Agenda of Development Assessment Panel - Thursday, 21 October 2021

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 21/10/2021

Item: 04

Subject: DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

RECOMMENDATION

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

Name of Meeting:

Meeting Date:

Item Number:

Subject:

I, the undersigned, hereby declare the following interest:

Pecuniary:

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

Non-Pecuniary – Significant Interest:

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

Non-Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest:

May participate in consideration and voting.

For the reason that:

Name:

Signed:

Date:

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

(Refer to next page and the Code of Conduct)

Pecuniary Interest

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

4.2 You will not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision you might make in relation to the matter, or if the interest is of a kind specified in clause 4.6.

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

(a) your interest, or

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

4.4 For the purposes of clause 4.3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Pecuniary

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

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

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

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

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

Managing non-pecuniary conflicts of interest

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

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

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

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

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

b) other relationships with persons who are affected by a decision or a matter under consideration that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

This form must be completed using block letters or typed.

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

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

[insert full name of councillor]

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

PECUNIARY INTEREST

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

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

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

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

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

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST[1]

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land2

[Tick or cross one box]

 The identified land.

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

Current zone/planning control

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

Proposed change of zone/planning control

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

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor or associated person

[Tick or cross one box]

 Appreciable financial gain.

 Appreciable financial loss.

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

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

This form is to be retained by the council’s Chief Executive Officer and included in full in the minutes of the meeting

Last Updated: 3 June 2019

Important Information

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

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

Clause 4.3 of the Model Code of Conduct states that you will have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relative or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You will also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

“Relative” is defined by clause 4.4 of the Model Code of Conduct as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.

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

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

[1] Clause 4.1 of the Model Code of Conduct provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter, or if the interest is of a kind specified in clause 4.6 of the Model Code of Conduct.

2 A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in clause 4.3 of the Model Code of Conduct has a proprietary interest

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 21/10/2021

Item: 05

Subject: DA2021 - 600 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of Dual Occupancy at 11 Perks Parade Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: GK & AM Caldwell c/- Collins W Collins

Owner: GK & AM Caldwell

Estimated Cost: $955,040

Parcel no: 20348

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2021 - 600.1 for a Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of Dual Occupancy at Lot 29, DP 231845, No. 11 Perks Parade, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following public exhibition of the application, five (5) submissions were received.

During the assessment period, the proposed Torrens Title Subdivision component of the original application was removed. It should also be noted that amended plans and bushfire assessment were submitted to Council regarding minor changes to earthworks and tree clearing changes.

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

The reason for the application being referred to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) is because three (3) or more objections to the proposal have been received. A copy of the DAP Charter outlining the delegations and functions of the DAP is available on Council’s website.

Report

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 1151m².

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:

· Demolition of existing dwelling.

· 2 x 5 bedroom Dual Occupancy development with Pool.

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

Application Chronology

· 19 July 2021 - Application Lodged

· 9 August to 23 August 2021 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

· 13 August 2021 - Additional Information request to applicant.

· 10 September 2021 - additional information and revised plans received, as well as formal withdrawal of the Torrens Title subdivision component of the application.

· 13 September 2021 - Rural Fire Service comments received.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2021

Clause 6 - This SEPP applies to all non-rural zoned land within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area.

Clause 11 - No approved KPoM applies however the property is less than 1ha in size and this clause does not apply.

Before consent is granted, Council is required to assess whether the development is likely to have any impact on koalas or koala habitat.

Clause 12 - Having considered the SEPP, the application and on completion of a site inspection, Council is not prevented from granting consent in this case for the following reasons:

1. The property is not subject to a KPOM the site is already being used for residential purposes,

2. The site is already cleared, and

3. There are no additional identifiable impacts to any known koala habitat.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

Clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clause 11 proximity to coastal wetlands of this SEPP, the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

(a) identifiable adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological and ecological

integrity of the nearby coastal wetland; and

(b) identifiable impacts to water flows to the nearby coastal wetland.

The site is located within a coastal use area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h) overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores; 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 sufficiently compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment. The site is predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

Clause 15 - The proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land.

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 - referral to Essential Energy has been completed having regard for any of the following:

(a) the penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole or within 10m of any part of an electricity tower,

(b) development carried out:

(i) within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists), or

(ii) immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or

(iii) within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line,

(i) within 30m of a structure supporting an overhead electricity transmission line, measured horizontally from the top of the pool to the bottom of the structure at ground level, or

(ii) within 5m of an overhead electricity power line, measured vertically upwards from the top of the pool.

Essential Energy have no specific concerns regarding the development, but have provided some general advice. The advice received from Essential Energy has been forwarded the Applicant for consideration.

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 - Dual Occupancies are 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 2.7 - The demolition requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 8.124 m 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 0.44:1, 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: Part B - General Provisions - B2: Environmental Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3	a) Development must comply with Council’s Developments, Public Place & Events - Waste Minimisation and Management Policy.	Satisfactory arrangements can be put in place for storage and collection of waste. Standard condition recommended for construction waste management.	Yes
Cut and Fill Regrading
4	a) Development shall not exceed a maximum cut of 1.0m and fill of 1.0m measured vertically above the ground level (existing) at a distance of 1.0m outside the perimeter of the external walls of the building (This does not apply to buildings where such cut and fill is fully retained within or by the external walls of the building).	Cut to 1.4m Fill to 1.3m See justification below.	No, but considered acceptable based on the merit of the application.
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	The Application notes that all retaining walls will be constructed to engineer’s details. This has been included in the draft conditions to provided prior to release of the construction certificate.	Yes, subject to engineering detail provided prior to release of the Construction Certificate.
5	b) Where a combination of a fence and a wall is proposed to be greater than 1.2m high: - be a maximum combined height of 1.8m above existing property boundary level; - be constructed up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 30% of the street frontage, whichever is less; − the fence component has openings which make it not less than 25% transparent; and − provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and - provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	Proposed retaining wall are proposed within the lot boundaries. No combined fence and retaining walls along boundaries or street frontage proposed.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management*
Bushfire Hazard Management
18	a) APZs are to be located outside of environmental protection zones and wholly provided within private land. Note perimeter roads provided as part of a residential subdivision are classified as being part of the subdivision and not a separate permissible land use within environment protection zones.	The site is considered bushfire prone. A bushfire report has been prepared by Krisann Johnson. The report states that the development is capable of complying with BAL 29 and the entire property is maintained as an IPZ for the life of the development. The proposed development does not rely on additional clearing and an increase APZ.	Yes
Flooding
19	a) Development must comply with Council’s Floodplain Management Plan and Flood Policies.	NA	NA

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Road Hierarchy
Parking Provision
24	a) Off-street Parking is provided in accordance with Table 3: - 1 parking space per each dwelling for dwelling-house.	Both proposed units are provided with double garages. Total of 4 parking space provided.		Yes
Parking Layout
28	c) Parking spaces shall generally be behind the building line but may be located between the building line and the street when: − it is stacked parking in the driveway; or − it can be demonstrated that improvements to the open space provided will result; and − the spaces are screened (densely landscaped or similar) from the street by a landscaping with a minimum width of 3.0m for the entire length of the parking area.	Residential parking spaces only. Total of 4 parking spaces provided behind the front building line, plus casual stacked parking ability in driveway		Yes
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.	Residential car parking only. Development capable of complying.		Yes
34	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Residential car parking only. Development capable of complying.		Yes
	b) Council will not permit the discharge of stormwater directly into kerbing and guttering or table drains for any development other than that of a minor nature.	Site naturally drains away from the street. Development capable of complying.		Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B5: Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Crime Prevention
43	a) The development addresses the generic principles of crime prevention: − Casual surveillance and sightlines; − Land use mix and activity generators; − Definition of use and ownership; − Basic exterior building design; − Lighting; − Way-finding; and − Predictable routes and entrapment locations; − as described in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.	No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part C - Development Specific Provisions - C1: Low Density Residential Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Front Setbacks
44	a) Dwellings may incorporate an articulation zone to a street frontage at no less than 3m from property boundary. The following building elements are permitted within the articulation zone: − 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. b) These building elements should not extend above the eave gutter line, other than a pitched roof to an entry feature or portico that has the same pitch as the roof on the dwelling house.	11B - No building elements within the articulation zone. 11A - there is an entry feature within the articulation zone.	Yes
44	c) The primary road front setback shall be: Classified road = any frontage 6.0m Primary frontage = 4.5m Secondary frontage = 3.0m Ancillary Lane = 2.0m Large lot residential and rural zones = 10.0m	Minimum setback to primary frontage: 11A - 4.98m 11B - 4.57m	Yes
45	a) A garage, carport or car parking space should: − be at least 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from a front boundary of 4.5m or more, or − be at least 5.5m from a front boundary, where the dwelling(s) has a setback of less than 4.5m.	11A - Garage will be 1.1m behind the building line of the 11A upper level building line. 11B - Garage at front building line. N/A - as dwelling achieves a minimum 4.5m front setback and is considered to satisfy the development provision of being 1m behind the building line.	Yes No, however considered acceptable see justification below.
	b) The total width of the garage/carport openings should not be more than 6m and not more than 50 per cent of the width of the building.	11A - 5m wide 11B - 5m wide Total building width percentage of garage opening is 59.5%.	Yes Yes No, however considered acceptable see justification below.
	c) Driveway crossovers are no greater than 5.0m in width.	11A - 5m 11B - 4.5m	Yes
	d) Where a dual occupancy or attached dwelling is proposed on a corner lot a garage and driveway is provided on each road frontage.	Not considered a corner lot.	N/A
Side and Rear Setbacks
46	a) A minimum rear boundary setback of 4m is to be provided to dwellings (including verandahs, patios and decks).	11A - minimum 25m to rear deck 11B - minimum 21m to rear deck	Yes
	b) A minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to sheds and swimming pools subject to achieving minimum required private open space area.	11A Shed - 9.8m to rear boundary	Yes
	c) Council may consider varying rear setback requirements where it is demonstrated that the private open space could achieve better solar access between the building and the side setback. In that instance, one side setback should be a minimum 4m in width (for an equivalent length of rear boundary, behind building line) and the rear setback may be reduced to 900mm.	No variation	N/A
47	a) Ground floors (being <1m above existing ground level) should be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.	North - minimum 1.5m side setback to building line. South - minimum 1.3m side setback Note: open stairs and landings to exterior doors are excluded to side back development provision, similar to side access paths.	Yes
	b) First floors and above (including single storey with floor level >1m) should be setback a minimum of 3m from the side boundary, or reduced down to 900mm where it can be demonstrated that the adjoining property’s primary living rooms and principal private open space areas are not adversely overshadowed for more than 3hrs between 9am - 3pm on 21 June.	North - 1.5m South - 1.3m Shadow diagrams have been provided which demonstrate that the reduced side setback for the upper level will have no adjoining primary living areas or principle areas of private open space that will be adversely impacted by reduced solar access.	Yes
	c) First floors and above should have building walls that step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm articulation. Where first floors and above are setback >3m, wall articulation is not required.	Upper level walls on both north and south elevations are considered articulated and meet this development provision.	Yes
Private Open Space
48	a) All dwellings should have a minimum area of private open space of 35m2, which includes a principal private open space area with: − a minimum dimension of 4m x 4m, and − a maximum grade of 5% for minimum 4m x 4m of the total open space requirement, and − direct accessibility from a ground floor living area and orientated to maximise use.	11A - Total of 190m of useable private open space. 11B - Total of 320m2 of useable private open space. The rear yard will be tiered with a series of low retaining wall to create appropriate grades and useable areas.	Yes Yes Yes
	b) Private open space may include clothes drying areas and garbage storage.	Clothes drying area noted on site plans.	Yes
Public Domain and Fencing
49	a) Front fences built forward of the building line for the primary road frontage should be detailed on the development application plans.	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
	b) Solid Front fences up to 1.2m high should be: − Setback 1.0m from the front boundary, and − Suitably landscaped to reduce visual impact, and − Provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites.	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
	b) Front fences proposed to be more than 1.2m high should be a maximum of 1.8m in height, above existing front property boundary level, and either: − Include landscaped recesses having minimum dimensions of 1.8m long x 900mm deep which occupy no less than 50% of the total length of the fence, or − be erected up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 50% of the street frontage,	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
	c) have openings which make it not less than 25% transparent (no individual opening more than 30mm wide);	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
	d) provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
	e) provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	N/A No front fencing proposed	N/A
Bulk and Scale
51	a) Direct views between indoor living rooms and principal private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots, including possible dwellings on future lots, should be obscured or screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius. − Direct views between principal private open space areas where within a 12m radius. − Direct views between indoor living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings within a 12m radius.	Adjoining dwelling to the north does not have windows overlooking the northern boundary. The adjoining dwelling to the south has windows overlooking the southern boundary. Due to the orientation of the subdivision, rear building line of the existing dwellings are offset. The existing house to the south currently overlooks the subject backyard. The proposed development will not increase any existing privacy concerns due to direct views. The proposed development has been designed to have highlight windows adjoining side boundaries to limited perceived impacts. 11A has no living room windows proposed on the upper level and there are no direct views from living areas to neighbouring primary living areas.	Yes
	b) A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah should have a privacy screen where there are direct views of: − Indoor living room windows of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within 9m radius; or − Principal areas of private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within a 12m radius.	The rear decks are accessed by the ground floor and will be of a similar elevation to the existing ground level. The location of the rear decks are not adjoining existing primary living areas. There are no identifiable adverse impacts that would require additional screening.	Yes
	c) Privacy protection is not required for: − Any Indoor living room windows with a sill height of greater than 1.5m above the finished floor level of that room or where fixed non-openable translucent glass is installed to the same height.	The proposed windows adjoining the side boundaries are considered highlight windows only. There are not adverse impacts to privacy to adjoining primary living areas that would require these windows to require additional privacy controls.	Yes
	d) Direct views described above may be reduced or obscured by one of the following measures (details to be submitted with the development application): − 1.8m high fence or wall between ground-floor level windows or between a dwelling and principal private open space − Screening of minimum 1.7m height, that has 25% openings (max), with no individual opening more than 30mm wide, is permanently fixed and is made of durable materials. − A window, the whole of which has translucent glass and is not able to be opened.	There are no identifiable impacts to direct views from the proposed development to that already existing to the land. 11A upper level only has bedroom and bathroom windows. 11B upper level is not adjoining primary living areas to the existing dwelling to the south. 1.8m high boundary fence will provide adequate privacy at ground level. No direct views to primary private open space areas.	Yes
Ancillary Development
56	a) For ancillary development in R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential, R5 Large Lot Residential and RU5 Village zones: − The height of an outbuilding or the alterations and additions to an existing outbuilding on a lot should not be more than 4.8m above ground level (existing). − The building should be single storey construction with a maximum roof pitch of 24 degrees. − The maximum area of the building should be 60m2 for lots less than 900m² and maximum of 100m² for larger lots. − Ancillary development that is a garage, or an outbuilding, or a rainwater tank should not be located in front of the main building line with the exception of swimming pools.	Ancillary development appropriately located behind building line, including the swimming pool. Proposed Shed at 11A, is proposed to be a maximum of 4.8m from the finished ground level. The total floor area will be 24m2, not including subfloor storage.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to Clause 4, exceeding 1.0m of cut or fill.

The relevant objectives are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

· The existing topography includes approximately 5m of fall from the street frontage to the north west rear corner.

· The proposal includes cut to a maximum of 1.4m to the frontage and fill to a maximum of 1.3m to the rear of the proposed dwellings.

· Retaining walls are proposed within the side and rear boundaries of the site to provide terracing to the rear private open spaces, with maximum 800mm high and 1.0m high retaining walls proposed.

· The highest proposed retaining wall, to 1.7m high, is located at the proposed central boundary of the proposed dual occupancy to the rear private open spaces. The central retaining wall is approximately 10m from the side boundary, and has no adverse privacy or overshadowing impacts to adjoining developments.

· Each of the proposed retaining walls are to be constructed in accordance with engineer’s details and specifications to ensure that the proposal does not result in any adverse impacts to neighbouring properties.

· The proposed retaining walls will incorporate adequate drainage measures and will therefore be unlikely to result in adverse impacts on stormwater drainage for neighbouring properties.

· There are no identifiable impacts of instability or damage to adjoining properties caused by the proposed earthworks.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to Clause 45, a garage should be 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from the front boundary of greater than 4.5m.

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.

· To provide safe and functional vehicular access.

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

· The proposal has been designed to provide each dwelling with a double garage, whilst providing articulated frontages to each dwelling to assist in creating further visual interest and reducing the visual impact of the proposed garages on the Perks Parade streetscape.

· The proposal provides double garages to each dwelling to provide up to 4 off street parking spaces behind the building line, reducing impact to on street parking.

· Due to the irregular subdivision layout, the garage openings being perpendicular from the proposed building line to the street frontage achieves a 4.5m to 8.176m setback. Partly achieving a 5.5m setback for half of the garage opening.

· In front of each garage opening there is sufficient space for casual stacked parking within each driveway without impacting pedestrian traffic.

· There is currently no existing pedestrian paths that will be impacted by the proposed driveways.

· There is adequate area to provide soft landscaping to soften any perceived impacts.

· Garages are both proposed to be lower than the existing street level, softening to dominance.

· There will be elements of the Entrance and Upper level forward of the garage opening.

· The proposed front building line provides articulation through many building elements, integrating different materials, finishes and building line.

· The proposed garages are not adjoining, separated by the proposed entrances to each dwelling and building line articulation.

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

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

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 92

Demolition work on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard. A suitable consent condition is recommended to re-inforce this requirement.

(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 result in a change in character with a different architectural form including terrace style housing within the immediate locality. This is considered to be an acceptable physical and visual impact change given the proposal satisfactorily addresses the planning controls applying to the site.

The proposal exceeds the minimum setback requirements, is within the building height limit and is below the maximum floor space ratio. There are also no precinct specific local character controls applying to the subject locality.

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

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

Access, Traffic and Transport

The proposed development of 2 x 5 bedroom dwellings with double garages, is considered to meet the off street car parking requirements for a dual occupancy. The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts in terms of 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

Council records indicate the proposed development lot is serviced by a 20mm metered water service. Each lot is to be adequately serviced – details required with Section 68 application.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Sewer Connection

The proposed works are clear (>600mm) of the existing sewer junction and main traversing the site.

All work will need to comply with the requirements of Council’s adopted AUSPEC Design and Construction Guidelines and Policies - details required with Section 68 application. Any abandoned sewer junctions are to be capped off at Council’s sewer main and Council notified to carry out an inspection prior to backfilling of this work.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

Service available - details required with Section 68 application.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

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.

Watercycle

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

Soils

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

Air and Microclimate

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

Flora and Fauna

The site is within the Biodiversity Values Map. However, Clause 7.3(4) of the Biodiversity Regulations turns off the Biodiversity Values Map for approved lots created before the Act commenced. The proposed development has been amended to now included no native vegetation removal. No adverse ecological impacts have been identified as the proposed development footprint is located outside of the mapped area.

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and Vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by Krisann Johnson.

An assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 29 shall be required.

The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) is proposed within the property as shown the plans submitted.

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. Adequate casual surveillance is available.

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. 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 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 satisfactorily fit into the locality and the site attributes are conducive to the proposed development.

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

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

Five (5) 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
Density of development - 2x dual occupancy developments is out of character - Is not in character with the street which presently all single occupancy dwellings. - This and further developments of this sort will make the street exceedingly congested. - This proposed development is a radical departure from the normal quality homes which exist in Perks Parade .	The site is zoned R1 General Residential. Within this zone both dual occupancy and multi-dwelling housing are permissible landuse. The objectives of this zone are particularly noted to encourage and allow for a variety of housing types and densities. The proposal meets the requirements of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environment Plan 2011 and addresses the Development Control Plan 2013. Even though this is there are no other dual occupancies in the Perks Parade, there are many examples of dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing within the immediate locality. The total development is not considered an overdevelopment of the site or fragments the existing character of Perks Parade. Note, architectural style or appearance is not a planning consideration that could justify refusal. Refer to further comments earlier in this report addressing character.
Council must consider the existing amenity of properties in one small street and no other dual occupancy within the location.	With regards to the type of residential development, Council determines developments based on permissibility. The area is zoned R1 General residential, within the R1 zone landuse table, Dual Occupancies are a permissible landuse with consent. Refusal of this application based on the existing amenity of having no existing dual occupancies within the vicinity is not justifiable given the planning controls. Traffic, congestion and parking is discussed below.
Accumulative traffic generation and congestion.	Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the immediate local road network will be suitable to cater for the increased demand of 1 additional residential dwelling within Perks Parade. It is not considered reasonable to suggest the two proposed dwellings would generate excessive traffic compared to a smaller dual occupancy development. The existing and accumulative traffic concerns raised are not the subject of this application. On street storage and blocking of the road reserve from boat and caravan parking is a separate matter to this application. Based on Merit of this application, provided more than the required minimum off street car parking, refusal of the application on these grounds is not justified.
Parking - Total of 10 bedrooms = 10 extra cars (potentially 20 people = 20 cars) - Loss of one street parking spot	As discussed earlier in this report, the individual dual occupancies comply with the Development Control Plan 2013 off-street car parking requirement of 1 parking space per dwelling for dual occupancies/semi-detached dwellings. A total of 2 spaces behind the proposed building line have been provided to each dwelling. Additionally, the proposed design will allow for casual off-street parking within the driveways behind the boundary line. The assessment needs to be based on the merits of the individual application and the proposal satisfies the off-street parking requirements of the Development Control Plan 2013.
Occupancy numbers and type of residents	Both dwellings are considered 5 bedroom dwellings. This is based on all habitable rooms that are considered capable of being a bedroom. The assessment needs to be based on merit and not perceived perceptions. The proposal does not seek approval for student accommodation, short term holiday accommodation or affordable housing. For this type of development there are no mechanism to further consider potential maximum occupancy numbers of each dwelling, nor could refusal of this application be supported based on the potential occupancy numbers or type of residents.
Proposed Shed - Perceived uses - Positioned in flame zone	The proposed ancillary building is considered to achieve the development provisions of Clause 56 of the Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed shed will be utilised as a typical shed along with housing pool equipment and pool pump. Ancillary household storage is acceptable. The shed is not being approved as a habitable structure or secondary dwelling. The bush fire report submitted satisfactorily takes into consideration of the proposed shed location and impact to the total development.
Southern Boundary Earthworks - southern boundary proposed ground works including levelling, retaining walls, battering and sewage works impact to existing adjoining ground level. - Impacts to adjoining landscaping and pool.	The proposed works near the boundary would be contained within the subject lot. The proposed groundworks are not expected to impact the existing boundary fences or neighbouring properties. The maximum height of the retaining wall within 1m of the southern boundary will be approximately 1m high. A maximum 600mm retaining wall height is proposed in the area of the rear yard adjoining the neighbouring pool. The retaining wall is fully contained within the existing fence line. The Application notes that all retaining walls will be constructed to engineer’s details. This has been included in the draft conditions to provided prior to release of the construction certificate. As the retaining wall is fully contained within the subject property, the heights and earthworks satisfy clause 4 of the Development Control Plan 2013. The structural concerns are appropriately managed with the recommended draft conditions prior to release of the construction certification and will require certification prior to release of the occupation certificate.
Tree Removal - Removal of trees from the reserve / rear yard.	The original plans indicated that trees adjacent to the rear yard were to be removed due to bushfire constraints and potential damage due to earthworks. During the assessment, the proposed design has been modified to remove the requirement of tree removal adjoining the rear of the site within the adjoining reserve and change the landscaping design of the rear retaining wall. The amended site plans have confirmed the location of the adjoining Coastal Wetland Mapping and demonstrates that no vegetation removal or building works are proposed within the mapped area is impacted by this proposed development. Amended site plans and bush fire report have been provided indicating that the trees to the west of the rear boundary will not be required to be removed.
The building is non-compliant to Clause 47 of the Development Control Plan 2013.	Clause 47 of the Development Control Plan 2013 has been considered and adequately addressed earlier in this report. The proposed development has satisfactorily addressed the reduced side setback development provisions for the proposed upper level and address the objectives of this clause, with the following design elements; Incorporation of articulation to both elevations adjacent the side boundaries to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk. Integration of varying external materials and finishes to create visual interest and to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk. Provision of shadow diagrams demonstrating the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties with regard to solar access and overshadowing. The proposed development is within permissible building heights. The proposal incorporates a parapet façade with low-pitched skillion rooflines, with the lowest point positioned adjacent the side boundaries to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk.
The building is non-compliant to Clause 45 of the Development Control Plan 2013. - Bulk and scale - The height of the existing building is not stated for comparison. - the application states that it will not impact views. However, increase size of the building will block views to the reserve. - Building prominence.	Clause 45 of the Development Control Plan 2013 has been considered and adequately addressed earlier in this report. The variation to the development provision of this clause regards a garage should be 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from the front boundary of greater than 4.5m. The proposed design incorporates two double garages, in line with the front building line. The proposed front building line(s) angle away from the street. Due to the angled nature of the front boundary line, the proposal provides a varied setback to the proposed garages which will further assist in reducing perception of building bulk when viewed from the public domain. The building line is articulated for each dwelling, which will assist in reducing the perception of bulk when viewed from the public domain. Orientation of the front building line will be perpendicular to the side boundaries, which is considered consistent with the other homes in the locality. Due to the orientation of the front building line, only part of the garage door opening will be within 5.5m of the front boundary. The proposed upper floor of dwelling 11B sits forward of the garage by 1.21m and incorporates a decorative feature above the garage, taking visual prominence and providing further visual interest and articulation to the dwelling frontage. Additionally, there is space provided within the front setback for the inclusion of streetscape planting to assist in softening the impacts to the streetscape. As addressed earlier, the objectives of this clause have been satisfactorily addressed, and refusal of this application based on proposed setback of garage door openings is not justifiable.
Boundary fences are to be removed. No plan on timescale until fence replacement is listed. No consultation on fence style has been offered to those directly impacted. In one instance the boundary fence is a pool fence and safety during construction is of concern.	It is noted that boundary fences are a civil matter. Council has not delegation regarding boundary fences unless the combined height is greater than 1.8m and not consistent with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. The site plans only indicate an internal fence which will form part of the pool safety barrier. This will have a combined height of 2.33m above the finished level of the pool area and 1.8m from the adjoining rear yard. This proposed fence height will have no identifiable impacts to existing adjoining properties but will provide privacy between the private open space of the area and a compliant pool safety barrier.
No community consultation has taken part regarding this development to this time. No Signage displaying the proposed plans located on the site frontage.	The Development Application was publicly notified and made available on Council’s website. It is noted that architectural plans are not required to be posted or displayed at the front of the development site during the development assessment period.

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Density of development

- 2x dual occupancy developments is out of character

- Is not in character with the street which presently all single occupancy dwellings.

- This and further developments of this sort will make the street exceedingly congested.

- This proposed development is a radical departure from the normal quality homes which exist in Perks Parade .

The site is zoned R1 General Residential. Within this zone both dual occupancy and multi-dwelling housing are permissible landuse.

The objectives of this zone are particularly noted to encourage and allow for a variety of housing types and densities.

The proposal meets the requirements of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environment Plan 2011 and addresses the Development Control Plan 2013.

Even though this is there are no other dual occupancies in the Perks Parade, there are many examples of dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing within the immediate locality.

The total development is not considered an overdevelopment of the site or fragments the existing character of Perks Parade.

Note, architectural style or appearance is not a planning consideration that could justify refusal.

Refer to further comments earlier in this report addressing character.

Council must consider the existing amenity of properties in one small street and no other dual occupancy within the location.

With regards to the type of residential development, Council determines developments based on permissibility. The area is zoned R1 General residential, within the R1 zone landuse table, Dual Occupancies are a permissible landuse with consent.

Refusal of this application based on the existing amenity of having no existing dual occupancies within the vicinity is not justifiable given the planning controls.

Traffic, congestion and parking is discussed below.

Accumulative traffic generation and congestion.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the immediate local road network will be suitable to cater for the increased demand of 1 additional residential dwelling within Perks Parade.

It is not considered reasonable to suggest the two proposed dwellings would generate excessive traffic compared to a smaller dual occupancy development.

The existing and accumulative traffic concerns raised are not the subject of this application. On street storage and blocking of the road reserve from boat and caravan parking is a separate matter to this application.

Based on Merit of this application, provided more than the required minimum off street car parking, refusal of the application on these grounds is not justified.

Parking

- Total of 10 bedrooms = 10 extra cars (potentially 20 people = 20 cars)

- Loss of one street parking spot

As discussed earlier in this report, the individual dual occupancies comply with the Development Control Plan 2013 off-street car parking requirement of 1 parking space per dwelling for dual occupancies/semi-detached dwellings.

A total of 2 spaces behind the proposed building line have been provided to each dwelling.

Additionally, the proposed design will allow for casual off-street parking within the driveways behind the boundary line.

The assessment needs to be based on the merits of the individual application and the proposal satisfies the off-street parking requirements of the Development Control Plan 2013.

Occupancy numbers and type of residents

Both dwellings are considered 5 bedroom dwellings. This is based on all habitable rooms that are considered capable of being a bedroom.

The assessment needs to be based on merit and not perceived perceptions. The proposal does not seek approval for student accommodation, short term holiday accommodation or affordable housing.

For this type of development there are no mechanism to further consider potential maximum occupancy numbers of each dwelling, nor could refusal of this application be supported based on the potential occupancy numbers or type of residents.

Proposed Shed

- Perceived uses

- Positioned in flame zone

The proposed ancillary building is considered to achieve the development provisions of Clause 56 of the Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposed shed will be utilised as a typical shed along with housing pool equipment and pool pump. Ancillary household storage is acceptable.

The shed is not being approved as a habitable structure or secondary dwelling.

The bush fire report submitted satisfactorily takes into consideration of the proposed shed location and impact to the total development.

Southern Boundary Earthworks

- southern boundary proposed ground works including levelling, retaining walls, battering and sewage works impact to existing adjoining ground level.

- Impacts to adjoining landscaping and pool.

The proposed works near the boundary would be contained within the subject lot. The proposed groundworks are not expected to impact the existing boundary fences or neighbouring properties.

The maximum height of the retaining wall within 1m of the southern boundary will be approximately 1m high.

A maximum 600mm retaining wall height is proposed in the area of the rear yard adjoining the neighbouring pool. The retaining wall is fully contained within the existing fence line.

The Application notes that all retaining walls will be constructed to engineer’s details. This has been included in the draft conditions to provided prior to release of the construction certificate.

As the retaining wall is fully contained within the subject property, the heights and earthworks satisfy clause 4 of the Development Control Plan 2013.

The structural concerns are appropriately managed with the recommended draft conditions prior to release of the construction certification and will require certification prior to release of the occupation certificate.

Tree Removal

- Removal of trees from the reserve / rear yard.

The original plans indicated that trees adjacent to the rear yard were to be removed due to bushfire constraints and potential damage due to earthworks.

During the assessment, the proposed design has been modified to remove the requirement of tree removal adjoining the rear of the site within the adjoining reserve and change the landscaping design of the rear retaining wall.

The amended site plans have confirmed the location of the adjoining Coastal Wetland Mapping and demonstrates that no vegetation removal or building works are proposed within the mapped area is impacted by this proposed development.

Amended site plans and bush fire report have been provided indicating that the trees to the west of the rear boundary will not be required to be removed.

The building is non-compliant to Clause 47 of the Development Control Plan 2013.

Clause 47 of the Development Control Plan 2013 has been considered and adequately addressed earlier in this report. The proposed development has satisfactorily addressed the reduced side setback development provisions for the proposed upper level and address the objectives of this clause, with the following design elements;

Incorporation of articulation to both elevations adjacent the side boundaries to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk.

Integration of varying external materials and finishes to create visual interest and to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk.

Provision of shadow diagrams demonstrating the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties with regard to solar access and overshadowing.

The proposed development is within permissible building heights. The proposal incorporates a parapet façade with low-pitched skillion rooflines, with the lowest point positioned adjacent the side boundaries to assist in reducing visual perceptions of building bulk.

The building is non-compliant to Clause 45 of the Development Control Plan 2013.

- Bulk and scale

- The height of the existing building is not stated for comparison.

- the application states that it will not impact views. However, increase size of the building will block views to the reserve.

- Building prominence.

Clause 45 of the Development Control Plan 2013 has been considered and adequately addressed earlier in this report. The variation to the development provision of this clause regards a garage should be 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from the front boundary of greater than 4.5m.

The proposed design incorporates two double garages, in line with the front building line.

The proposed front building line(s) angle away from the street. Due to the angled nature of the front boundary line, the proposal provides a varied setback to the proposed garages which will further assist in reducing perception of building bulk when viewed from the public domain.

The building line is articulated for each dwelling, which will assist in reducing the perception of bulk when viewed from the public domain.

Orientation of the front building line will be perpendicular to the side boundaries, which is considered consistent with the other homes in the locality. Due to the orientation of the front building line, only part of the garage door opening will be within 5.5m of the front boundary.

The proposed upper floor of dwelling 11B sits forward of the garage by 1.21m and incorporates a decorative feature above the garage, taking visual prominence and providing further visual interest and articulation to the dwelling frontage.

Additionally, there is space provided within the front setback for the inclusion of streetscape planting to assist in softening the impacts to the streetscape.

As addressed earlier, the objectives of this clause have been satisfactorily addressed, and refusal of this application based on proposed setback of garage door openings is not justifiable.

Boundary fences are to be removed.

No plan on timescale until fence replacement is listed. No consultation on fence style has been offered to those directly impacted. In one instance the boundary fence is a pool fence and safety during construction is of concern.

It is noted that boundary fences are a civil matter. Council has not delegation regarding boundary fences unless the combined height is greater than 1.8m and not consistent with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

The site plans only indicate an internal fence which will form part of the pool safety barrier. This will have a combined height of 2.33m above the finished level of the pool area and 1.8m from the adjoining rear yard. This proposed fence height will have no identifiable impacts to existing adjoining properties but will provide privacy between the private open space of the area and a compliant pool safety barrier.

No community consultation has taken part regarding this development to this time.

No Signage displaying the proposed plans located on the site frontage.

The Development Application was publicly notified and made available on Council’s website.

It is noted that architectural plans are not required to be posted or displayed at the front of the development site during the development assessment period.

(e) The Public Interest

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

Ecologically Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle

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

The four principles of ecologically sustainable development are:

· the precautionary principle,

· intergenerational equity,

· conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity,

· improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

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

Climate change

The proposal is not considered to be vulnerable to any risks associated with climate change.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

· Development contributions will be required in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

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

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

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

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

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2021 - 600.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2021 - 600.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2021 - 600.1 Contributions Estimate

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 21/10/2021

Item: 06

Subject: DA2021-470.1 Multi Dwelling Housing and Community Title Subdivision at Lot 47 DP 1230717, 39 Antigua Avenue, Lake Cathie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Manuka Property Holdings Pty Ltd c/- Encompass Drafting

Owner: Manuka Property Holdings Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $1,938,175

Parcel no: 68222

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2021 - 470.1 for Multi Dwelling Housing and Community Title Subdivision at Lot 47, DP 1230717, No. 39 Antigua Avenue, Lake Cathie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following public exhibition of the application, 5 submissions and a petition were received.

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

The reason for the application being referred to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) is three (3) or more objections to the proposal have been received. A copy of the DAP Charter outlining the delegations and functions of the DAP is available on Council’s website.

Report

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 3,092m².

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Construction of nine (9) dwellings, associated earthworks, driveway and visitor parking.

· Community title subdivision.

· Site access is limited to Antigua Avenue.

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

Application Chronology

· 15 June 2021 - Application Lodged

· 21 June to 05 July 2021 - Neighbour notification

· 23 June 2021 - Engineering plans provided

· 02 August 2021 - Response from RFS referral received

· 08 August 2021 - Additional information received

· 15 September 2021 - Additional information, response to submission and amended plans received.

· 29 September 2021 - Amended Site Plans received.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2021

Clause 6 - This SEPP applies to all non-rural zoned land within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area.

Clause 12 - Having considered the SEPP, the application and on completion of a site inspection, Council is not prevented from granting consent in this case for the following reasons:

1. The property is subject to a KPOM but no clearing applies, or

2. The site is not considered to be core koala habitat.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

BASIX certificates 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 - referral to Essential Energy has been completed having regard for any of the following:

(a) the penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole or within 10m of any part of an electricity tower,

(b) development carried out:

(i) within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists), or

(ii) immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or

(iii) within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line,

(i) within 30m of a structure supporting an overhead electricity transmission line, measured horizontally from the top of the pool to the bottom of the structure at ground level, or

(ii) within 5m of an overhead electricity power line, measured vertically upwards from the top of the pool.

Clause 101 refers to development with frontage to a classified road. In this case, the development does not create any additional crossovers onto the classified road or substantial increase in traffic. Therefore, no adverse impact on the road network will occur.

In terms of noise impacts, the dwellings will provide screening and/or separation to the classified road. It also appears that AADT numbers range from 20,000+ vehicles per day in that area of Ocean Drive Lake Cathie based on RMS data. Using the Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads document as a guide, houses would need Category 2 construction based on Heggies acoustic assessment of the potential impacts from road traffic noise from Ocean Drive. An appropriate condition is recommended.

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

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

· Clause 2.2 - The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R3 zone landuse table - The multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent. Following subdivision, each community title lot will contain a detached dwelling and a community lot.

The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows:

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

o To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

· Clause 4.1 - Does not apply as the proposal is for community title subdivision

· Clause 4.1A - The minimum lot size does not apply to the proposal as it is characterised multi dwelling housing development.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 4.97m which complies with the standard height limit of 11.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.44:1 which complies with the maximum 1.50:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

· Clause 7.9 - Development subject to acoustic controls - The subdivision that created the lot included an assessment of road traffic noise from Ocean Drive. The assessment resulted in the following restriction being registered on the title of the lot:

A condition is recommended requiring details satisfying the above Australian Standard to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B2: Environmental Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3	a) Development must comply with Council’s Developments, Public Place & Events - Waste Minimisation and Management Policy.	Satisfactory arrangements can be put in place for storage and collection of waste. Standard condition recommended for construction waste management. Note: The site has been reviewed regarding manoeuvrability and confirmation of access for private off street waste collection has been received from JR Richards.	Yes
Cut and Fill Regrading
4	a) Development shall not exceed a maximum cut of 1.0m and fill of 1.0m measured vertically above the ground level (existing) at a distance of 1.0m outside the perimeter of the external walls of the building (This does not apply to buildings where such cut and fill is fully retained within or by the external walls of the building).	The proposed earthworks have been designed to ensure no cut or fill greater than 1m is proposed greater than 1m outside of the external walls of the development. See Engineering Plans - Earthworks, sheet S01, Dwg No. 2020-30 by D.R.J, Mar 2020.	Yes
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	The proposal has been designed to have no proposed retaining wall greater than 1m. However, due to the proximity to side boundaries, a recommended condition requiring engineering certification must be provided prior to release of the Construction Certificate.	Yes
5	b) Where a combination of a fence and a wall is proposed to be greater than 1.2m high: - be a maximum combined height of 1.8m above existing property boundary level; - be constructed up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 30% of the street frontage, whichever is less; − the fence component has openings which make it not less than 25% transparent; and − provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and - provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	Noted that all proposed retaining walls are proposed within the existing fence line of the development. In particular, there will be no change to the 1.8m high existing fence line along the southern boundary of the development. The front gate is proposed approximately 11m from the front boundary. The gate is less than 6m wide and designed to comply with this clause. The setback from the street frontage will allow cars to park on the driveway while opening and closing. The front landscaping wall, will be approximately 3m in length, incorporate signage, mailbox and generally complies with this clause.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management*
Bushfire Hazard Management
18	a) APZs are to be located outside of environmental protection zones and wholly provided within private land. Note perimeter roads provided as part of a residential subdivision are classified as being part of the subdivision and not a separate permissible land use within environment protection zones.	N/A	N/A
Flooding
19	a) Development must comply with Council’s Floodplain Management Plan and Flood Policies.	N/A	N/A

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Road Hierarchy
Parking Provision
24	a) Off-street Parking is provided in accordance with Table 3. 1 parking space per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit + 1 visitor’s space per 4 units. 1.5 spaces per each 3 or 4 bedroom unit + 1 visitor’s space per 4 units.	Proposal involves a total of 9 dwellings in total. 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings = 5 spaces 5 x 3 bedroom dwellings = 8.75 spaces Minimum of 13.75 on-site spaces required. Total of 19 on-site parking spaces are proposed. Total of 16 within garages, plus 3 on-site visitor spaces. The proposed development exceeds the minimum requirement by providing an additional 5 spaces.		Yes
Parking Layout
28	c) Parking spaces shall generally be behind the building line but may be located between the building line and the street when: − it is stacked parking in the driveway; or − it can be demonstrated that improvements to the open space provided will result; and − the spaces are screened (densely landscaped or similar) from the street by a landscaping with a minimum width of 3.0m for the entire length of the parking area.	All proposed garages comply with this clause. Visitor parking 1, is forward of the building line but is setback more than 5m from the front boundary, allowing adequate landscaping and masonry fence to soften any perceived impacts.		Yes
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.	Capable of complying. Standard condition have been recommended.		Yes
34	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Engineering plans have been provided demonstrating stormwater drainage. Council’s stormwater engineers have reviewed the plans and considered adequate to address this clause. Standard condition has been recommended requiring a section 68 application prior to release of the construction certificate.		Yes
	b) Council will not permit the discharge of stormwater directly into kerbing and guttering or table drains for any development other than that of a minor nature.	Council engineers have review the plans and considered the site capable of being managed. Standard Section 138 condition has been recommended.		Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B5: Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Crime Prevention
43	a) The development addresses the generic principles of crime prevention: − Casual surveillance and sightlines; − Land use mix and activity generators; − Definition of use and ownership; − Basic exterior building design; − Lighting; − Way-finding; and − Predictable routes and entrapment locations; − as described in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.	No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available. Note: proposed gate is to be automated, by being open during day light hours and closed overnight.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part C - Development Specific Provisions - C1: Low Density Residential Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Front Setbacks
44	a) Dwellings may incorporate an articulation zone to a street frontage at no less than 3m from property boundary. The following building elements are permitted within the articulation zone: − 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. b) These building elements should not extend above the eave gutter line, other than a pitched roof to an entry feature or portico that has the same pitch as the roof on the dwelling house.	No building elements forward of the building line frontage towards Antigua Avenue. It is noted that a hardstand car parking space and private bin collection area is within the front setback. However, these are not covered, have the ability to be screened with landscaping and meet the minimum front setback from the front boundary. These elements forward of the building line of the first dwelling is not anticipated to detract from the existing streetscape. The objectives of this clause have been satisfied.	Yes
44	c) The primary road front setback shall be: Classified road = any frontage 6.0m Primary frontage = 4.5m Secondary frontage = 3.0m Ancillary Lane = 2.0m Large lot residential and rural zones = 10.0m	Minimum 10m front setback to front building line of Unit 1 to Antigua Avenue.	Yes
45	a) A garage, carport or car parking space should: − be at least 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from a front boundary of 4.5m or more, or − be at least 5.5m from a front boundary, where the dwelling(s) has a setback of less than 4.5m.	Garages are appropriately located behind the building line. Position of proposed garage doors are unlikely to impact the streetscape and provides safe and functional vehicular access. Garage location and turning circles have been demonstrated on Drawing No. A002.0,	Yes
	b) The total width of the garage/carport openings should not be more than 6m and not more than 50 per cent of the width of the building.	NA - no garage opening addressing the street frontage of Antigua Avenue.	NA
	c) Driveway crossovers are no greater than 5.0m in width.	Single 5m wide driveway crossover and 0.8m path is proposed.	Yes
	d) Where a dual occupancy or attached dwelling is proposed on a corner lot a garage and driveway is provided on each road frontage.	Note, While the subject land also abuts Seaside Drive to the East, and Ocean Drive to the North, with consideration of the R3 medium density zoning of the subject land, industry best practice for road and transport planning, guides that access to a development of this nature should be from the lower hierarchy road, being in this case, Antigua Avenue. As such, the subdivision plan and 88b document for the subject land (parent lot), has a restriction on the land, stating “no vehicular access to and from Seaside Drive is permitted”.	NA
Side and Rear Setbacks
46	a) A minimum rear boundary setback of 4m is to be provided to dwellings (including verandahs, patios and decks).	The site is irregular in shape so side and rear boundaries are not atypical. However, it is considered that the rear setback is the eastern boundary of the lot. This setback relates to Units 5 and 9. It is noted that this boundary is not adjacent to adjoining private open space or dwellings.	Generally, yes. see further discussion below this table
	b) A minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to sheds and swimming pools subject to achieving minimum required private open space area.	NA	NA
	c) Council may consider varying rear setback requirements where it is demonstrated that the private open space could achieve better solar access between the building and the side setback. In that instance, one side setback should be a minimum 4m in width (for an equivalent length of rear boundary, behind building line) and the rear setback may be reduced to 900mm.	See comments below.	Generally, yes. see further discussion below this table.
47	a) Ground floors (being <1m above existing ground level) should be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.	Side setbacks based on the existing side boundaries of the parent lot. Unit 1 - 900mm Unit 2 - 1700mm Unit 3 - 1006mm Unit 4 - 1300mm Unit 5 - 2413mm and 2021mm Unit 6 - 2300m & 900mm Unit 7 - 900mm Unit 8 - 1500mm Unit 9 - 2500mm and 2000mm Note all internal proposed side setbacks for community title lots comply with 900mm development provisions.	Yes.
	b) First floors and above (including single storey with floor level >1m) should be setback a minimum of 3m from the side boundary, or reduced down to 900mm where it can be demonstrated that the adjoining property’s primary living rooms and principal private open space areas are not adversely overshadowed for more than 3hrs between 9am - 3pm on 21 June.	NA - single storey development.	NA
	c) First floors and above should have building walls that step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm articulation. Where first floors and above are setback >3m, wall articulation is not required.	NA - single storey development.	NA
Private Open Space
48.	a) All dwellings should have a minimum area of private open space of 35m2, which includes a principal private open space area with: − a minimum dimension of 4m x 4m, and − a maximum grade of 5% for minimum 4m x 4m of the total open space requirement, and − direct accessibility from a ground floor living area and orientated to maximise use.	All proposed dwelling have been provided with compliant private open space. Each dwelling contains various configurations of private open space meeting the minimum of 35m2 open space in one area. This includes minimum 4x4m dimensions and direct access from living areas. See Drawing No. A002.0. There are no adverse impacts identifiable. The proposal is considered to adequately address the objectives of this clause.	Yes
	b) Private open space may include clothes drying areas and garbage storage.	Noted. There are no adverse concerns identifiable.	Yes
Public Domain and Fencing
49	a) Front fences built forward of the building line for the primary road frontage should be detailed on the development application plans.	Front Fence and Gate details have been provided during the assessment and considered to generally comply with the development provisions of the DCP. No change to existing boundary fences proposed adjoining Ocean Drive or Seaside Drive.	Yes
	b) Solid Front fences up to 1.2m high should be: − Setback 1.0m from the front boundary, and − Suitably landscaped to reduce visual impact, and − Provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites.	NA - no new fences proposed.	NA
	b) Front fences proposed to be more than 1.2m high should be a maximum of 1.8m in height, above existing front property boundary level, and either: − Include landscaped recesses having minimum dimensions of 1.8m long x 900mm deep which occupy no less than 50% of the total length of the fence, or − be erected up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 50% of the street frontage,	NA - no new fences proposed.	NA
	c) have openings which make it not less than 25% transparent (no individual opening more than 30mm wide);	NA - no new fences proposed.	NA
	d) provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and	NA - no new fences proposed.	NA
	e) provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	NA - no new fences proposed.	NA
Bulk and Scale
51	a) Direct views between indoor living rooms and principal private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots, including possible dwellings on future lots, should be obscured or screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius. − Direct views between principal private open space areas where within a 12m radius. − Direct views between indoor living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings within a 12m radius.	The development will not compromise privacy in the area due to a combination of building design, setbacks, elevation and fencing. In particular primary the development is considered single storey and living spaces are located at a proposed level lower than the existing ground level. Due to the proposed site levels and the 1.8m high boundary fences, there will be no direct views to primary living areas of adjoining developments. It was raised with the applicant regarding increasing the fence height or providing screening plants along the southern boundary. However, it was considered that the existing fence and internal retaining wall will provide enough height to maintain a satisfactory level of privacy.	Yes, based on merit of the proposed development.
	b) A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah should have a privacy screen where there are direct views of: − Indoor living room windows of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within 9m radius; or − Principal areas of private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within a 12m radius.	As discussed above, due to the nature of the development being single storey and existing 1.8m high boundary fence. Additionally screening will not have a measurable impact to protect privacy.	Yes
	c) Privacy protection is not required for: − Any Indoor living room windows with a sill height of greater than 1.5m above the finished floor level of that room or where fixed non-openable translucent glass is installed to the same height.	The proposed development has been designed to limit the number of windows from living spaces overlooking side boundaries. There are no adverse impacts identifiable.	Yes
	d) Direct views described above may be reduced or obscured by one of the following measures (details to be submitted with the development application): − 1.8m high fence or wall between ground-floor level windows or between a dwelling and principal private open space − Screening of minimum 1.7m height, that has 25% openings (max), with no individual opening more than 30mm wide, is permanently fixed and is made of durable materials. − A window, the whole of which has translucent glass and is not able to be opened.	As discussed above, due to the nature of the development being single storey and existing 1.8m high boundary fence. Additionally screening will not have a measurable impact to protect privacy.	Yes
Roof Terraces
52	a) Direct views between roof terraces and indoor living room windows or principal areas of private open space of adjacent dwellings should be screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius of the trafficable area of the roof terrace; Direct views between roof terraces principal areas of private open space within a 12m radius of the trafficable are of the roof terrace.	None proposed.	NA
	b) Screening should only be considered where: − the height of the screen does not exceed the maximum building height; and − the screening contributes to the building form, and − the screening is integrated into the design of the roof; and − is constructed and designed with materials complementary to the building.	None proposed.	NA
	c) Lighting installations on roof terraces should be: - contained within the roof terrace area and located at a low level, and - appropriately shaded and fixed in a non-adjustable manner so that light is projected downwards onto the floor surface of the terrace. − designed in compliance with Australian Standards AS4282 - Control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.	None proposed.	NA
Ancillary Development
56	a) For ancillary development in R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential, R5 Large Lot Residential and RU5 Village zones: − The height of an outbuilding or the alterations and additions to an existing outbuilding on a lot should not be more than 4.8m above ground level (existing). − The building should be single storey construction with a maximum roof pitch of 24 degrees. − The maximum area of the building should be 60m2 for lots less than 900m² and maximum of 100m² for larger lots. − Ancillary development that is a garage, or an outbuilding, or a rainwater tank should not be located in front of the main building line with the exception of swimming pools.	None proposed.	N/A

*DCP 2013: Chapter 5.2 Lake Cathie - Bonny Hills*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
350	Development subject to acoustic controls as identified in the Port Macquarie-Hasting LEP 2011 is to comply with AS3671 Acoustics - Road traffic noise intrusion - Building siting and construction. In particular, o Minimising the number of windows and openings which directly face the potential noise source o Locating noise insensitive areas such as kitchens, storage areas, laundry and garage, toward potential noise sources o Incorporating courtyard walls and boundary fences as barriers to potential noise sources	Consideration to design has been provided. No changes to the existing acoustic fence is proposed. Existing Section 88b restriction to ensure that future dwellings complying with Category 2 controls within the Australian Standard. See comments earlier under Clause 7.9 of the LEP.	Yes
	Subdivision layout avoids the need for acoustic fencing or noise barriers and is designed to minimise noise impacts by: o Using natural topography to prevent line of sight o Locating non-sensitive activities as a buffer to residential areas o Orienting dwellings away from noise sources Identifying areas where new dwellings will need to incorporate noise mitigation measures	Proposal has existing acoustic fencing along Ocean Drive frontage. Design considerations have been provided to areas facing Ocean Drive.	No, but acceptable.
	Acoustic fences or noise barriers are not used on significant corner sites with noise attenuation achieved through building design measures.	Proposal includes acoustic fencing along Ocean Drive frontage and around ‘significant corner’ to Seaside Drive. In this instance the history of subdivision, restrictions on vehicular access locations, and need to provide a private open space area have made it difficult to achieve the significant corner treatment in this instance.	No, but acceptable
	The first subdivision application adjoining Ocean Drive must provide a plan for an integrated fence solution for residential and noise attenuation fencing along the entire precinct boundary to Ocean Drive for the relevant precinct (precinct fencing plan). Subsequent subdivision applications demonstrate compliance with the approved precinct fencing plan.	Existing Boundary fence to Ocean Drive and Seaside drive frontages. No new fencing is proposed.	N/A
	Fences and associated landscaping adjoining Ocean Drive, other than in the Special Treatment Area or on Significant Corner Lots: o Are designed and assessed at subdivision stage o Are constructed prior to issuing the subdivision certificate o Provide a consistent and unobtrusive design within the Ocean Drive corridor o Are located only on private property o Are a maximum height of 1.8 metres above ground level (finished).	Fencing and landscaping consistent with the adjoining development.	Yes
	A landscape buffer of 10 metres depth is provided in the areas indicated on Figure 5.2-4 to provide visual screening to the rear of residential and commercial property from Ocean Drive.	Road widening for 10m wide landscape buffer was provided in the site frontage as part of DA2016/465.	Yes
354	Development on significant corners identified in Figure 5.2-4, other than Houston Mitchell Drive, must address Ocean Drive as well as the primary street. Including: o having consistent materials, finishes and fencing to both frontages o providing verandahs, balconies, awnings and other building articulation to both frontages (see Figure 5.2-19) o where in a residential zone, fences are in accordance with Figure 5.2-18.	The proposed development built form is consistent with current building material and finishes utilised throughout the existing locality. Considering the development is single level and living areas predominately lower than the existing fences and estate signage. The proposed development does not include any building on the significant corner site, but responds to the existing street amenity and implications of higher density development. Existing fences are consistent with Figure 235 of DCP 2013.	No, but acceptable based on merit and constraints of the subject lot.
354	Landscaping is provided on and in the road reserve adjacent to significant corner lots. Landscape treatment should: o be designed to reduce the visual impact of the road infrastructure at these locations o facilitate pedestrian movement between Ocean Drive and the secondary street network o incorporate gateway signage o clearly delineate the entrances to each area.	Submitted landscaping plan is consistent with this provision. No changes to existing pedestrian movement from Ocean Drive and Seaside Drive. No change to gateway signage. No proposed entrances from Seaside Drive or Ocean Drive.	Yes

Note: Subdivision provisions of the DCP (except battleaxe handle width) are aimed at the creation of vacant lots (i.e. not lots within an integrated housing proposal such as this) and have therefore been excluded from the above assessment. Servicing requirements are discussed later in this report.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to Clause 46, regarding a minimum 4m rear setback variation for Units 5 and 9. The rear setbacks proposed are within 4m of the proposed assumed eastern rear setback Development Provision. A screenshot of the proposed site layout is identified below.

The relevant objectives are:

· To ensure no adverse overshadowing or privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

· To allow adequate natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private open space areas.

· To provide useable yard areas and open space.

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

· The development satisfies the relevant objectives of the R3 medium density land zoning and provides an alternative form of housing accommodation.

· The application is for 9 dwellings at a density equal to 0.44:1, which is floor space ratio applying to the site of 1.5:1.

· The proposed development being single storey is significantly under the allowable height of building of 11.5m.

· The proposed development is compatible with all other development provisions outlined in the Development Control Plan 2013.

· The site is irregular in configuration and therefore the proposed rear setbacks are adjoining what would be generally described as the side setbacks. Based on merit, variations to the rear setback can be considered if there is no adverse privacy or overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

· No adverse impacts to Seaside Drive from a streetscape perspective.

· Due to the centre driveway aisle and orientation, it is not practical to have rear yards facing north. For the dwellings without a northern aspect, it was designed that the private open space areas would face east to provide solar access.

· The proposed dwellings will not cause adverse overshadowing to adjoining private open space or primary living areas. Due to the nature of the development being single storey and compliant with side setback development provision.

· The southern boundary is primarily cut in to the site, reducing the eave height of units 2 to 5 and further reducing overshadowing concern to adjoining properties. See Elevation & Section, Drawing No. A003.1.

· The site has constraints due to industry best practice for road and transport planning, guides that access to a development of this nature should be from the lower hierarchy road, being in this case, Antigua Avenue. In addition, there is a restriction on the subject land to have no vehicle access from Seaside Drive.

· All dwellings have compliant areas for private open space provisions.

· The proposal does not detract from the streetscape.

· Discussions have also been held with the Applicant to consider any possible increase in setbacks or reduction in unit numbers given the concerns raised by adjoining owners. However, given the nature of the development and the R3 zoning, maximum height of building and floor space ratio development provisions applying to the site, the proposed development has considered has satisfactorily responded to the existing amenity and interpreted by the developer as well within the development provisions applying to the site.

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

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 sufficiently 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

The development site, has road frontage to Antigua Avenue. Antigua Avenue is a 7.0 metre wide sealed public local urban street with type SE kerb and gutter (roll-over kerb) managed Council. This meets the characteristics of a local street under Council’s Auspec specifications which may house a maximum of 100 tenements, or carry up to 2000 vehicles per day.

Referring to Transport for NSW (RMS) Technical Direction, TDT2013/04a, Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, it is considered reasonable to estimate that a development of this nature will generate approximately 7 daily vehicle trips per dwelling. With 10 proposed units, and 70 vehicle movements per day from the development, PMHC considers that Antigua Avenue and the adjoining road network will satisfactorily cater for any potential increase in traffic generated as a result of the development.

The closest intersection to Antigua Avenue is with Nevis St, which is also a 7.0m wide local urban street. Nevus Street has sufficient capacity to cater for the increased usage expected from this development.

As such, it is considered that the increase in traffic is not unreasonable, and the proposal will be unlikely to have any additional adverse impacts within the immediate locality in terms of access, transport and traffic.

Site Frontage and Access

All vehicle access is proposed through a 5.8m wide driveway fronting Antigua Avenue. While the subject land also abuts Seaside Drive to the East, and Ocean Drive to the North, with consideration of the R3 medium density zoning of the subject land, industry best practice for road and transport planning, guides that access to a development of this nature should be from the lower hierarchy road, being in this case, Antigua Avenue. As such, the subdivision plan and 88b document for the subject land (parent lot), has a restriction on the land, stating “no vehicular access to and from Seaside Drive is permitted”.

PMHC consider it reasonable that this restriction remains and should be adhered to. Driveway access from Ocean Drive is not considered viable due to the safety concerns of introducing turning traffic across an arterial route. Seaside Drive is a local urban collector road and thus a higher category road than Antigua Avenue. In line with industry best practice, access off Seaview Avenue is considered less desirable than access from the lower category road, particularly given the proximity of a potential driveway off Seaside Drive to Ocean Drive, which will become traffic signals in the future.

Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Parking and Manoeuvring

Due to the proposed layout of the development, suitable manoeuvrability of cars is required to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward manner, and manoeuvre internal visitor car parking without hindering entry/exit from garages.

Site plans show adequate area is available and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Water and Sewer

PMHC allow 1 junction to service strata/community title subdivisions up to 4 ET. Beyond 4 ETs, discharge into a manhole is required.

The proposed development shall drain all sewage to a new sewer manhole. All design & works shall be in accordance with Council’s adopted AUSPEC Specifications.

Each proposed dwelling will need to be separately metered for water, meters may be either located at the road frontage or internally with a master meter at the boundary. All design & works shall be in accordance with Council’s adopted AUSPEC Specifications.

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

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the north-east and is currently serviced via an existing interallotment drainage system.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to existing interallotment drainage system servicing the site.

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

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

· On site stormwater detention facilities

· Confirmation of driveway details

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

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

Heritage

No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated. The site is in a residential context and 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.

Watercycle

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

Soils

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

Air and Microclimate

Flora and Fauna

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

Waste

The site has limited frontage to Antigua Avenue and kerbside collection is not desirable on Ocean Drive or Seaside Drive due to potential conflicts with traffic movements at the intersection. A condition is recommended requiring a private waste collection service with a suitable title restriction on each of the proposed lots.

Standard precautionary site management condition also recommended for construction activities.

Note: a confirmation letter from a private waste service has been providing, confirming sufficient site access has been provided for service vehicles.

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 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.

No adverse impacts anticipated. See comments under Clause 7.9 of the LEP regarding road traffic noise.

Condition recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

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

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

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. 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 considered to have any significant adverse cumulative impacts on the natural or built environment or the social and economic attributes of the locality.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

Following exhibition of the application in accordance with the Community Participation Plan, 5 submissions and a petition opposing DA2021/470 were received. Key issues raised in the submissions received and comments are provided as follows:

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Density of development - Proposed dwellings are not in character with the street. - Negative impact on the feel of the neighbourhood	The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. Within this land zoning multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent. The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows: o To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. o To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment. o To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. The proposal meets the requirements of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environment Plan 2011 and addresses the Development Control Plan 2013. In particular, the proposed 9 dwellings have a floor space ratio density equal to 0.44:1, which is well under floor space ratio applying to the site of 1.5:1. The proposed development being single storey is well below the allowable height of building of 11.5m. Antigua Avenue is characterised by a mix of single and two storey dwellings. The proposed development is single storey and will incorporate similar materials and finishes to other dwellings within the locality. With regards to character there is a mix of dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing developments within the immediate locality. This is considered to be an acceptable physical and visual change given the proposal satisfactorily addresses the planning controls applying to the site. The proposal exceeds the minimum front and side setback requirements, is within the building height limit and is below the maximum floor space ratio. Refusal of this application based on character cannot be supported.
Impact to the existing amenity of Antigua Avenue.	With regards to the type of residential development, Council initially determines developments based on permissibility. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. Within this land zoning multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily addresses all the planning controls applying to the site. Site frontage, traffic, congestion and parking are discussed below and earlier in this report.
Accumulative traffic generation, congestion and road noise.	Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the immediate local road network will be suitable to cater for the proposed development. While the subject land also abuts Seaside Drive to the East, and Ocean Drive to the North, with consideration of the R3 medium density zoning of the subject land, industry best practice for road and transport planning, guides that access to a development of this nature should be from the lower hierarchy road, being in this case, Antigua Avenue. As such, the subdivision plan and 88b document for the subject land (parent lot), has a restriction on the land, stating “no vehicular access to and from Seaside Drive is permitted”. It is also noted that Antigua Avenue is subject to acoustic controls due to the proximity to Ocean Drive. Houses require Category 2 construction based on Heggies acoustic assessment of the potential impacts from road traffic noise from Ocean Drive. Refusal of the proposed development based on additional traffic noise could not be supported. Regarding entering and exiting the site, appropriate manoeuvring areas are demonstrated to allow vehicles (including private waste collection) to enter and leave the site in a forward manner. This will reduce some perceived safety concerns that are in addition to the existing circumstance. Given that the subject site access is limited to Antigua Avenue. The existing traffic concerns raised are not the subject of this application. Antigua avenue road frontage is the only access achievable to the subject site. Based on merit of this application, the proposed density being well within the planning controls, refusal of the application on these grounds is not justified.
Parking - Inadequate on-site parking due to the intensity of the proposed land use. - Reliance of on-street car parking - Reduced on street car parking	As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed development has achieved the minimum off-street car parking requirements and complies with the Development Control Plan 2013. The proposal generates a minimum of 13.75 on-site spaces required. A total of 19 on-site parking spaces are proposed. Total of 16 within garages, plus 3 on-site visitor spaces. It is also noted that the turning circles have been adequately demonstrated on the plans. This indicates appropriate manoeuvring areas are provided to allow vehicles (including private waste collection) to enter and leave the site in a forward manner. The assessment needs to be based on the merits of the individual application and the proposal satisfies the off-street parking and does not rely on street parking.
Waste Collection - Bin collection due to narrow street frontage will Impact adjoin lots and street amenity.	Waste collection has been satisfied with a confirmation letter for JR Richards, regarding that the proposed development is suitable to be serviced with a private off-street waste collection service. The Community Management Statement for the site will have rules that require all bins to be stored at each residence and only move to front of block/collection point on day of collection, as all neighbouring homes on the street would do. A condition of consent has been proposed to ensure private waste collection services are implemented prior to occupation or occupation certificate (whichever occurs first). As well as, a restriction on title requiring private waste collection services for the lifespan of the development.
Stormwater control - Adequate drainage plans. - Water accumulation from driveway	Stormwater plans have been reviewed by Council’s Stormwater Engineers and are considered in accordance with the original subdivision design. Engineering Plans provided adequately demonstrate the site, including driveway areas, are capable of complying with stormwater requirements. Councils GIS indicates contours for upstream properties 8 Seaside Dr and 41 Antigua Ave naturally grade towards the development site. Suggest DA condition for prior to CC to demonstrate on plans how all subsoil drainage for proposed retaining walls to be connected to internal drainage system, which shall be located within the development boundary. Suggest a DA condition for prior to CC to demonstrate on plans that all driveway and hardstand areas are managed within the development site, showing how stormwater is directed to proposed internal drainage system.
Privacy - There are 3 proposed units adjoining our north west boundary fence impeding privacy of 3 North West facing living areas and directly visible from the proposed units.	The proposed development is single storey. The current boundary fences are 1.8m and will provide screening to private outdoor areas and primary living areas of adjoining dwellings. The dwellings located on lots 2,3,4,5 and 6 are below natural ground level at the rear boundary reducing any perceptions of overbearing building form, bulk and scale on adjoining properties. Additionally, there will be a 1.8m fence on top of the retaining wall, which creates a minimum 2.1m of screening between neighbouring properties. The proposed dwellings are set lower that adjoining existing floor level. This limits view lines into existing private open space and primary living areas. Additional screening will not provide additional benefit but impede solar access to the southern properties. The current design is compliant with DCP 2013 objective 47 additionally all the units to the south eastern boundary are below existing ground level. Due to visual privacy being adequately address, there are no identifiable adverse impacts that could support refusal.
Automatic gates have the potential to be of significant noise disturbance to adjoining properties.	It is noted that the gate will have minimal, if any, acoustic impacts given its design, operating hours include the gate being open between 7am and 7pm and closed during night time hours.
Suggestion to improve the development; - Reduce to 6 villas, to reduced perceived impacts to the existing streetscape. - Reduce to 5 single storey units and 2 multi-level apartments located along Ocean Drive and Seaside Drive would provide same yield. - Some border gardens to encompass the site improving street appeal whilst providing native habitat. - Raised fence along southern boundaries to increase privacy. o	The suggestion provided to improve the outcome has been forwarded to the Developer for consideration. The Developer considers that for the planning provision applying to the site with regards to density, the density of the development adequately addressed the existing streetscape and is well within the development provision. Site plans have adequately shown landscaping and will allow for future landscaping to occur during occupation. Visual privacy objectives have been met. All dwellings which address neighbouring lots are set below existing ground level. Each have retaining walls then the required 1.8m max fence height on top of them. Result is that most are between 2m – 2.8m below line of site.

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Density of development

- Proposed dwellings are not in character with the street.

- Negative impact on the feel of the neighbourhood

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. Within this land zoning multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows:

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

o To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

The proposal meets the requirements of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environment Plan 2011 and addresses the Development Control Plan 2013.

In particular, the proposed 9 dwellings have a floor space ratio density equal to 0.44:1, which is well under floor space ratio applying to the site of 1.5:1.

The proposed development being single storey is well below the allowable height of building of 11.5m.

Antigua Avenue is characterised by a mix of single and two storey dwellings. The proposed development is single storey and will incorporate similar materials and finishes to other dwellings within the locality.

With regards to character there is a mix of dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing developments within the immediate locality.

This is considered to be an acceptable physical and visual change given the proposal satisfactorily addresses the planning controls applying to the site. The proposal exceeds the minimum front and side setback requirements, is within the building height limit and is below the maximum floor space ratio. Refusal of this application based on character cannot be supported.

Impact to the existing amenity of Antigua Avenue.

With regards to the type of residential development, Council initially determines developments based on permissibility.

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. Within this land zoning multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent.

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily addresses all the planning controls applying to the site.

Site frontage, traffic, congestion and parking are discussed below and earlier in this report.

Accumulative traffic generation, congestion and road noise.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the immediate local road network will be suitable to cater for the proposed development.

While the subject land also abuts Seaside Drive to the East, and Ocean Drive to the North, with consideration of the R3 medium density zoning of the subject land, industry best practice for road and transport planning, guides that access to a development of this nature should be from the lower hierarchy road, being in this case, Antigua Avenue. As such, the subdivision plan and 88b document for the subject land (parent lot), has a restriction on the land, stating “no vehicular access to and from Seaside Drive is permitted”.

It is also noted that Antigua Avenue is subject to acoustic controls due to the proximity to Ocean Drive. Houses require Category 2 construction based on Heggies acoustic assessment of the potential impacts from road traffic noise from Ocean Drive. Refusal of the proposed development based on additional traffic noise could not be supported.

Regarding entering and exiting the site, appropriate manoeuvring areas are demonstrated to allow vehicles (including private waste collection) to enter and leave the site in a forward manner. This will reduce some perceived safety concerns that are in addition to the existing circumstance.

Given that the subject site access is limited to Antigua Avenue. The existing traffic concerns raised are not the subject of this application. Antigua avenue road frontage is the only access achievable to the subject site.

Based on merit of this application, the proposed density being well within the planning controls, refusal of the application on these grounds is not justified.

Parking

- Inadequate on-site parking due to the intensity of the proposed land use.

- Reliance of on-street car parking

- Reduced on street car parking

As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed development has achieved the minimum off-street car parking requirements and complies with the Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposal generates a minimum of 13.75 on-site spaces required. A total of 19 on-site parking spaces are proposed. Total of 16 within garages, plus 3 on-site visitor spaces.

It is also noted that the turning circles have been adequately demonstrated on the plans. This indicates appropriate manoeuvring areas are provided to allow vehicles (including private waste collection) to enter and leave the site in a forward manner.

The assessment needs to be based on the merits of the individual application and the proposal satisfies the off-street parking and does not rely on street parking.

Waste Collection - Bin collection due to narrow street frontage will Impact adjoin lots and street amenity.

Waste collection has been satisfied with a confirmation letter for JR Richards, regarding that the proposed development is suitable to be serviced with a private off-street waste collection service.

The Community Management Statement for the site will have rules that require all bins to be stored at each residence and only move to front of block/collection point on day of collection, as all neighbouring homes on the street would do.

A condition of consent has been proposed to ensure private waste collection services are implemented prior to occupation or occupation certificate (whichever occurs first). As well as, a restriction on title requiring private waste collection services for the lifespan of the development.

Stormwater control

- Adequate drainage plans.

- Water accumulation from driveway

Stormwater plans have been reviewed by Council’s Stormwater Engineers and are considered in accordance with the original subdivision design.

Engineering Plans provided adequately demonstrate the site, including driveway areas, are capable of complying with stormwater requirements.

Councils GIS indicates contours for upstream properties 8 Seaside Dr and 41 Antigua Ave naturally grade towards the development site. Suggest DA condition for prior to CC to demonstrate on plans how all subsoil drainage for proposed retaining walls to be connected to internal drainage system, which shall be located within the development boundary.

Suggest a DA condition for prior to CC to demonstrate on plans that all driveway and hardstand areas are managed within the development site, showing how stormwater is directed to proposed internal drainage system.

Privacy

- There are 3 proposed units adjoining our north west boundary fence impeding privacy of 3 North West facing living areas and directly visible from the proposed units.

The proposed development is single storey. The current boundary fences are 1.8m and will provide screening to private outdoor areas and primary living areas of adjoining dwellings.

The dwellings located on lots 2,3,4,5 and 6 are below natural ground level at the rear boundary reducing any perceptions of overbearing building form, bulk and scale on adjoining properties. Additionally, there will be a 1.8m fence on top of the retaining wall, which creates a minimum 2.1m of screening between neighbouring properties.

The proposed dwellings are set lower that adjoining existing floor level. This limits view lines into existing private open space and primary living areas. Additional screening will not provide additional benefit but impede solar access to the southern properties.

The current design is compliant with DCP 2013 objective 47 additionally all the units to the south eastern boundary are below existing ground level.

Due to visual privacy being adequately address, there are no identifiable adverse impacts that could support refusal.

Automatic gates have the potential to be of significant noise disturbance to adjoining properties.

It is noted that the gate will have minimal, if any, acoustic impacts given its design, operating hours include the gate being open between 7am and 7pm and closed during night time hours.

Suggestion to improve the development;

- Reduce to 6 villas, to reduced perceived impacts to the existing streetscape.

- Reduce to 5 single storey units and 2 multi-level apartments located along Ocean Drive and Seaside Drive would provide same yield.

- Some border gardens to encompass the site improving street appeal whilst providing native habitat.

- Raised fence along southern boundaries to increase privacy.

The suggestion provided to improve the outcome has been forwarded to the Developer for consideration.

The Developer considers that for the planning provision applying to the site with regards to density, the density of the development adequately addressed the existing streetscape and is well within the development provision.

Site plans have adequately shown landscaping and will allow for future landscaping to occur during occupation.

Visual privacy objectives have been met. All dwellings which address neighbouring lots are set below existing ground level. Each have retaining walls then the required 1.8m max fence height on top of them. Result is that most are between 2m – 2.8m below line of site.

(e) The Public Interest

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

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

Ecologically Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle

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

The four principles of ecologically sustainable development are:

· the precautionary principle,

· intergenerational equity,

· conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity,

· improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

Climate change

The proposal is not considered to be vulnerable to any risks associated with climate change.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

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

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2021 - 470.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2021 - 470.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2021 - 470.1 Contributions Estimate

date of meeting:		Thursday 21 October 2021
location:		Via Skype
time:		2:00pm

Member	15/04/21	17/06/21	01/07/21	09/08/21	02/09/21	07/10/21
David Crofts	P	P	P	P	P	P
Michael Mason	P	P			P
Chris Gee	P		P	P	P	P
Tony McNamara		P	P	P		P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) Grant Burge (acting)	P	P	P	P		P
Patrick Galbraith-Robertson (Development Planning Coordinator)					P	P

21/01/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
11/02/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
25/02/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
18/03/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
1/04/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
15/04/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
6/05/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
20/05/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
3/06/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
17/06/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
1/07/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
15/07/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
19/08/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
2/09/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
16/09/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
7/10/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
21/10/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
4/11/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
18/11/2021	Committee Room	2:00pm
2/12/2021	Function Room	2:00pm
16/12/2021	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

9.0 CONDUCT AT MEETINGS

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.