintain’. b) Improvement and maintenance of existing habitat and corridors and the consolidation of fragmented bushland are to be considered as the first preference for any development offset. c) A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is to be prepared for any environmental land that is to be retained or used to offset development impacts. d) VMPs are required to address Council’s VMP “Heads of Consideration”	Conceptual details of the offset planting have been provided in the application. A condition is recommended requiring approval of a detailed Vegetation Management Plan prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and prior to the removal of any of the existing vegetation on the site.	Yes
2.3.3.6	a) A minimum, fully vegetated buffer from the top of bank to both sides of a watercourse is to be provided in accordance with the following: • 10m for 1st order streams that flow intermittently. • 30m for 1st order streams that flow permanently. • 40m for 2nd order streams. • 50m for 3rd order streams. • 65m for 4th order streams. b) Stormwater management facilities may be considered within buffer areas only where the applicant can demonstrate the proposal is justified on the basis of practical engineering related site constraints and where it is adequately demonstrated that the applicable objectives are achieved. c) Fully vegetated buffers cannot contain road infrastructure or an asset protection zone.	The proposal is located adjacent to a 2^nd order stream and would maintain a vegetated buffer of approximately 45m.	Yes
2.3.3.7	For koala habitat refer to clause 7.5 of the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011.	See comments under SEPP 44. Clause 7.5 of the LEP does not apply to the land.	N/A
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	A hollow bearing tree (HBT) assessment has been included in the submitted ecology report. HBT #16 will be impacted by the proposed bio-retention basin and has been recommended for removal. The tree scores 8.5 in accordance with Council’s HBT protocol and removal is permitted where retention is impractical. Offsets with recruitment trees and nest boxes are required, and appropriate conditions have been recommended.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	The proposal includes clearing of 0.22 hectares of native vegetation, including six Flooded Gum and two Broad-leaf Paperbark, which are listed as other browse species in Table 2.6-1. The Applicant is proposing to offset the removal of these trees at a ratio of 1:1, as recommended in the Koala Plan of Management for the site. The offset plantings will be required to be primary koala food trees, and a Vegetation Management Plan will be required for the establishment and maintenance of these plantings.	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 from local road.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Single driveway from Wandella Drive. No significant loss of street parking.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. (Provision to consider reduced parking where supported by parking demand study)	The proposed cafe/restaurant will require a minimum of 1 space per 6m² of serviced floor area as the site is located outside a commercial zone. The building has an internal serviced floor area of 34.7m², and an additional outdoor dining area of approximately 66m² (total serviced floor area of 100.7m²). The total parking requirement for the development is therefore 16.8 (rounded to 17) spaces. The submitted plans include 24 off-street parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirement. One of the spaces is likely to be lost to create the shared zone for the accessible parking space in accordance with AS2890. However, a total of 23 parking spaces would still exceed the minimum parking requirements.	Yes
2.5.3.4	Parking credits to be calculated for redevelopment or change of use	n/a	n/a
2.5.3.7	Visitor parking to be easily accessible	n/a	n/a
	Parking layout in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 and AS/NZS 2890.2	See comments later in this report under Parking and Manoeuvring.
	Parking spaces generally located behind building line	Two parking spaces for proposed cafe located forward of the building line. See comments under 3.4.3.27 and 2.5.3.12 regarding landscaping of the parking area. The majority of the parking is located behind the building line.	Yes
2.5.3.8	Accessible parking provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1, AS/NZS 2890.2 and AS 1428	One accessible parking space proposed that is capable of complying with these standards. One of the spaces is likely to be lost to create the shared zone for the accessible parking space.	Yes
2.5.3.8	Additional accessible spaces where development would have high volume of aged or disabled traffic	n/a	n/a
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Landscaping proposed between Wandella Drive and the 2 parking spaces located forward of the building line.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Condition recommended requiring sealed surfaces for car park and internal access road.	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 allows for steeper grades)	Capable of complying.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying.	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Detailed to be provided as part of stormwater management plan prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval.	Yes
2.5.3.17	No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain
2.5.3.18	Car parking areas drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas
2.5.3.19	Off street commercial vehicles facilities are provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.2	Loading bay proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.20	The location and design of loading bays should integrate into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.	Location considered satisfactory.	Yes
	Where visible from the public domain, loading bays are located behind the building.	Loading bay not prominent from the public domain.
	Where loading bays are located close to a sensitive land use, adequate visual and acoustic screening is provided.	See comments earlier under 3.4.3.35.

(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

Consent authority may require buildings to be upgraded – Clause 94

The application includes a NCC/BCA Compliance and Fire Safety Upgrading Report prepared by David Pensini - Building Certification and Environmental Services and dated March 2019. The report has been reviewed by Council’s Building Surveyors and the recommendation for upgrades to the building are considered generally acceptable.

In addition to the recommendations in the report, the following additional upgrades are recommended:

· The upper floor level to be used for storage should be inspected and assessed by a structural engineer to determine a safe loading capacity and signage is to be placed within the area to that effect.

· Lighting within the stairwell is to be upgraded as required to ensure adequate illumination of the area.

Condition have been recommended requiring the relevant building and fire safety upgrades to be completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(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 southerly street frontage orientation to an unformed section of Wandella Drive and a northerly frontage to Parklands Close via an access handle approximately 6m wide.

Adjoining the site to the north is four residential dwellings, which share their rear boundary with the site.

Adjoining the site to the east is a mix of residential uses of varying height and density, generally sharing their rear boundary with the site.

Adjoining the site to the south and west is a public reserve along the Wrights Creek corridor. A public boardwalk runs along the southern boundary of the site and connects to Calwalla Crescent.

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

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

The proposal is not expected to have significant adverse lighting impacts given the proposed hours of operation. A condition is recommended requiring all exterior lighting to comply with AS4282 - Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

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

Privacy

The closest part of the proposed outdoor dining area is located approximately 4.5m from the rear boundary of No. 113 Pacific Drive. The dining area is located at a substantially lower level than the neighbouring property and the current boundary treatment is a retaining wall approximately 2m high with a solid fence on top. From a standing position in the outdoor dining area part of the upper floor windows and balcony of the rear units are visible above the top of the fence. The closest part of the outdoor dining area is separated by approximately 18m from the balcony of the nearest unit, and the Applicant has proposed additional landscaping between the dining area and the property boundary. Most customers are likely to be seated in the outdoor dining area, which would further improve the privacy screening provided by the boundary fence.

The combination of separation distance, boundary fencing and landscaping is considered to maintain adequate visual privacy.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Wandella Drive, which is a Council public road with a road formation width of approximately 11.5m in a 20m road reserve. Adjacent to the site the pavement is incomplete, and there is no kerb and gutter.

Traffic and Transport

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment from Alan Taylor & Associates on 12 April 2019. Findings of the study determined that the additional traffic generated by the development would have minimal impact on the intersections of Pacific Drive, with Parklands Close and Wandella Drive.

Site Frontage and Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though one access driveway to Wandella Drive. The access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been recommended to reflect these requirements.

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

· Kerb and gutter works on Wandella Drive, (including some pavement works);

· Concrete footpath paving (minimum 1.2m wide) connecting the existing footpath/boardwalk to Wandella Drive;

· Roundabout to the intersection of Wandella Drive and Karalee Parade;

· Threshold treatments.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 24 parking spaces (including 1 disabled space) have been proposed on-site. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been recommended to reflect these requirements. One of the spaces is likely to be lost for the shared zone of the accessible space in order to comply with AS 2890, but the number of spaces will still satisfy the minimum requirements of the DCP.

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 recommended to reflect these requirements.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing metered water service from the 100mm AC water main on the opposite side of the Parklands Close.

A hydraulic strategy and plans are required from a hydraulic consultant for the whole of the development on the site stage by stage. Water service sizing is then to be determined by the hydraulic consultant to suit the proposed commercial components of the development, as well as addressing fire service requirements to AS 2419 and backflow protection requirements.

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

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site discharges to sewer via an existing junction connection to the 225mm AC sewer main traversing the site. The site may discharge all sewage to this existing point of connection.

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

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the creek and is currently not serviced by stormwater infrastructure.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be discharged to Wrights Creek via a bio-retention basin. The submitted Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed by Council’s Senior Stormwater Engineer and is considered acceptable in principle.

Adjoining properties to the east have no formal drainage system and currently drain towards the subject site. To protect the development from stormwater impacts from upstream properties, it is recommended that a piped inter-allotment drainage system be constructed with a junction for each property adjoining the eastern boundary between Wandella Drive and the northern extent of the proposed parking area.

A detailed site stormwater management plan will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 application and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In accordance with Council’s AUSPEC requirements, the following must be incorporated into the stormwater drainage plan:

· On site stormwater detention facilities;

· Water quality controls;

· Provision of interallotment drainage to provide a junction for the SW drainage of existing lots located on the eastern side of the site.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. The site has previously been used as an amusement park and is considered to be disturbed land.

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 be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

The proposed development includes clearing of 0.22 hectares of native vegetation. The Biodiversity Offset Scheme doesn’t apply for the following reasons:

· The land proposed to be cleared isn’t identified on the Biodiversity Values Map (see extract below);

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

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

Minimum lot size of land (LEP Lot Size Map)	Area of Clearing
Less than 1 hectare	0.25 hectare or more
Less than 40 hectares but not less than 1 hectare	0.5 hectare or more
Less than 1,000 hectares but not less than 40 hectares	1 hectare or more
1,000 hectares or more	2 hectares or more

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

The ecological assessment makes the following recommendations to mitigate the biodiversity impacts of the development:

· Survey and identification of trees prior to removal.

· Retention of habitat features (hollow bearing trees and koala food trees) within asset protection zones.

· Pre-clearing surveys and supervision of clearing by an ecologist.

· Hollow bearing tree removal protocol.

· Replacement nest boxes (1 small glider/phascogale nest box, and 1 parrot nest box).

· Restrictions on domestic pets.

· Food waste disposal protocols to discourage wild dogs, foxes, and feral cats and reduce predation.

· Approval and implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan for offset plantings and the identified regeneration area.

· Restrictions on patron access to the retained residual habitat area through edge plantings and appropriate signage.

· Implementation of sedimentation and erosion control measures.

· Weed control.

· Road signage and speed controls.

· Exterior lighting to be designed not to direct light towards the retained vegetation.

· New landscaping to use native plant species.

Appropriate conditions have been recommended incorporating these requirements.

Waste

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that waste will be stored in a secure and screened area adjacent to the loading area and collected by a private waste contractor. A condition is recommended confirming the requirement for a private waste service and requiring the waste to be collected in the three different waste streams.

The Koala Plan of Management requires bins containing food waste to be sealed and locked to prevent access by feral animals, and a condition is also recommended confirming this requirement.

Standard precautionary site management condition also recommended for construction phase.

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the café is proposed to operate between the hours of 6.00am and 6.00pm, 7 days per week.

The application includes a Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Matrix Thornton and dated 10 July 2019. The assessment considers likely noise impacts of the development associated with patrons and music, vehicle access and parking (including deliveries and waste collection), and mechanical plant. The report notes that the proposed café would operate between 7.00am and 6.00pm, but acknowledges that staff would arrive in the hour prior to 7.00am and has considered the potential for sleep disturbance during this period.

The report concludes that:

“Noise is predicted to be below the noise trigger levels at all receivers during the daytime at the NPfI assessment point at ground level.

Considering the upper floor level of the nearest receiver, noise is predicted to be below the trigger level for the majority of the time. During the occasional delivery or waste collection events, a marginal 3 dBA exceedances of the trigger level is predicted. Given the infrequency of these events, and that the level is significantly below the amenity level for a daytime, no noise mitigation is considered necessary.

Noise from traffic generated by the development will comply with the traffic noise criteria.”

The noise report has been assessed as being acceptable and appropriate conditions are recommended.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by David Pensini Building Certification and Environmental Services and dated March 2019.

The proposal relates to a Class 6 building and the provisions under the Building Code of Australia for fire safety will be accepted for bushfire purposes where the aims and objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The relevant aims and objectives are as follows:

(i) afford occupants of any building adequate protection from exposure to a bush fire;

(ii) provide for a defendable space to be located around buildings;

(iii) provide appropriate separation between a hazard and buildings which, in combination with other measures, prevent direct flame contact and material ignition;

(iv) ensure that safe operational access and egress for emergency service personnel and residents is available;

(v) provide for ongoing management and maintenance of bush fire protection measures, including fuel loads in the asset protection zone (APZ); and

(vi) ensure that utility services are adequate to meet the needs of firefighters (and others assisting in bush firefighting).

The proposed development would substantially improve protection of the existing building and includes the following measures to meet the above objectives:

· A defendable space of minimum 10m around the building, which is to be managed as an Inner Protection Area (IPA);

· A new access road and parking area will be constructed between the building and the hazard;

· The new internal access road will be constructed to comply with Section 4.1.3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006;

· Water supply and utility services will be constructed to comply with Section 4.1.3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006;

· Site landscaping shall comply with Appendix 5 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006;

· The site has alternative access/egress to Parklands Close for emergency services personnel.

A condition is recommended requiring retaining walls within the IPA to be constructed of non-combustible materials, and the timber decking noted on the internal driveway to also be replaced with a non-combustible material.

The proposal also includes offset plantings on the eastern side of the proposed car park, which have the potential to increase bushfire risk to adjoining properties in Pacific Drive. A condition is recommended requiring certification from a bushfire consultant that the new plantings meet the specifications for an Inner Protection Area and will not increase bushfire risk to adjoining properties. Details of the offset plantings will be confirmed in the Vegetation Management Plan.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The increased activity and supervision of the area is likely to improve safety and reduce the potential for anti-social behaviour. Lighting will be required for internal access roads and parking areas for short periods during winter. The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the Applicant intends to install CCTV for the cafe building and car parking area.

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 anticipated. 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. Additionally, the business would create employment opportunities 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

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

Site constraints of bushfire risk, ecology, stormwater and access have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

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

Forty (40) written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application on two occasions. 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
Access is not permitted to Parklands Close via the Council reserve and the owner has been unlawfully using this access.	The development does not propose access in this location. Formalising access from Wandella Drive should discourage future use of other access points.
Frequency of garbage truck access and associated noise impacts have not been addressed in the application.	An amended noise assessment has been submitted, which appropriately considers the impacts of private garbage collection.
Building equipment access is not fully described.	It is not necessary for details of construction management to be submitted at the DA stage. Standard site management conditions have been recommended and the contractors will be responsible for implementing the conditions during the construction phase.
Past behaviour of the owner suggests that they would not comply with any conditions of consent.	This cannot be considered in the assessment of the application.
Adverse noise impacts from outdoor dining and vehicles using the parking area.	The Applicant’s acoustic consultant has demonstrated that noise generated by the car parking area and the outdoor dining area will be below the acceptable criteria determined in accordance with the EPA’s Noise Policy for Industry without any additional noise mitigation measures.
Operating hours are too long for the residential context. Nearby residents will be woken up at 6.00am, 7 days per week.	The amended noise assessment has confirmed that the proposed café will operate between 7.00am and 6.00pm, but acknowledges that staff will likely arrive between 6.00am and 7.00am to prepare for opening. The noise assessment has considered the sleep disturbance criteria for this period and determined that the predicted maximum noise level of 53dBA is below the level likely to cause awakening reactions (typically 60dBA). Conditions have been recommended confirming the opening hours of the business and also preventing any deliveries to the site or garbage collection prior to 7.00am.
Impacts of headlight glare from proposed car park.	The proposed café will largely operate during daylight hours and headlight are only expected to be used at some times of year for morning staff access, or customers leaving the site in the evening during winter. The proposed car park is excavated into the site and is at a substantially lower level than the windows of the adjoining residential buildings to the east. It is not expected that headlights would shine directly into windows, even during the infrequent periods that they are likely to be used.
A number of mating Koalas regularly use the site.	The site has been confirmed to be core koala habitat and a Koala Plan of Management has been submitted.
Safety impacts on the public using the boardwalk between Calwalla Crescent and Wandella Drive from the proposed access to the development.	The proposal has been amended to include realignment of the boardwalk/footpath to the southern side of Wandella Drive and clear of the driveway access to the development.
The first floor of the castle building is being occupied by the owner. Residential use is not permitted under the zoning.	The application does not include any residential use of the first floor of the building, and the Statement of Environmental Effect indicates that the space would be used for storage associated with the café. A condition has been recommended prohibiting the building from being used for habitable purposes.
Why does the café need a shower?	It is reasonable for a business to provide a shower for staff use, particularly where the business involves food preparation. The provision of shower facilities encourages employees to walk or cycle to work. As noted above, a condition has been recommended prohibiting the building from being used for habitable purposes.
A high Colorbond fence would be required along the rear boundary adjoining No. 112A Pacific Drive.	The car park is located at the rear of 112A Pacific Drive, and the current boundary treatment is a wire mesh security fence. The proposed carpark is setback between 7.5m and 10.5m from the rear boundary of the property and the finished level of the car park will be approximately 2m below ground level at the property boundary. The Applicant has proposed landscaping between the parking area and the property boundary including 2 of the replacement Tallowwood plantings. Having regard to the use of the area, separation distance, landscaping, and difference in levels, a solid boundary fence is not considered necessary to achieve satisfactory privacy.
The proposal paves the way for future development of the site.	Any future proposal for the land will need to be considered on its merits, and the determination of this application would not prejudice any future decisions.
The traffic impact assessment is outdated and doesn’t address the impacts of traffic on a quiet street of a café operating 12 hours per day, 7 days per week.	The traffic impact assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and considered to be adequate for assessment of the application.
Adverse impacts on traffic safety in Pacific Drive and the intersection with Wandella Drive from additional traffic associated with the proposed café.	The traffic impact assessment adequately addresses the impacts of the anticipated increase in traffic associated with the development on the intersection of Pacific Drive and Wandella Drive. The volume of traffic will not meet or exceed the warrants for intersection upgrades.
The reports submitted with the application are outdated in relation to the ‘Koala corridor’. It should include the RE2 zoned land as well as the E2 land.	The ecological assessment and Koala Plan of Management identify core koala habitat across both the RE2 and E2 zones. The Koala Plan of Management includes appropriate measures for the protection of koalas and their habitat in both zones.
Shipping container stored on the premises is set up as a makeshift residence with dangerous electricity supply via a number of koala food trees. The shipping container has been witnessed to be occupied on occasions and creates a privacy issue for No. 108 Pacific Drive.	A condition has been recommended requiring the shipping container to be removed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
The size of the car park is excessive for the development. Only 6 spaces are required instead of the 24 proposed. The car park appears to have been primarily proposed to meet APZ requirements.	The proposal requires 17 off-street parking spaces to satisfy the Development Control Plan requirements. The additional parking spaces proposed are considered sensible given that the site has limited street frontage and cannot rely upon a proportion of vehicles utilising street parking.
Adverse ecological impacts of proposed development.	See comments under Flora and Fauna section in this report.
The application does not identify the existing fireplace that has been installed in the castle building, and whether it is proposed to remain. Wood smoke is causing health and amenity impacts on nearby residents.	A condition has been recommended requiring the existing fireplace to be removed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
The application doesn’t include details of the staff numbers.	Details of staff numbers are not required to assess the impacts of the development. The DCP parking rates for cafes/restaurants are calculated as a proportion of the floor area of the business and account for both staff and customers.
The ecological report suggests that the hollow bearing tree should be retained and there needs to be assurance that this will happen.	One hollow bearing tree is proposed to be removed, and consistent with the DCP requirements, appropriate nest boxes will need to be installed in retained trees to offset the loss of habitat. All other hollow bearing trees would be protected through the recommended conditions of consent and Vegetation Management Plan.
Disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that the site has been regularly slashed. The land has been maintained by a lawn mower.	Noted.
The owner has a cattle dog on the site, which is a danger to the Koala population.	The Koala Plan of Management includes a restriction prohibiting café patrons from entering the subject site with domestic pets. It is considered reasonable that this restriction should apply to the owner of the land, or any other person. A condition has been recommended confirming this restriction.
Privacy impacts for residents adjacent to the outdoor dining area.	The outdoor dining area is set at a significantly lower level than the adjoining residential property at 113 Pacific Drive. The current boundary treatment is a retaining wall approximately 2m high with Colorbond fence above. From the outdoor dining area, only the upper floor balcony on the western elevation of the neighbouring building is visible. The separation distance between the balconies and the outdoor dining area is approximately 18m at the closest point. In an urban context, 12m separation is generally considered adequate to maintain privacy. The Applicant has also established landscaping between the outdoor dining area and the neighbouring property that would further protect privacy of residents and café patrons.
The owner has installed an aviary at the rear of the castle building. The birds kept in the aviary have caused noise impacts in the past and will be a public health problem for the café.	If the development is granted consent, the keeping of birds would not be permitted in proximity to the food premises. The recommended conditions include a requirement for a final inspection by Council’s Environmental Health Officer prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. This would provide the opportunity to confirm that the aviary is no longer present.
The land is subject to flooding.	Flooding impacts have been considered in accordance with Clause 7.3 of the LEP.
Access to the site should not be permitted through E2 zoned land.	Access to the development is proposed via a dedicated (but unformed) section of Wandella Drive, which is located within the E2 zone. Roads are permitted with consent in the E2 zone and the proposal has been demonstrated to be consistent with the zone objectives. The site has alternative access via a battleaxe handle to Parklands Close. However, this is not considered to be feasible as there is insufficient width to safely accommodate two-way traffic flow. The access handle is also zoned R1 General Residential and access for the purpose of many of the forms of development permitted in the RE2 part of the site would be prohibited. On this basis, it is considered reasonable to permit access via the E2 zoned land in Wandella Drive.
Proposal will devalue nearby properties.	NSW Land and Environment Court case law has established that this is not a relevant planning consideration.
The proposed carpark is located too close to the rear boundary of adjoining residential property. Will result in adverse impacts in relation to lighting, noise, and exhaust fumes.	A detailed acoustic assessment has been submitted, which demonstrates that the proposal will operate with acceptable noise levels determined in accordance with the Noise Policy for Industry. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that all external lighting is installed in accordance with Australian Standards, and that no light is directed towards the vegetation to the west. Having regard to the size and location of the car park relative to the adjoining residential uses, it is not considered that exhaust fumes from vehicles would result in any unacceptable air quality impacts.
Oppose the tree removal proposed for road access and the parking area.	It is not possible to provide access and car parking in a manner that would retain all existing vegetation on the site. The tree removal has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, SEPP 44, and Council’s Development Control Plan 2013. Impacts on the most significant vegetation on the site have been avoided or minimised and the residuals impacts are proposed to be appropriately offset. Replacement plantings are required for koala food trees impacted by the development, and nest boxes are required to replace the habitat lost from the single hollow bearing tree proposed to be removed.
The application does not clarify what the proposed use of the first floor of the building will be. Concern that the owner will use the first floor as a residence.	A condition has been recommended restricting the use of the first floor of the building to storage for the purpose of the café, and prohibiting its use for habitable purposes.
How will café visitors be prevented from walking through the property and exiting via Parklands Close?	The access to Parklands Close is currently gated.
How will neighbours be protected from people jumping over back fences?	Neighbours have the ability to negotiate an appropriate boundary treatment with the property owner in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1991.
How will the café reduce their environmental footprint and manage waste?	The development includes facilities for the storage and collection of waste consistent with Council’s Draft Waste Minimisation and Management Policy.
Does the area need another café, and will the business be viable?	The viability of a proposed business is not a relevant consideration in the assessment of a development application.
The required 10m APZ should not remove any important trees or habitat.	The submitted ecological assessment make provision for retention of important habitat features within the APZ.
Oppose the removal of a Koala food tree for the car park. Parking should be relocated to retain the tree.	The amended proposal provides for retention of the primary koala food tree (Tallowwood) located adjacent to the car park. It is noted that 8 ‘other browse species’ would be impacted by the development, which are proposed to be appropriately offset.
Concerned about future development for caravan park or mobile homes.	This is not part of the proposal and will be subject to a separate development application.
Request for residents to have a tour of the property to view the extent of tree removal.	This request has been provided to the Applicant for consideration.
Request for ecologist to meet with local residents and hear reports of wildlife at the site.	This request has been provided to the Applicant for consideration.
Some trees have already been removed without Council approval. What was the consequence?	A separate tree removal permit was issued by Council in 2017. There is no other record of investigations into unauthorised clearing that have resulted in penalties or prosecution.
What guarantee will nearby residents have that further tree removal is not carried out during construction work?	Trees authorised for removal have been clearly identified on the application plans and in the ecological assessment. The recommended conditions of consent require survey and identification of trees to be removed, supervision of clearing by an ecologist, and certification that the clearing has been carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.
Has the State government been consulted in relation to protecting Koala habitat on the site?	The draft Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) has been referred to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment in accordance with SEPP 44. The Department have approved the KPoM.
How does Council work with State government in acquiring koala habitat and protecting littoral rainforest?	Council does not currently have a policy for purchasing/acquiring koala habitat directly. However, as part of the planning for new urban areas environmentally sensitive land is typically required to be dedicated to Council as public reserves. Council has a good relationship with relevant State agencies including the Biodiversity Conservation Trust and provides advice in relation to State Government land acquisitions. Littoral rainforest is protected through the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018.
How will Wrights Creek be protected from pollution and run off?	The proposal includes a bio-retention basin, which will manage water quality in accordance with Aus-Spec requirements. All stormwater from the development will be piped to the basin prior to discharge to Wrights Creek.
What is the management plan for Koalas?	A summary of the Koala Plan of Management is provided earlier in this report under State Environmental Policy No 44 - Koala Habitat Protection.
How will the public be prevented from using the site as a through road between Wandella Avenue and Parklands Close or accessing the site if they are not visiting the cafe?	The application proposes a boom gate at the northern end of the car park to prevent vehicles accessing Parklands Close. Unauthorised access to the site by persons not visiting the café would need to be managed by the café operator and/or property owner.
How is overflow parking proposed to be catered for?	Overflow parking would be accommodated in nearby public roads. It is noted that the application proposes parking in excess of the minimum requirements of the DCP and a degree of overflow parking is able to be accommodated within the property.
Object to use of Parklands Close driveway as an exit.	The application has been amended to include a boom gate at the northern end of the car park to prevent vehicles accessing Parklands Close.
The noise assessment relies on unqualified predictions and does not include any actual noise readings at the affected properties.	The noise assessment has used EPA approved methods for noise modelling.
The proposed development is inconsistent with 3 of the 5 aims of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Koala Recovery Strategy 2018.	The relevant aims of the strategy that can be influenced through the development assessment process are: · Reduce road strike; · Reduce domestic dog strikes; · Assist in managing developments in aspects including design, habitat fragmentation and fire management. These aims are considered to be adequately addressed in the submitted Koala Plan of Management. Restrictions have been recommended to reduce vehicle speeds, prohibit domestic pets, and provide for protection and offsetting of habitat.
Many café customers are likely to use Karalee Parade as an alternative access and not just Wandella Drive as noted in the traffic assessment. Karalee Parade is not designed to handle the extra traffic volumes.	Other than for local residents, it is not expected that Karalee Parade would be viewed as a convenient means of assess to the site. It is not considered that there would be a significant increase in traffic on Karalee Parade or impacts on the intersection with Shelly Beach Road.
The proposal will make it more dangerous to perform a U-turn at the intersection of Karalee Parade and Wandella Drive.	The proposal has been amended to include a painted roundabout treatment at the intersection of Karalee Parade and Wandella Drive. This will improve the safety of U-turns, as well as other turning movements.
Council should be looking to buy the site.	This is a matter for broader consideration by Council and cannot be determined in the role as consent authority for development.
Limited street parking is available in the area for overflow parking from the business.	Noted. The proposal includes off street parking in excess of the minimum requirements of the DCP. This will provide for 6 overflow spaces within the site, which is a greater extent than the parking that would be available on the street for a site with regular frontage to a public road.
Access should be provided from Parklands Close as it was for the former Fantasy Glades.	Access is not permissible from Parklands Close due the R1 General Residential zoning of the access handle.
If the hours proposed are 6.00am to 6.00pm, staff and deliveries are likely to arrive outside these hours.	The proposed hours of operation have been amended to 7.00am to 6.00pm, 7 days. However, the acoustic assessment acknowledges that staff are likely to arrive in the hour prior to 7.00am to prepare for business. The acoustic assessment has considered the sleep disturbance criteria for the morning shoulder period (6.00am to 7.00am). A condition is recommended requiring all deliveries to the site, and any waste collection to be carried out during the operational hours of the business. A condition is also recommended restricting staff access to one hour prior to opening and one hour after closing.
Will residents be consulted in relation to any future requests to extend trading hours or change the use?	Any future applications will be notified in accordance with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Community Participation Plan 2019.
Request for independent traffic assessment including use of pressure counters on Pacific Drive and at the Karalee Parade/Wandella Drive intersection over a more substantial period.	The traffic assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer, including a review of traffic data and previous traffic counts for the relevant streets. The assumptions and data used in the traffic assessment were considered to be satisfactory.
Even with the proposed Koala Plan of Management being implemented, the development would still increase the risk to the Koala population compared with the current situation.	This is true in the sense that the proposal includes clearing of vegetation in an area known to be used by Koalas. However, implementation of the Koala Plan of Management would result in significant improvements to the current risk to the existing Koala population in the following areas: · Decrease in risk of koalas being attacked by domestic pets. There are currently no controls on the keeping of domestic pets on the property. · Removal of barbed wire fencing that currently poses a risk of injury/entanglement. · Long term increase in food resources for koalas on the site. Other browse species proposed to be offset with primary food trees.
Wandella Drive is very slippery when wet and vehicles often skid or spin their wheels using the road.	The proposed access is located on the lower section of Wandella Drive where the grades can meet relevant engineering standards.
Limited sight distance for vehicles exiting the site and pedestrians using the boardwalk due to existing vegetation and topography.	The proposal has been amended to include diversion of the existing boardwalk/pedestrian path to the southern side of Wandella Drive and clear of the access road. This will appropriately manage conflict between vehicles associated with the development and pedestrians/cyclists using the connection to nearby residential areas.
Adverse impacts on water quality in Wrights Creek.	The proposal includes a bio-retention basin and conditions have been recommended to ensure that discharge will meet the water quality targets in Aus-Spec.
The noise assessment has not accounted for traffic noise from the proposed emergency/maintenance access connecting to Parklands Close.	The access to Parklands Close has been deleted from the proposal.
The café is likely to be a family business and is unlikely to create substantial additional employment opportunities.	The number of people employed is likely to be the same, whether it is a family or otherwise.
The café should be prevented from operating on public holidays, or the hours further restricted.	Given the location and nature of the proposed café, it is expected that the peak periods for use will be weekends, holidays, and public holidays. This is similar to the historical use of the land for an amusement park. While the site is at the interface to the R1 General Residential zone and adjoins residential uses, the acoustic assessment has demonstrated that the business can operate within acceptable noise levels for the hours of operation proposed. It is therefore considered that there is not sufficient nexus to further restrict the hours/days of operation.
Noise impacts from patrons with dogs.	The Koala Plan of Management prohibits patrons from having dogs on the premises.
No controls to prevent children from straying.	Parents/carers will be responsible for supervision of children in their care.
Social impact study was carried out via Survey Monkey and the results have not been submitted.	This survey related to the Social Impact Assessment for a separate development application (DA2019 - 934.1) recently lodged for the site. It is not applicable to the subject application.
Concern that emergency/maintenance access will still be used by service vehicles, even with the boom gate in place.	A condition has been recommended restricting vehicular access (including service vehicles to Wandella Drive only).
Impacts of bio-retention basin on flood fringe area, and potential failure of the basin in major flood events.	The minor encroachment of the basin into the flood fringe area has been considered acceptable in term of flood impacts. The bank of the basin will be above the relevant flood level and the submitted plans show the headwall discharging at a location above the flood waters in a 1:100 event. Detailed design will be required to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
Loss of hollow bearing tree for detention basin is unacceptable and will result in loss of shelter, roosting, and nesting for threatened species.	The loss of the hollow bearing tree is required to be offset with nest boxes in accordance with the DCP requirements.
Appears to remain an intention clear the E2 land in the northern part of the site. Object to clearing of any trees in this area as it is a key koala corridor.	No clearing is proposed in the E2 zoned part of the site. The only works in the E2 zone are within the Wandella Drive road reserve for the proposed new access.
Potential impacts of inter-allotment drainage along eastern boundary have not been considered in the application. Drainage is not shown in the Stormwater Management Plan.	The recommended conditions include a requirement for provision of inter-allotment drainage for the properties east of the café and associated car park. The required 1.5m wide easement could be accommodated adjacent to the boundary without any additional tree removal.
The access arrangement prioritises vehicle traffic to the development at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists currently using the boardwalk.	The recommended access arrangements are considered to achieve a satisfactory balance between vehicular and pedestrian/cyclist safety.
The proposed alterations to the boardwalk/footpath will push pedestrians onto the wrong side of the Wandella Drive. Most pedestrians using this path head towards Harry’s Lookout and cross Pacific Drive at the northern side of the Wandella Drive intersection. Moving the boardwalk/footpath to the southern side of Wandella Drive will create additional unsafe road crossings.	Given the traffic volumes in Wandella Drive, it is considered that there are a number of safe locations to cross the street. The proposed painted medians on the approach to the Wandella Drive/Karalee Parade would also act as informal pedestrian refuges.
The proposed roundabout treatment at the intersection of Karalee Parade and Wandella Drive will create a burn-out spot.	There is no evidence that roundabouts exacerbate this type of behaviour.
The proposed 10km/h speed limit is unlikely to be adhered to due to the steep slope.	The part of Wandella Drive west of Karalee Parade is not significantly steep. The proposed 10km/h speed limit is consistent with the recommendations of the Koala Plan of Management.
The proposed roundabout treatment at the intersection of Karalee Parade and Wandella Drive will increase vehicle noise.	The proposed roundabout is not expected to alter the extent of acceleration and deceleration compared with the existing T-intersection. Having regard to the volume of traffic in the street, it is not expected that the changes to the intersection configuration would result in unacceptable traffic noise in the locality. For context, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 only requires consideration of road traffic noise impacts for classified roads and roads having traffic volumes of 40,000 vehicles per day or greater.
The development will increase bushfire risk to residents near the Calwalla reserve due to smoking, cars, and machinery.	The development is not considered to create any greater risk than existing uses adjoining the reserve. Residential uses adjoining a reserve can include all these activities and smoking is possible on the public boardwalk through the reserve. The development proposes paved surfaces to the outdoor dining area and a sealed road is proposed to be constructed between the castle building and the reserve, which would create a buffer to the spread of fire.
Council has a duty of care regarding business competition.	The NSW Land and Environment Court has established that competition impacts are not able to be considered in the assessment of a development application.
Who will be responsible for maintenance of the new access from Wandella Drive - the owner or ratepayers?	The proposal includes some modifications to the public road at the end of Wandella Drive, including realignment of the boardwalk/footpath, kerb and gutter construction, and roundabout treatment. Following the defects liability period, these will become Council assets and Council will be responsible for future maintenance. The proposed driveway off the end of Wandella Drive will be private infrastructure maintained by the property owner. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that the driveway is constructed in a manner that clearly defines the public and private assets.
Lighting of the car park will affect amenity of neighbours.	A condition is recommended requiring external lighting to be switched off between 7.00pm and 6.00am. All external lighting will also be required to comply with AS 4282 - control of the obtrusive effects of external lighting. With the hours of operation proposed, lighting of the car park would only be required for short periods (mostly during winter) and is not expected to significantly affect the amenity of residential neighbours.
The repositioning of the bio-retention basin will result in swamp-like smells and will become a mosquito breeding area.	The bio-retention basin operates as a sand filter and allows for the infiltration of water. The basin will not hold water outside periods of heavy rainfall, and is not expected to result in the type of impacts suggested.
Illuminated signage will further impact neighbouring properties.	The application does not include any details of signage, and any future proposal for illuminated signage will be subject to a separate application. The signage would need to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage and Council’s Development Control Plan. As the proposed hours of operation are predominantly during daylight hours, it would be difficult to justify that illuminated signage is necessary.
The development should be required to meet the bushfire requirements applicable to residential use as the owner is occupying the first floor of the castle building.	The proposal has been assessed as a commercial use. A condition has been recommended prohibiting the use of the building for residential/habitable purposes.
The proposal is inconsistent with zone objectives for the RE2 zone.	See comment earlier under LEP regarding consistency with the relevant zone objectives.

(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 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services (or towards recouping the cost of their provision, extension or augmentation).

· 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 ⇩. DA2019 - 277.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2019 - 277.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2019 - 277.1 Contributions Estimate

4 ⇩. DA2019 - 277.1 Koala Plan of Management - Rev 1.2

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 06/05/2020

Item: 10

Subject: Section 4.55 DA2004 - 526.3 Modification to Hours of Operation and Conditions of Consent Associated with Previous Approved Industrial Building/Workshop at 10 Glen Ewan Road, Sancrox

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

Applicant: Birdon Marine CARE King & Campbell

Owner: Birdon Holdings Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: N/A

Parcel no: 64192

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2004 - 526.3 for a modification to hours of operation and conditions of consent associated with previous approved industrial building/workshop at Lot 17, DP 1191370, No. 10 Glen Ewan Road, Sancrox, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers an application for modification to a previous approved industrial building workshop 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, eleven (11) submissions were received.

Amendments have been made to the proposal during assessment, which primarily include the following:

· Proposed installation of approximately 500m2 of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket hung vertically on the internal face of the shed walls around the fabrication area; and

· A proposed additional carparking area for relocation of parking for worker’s vehicles during the evening and night-time periods.

Subject to the recommended modified conditions, the site is considered suitable for the proposed modified 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.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 3.93 hectares.

The site is zoned IN4 working waterfront and RU6 transition in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

The site is located on the corner of Hastings River Drive (formerly the Pacific Highway) and Glen Ewan Road. The re-aligned Pacific Highway is located

Immediately to the west of the site.

Birdon Pty Ltd operate a marine industry on the subject site as well as the adjoining

Lot 1 DP 225413, which is located on the eastern side of Hastings River Drive. A dwelling also occupies the site close to the workshop.

Hastings River Drive is located immediately east of the subject site. Glen Ewan Road

is located immediately south of the subject site.

Five (5) small RU1 Primary Production lots - four (4) of which contain a dwelling are located on the southern side of Glen Ewan Road.

The Pacific Highway is located to the west of the subject site. The Hastings River

crown reserve is located to the north of the subject site and the Hastings River is located immediately north of the Crown reserve.

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal (as amended) include the following:

· Extend the approved hours of operation of the existing western shed (industrial building) to 24 hours a day;

· Sealing the existing gap around the western door with a 6mm loaded vinyl fabric or a 10mm thick rubber strip. It is proposed that the western door will remain sealed and closed during the extended hours of operation;

· Proposed installation of approximately 500m² of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket hung vertically on the internal face of the shed walls around the fabrication area;

· At the completion of the acoustic sealing work, a certificate of acoustic compliance is to be provided to Council to confirm that the noise trigger levels in the Matrix Thornton Noise Report dated 30 August 2019 are not exceeded and comply with the relevant standards specified by NSW Noise Policy for Industry; and

· A proposed additional carparking area, which will provide a relocation of parking arrangements for workers during the evening and night-time periods to be on the northern side of the building.

The Applicant has proposed to modify conditions E(7) and F(8).

Refer to Attachment 2 at the end of this report for plans of the current approved development and noise assessment details.

Development Approval and Rezoning History

The existing industrial shed/workshop was granted development consent under DA2004 - 526 on 2 September 2004. The originally approved shed had dimensions of 29m by 50m (1,000m2) and a height of 12m.

In March 2016, a modification application was lodged by Birdon to modify the size of

the approved industrial shed/workshop to be 21.8m by 42m (915m²) and increase the height to 15m.The modified consent was granted on 27 April 2016.

Since this time the industrial shed/workshop has been utilised as a part of Birdon’s

marine industrial undertakings including the maintenance, refurbishment and construction of boats and associated marine facilities.

In 2015, the subject site, Lot 17 DP1191370, was rezoned from RU1 Primary

Production to IN4 Working Waterfront.

Application Chronology

· 19 November 2019 - Modification application lodged with Council.

· 13 December 2019 to 10 January 2020 (extended 1 month to permit late submissions) - Neighbour notification of proposal.

· 15 January 2020 - Assessment update provided to Applicant.

· 21 January 2020 - Redacted copies of submissions (at the time) provided to Applicant for consideration and advised extension to neighbour notification period.

· 30 January 2020 - Site visit by assessing officer and Council Environmental Health Officer.

· 19 February 2020 - Redacted copies of submissions provided to Applicant for consideration.

· 24 March 2020 - Follow up to Applicant on status of responding to assessment issues.

· 30 March 2020 - Additional information received from Applicant in response to assessment and submission issues.

· 23 and 24 April 2020 - Discussion with Applicant on draft conditions.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.55 Matters for Consideration

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

Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modification into three categories - 4.55(1) for modifications involving minor error, mis-description or miscalculation; 4.55(1A) for modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and 4.55(2) for other modifications.

Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.

The proposal is proposed to be assessed as a Section 4.55(1A) application.

Is the proposal substantially the same?

The subject application is being considered under the provisions of Section 4.55(1A). The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to and the changes will have minimal environmental impact as justified and subject to recommended conditions.

Specifically, the proposed extension of hours will not modify the nature or type of industrial activity currently undertaken on-site and the development will therefore be substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted. The changes to additional car parking arrangements is considered to be minor and will not fundamentally change the essence of the development.

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

Neighbour notification has been completed in accordance with Development Control Plan 2013 and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

11 submissions have been received following completion of the neighbour notification period. The issues raised in the submissions received are considered later in this report.

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The subject land and the properties within Glen Ewan Road are within the “proximity area for coastal wetlands” under the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018. The modification application seeks approval for the extension of hours of operation of current industrial activities within an existing industrial shed. The extended hours carpark will make use of an existing gravel area. The proposed application to modify the hours of operation will not result in any identifiable adverse impacts to:

· The biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the mapped coastal wetland within proximity of the land; and

· The quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the mapped coastal wetland within proximity of the land.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The subject site is partly zoned IN4 Working Waterfront and RU6 Transition under the provisions of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The existing industrial shed/workshop is wholly located within that part of the site

zoned IN4 Working Waterfront.

The industrial shed/workshop was granted consent under DA2004 - 526 (as currently modified) and is utilised by Birdon as a part of the existing marine industry.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Development Control Plan No. 18 - Off Street Parking Code

The proposal (as amended) includes a proposed additional carparking area with relocation of current parking arrangements for workers during the evening and night-time periods. The new location of the carpark is to be on the northern side of the building and to a gravel standard. This carparking area can satisfy the requirements of this DCP and is surplus to the original requirements as approved.

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

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

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into.

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

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

Context and Setting

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

The modified proposal is appropriate and will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties or the public domain.

Traffic

The modified proposal with extended operating hours will not have any identifiable significant adverse impact on the surrounding road infrastructure or traffic volumes.

Noise

The modification proposal primarily proposes to extend the approved hours of operation of the existing western shed (industrial building) to 24 hours a day - 7 days a week. The current approved hours are limited to the following.

(8) (DDOCC00630) Hours of operation of the development are restricted the following times:

- 7.00 am to 6.00 pm – Mondays to Saturdays

No work is to be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays.

With the proposed extended hours, the Applicant has originally submitted a specialist Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Matrix Thornton. During the assessment of the application, assessment and submission issues were raised with the Applicant. In response, additional specialist acoustic advice has been submitted from Matrix Thornton and the Applicant. All information submitted has been carefully considered in consultation with a Council’s Environment Health Officer.

The following assessment points are made in relation to noise/acoustic impacts:

· The Noise Impact Assessment Report centres on the proposed extended trading hours past 6pm till 7am and concludes that noise from the shed will not adversely impact on the residents across the Glen Ewan Road, provided an acoustic seal is installed around the Western door and the door is kept shut and sealed after 6pm until after 7am. Small personnel access doors in the shed were also assumed to be kept closed.

· The noise from the carpark was assessed on there being 3 noise sources in the carpark, ie cars arriving and leaving at the same time, people talking and door slams. The Report indicates that there’ll be a 75dB(A) equivalent noise level, which will comply with the Trigger levels at the residential receivers.

· A worst case scenario of a car accelerating from/into the carpark at 95dB(A) was used for the sleep disturbance assessment and the Report concludes that the maximum level of 52LAMax won’t be exceeded at the windows of the residences and no further noise mitigation is required.

· Matrix Thornton have revised the initial acoustic assessment and have identified two further noise attenuation measures that can be implemented to address some of the concerns raised in the submissions, which are:

- Install sheets of insulation material to the southern wall of the shed near the fabrication area which will reduce noise from the shed by two decibels, 2dB(A); and

- Provide an extended operating hours carpark for staff at the rear of the shed on the Hastings River side, which will increase the separation distance to the residences on Glen Ewan Road.

· Matrix Thornton conclude that overall noise will be further reduced by an additional two (2) decibels with the addition of the insulation to the southern wall and will comply with all relevant noise criteria at the residences on Glen Ewan Road.

The primary mitigation measures (conditions) are recommended to be as follows:

(1) Prior to any commencement/occupation for operations of extended hours (between 6pm and 7am), the following shall be completed:

a) Installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed;

b) Installation of the door seal as detailed in Section 6.2.2 of the Matrix Thornton “Impact Noise Assessment Report’, dated August 30, 2019; Report reference M19054.02; and

c) At the completion of the acoustic sealing works, as detailed in the modification approved 7 May 2020, a certificate of acoustic compliance prepared by a suitably qualified and practising acoustic consultant shall be submitted to Council to certify that all of the Project Noise Trigger Levels are being complied with during full operating capacity. Refer to the Matrix Thornton Noise Reports dated 30 August 2019 and 27 March 2020. The acoustic certification shall comply with all relevant Australian Standards and NSW EPA requirements, including the NSW Noise Policy for Industry.²

(2) (F196) Provision is to be made during extended operational hours (6pm to 7am) of an additional car park on the existing hard stand area located on the northern side of the existing western shed as shown on the plan Birdon Marine Extended Hours Carpark (King & Campbell plan 6300P_Site – Revision A dated 25 March 2020). The carparking area shall have capacity for 12 cars and is to be provided for employees working in the existing shed on Lot 17 during the extended hours of operation from 6pm to 7am.

(3) The western sliding door of the western shed (as indicated in Figure 3-2 of the Matrix Thornton Noise Report for DA, dated 30 August 2019) shall be kept shut at all time when the processes of manufacturing and fabrication are being carried out within the western shed.

The western sliding door is permitted to be opened and closed for reasons of deliveries and boat/hull flipping only when no manufacturing and/or fabrication works/processes are being carried out or are occurring within the western shed.

The door may remain open during times of a flood risk emergency.

(4) No deliveries of goods or operation of transport vehicles including forklifts or the like, external to the western shed shall be permitted to occur on the lot during the extended hours from 6pm and 7am.

(5) (F199) Two months following the commencement of the extended hours of operation (from 6pm to 7am), a certificate of acoustic compliance, prepared by a suitably qualified and practising acoustic consultant, shall be submitted to Council to certify that all of the Project Noise Trigger Levels are being complied with during full operating capacity. Refer to the Matrix Thornton Noise Reports dated 30 August 2019 and 27 March 2020. The acoustic certification shall comply with all relevant Australian Standards and NSW EPA requirements, including the NSW Noise Policy for Industry.

Based upon compliance with the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will have any significant adverse environmental health or noise/acoustic impacts. It should be noted that the above conditions are above what is proposed by the Applicant to ensure landuse compatibility in the existing context.

The modified consent conditions are considered to be practical mitigation measures to ensure a balance of operation needs of an approved industrial business and ensuring compatibility with nearby residences/residential landuses.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

Subject to compliance with the consent conditions proposed to be modified, the modified proposal will fit into the locality.

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

Eleven (11) written submissions were been received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

Key issues raised in the submissions received (by property location) and comments are provided as follows:

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
63, 79, 69 & 47 Glen Ewan Road
Noise Levels will be 80-90+ decibels.	The predicted noise levels detailed by the specialist Noise Consultant comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers, which are the closest receivers to the existing shed.
Noise will funnel under the Hastings Bridge and travel up river and across the floodplain.	The acoustic report from Matrix Thornton details that noise levels provided in the report include any reflections from topography. In the case of 7 Glen Ewan Road there could be a small component of noise reflected from the bridge abutment. However, because the abutment is low, not vertical, shielded by vegetation, and 40m from the noise source, any increase at houses on Glen Ewan Road due to reflections would be less than 0.3dBA and would not make any audible difference at the dwellings.
This development will devalue property.	Any perceived impacts on land value are unable to be considered as part of the assessment of a Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. An assessment of the likely impacts is the focus of this assessment.
This Colourbond shed where Birdon Marine wants to carry out metal fabrication and boatbuilding does not have any sound installation.	The existing Colourbond shed is proposed to be insulated through the installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed.
Sandblasting, fibre glassing, toxic air pollution will travel in an easterly wind to our house.	There is no sandblasting or fibre glassing undertaken or proposed to be undertaken in the existing shed.
15 Glen Ewan Road
Objection to acoustic impacts, installation of the door only, sound rating of Colourbond sheds and that the sound produced will be 80-90 dBA. No sound insulation proposed.	The Updated Acoustic Report confirms that the predicted noise levels comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers which are the closest receivers to the existing shed the subject of the modification application. Table 6-1 confirms that the Total Noise Levels are 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels. As outlined above, the existing Colourbond shed is proposed (as amended) to be insulated through the installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed.
The distance from house to shed 2 is approximately 110m or less.	The existing shed is in excess of 140m from the existing residences at 7-15 Glen Ewan Road.
The car park approximately less than 65m from boundary will create noise levels of 95dBA with 10 cars arriving and leaving in any 15-minute period. The report does not mention the effects of truck and machinery noise/forklifts and crane noise that will affect property.	The Applicant has been requested to address this issue and provided satisfactory additional information to confirm that the typical source noise level of car park events such as car doors slamming and cars accelerating is LAmax 95dBA. The Applicant’s consultant Matrix Thornton has then provided satisfactory confirmation that the modelling shows that the predicted level of Maximum Noise Levels at the four receivers included in the original report (9-15 Glen Ewan Road) are below the screening level at all the receivers. Table 6.2 (p.10) shows that the Predicted Level at 15 Glen Ewan Road is LAmax 38dBA being 14dBA below the Screening Level, Night Shoulder. The proposed extended hours car park within the existing gravel area on the northern side of the existing shed and approximately 195m from the residences on Glen Ewan Road.
11 Glen Ewan Road
The distance from house to shed 2 is approximately 90m or less.	The distance between the SW corner of the existing shed and the existing residences on 7-15 Glen Ewan Road is in excess of 140m. The extended hours car park is approximately 195m from the existing residences.
The development will devalue my property.	Any perceived impacts on land value are unable to be considered as part of the assessment of a Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. An assessment of the likely impacts is the focus of this assessment.
The eastern door of this shed will be left open with the noise levels which will be 80-90 + decibels.	The prediction of noise is assumed that the door in the eastern end would remain open and the door on the western end would remain fully closed. The predicted total noise levels comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers. Table 6-1in particular of the report confirms that the Total Noise Levels are 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels.
The car park approximately 65 m from my boundary will generate noise levels of 95 dBA with 10 cars arriving and leaving in any 15-minute period. The report does not mention the effects of truck and machinery noise/forklifts and crane noise that will affect property.	There is no work proposed outside of the existing shed including the operation of trucks, forklifts and cranes during the proposed extended hours of operation.
The headlights at night from trucks and cars will light up house and the bedroom windows where children and family are living.	The amended plans show the location of the internal driveway from the extended hours car park in relation to the residences on 7-11 Glen Ewan Road. The plan shows that the headlights of cars exiting the driveway will not be directed towards the existing residences.
The sound bounces off the Dennis Bridge abutment and is directed straight at house.	The specialist report from Matrix Thornton details that noise levels provided in the report include any reflections from topography. In the case of 7 Glen Ewan Road there could be a small component of noise reflected from the bridge abutment. However, because the abutment is low, not vertical, shielded by vegetation, and 40m from the noise source, any increase at houses on Glen Ewan Road due to reflections would be less than 0.3dBA and would not make any audible difference at the houses.
This large colour bond shed where Birdon Marine wants to carry out metal fabrication and boatbuilding does not have any sound insulation.	The proposal has been amended to include a proposed installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed.
19 Glen Ewan Road
The monitoring for the baseline sound in the area was contaminated by Birdon producing large amount of noise from shed two and sandblasting, grinding and hammering steel with both doors open. The sound monitoring that was undertaken is inaccurate and should be redone.	There is no sandblasting undertaken or proposed to be undertaken in the existing shed. The Matrix Thornton Report was a noise assessment of the proposed extended operating hours of the Birdon Marine facility at Sancrox. It has been confirmed that all noise modelling and monitoring performed for that report was done in accordance with the NSW Noise Policy for Industry (2017), the current policy in NSW.
Concern raised with respect to the acoustic rating of Colourbond.	The results of the acoustic modelling contained in the Noise Impact report prepared by Matrix Thornton are based on the existing shed constructed of Colourbond.
The existing house on 19 Glen Ewan Road is approximately 110 m from the existing shed and less than 50m from the western car park.	The existing shed is in excess of 140 m from all existing houses. The amended plans also show that the proposed extended hours car park on the gravel hard stand area north of the existing shed is approximately 195 m from the existing houses in Glen Ewan Road.
Noise associated with metal fabrication, hammering steel plating grinding can be heard and will be far greater if sandblasting is also done.	There is no sandblasting proposed to be undertaken in the existing shed.
Noise levels for the car park is reported at 95dBA with 10 cars arriving and leaving in any 15 minute period. The report does not mention the distances to the closest residence from the car parking areas or the effects of truck and machinery noise/forklifts and crane noise.	The specialist noise reports from Matrix Thornton confirm that the predicted total noise levels (which includes noise associated with the proposed extended hours carpark) comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers. Table 6-1 confirms that the Total Noise Levels are 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels.
Concerns raised with respect to the noise impacts associated with carpark, truck loading and unloading, dragging chains, slamming doors.	There is no work proposed outside of the existing shed including the operation of trucks, forklifts and cranes during the proposed extended hours of operation. A new consent condition is recommended to ensure this is complied with.
Cars and trucks coming and going with their headlights on at night will light up house and bedrooms.	The amended plans show the location of the internal driveway from the extended hours car park in relation to the residences on 7-11 Glen Ewan Road. The plan shows that the headlights of cars exiting the driveway will not be directed towards the existing residences.
King & Campbell and Matrix reports indicate the industrial noise policy was from 1997. The current policy relating to industrial noise policy is 2017.	Matrix Thornton Report was a noise assessment of the proposed extended operating hours of the Birdon Marine facility at Sancrox. It was confirmed that all noise modelling and monitoring performed for that report was done in accordance with the NSW Noise Policy for Industry (2017), the current policy in NSW.
The sealing of the western doors will mean there is no cross ventilation and be in breach of Work Safety Australia guidelines if the shed is used for activities such as welding, grinding Marine/metal fabrication.	Birdon has undertaken a review of the current working environment within the existing shed and confirm that the existing ventilation arrangements meet their WHS statutory obligations with the western door shut.
The construction of the shed and distance to the river according to BlueScope Steel guidelines indicates that the distance to the river is non-compliant and the material used is insufficient.	The subject modification application seeks to extend the hours of operation of existing industrial activities within the existing industrial shed is approved and development consent DA2004 -526. The BlueScope Steel guidelines are not a relevant matter to the subject modification application. The proposal has been amended during the assessment of the application to now include proposed installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed.
The residential receiver category used in the acoustic assessment should be rural.	Matrix Thorton have advised that as they understand the issue in the submissions there is a question as to whether the surrounding residences should be considered "Rural residential" or "Suburban residential” as described in Table 2.3 of the Noise Policy for Industry. From the point of view of noise assessment, we note that it makes no difference to the outcome. This is because the noise trigger levels were based on the night-time and evening amenity levels are the same for suburban and rural receivers (40dBA) and were only considering activity during evening and night-time. Hence the choice of "Suburban residential" or "Rural residential" makes no difference to the outcome.
Concerned how sound levels will be capped at the expected level being 50 dBA during the day, 45dBA in the evening and 40dBA in the night. The noise policy contains certain measures such as a contact line for affected receivers or measures for the monitoring and reduction of noise levels. None of this has been supplied in the proposal.	The predicted total noise levels comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers. Table 6-1 confirms that the Total Noise Levels are 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels. The submitted modification application includes measures to reduce potential noise impacts as detailed earlier in report. The mitigation measures are to be achieved and maintained via compliance with consent conditions as recommended.
7 Glen Ewan Road
The distance from my house to shed 2 is approximately 85 m.	The distance between the SW corner of the existing shed and the existing residences on 7-15 Glen Ewan Road is in excess of 140m. The extended hours car park is approximately 195m from the existing residences.
Five registered home-schooled children, this noise will affect children’s education.	The proposal relates to extended hours of operation and the current approved day time business hours will also be maintained. The noise assessment submitted confirms no adverse impacts to neighbouring properties based upon the Industrial Noise Policy guidelines. The predicted total noise levels comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers. The proposal has however been conditioned to require the western door now to be closed at all times with the exception of delivery times and boat flipping which will assist with mitigation of any potential noise impacts particularly in regards to children and general amenity.
The eastern door of this shed will be left open, the noise levels will be 80 to 90+ decibels.	The prediction of noise is assumed that the door in the eastern end would remain open and the door on the western end would remain fully closed.
The car park approximately 65 m from boundary will result in noise levels in of 95 dBA with 10 cars arriving and leaving in any 15 minute period. The report does not mention the effects of truck and machinery noise/forklifts and crane noise that will affect property.	The amended plans show the location of the internal driveway from the extended hours car park in relation to the residences on Glen Ewan Road. The proposed extended hours car park within the existing gravel area on the northern side of the existing shed and approximately 195m from the residences on Glen Ewan Road. The plan shows that the headlights of cars exiting the driveway will not be directed towards the existing residences. There is no work proposed outside of the existing shed including the operation of trucks, forklifts and cranes during the proposed extended hours of operation. The Applicant was requested to address this issue and has provided satisfactory additional information to confirm that the typical source noise level of car park events such as car doors slamming and cars accelerating is LAmax 95dBA. The Applicant’ consultant Matrix Thornton has then provided satisfactory confirmation that the modelling shows that the predicted level of Maximum Noise Levels at the four receivers included in the original report (9-15 Glen Ewan Road) are below the screening level at all the receivers. Table 6.2 (p.10) shows that the Predicted Level at 15 Glen Ewan Road is LAmax 38dBA being 14dBA below the Screening Level, Night Shoulder.
The headlights at night from trucks and cars will light up house and the bedroom windows where my children and family are living.	The amended plans show the location of the internal driveway from the extended hours car park in relation to the residences on 7-11 Glen Ewan Road. The plan shows that the headlights of cars exiting the driveway will not be directed towards the existing residences.
The sound bounces of the Dennis Bridge abutment and is directed straight at house.	The specialist report from Matrix Thornton details that noise levels provided in the report include any reflections from topography. In the case of 7 Glen Ewan Road there could be a small component of noise reflected from the bridge abutment. However, because the abutment is low, not vertical, shielded by vegetation, and 40m from the noise source, any increase at houses on Glen Ewan Road due to reflections would be less than 0.3dBA and would not make any audible difference at the houses.
This large colour bond shed where Birdon Marine wants to carry out metal fabrication and boatbuilding does not have any sound installation.	The existing Colourbond shed is proposed (as amended) to be insulated through the installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed.
7 Glen Ewan Road property including the house is not mentioned in this proposal.	No dwelling/structure was present at 7 Glen Ewan Drive at the time of lodgement. Table 6-1 of Attachment 2 shows that 7 Glen Ewan Road has now been included in the acoustic assessment. The predicted total noise levels comply with the night-time, evening and daytime trigger levels at all residential receivers. Table 6-1 confirms that the Total Noise Levels are 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels.
4 Glen Ewan Road
No description of the activities, plant, equipment, machinery or numbers of staff working in the shed on any given shift.	The subject modification is seeking approval to modify the hours of operation of existing boat building and maintenance activities in the existing shed. The statement of environmental effects lodged with the application confirmed the purpose of the proposed workshop and storage building at that time as a new workshop and storage building for the purposes of consolidating existing uses occurring on the site, namely boat building and dredge construction and maintenance in addition to storage for dredge components and equipment. In the short term the current army construction project underway in the storage shed on lot 1 could also be relocated to the new shed that is the subject of this application. The existing activities within the existing shed are as per the originally submitted DA2004-526. No change to the nature of those activities is proposed as part of the subject modification application.
A single noise mitigation measures are being the sealing of the existing gap around the western door. The proposal does not address how the shed will be ventilated nor how work health and safety requirements would be met with the end door closed and significantly reduce crossflow ventilation for workers in an uninsulated tin shed.	Refer to comments above regarding the Total Noise Levels being 2-5 dBA below the night-time Trigger Levels and the proposed installation of 100mm thick R1.5 polyester acoustic absorption/thermal blanket or equivalent on the internal face of the southern wall of the existing shed. The Applicant has confirmed that Birdon has undertaken a review of the current working environment within the existing shed and confirm that the existing ventilation arrangements meet their WHS statutory obligations with the western door shut.
The information does not articulate what the nature of existing work is to enable Council to clearly determine the impacts of the extended hours operation. There is insufficient explanation of evening and night-time activity proposed to be undertaken.	The works proposed to be undertaken within the existing shed during the evening and night-time periods are identical to those activities undertaken within the existing shed during the daytime period. There will be no works undertaken external of the existing shed during the evening and night-time periods.
This submission raises historical compliance issues with respect to the operation of the side on the eastern side of the Pacific Highway which the suggests gives Council genuine grounds for not accepting as reasonable or feasible the Applicant’s compliance based approach to the proposed unrestricted hours of operation.	The historical compliance issues raised in this submission are not relevant to the subject modification application of DA2004- 526 to change the proposed hours of operation.
Fishburn Watson O’Brien on behalf of Ms Fleming
The application is not an application involving minor environmental impact capable of approval under s. 4.55 (1A) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act).	On the basis of compliance with the relevant acoustic criteria, the proposed modification of DA2004 - 526 to extend the hours of operation of the existing use of the existing shed is consistent with Section 4.55(1A) of the EP & A Act as the modification will be of minimal environmental impact.
Significant intensification of use associated with the proposed extension of hours. Council requires sufficient detail to be satisfied that any impacts are minimal.	The total noise from the ongoing operation of the existing shed for boat building and dredge construction and maintenance in addition to storage for dredge components within the proposed extended hours complies with the trigger level at all receivers during the daytime, evening and night periods.
The present application to modify DA 2004/526 to seal the shed and to extend operating hours to 24 hours a day. The application does not seek any change to the approve use of the building from sand processing and maintenance workshop. Birdon does not have development consent for the use of Lot 17 in shipbuilding and maintenance. We are instructed, based on Birdon’s well publicised expansion and new contracts, the shed will be used for more than sand processing and dredge maintenance. Any grinding and other shipbuilding activities are new uses for the shed that must carefully assessed.	Development Application 2004 - 526 was originally lodged with PMHC in July 2004 seeking consent for a Proposed Workshop & Storage Building. The statement of environmental effects lodged in support of the application outlined the stated purpose of the proposed workshop and storage building as: ‘construction of a new workshop and storage building for the purposes of consolidating existing uses occurring on the site, namely boat building and dredge construction and maintenance in addition to storage for dredge components and equipment. In the short term the current army construction project underway in the storage shed on lot 1 could also be relocated to the new shed that is the subject of this application.’ A modification of DA2004 - 526 was lodged with Council in 2016 to change the dimensions and height of the workshop and storage building. This modification was considered and subsequently approved by Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) meeting on 27 April 2016. The Council staff report to the DAP meeting re-confirmed the originally stated purpose of the shed as follows: ‘…The shed included use as an industrial workshop/storage area associated with the existing dredging/boat building business. The development was permissible as an addition to an existing use’. The workshop and storage building construction commenced shortly after the granting of modification consent and was finalised in late 2016. The workshop and storage building have been in continuous operation since. This modification application seeks to change the hours of operation approved pursuant DA2004 - 526. No changes are proposed to the originally stated purpose of the existing shed, being boat building and dredge construction and maintenance in addition to storage for dredge components and equipment.
Noise monitoring and modelling of noise impact occurred against a superseded noise policy (Noise Policy for Industry, EPA 1997). The current policy is dated 2017.	Matrix Thornton Report have confirmed that the noise assessment of the proposed extended operating hours of the Birdon Marine facility at Sancrox. I confirm that all noise modelling and monitoring performed for that report was done in accordance with the NSW Noise Policy for Industry (2017), the current policy in NSW.”
There is no detail of the air management within the sealed shed and the emissions from any ventilation.	The modification application confirms that the western door of the existing shed is proposed to be sealed. Birdon has undertaken a review of the current working environment within the existing shed and confirm that the existing ventilation arrangements meet their WHS statutory obligations with the western door shut. The Matrix Thornton noise assessment confirms it has been undertaken based on the western door being closed and sealed and the other doors remaining open.
The application of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 has not been considered. Again we would expect this would weigh against the application being considered under s.4.55 (1A).	The subject land and the properties within Glen Ewan Road are within the “proximity area for coastal wetlands” under the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018. The modification application seeks approval for the extension of hours of operation of current industrial activities within an existing industrial shed. The extended hours carpark will make use of an existing gravel area. The proposed application to modify the hours of operation will not result in any impact on: · the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the mapped coastal wetland within proximity of the land. · the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the mapped coastal wetland within proximity of the land.
The application may be for designated development or integrated development	The subject application is for the modification of DA2004 - 526 to extend the hours of operation of existing industrial activities within the approved industrial shed. DA2004 - 526 was neither integrated nor designated development.
The application is not substantially the same development	The submission compares the subject application to modify DA 2004/526 with another development consent being DA208/98. The subject application to modify development consent DA2004 - 526 is agreed to be substantially the same development as that approved by PMHC. The proposed modification seeks to extend the hours of operation (approved under DA2004 - 526) of the existing industrial activities within the existing industrial shed. Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification of the operating hours have been identified, assessed and adequately mitigated. The total noise from the ongoing operation of the existing shed for boat building and dredge construction and maintenance in addition to storage for dredge components within the proposed extended hours complies with the trigger level at all receivers during the daytime, evening and night periods.

(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

No development contributions are applicable to the modified proposal.

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 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Recommend Modified Consent

2 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Birdon Marine Proposed Extended Hours Carpark revA

3 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Matrix Thornton Letter 200130

4 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Acoustic Impact Assessment - Aug 2019

5 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Email from Matrix Thornton 20200124

6 ⇩. DA2004 - 526.3 Email from Matrix Thornton 20200318

date of meeting:		Wednesday 6 May 2020
location:		Via Skype
time:		2:00pm

Member	22/01/20	12/02/20	26/02/20	11/03/20	25/03/20	08/04/20
Paul Drake	P	P	P	P	P	P
Robert Hussey		P	P	P		P
David Crofts (alternate member)	P				P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) (alternates) - Development Assessment Planner	P	P	P	P	P	P

22/01/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
12/02/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
26/02/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
11/03/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
25/03/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
8/04/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
6/05/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
27/05/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
10/06/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
24/06/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
8/07/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
22/07/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
12/08/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
26/08/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
9/09/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
30/09/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
14/10/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
28/10/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
11/11/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
25/11/2020	Function Room	2:00pm
16/12/2020	Function Room	2:00pm

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.