Agenda of Development Assessment Panel - Thursday, 8 September 2022

ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

08/09/2022

Item: 05

Subject: DA2021 - 1051.1 Alterations and additions to motel at Lots 121 and 122 DP 754444 and Lot 1 DP 393484, No. 5 to 7 The Parade, North Haven

Report Author: Development Assessment Officer (Planning), Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Applicant: Chris Jenkins Architects

Owner: L F and J M Midgley

Estimated Cost: $1.394M

Parcel no: 23683, 35650, 35651

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2021 - 1051.1 for alterations and additions to Motel at Lots 121 and 122 DP 754444 and Lot 1 DP 393484, No. 5 to 7 The Parade, North Haven, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

This DA is being reported to the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) following previous consideration of the DA by the DAP on 17 August 2022. On the 17 August 2022 the following resolution was made by the DAP:

Speakers: Mitch Perry (o), Chris Jenkins (applicant)

Resolution: ‘That DA2021 - 1051 be deferred to enable the Panel to inspect units affected by view loss impacts, where access can be obtained.’

Site inspections have been organised for the DAP members on 8 September 2022. This DA is also reported back to the DAP for determination to occur on the same day following the inspections. The assessment report and recommendation remain the same as previously reported.

Following exhibition of the application, six (6) submissions were received.

The proposal has been amended during assessment post exhibition to reduce the extent of the additions at the rear of the site. The amended plans have been attached to this report.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site comprises three (3) allotments with a total combined area of approximately 2,138m². The site contains an existing single storey motel comprising 16 units and manager’s residence in two detached buildings. The site also contains a number of ancillary structures in the form of swimming pool, at grade parking spaces, sheds and pergola/cabana. The approved historic site plan is provided below for context:

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:

It is also noted that mixed use redevelopment has been approved on the adjoining property to the immediate west at No.1 to 3 The Parade under DA2020 - 1170.3 (as modified). Screenshots of parts of the development are shown below:

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal, as amended, includes the following:

· Alterations and additions to the ground floor layout of the existing motel buildings including new pool cabana and garage and store at rear of site.

· Addition of first floor along the southern frontage of the site.

· Alteration of at grade parking.

The proposal has also been amended during assessment towards the end of the assessment process. The amendments have remove the following components and a comparison of the 2 plans is shown below:

Original plans - marked up to show what has been removed:

Current amended plans showing changed additions at the rear of the site:

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

Application Chronology

· 23 November 2021 - Application lodged.

· 29 November 2021 - Referral to NSW Natural Resource Access Regulator

· 29 November 2021 - Referral to Essential Energy

· 9 December 2021 to 14 January 2022 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification and advertising.

· 16 December 2021 - Essential Energy request for additional information.

· 22 December 2021 - General Terms of Approval received from NSW Natural Resource Access Regulator - Attachment 4

· 7 January 2022 - Additional information request from assessing officer following preliminary review.

· 12 January 2022 - Part additional information response from applicant.

· 1 March 2022 - Hydraulic and stormwater plans provided lodged by applicant.

· 18 March 2022 - Response to Essential Energy request lodged.

· 31 March 2022 - Essential Energy request for additional information.

· 31 March 2022 - Applicant response to Essential Energy request.

· 4 May 2022 - Essential Energy request for additional information.

· 26 May 2022 - Applicant response to Essential Energy request.

· 21 June 2022 - Essential Energy comments received.

· 28 July 2022 - Additional information requested from applicant including recommending changes to additions proposed within the rear setback.

· 4 August 2022 - Amended plans 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 (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

Chapter 4 Koala Habitat Protection 2021

Clause 4.4 - This SEPP applies to all non-rural zoned land within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area.

Clause 4.10 - 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,

2. No koala food trees are proposed to be removed, and

3. The site not considered to be core koala habitat.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Chapter 2 Coastal Management

Clause 2.5 - This SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clause 2.8 (proximity to mapped coastal wetlands to the north-east of the site) 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 littoral rainforest/coastal wetland; and

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

The site is located within both a coastal use and coastal environment area. Having regard to clauses 2.10 and 2.11 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) any adverse 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 character of the approved mixed use development under DA2020 - 1170.3 (as modified) to the immediate west is noted. The site is predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

Clause 2.12 - The proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the land or other land.

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Clause 4.6 - 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 (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Clause 2.48 - Development in proximity to electricity infrastructure - Referral to Essential Energy has been undertaken and the following comments received for consideration:

“Strictly based on the revised documents submitted, Essential Energy makes the following comments as to potential safety risks arising from the proposed development:

1. Essential Energy’s records indicate that there are existing overhead powerlines located across the street frontages of the properties:

a. The ASP calculations provided by Stowe Australia state the closest part of the building to the HV and LV exceeds the required clearances, under blowout conditions. Based on this report, the proposal is satisfactory.

b. Minimum safety clearance requirements are to be maintained at all times for the proposed driveways access and/or exit (concrete crossovers), as such driveways access will pass under Essential Energy’s existing overhead powerlines located at the front of the property. The driveway must comply with clearances for trafficable land, ground clearances must be maintained. Refer Essential Energy’s policy CEOM7106.25 Minimum Clearance Requirements for NSW and the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

c. Any proposed driveway access and/or exit (concrete crossovers) must remain at least 1.0 metre away from any electricity infrastructure (power pole, streetlight) at all times, to prevent accidental damage.

d. Any excavation works in this area or works on the driveway must comply with ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

e. Any proposed landscaping or tree planting in this area must comply with ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

Essential Energy also makes the following general comments:

1. If the proposed development changes, there may be potential safety risks and it is recommended that Essential Energy is consulted for further comment.

2. Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above properties should be complied with.

3. In addition, Essential Energy’s records indicate there is overhead and underground electricity infrastructure located within the properties and overhead electricity infrastructure located within close proximity of the properties. Any activities within these locations must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure. Approval may be required from Essential Energy should activities within the properties encroach on the electricity infrastructure.

4. Prior to carrying out any works, a “Dial Before You Dig” enquiry should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 5E (Protection of Underground Electricity Power Lines) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW).

5. Given there is electricity infrastructure in the area, it is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines / Underground Assets.”

The above advice received from Essential Energy has been forwarded the applicant for consideration. No further actions are required noting the information submitted by the applicant during the assessment of the application.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021

Chapter 3 Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes proposed signage in the form of a business identification signage on the new boundary wall facing the street. The existing pylon type sign is intended to be removed (refer to below image).

Clause 3.5 - This SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Clause 3.6 - The following assessment table provides an assessment checklist against the Schedule 5 requirements of this SEPP:

Applicable clauses for consideration	Comments	Satisfactory
Schedule 5(1) Character of the area.	The proposed sign identifying the motel is located on the new front wall and is considered appropriate to the character of the area, noting the adjoining motel and commercial uses.	Yes
Schedule 5(2) Special areas.	The site is located within a residential locality. The signage is limited in scale.	Yes
Schedule 5(3) Views and vistas.	The sign is proposed to be attached to the new front wall and would not obstruct any views or vistas.	Yes
Schedule 5(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The scale and proportion of the sign is appropriate for the setting.	Yes
Schedule 5(5) Site and building.	The dimensions of the sign is compatible with the building and wall that it relates to.	Yes
Schedule 5(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	None proposed.	Yes
Schedule 5(7) Illumination.	The sign is proposed to be illuminated until midnight each day. Having regard to the adjoining motel and commercial land uses and the sign/wall orientation toward the street this is considered acceptable. No adverse illumination impacts are identified. A condition has been recommended enforcing the midnight curfew for illumination.	Yes
Schedule 5(8) Safety.	The location and design of the sign is not anticipated to result in any adverse safety impacts.	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Primary Production) 2021

Part 2.5 Division 4 - The proposed development will create any identifiable adverse impacts to nearby oyster aquaculture development.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table - The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing ‘motel’ and ancillary caretaker’s ‘dwelling’. ‘Dwellings’ are permissible in the R1 zone. ‘Hotel and motel accommodation is defined as follows:

“hotel or motel accommodation means a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that -

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

Note - Hotel or motel accommodation is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.”

‘Tourist and visitor accommodation’ and more specifically ‘hotel or motel accommodation’ are both a permissible landuse with consent in the R1 zone.

· The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is a permissible landuse and the zoning enables the expansion of an existing motel facility that is sufficiently compatible with the surrounding residential environment.

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.34m. This complies with the standard maximum height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The gross floor area (GFA) of the proposal (as amended) is calculated to be 853.8m2. The calculated floor space ratio (FSR) is 0.42:1. The FSR complies with the maximum 0.65:1 FSR applying to the site.

· Clause 5.21 - The site is land located within a mapped “flood planning area”. In this regard, the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 5.21, Council’s Flood Policy 2018, the NSW Government’s Considering Flooding in Land Use Planning Guideline 2021 and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

o The proposal is sufficiently compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land particularly noting the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing facility;

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

o The proposal will not result in any adverse effects on the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people along existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area;

o The proposal will incorporate sufficient measures to minimise and manage the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land;

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

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

o The proposal will not result in any identifiable adverse impacts to flood behaviour as a result of projected climate change;

o The intended design and scale of the building additions are sufficiently compatible with the flooding risk on the property;

o Adequate consideration has been given to the modifying/altering the existing buildings to respond to the flooding risk within the locality.

o The application is supported by a flood impact assessment which has been reviewed by Council’s Flooding Officer. A number of recommended consent conditions are proposed having regard to Council’s Flood Policy.

· Clause 7.1 - The site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulfate soils. The proposed development does not include any excavation extending 1m below the natural surface level, therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulfate soils found on site.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B1: Advertising and Signage*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
1	a) Signs primarily identifying products or services are not acceptable, even where relating to products or services available on that site.	A new business identification sign is proposed on the front wall of the site. The sign is satisfactory in design and scale.	Yes
	b) Signage is not permitted outside property boundaries except where mounted upon buildings and clear of pedestrians and road traffic. No signage is permitted upon light or power poles or upon the nature strip (the area between the property boundary and constructed roadway). Limited directional signage and “A” frame signage may separately be approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993 or section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.	Sign is located on the front wall within the site’s boundary.	Yes
	c) An on-building 'chalkboard' sign, for the purpose of describing services or goods for sale which vary on a regular basis generally should not be any larger than 1.5m2, and should contain a sign written heading indicating the premises to which it refers.	None proposed.	N/A
	d) On-premise signs should not project above or to the side of building facades	The signage does not project above the building facades.	Yes
2	a) Where there is potential for light spill from signage in a non-residential zone adjoining or adjacent to residential development, illuminated signage is to be fitted with a time switch to dim by 50% or turn off the light by 11pm each night, depending on the nature of the development.	The sign is proposed to be illuminated until midnight each day. Having regard to the adjoining motel and commercial land uses and the sign/wall orientation toward the street this is considered acceptable. No adverse illumination impacts are identified. A condition has been recommended enforcing the midnight curfew for illumination.	Yes

*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.	Appropriately sized bin storage area proposed on the western side of the altered building. Private waste collection arrangement proposed.	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).	No cut or fill >1m proposed.	Yes
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	No retaining walls proposed.	N/A
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.	No retaining wall and front fence combination proposed.	N/A

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Flooding
19	a) Development must comply with Council’s Floodplain Management Plan and Flood Policies.	Refer to detailed comments under LEP heading earlier within this report.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Parking Provision
24	a) Off-street Parking is provided in accordance with Table 3. Hotel or motel accommodation requires 1.1 per unit + 1 per 2 employees (onsite at any one time) + 1 for on-site manager. If public restaurant/function room included - see restaurants. For major development, coach parking may be provided in lieu of car spaces at a rate of 1 coach space per 5 car spaces.	Calculations for required off-street parking: 19 units = 20.9 spaces. 1 onsite manager = 1 space. 2 employees (cleaners) = 1 space. Total required = 23 spaces (rounded up from 22.9 spaces). Proposed parking provided = 22 spaces. 1 space short of current total calculations. No restaurant/function room or coach parking proposed or applicable.		No - refer to comments below under Development Provision 25 which establishes an existing shortfall which offsets the proposed parking shortfall.
	b) Where a proposed development does not fall within any of the listed definitions, the provision of on-site parking shall be supported by a parking demand study.	N/A		N/A
	c) Where a proposed development falls within more than one category Council will require the total parking provision for each category.	N/A		N/A
25	a) A development proposal to alter, enlarge, convert or redevelop an existing building, whether or not demolition is involved, shall provide the total number of parking spaces calculated from the schedule for the proposed use, subject to a credit for any existing deficiency, including any contributions previously accepted in lieu of parking provision.	The existing and approved motel provides for 16 units, managers residence and 17 off-street parking spaces. 18.6 off-street spaces would be calculated to be required to serve the existing motel. Therefore, there exists a current 1.6 or 2 parking space (rounded up) deficiency. Having regard to the 1 space shortfall identified and the proposed increase in off-street parking from 17 to 22 parking spaces (including disabled spaces) the proposed development will provide sufficient parking having regard to the existing parking deficit.		Yes
26	a) On street parking, for the purposes of car parking calculations will not be included unless it can be demonstrated that: − there is adequate on street space to accommodate peak and acute parking demands of the area; − parking can be provided without compromising road safety or garbage collection accessibility; − parking can be provided without jeopardising road function; and − that streetscape improvement works, such as landscaped bays and street trees are provided to contribute to the streetscape.	On street parking is not being relied upon for the proposal. However, it is noted that the two current driveway crossovers are being consolidated into a single crossover. This will create an additional on street parking space within The Parade road reservation.		Yes
	b) On street parking is provided in accordance with AS2890.5.	The proposal is not reliant upon on street parking.		N/A
27	a) On street parking will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: − parking does not detract from the streetscape; and − that streetscape improvement works, such as landscaped bays and street trees are provided.	The proposal is not reliant upon on street parking.		N/A
Parking Layout
28	a) Visitor and customer parking shall be located so that it is easily accessible from the street.	Proposed off-street parking is easily accessible from the proposed driveway crossover directly onto The Parade.		Yes
	b) Internal signage (including pavement markings) should assist customers and visitors to find parking and circulate efficiently and safely through a car park.	Parking spaces will be appropriately line marked. Suitable consent conditions recommended.		Yes
	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.	Parking spaces are located behind the building line.		Yes
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking and AS 2890.6 - Off-street parking for individuals with a disability and AS/NZS 2890.2 - Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities.	Parking layout capable of compliance with this Australian Standard. Condition recommended requiring certification of design prior to Construction Certificate being issued.		Yes
	e) Stack or tandem parking spaces will not be included in assessment of parking provision except where: − the spaces are surplus to that required; − in motor showrooms; − for home business; − for exhibition homes; − in car repair stations; − staff parking spaces are separately identified and delineated; − it is visitor parking associated with a dual occupancy multi dwelling and/or terrace housing, directly in front of the garage with a minimum depth of 5.5m.	No stacked parking proposed with amended plans.		N/A
29	a) Parking is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking, AS/NZS 2890.2 - Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities, AS 1428 - Design for access and mobility and AS 2890.6 - Off-street parking for individuals with a disability.	Parking layout incorporates two disabled spaces and is capable of compliance with AS. Condition recommended requiring certification of design prior to Construction Certificate being issued.		Yes
30	a) Bicycle and motorcycle parking shall be considered for all developments.	Areas exist onsite to accommodate bicycle and motorcycle parking should it warranted however it is noted that the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing facility.		Yes
	b) Bicycle parking areas shall be designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS2890.3 - Parking facilities - Bicycle parking facilities.			Yes - capable
	c) Motorcycle parking areas shall be 1.2m (wide) x 2.5m (long).			Yes - capable
Redevelopment of Heritage Items - Conservation Incentives
31	a) Council will consider discounting (i.e. exclude from calculations) the floor space of the heritage building/item when determining the total number of parking spaces to be provided on site. This will be considered in line with clause 5.10 of PMH LEP 2011, which requires the variation to be considered in the context of a heritage conservation management plan. This will only apply if Council is satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item is dependent upon Council making that exclusion. If applicants intend to seek such consideration, a detailed parking analysis of the site is to be submitted with the development application.	No heritage items or buildings exist on the site.		N/A
Section 7.11 Development Contributions
32	a) Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits Council, at its discretion, to accept a monetary contribution in lieu of on-site parking where it is considered impractical or undesirable to provide parking facilities on the site of the proposed development. Generally, contributions will not be accepted for the total amount of parking to be provided and will only be accepted in the commercial areas of Port Macquarie, Gordon Street, Laurieton, North Haven and Wauchope, as identified in Council's Contribution Plan 1993, as amended. Contribution rates are indexed (CPI) each quarter with variations in the contribution rate for each area. Applicants are advised to consult Council's staff at the time of preparing the DA application should a contribution for parking be proposed.	The site is not located within an area to which a parking contributions plan applies which could require consideration.		N/A
Landscaping of Parking Areas
33	a) Landscaping areas shall be provided in the form of large tree planting, understorey plantings, mulch areas, mounding, lawns and the like	Adequate landscaping is proposed along the street frontage. The main off-street parking is located behind the main building façade.		Yes
	b) Landscaping areas shall be used throughout the car park and on the perimeters of the property where it addresses the public domain.	Adequate landscaping is proposed along the street frontage.
	c) Garden beds shall be a minimum of 3m in width between car parking areas and street boundaries.	Adequate front wall and landscaping treatments to the one parking space alongside the manager residence.		Yes
34	a) All plantings on public lands are to be selected from Council’s Indigenous Street and Open Space Planting List from the relevant vegetation community adjacent to the Development.	No plantings proposed on public lands.		N/A
	b) Trees are to be grown and installed in accordance with AS 2303:2015 Tree Stock for Landscape Use and Council’s AUS-SPEC design specifications.	No plantings proposed on public lands.		N/A
	Surface Finishes
35	a) All parking and manoeuvring areas shall be constructed with a coarse base of sufficient depth to suit the amount of traffic generated by the development, as determined by Council. It shall be sealed with either bitumen, asphaltic concrete, concrete or interlocking pavers. Preliminary details of construction materials for access and car parking areas shall be submitted with the development application. Detailed plans shall be prepared for the construction certificate by a practising qualified Civil Engineer.	Off-street parking to be concrete finish. Suitable recommended consent condition to reinforce.		Yes
	b) In special cases (e.g. where traffic volumes are very low) Council may consider the use of consolidated unsealed gravel pavement for car parks. However, this should not be assumed and will need to be justified by the applicant at the Development Application stage.	N/A		N/A
	Drainage
36	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Stormwater from parking and hardstand area is capable of being managed onsite.		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.	Discharge to pit in The Parade required. Stormwater management plan required prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.		Yes
37	a) Car parking areas should be drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas.	Storm water capable of being managed, noting existing arrangement.		Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B5: Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Social Impact Assessment
42	a) A social impact assessment shall be submitted in accordance with the Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy.	The redevelopment of the existing motel to provide 3 additional units does not warrant a separate social impact assessment.	N/A
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. Entrances are clearly defined and manager’s residence noted to be maintained on the site.	Yes

*DCP 2013: PART C - Development Specific Provisions - C2: Residential Flat Development, Tourist and Visitor Accommodation, and Mixed Use Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Site Design and Analysis
57	a) A site analysis plan is required for all development and should illustrate: - microclimate including the movement of the sun and prevailing winds - lot dimensions - north point - existing contours and levels to AHD - flood affected areas - overland flow patterns, drainage and services - any contaminated soils or filled areas, or areas of unstable land - easements and/or connections for drainage and utility services - any existing trees and other significant vegetation, including major and significant trees on adjacent properties, particularly those within 9 m of the site - the location, height and use of buildings surrounding the site, and those across any road adjacent to the site, including their setback distances - heritage and archaeological features - the built form, scale and character of surrounding and nearby development, including fencing, boundaries and landscaping - pedestrian and vehicle access - views and solar access to surrounding residents - private open space and windows of habitable rooms of nearby properties which have an outlook to the site - difference in levels between the site and adjacent properties at their boundaries - street frontage features including poles, trees, kerb crossovers, bus stops and other services - heritage features and buildings of the surrounding locality and landscape - direction and distance to local facilities including local shops, schools, public transport and recreation and community facilities - characteristics of, and distance to any nearby public open space - any nearby bushland or environmentally sensitive land - any significant local noise, odour or pollution sources - any other notable features or characteristics of the site	Plans, surveys and supporting documentation lodged provides sufficient site analysis and details.	Yes
Site Layout
58	a) All applications are to include a site plan, which annotates the manner in which site attributes and constraints have been considered, as follows: - appropriateness of built form and landscape in relation to the site context, topography and urban character - building arrangement and relationship to streets and open space - access ways within and beyond the site - location, function and opportunities for casual surveillance of open space - ongoing site management considerations (i.e. garbage, mail collection, stormwater etc) - location of existing and proposed stormwater and sewer pipes - private open space and security - parking arrangements and reduced dominance of driveways - heritage and conservation opportunities and constraints (where relevant) - energy efficiency in building design and siting - solar access to subject development and adjoining residences	Adequate site plan with details provided.	Yes
Streetscape and Front Setback
59	a) In an established street, the primary setback should be within 20% of the average setback of the adjoining buildings in a R1 General Residential zone.	Adjoining building to the west On the corner of The Parade and Woodford Road this building has a zero metre front setback. It is a mixed use commercial building operating under existing use rights. It is considered that the 20% control can also be applied to this proposed building notwithstanding is commercial nature. Adjoining building to the east This building is also a motel building which has an approximate 4.5m front setback. Proposed front setback The western-most front setback of the building additions is proposed at a minimum 3.75m. The front setback increases for the central and eastern-most frontages to a maximum 5.218m. The front setbacks proposed are within 20% of the 4.5m setback and not dissimilar for the eastern section of the building to front setbacks of other existing dwelling further to the east.	Yes
	b) A minimum setback of 3.0m is required from all street frontages in a R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 High-Density Residential zone.	The site is within the R1 zone and this control does therefore not apply.	N/A
	c) Where tourist accommodation is proposed a maximum setback of 9 metres is permitted to allow for a swimming pool within the front setback.	Swimming pool is existing and will remain in the north-western corner of the site.	N/A
60	a) Balconies and other building extrusions may encroach up to 600mm into the required front setback.	Balconies are proposed on the front of the building however are setback within the 20% recommend provision and this provision strictly does not require further consideration.	N/A
	b) Buildings should generally be aligned to the street boundary.	The building design satisfactorily responds to and aligns with the angle in the front boundary.	Yes
	c) Primary openings on all developments are aligned to the street boundary or to the rear of the site.	Open courtyard and balconies areas are aligned to the street boundary.	Yes
Side and Rear Setbacks
61	a) The following setbacks (Refer Figure 7) apply to all sites, except where the side boundary is a secondary street frontage: - Buildings should be set back a minimum of 1.5m from side boundaries, for a maximum of 75% of the building depth. - Windows in side walls should be set back 3m from side boundaries. - Where the site is adjacent to an existing strata-titled building, buildings should be set back a minimum of 3m from side boundaries.	West side setbacks Min. 2.34m to main part of building additions. 1.14m west side setback to first floor stair access and landing. East side setbacks Min. 2.8m setback to ground and first floor.	Yes No* minor variation which is acceptable noting the adjoining mixed use development. Yes
	b) Side walls adjacent to existing strata-titled buildings should be articulated and modulated to respond to the existing buildings.	N/A	N/A
	c) A minimum rear setback of 6.0m from the building and sub basements is required.	North rear setback The existing motel building has a 3.68m rear setback and a cabana exists where the proposed garage and store area is proposed. Additions at the rear are limited to a single storey garage and storage room area. A minimum 1m rear setback is proposed to the closest point increasing to a 2.7m rear setback on the north-east corner of the store room and part of the garage. A pool cabana is proposed in the north-western corner of the site (relocated cabana).	No* Variation considered acceptable for the reasons/details beside. The objects of the rear setback are achieved. It is also noted that separate ancillary shed structures are permitted in a R1 zone with a 0.9m rear setback (refer to section 46b of the DCP)
62	a) A party wall development may be required if site amalgamation is not possible and higher density development is envisaged by these controls.	N/A	N/A
63	a) Party wall development can occur only with the agreement and consent of the adjoining property owner. Exposed party walls should be finished in a quality comparable to front facade finishes	N/A	N/A
64	a) Corner sites should be consolidated with adjacent sites, so that the building turns the corner.	N/A	N/A
64	b) If this is not possible, a minimum setback of 6.0m should extend to the secondary street. Refer Figure 8 and Figure 9.	N/A	N/A
65	- a) Where sites adjacent to open space are to be developed, the edge of the open space should be defined with a public road and buildings should address the open space.	Alterations and additions to existing building fronting a public road on Camden Haven River foreshore.	N/A
Deep Soil Zone (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
66	a) Deep soils zones are to meet the minimum requirements set out in Table 5.	Existing site does not provide for required deep soil zone. The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing facility.	N/A
66	b) Deep soil zones are to be contiguous across sites and within blocks. Refer to Figure 9.	N/A	N/A
67	- a) Deep soil zones should accommodate existing advanced trees, and allow for advanced tree planting.	N/A	N/A
68	a) Deep soil zones should be integrated into the stormwater management measures for the development and the site.	N/A	N/A
Energy Conservation and Solar Access (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
69	a) Where practical, sunlight to the principal area of ground-level private open space of adjacent properties should not be reduced to less than 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 22. Where existing overshadowing by buildings and fences is greater than this, sunlight should not be reduced by more than 20%.	Shadow diagrams submitted which satisfactorily demonstrate no adverse shadowing to neighbouring properties. It is noted that no properties exist to the south of the site.	Yes
69	b) Where practical, buildings should not reduce the sunlight available to the windows of living areas that face north in existing adjacent dwellings to less than the above specification.		N/A
70	a) Apartments are to provide an internal clothes drying space to discourage the use of mechanical clothes drying. Refer to Figure 10.	No new residential apartments proposed

Landscaping (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
71	Plans for the design and planting of open space areas should be submitted with the development application and include: a) Existing vegetation and proposed general planting and landscape treatment (including species). b) Design details of hard landscaping elements and major earth cuts, fills and any mounding.	Landscaping plan submitted is satisfactory particularly noting that the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing motel facility.	Yes
	d) Location and design of any communal recreational facilities, including methods of protecting the privacy of nearby dwellings, where applicable.	N/A	N/A
	e) Street trees in accordance with Council's Indigenous Street and Open Space Planting List.	N/A	N/A
72	a) Existing vegetation is to be retained and habitat and ecology enhanced where practical.	There is no vegetation on the site with potential habitat or ecological value. It is noted that the line of established palms at the rear of the existing swimming pool are to be retained and new satisfactory landscaping proposed across the street frontage.	Yes
73	a) Street trees are to be provided along the full frontage/s of the site, generally at a rate of 1 per 20m interval, in accordance with Council's Indigenous Street and Open Space Planting List.	No street trees proposed or required.	N/A
Private Open Space (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
74	a) All dwellings at ground floor level are encouraged to have a total minimum area of 15m2 in one area with minimum dimension of 3m: - have a maximum grade of 5%; and - be directly accessible from a ground floor living area.	No dwellings proposed however a modified/altered caretaker’s residence is proposed. Satisfactory private open space is available to this dwelling.	Yes
74	b) Private open space may include clothes drying and garbage storage areas.	N/A	N/A
75	a) Dwellings located on or above the first floor are to have balconies with a minimum clear, unobstructed area and width according to apartment type as follows: - Studio - 4m2 - 1 bedroom - 8m2, minimum 2m wide - bedroom - 10m2, minimum 2m wide - bedroom - 12m2, minimum 2.4m wide	N/A	N/A
76	a) Communal open space and private open spaces are separated by landscaping, fencing or some other means that indicates the change between public and private realm.	N/A	N/A
Fences and Walls
77	a) Solid front fences built on or near boundaries should be: - setback 1.0m from the front boundary; - suitably landscaped to reduce visual impact, and. - provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites.	1.2m high rendered and painted walls are proposed across the frontage of the site setback 1.0m from the southern front boundary.	Yes
77	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: o 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 o be erected up to the front boundary for maximum lengths of 6.0m or 50% of the street frontage, whichever is less; and o have openings which make it not less than 25% transparent; o provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and o provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	Front fences limited to 1.2m in height.	Yes
78	a) Fences constructed of chain wire, solid timber or masonry and solid steel are not permitted along the primary road frontage even if it is consistent with the existing streetscape.	Solid fence limited to 1.2m in height which is acceptable.	N/A
Acoustic Privacy
79	a) Buildings are designed so that: - busy noisy areas within the apartment face the street; and - quiet areas face the rear or side of the lot - bedrooms have line of sight separation of minimum 3m from parking areas, streets and shared driveways.	Building additions are primarily orientated towards the street.	Yes
79	b) Openings of adjacent dwellings should be separated by a distance of at least 6m.	No new openings on the eastern and west elevations of the additions on the first floor.	Yes
80	a) Uses are to be coupled internally and between apartments i.e. noisy internal and noisy external spaces should be placed together. Refer to Figure 11.	N/A - motel units proposed	N/A
Visual Privacy (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
81	a) Direct views between living area windows of adjacent dwellings should be screened where: - ground and first floor windows are within a 9m radius from any part of the window of the adjacent dwelling; - other floor windows are within a 12m radius; - direct views from living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings should be screened or obscured where they are within a 12m radius.	No direct views from additions to primary living room or primary outdoor areas of neighbouring residential dwellings within 12m of the buildings.	Yes
	b) 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 open space; - Screening that has 25% openings (max), is permanently fixed and is made of durable materials.	No privacy measures required.	N/A
	c) A window in a dwelling(s) should have a privacy screen if: - It is a window in a habitable room, other than a bedroom, that has a floor level of more than 1m above ground level (existing), and - The wall in which the window is located has a setback of less than 3 metres from a side or rear boundary, and - The window has a sill height of less than 1.5m.	No privacy measures required.	N/A
	d) A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or veranda should have a privacy screen if it: - Has a setback of less than 3m from a side or rear boundary, and - Has a floor area more than 3m2, and - Has a floor level more than 1 metre above ground level (existing).	No privacy measures required.	N/A
Accessibility
82	a) Developments should be designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1428.	Development is capable of compliance with Australian Standard AS1428. It is noted that further assessment and detail will be required at Construction Certificate stage.	Yes - capable.
83	a) Barrier free access to at least 20% of dwellings in the development is provided.	No new dwellings proposed. Existing caretakers dwelling only to be increased in size. Remaining units are for tourist purposes only.	N/A
Social Dimensions and Housing Affordability
84	a) Developments should be located close to areas of open space, recreation and entertainment facilities and employment areas.	Proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing motel facility which is suitably located.	Yes
84	b) Where the Local Environmental Plan permits a floor space ratio greater than 1:1 a ratio of not less than 1:1 should be achieved.	The maximum FSR permitted on the site is 0.65:1 which is less than the prescribed 1:1 provision.	N/A
85	a) A variety of apartment types including studio, 1, 2, 3 and 3+ bedroom apartments are provided within the development.	Motel units only proposed.	N/A
	b) Studios and 1-bedroom apartments are not to exceed 20% of the total number of apartments within the development.	Motel units only proposed.	N/A
	c) A mix of 1 and 3 bedroom apartments are provided on the ground level to cater for improved accessibility for disabled, elderly people or families with children.	Motel units only proposed.	N/A
86	a) Developments should consider the principles of the Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy in any application for a residential flat building.	Motel units only proposed. Caretakers dwelling maintained.	N/A

Roof Form
87	a) Lift over-runs and service plants should be integrated within roof structures.	No lift over-runs or service plant proposed.	N/A
	b) Outdoor recreation areas on flat roofs should be landscaped and incorporate shade structures and wind screens to encourage use.	No rooftop outdoor recreation areas proposed.	N/A
	c) Outdoor roof areas should be oriented to the street.	No rooftop outdoor recreation areas proposed.	N/A
	d) Roof design should generate an interesting skyline and be visually interesting when viewed from adjoining developments.	The design of the additions will be visible particularly from the properties to the north at No.2 Woodford Road. The roof design adopted for the first floor additions is of a modern architectural style and setback approximately 32m from the rear boundary. The building is 1.16m below the 8.5m standard maximum building height envelope. Whilst the roof design is relatively flat, the height and design of the building additions with the rooved terrace areas provide sufficient relief to the built form to not result in an adverse skyline or adverse visual impacts to neighbouring properties to warrant refusal of the application. There are no roof design precinct character controls in place.	Yes
Facade Composition and Articulation
88	a) Facade composition should: - be designed with a balance of horizontal and vertical elements; - respond to environmental and energy needs, such as sun shading, light shelves and bay windows; - incorporate wind mitigation; - reflect the uses within the buildings. - include a combination of the following design elements: o defined base, middle and top levels; o a mixture of window types; o variation in floor height (particularly at lower levels); o balustrade detail that reflects the type and location of the balcony; o setting back the top levels of the building; o street level features that reinforce the human scale; and o balconies, awnings and recesses that create shadowing.	The applicant has stated that the façade of the building has been designed to provide a dynamic, attractive addition to the street whilst responding to the neighbouring buildings. The building has been designed to provide a satisfactory mixture of design elements to provide satisfactory street address.	Yes
Entries and Corridors (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
89	a) Entrances should be clearly identifiable from street level.	Entrances clearly defined.	Yes
	b) Entries should provide a clear line of transition between the public street, the shared private circulation spaces and the residential apartments.	No residential apartments proposed. Manager’s residence satisfactorily addresses the street and is noted to be an alteration and addition to an existing residence with similar side access arrangements.	Yes
	c) Entries should provide clear line of sight between one circulation space and the next.	Altered entrances to the motel are satisfactory. Appropriate lighting will be provided.	Yes
	d) Entries should avoid ambiguous and publically accessible small spaces in entry areas.		Yes
	e) Entries should be sheltered and well lit.		Yes
	f) Entries and circulation spaces should be sized appropriately to encourage adequate area for the movement of furniture.	No residential apartments proposed that require assessment consideration of common circulation areas.	N/A
	g) Lobby widths should be a minimum of 1.8m wide and 3.0m high.		N/A
	h) Lobby lengths should be minimised and avoid tight corners.		N/A
	i) Longer lobbies should be articulated by: - changing the direction or width of a corridor; - using a series of foyer areas; - providing windows along or at the end of corridor.		N/A
Balconies (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
90	a) A minimum of one balcony (including enclosed balcony or terrace) is to be provided per apartment.	Ground and first floor outdoor terraces proposed for the caretaker’s residence which are satisfactory. All other units are motel units.	Yes
	b) The main balcony is to be directly accessible from the living area.	Terraces for the caretaker’s unit area accessible directly from the internal living room areas.	Yes
	c) The balconies should be designed to take advantage of favourable climatic conditions.	Terraces for caretaker’s residence satisfactorily positioned to take advantage of climate.	Yes
	d) Balconies and balustrades should be designed to balance views out of the building while affording adequate privacy to the residents of the apartment.	No adverse privacy impacts from terraces identified.	Yes
91	a) Balconies should include sunscreens, pergolas, shutters and operable walls.	No privacy mitigation required.	N/A
	b) Balconies should be recessed to provide shadowing to the facade of the building to create visual interest and articulation.	Terrace balconies are recessed into the new first floor motel units.	Yes
	c) Solid balustrades are discouraged but may be considered where it is demonstrated that outlook and privacy is achieved and that there is sufficient articulation or visual interest in the building facade to accommodate the solid element.	Glass balustrades proposed.	Yes
Laundries and Clothes Drying Facilities
92	a) Secure open air clothes drying facilities that: - are easily accessible; - are screened from the public domain and communal open spaces; and - have a high degree of solar access.	There is opportunity for an external clotheslines to be installed within the eastern side setback for use by the residents of the caretaker’s residence.	Yes - achievable.
Mailboxes
93	a) Mailboxes should be integrated into building design and sighted to ensure accessibility and security.	Mailbox/es capable of being provided within front setback. Multiple mailboxes not required as the proposal is predominantly motel units.	Yes

Safety and Security
94	a) Developments should establish a hierarchy of space and clearly define the transition from public through to private space.	Development will satisfactorily establish a hierarchy of space and clearly define the transition from public through to private space.	Yes
	b) Entrances should: - be orientated towards the public street and encourage visibility between entrances, foyers and the street. - provide direct and well-lit access between car parks and dwellings, between car parks and lift lobbies, and to all unit entrances. - optimise security by grouping clusters to a maximum of eight, around a common lobby.	The building entry is oriented to the street & is clearly visible from the street. Limited concealment areas and appropriate lighting can be provided.	Yes
	c) Surveillance is to be facilitated by: - views over public open spaces from living areas where possible. - casual views of common internal areas, such as lobbies and foyers, hallways, recreation areas, and car parks. - the provisions of windows and balconies. - separate entries to ground level apartments		Yes
	d) Concealment should be avoided by: - preventing blind or dark alcoves which might conceal intruders particularly near lifts and stairwells, at the entrance and within indoor car parks, along corridors and walkways. - providing appropriate levels of illumination for all common areas. - providing graded car park illumination, with the lighting of entrances higher than the minimum acceptable standard.		Yes
	e) Access to all parts of the building (including, apartments, different floors, balconies, common areas) is to be controlled.		Yes
Site Storage (only applicable to non-SEPP 65 buildings)
95	a) Accessible storage facilities provided as part of the basement or garage area should be secure and only accessible to the unit tenant.	No basement storage however nominated storage area located within rear new combined garage and store building.	Yes
95	b) One dedicated bike storage space should be provided per dwelling as part of the basement, garage area or dwelling area.	Bicycle parking can be provided for the caretaker’s dwelling.	Yes
Utilities
96	a) Compatible public utility services are to be co-ordinated in common trenching in order to minimise excavations for underground services.	Common utilities can be satisfactorily provide for.	Yes
	b) Above ground utility infrastructure such as substations, inspection cabinets are to be integrated into the design of the building or complementary to the building design in terms of colour, materials and design.		Yes
	c) The site and the individual dwellings are to be numbered for easy identification by visitors and emergency personnel.		Yes
	d) Common aerials and satellite dishes, with signal amplifiers are provided as appropriate.		Yes

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

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into.

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Clause 61 - Demolition of buildings AS 2601

The proposed demolition work is capable of compliance with the standard. Suitable standard demolition consent condition recommended.

Clause 64 - Fire safety

The proposed development will need to provide fire safety requirements consistent with the Building Code of Australia. These matters can be addressed with the application for a Construction Certificate.

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

Context and Setting

The site has a general street frontage orientation to The Parade.

Adjoining the site to the north is a two storey unit building.

Adjoining the site to the east are motel and apartment buildings comprising single and two storey buildings.

Adjoining the site to the south is a road, being The Parade. A small inlet and the Camden Haven River is beyond the road.

Adjoining the site to the west is a single and two storey commercial building which is built over two lots on the corner of The Parade and Woodford Road.

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

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

View sharing

Public submissions have been received from neighbouring properties/units at the neighbouring No.2 Woodford Road (known as Riverview Court) raising view sharing impacts of the Camden Haven River and foreshore due to the additions proposed. A summary of the view sharing issues raised is provided in the submissions section later in this report. The location of 2 Woodford Road relative to the development site is shown in the following aerial photo. The highlighted yellow areas relate to Units 1, 5, 6 and 10. Units 6 and 10 are located on the top floor level. Units 1 and 5 are located on the level below:

The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a

proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own

enjoyment. Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.

NSW Land and Environment Court caselaw in particular the case Tenacity Consulting v Warringah 2004 NSW LEC 140 sets an established ‘planning principle’ to provide an assessment methodology as to what constitutes view sharing and a stepped approach to identifying whether reasonable view sharing is maintained or achieved. The following four (4) steps are of relevance and assessment comments are provided in regards to potential view impacts to the neighbouring properties at No.2 Woodford Road (under each step):

Step 1 Assessment of views to be affected.

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

Comments: There is an existing 3 level residential flat building at the northern neighbouring property at No.2 Woodford Road (known as Riverview Court). There are 10 existing units in the building under a strata ownership arrangement. Several of these units at this address have been identified to enjoy water views of the Camden Haven River across the subject site. These views are considered and raised in the submissions received to be highly valued. The views are not considered to be iconic views. The views of the Camden Haven River looking south are considered to be whole views including views of the interface of the river foreshore and water except for where the existing motel structures currently partly obscure the land and water interface.

Example photo extracts from submissions received and real estate photos show the extent of existing views across the site:

View from Unit 10/2 Woodford Road main living space internally within unit (submission photo):

Photo of views more south-west to North Brother Mountain in the distance from Unit 6/2 Woodford Road (real estate online):

Photo of views across the site from Unit 6/2 Woodford Road (real estate online):

Photo of views more south-west to North Brother Mountain in the distance from Unit 1/2 Woodford Road (real estate online):

Photo of views across the site from Unit 1/2 Woodford Road (real estate online):

Photo of views across the site from Unit 5/2 Woodford Road (real estate online):

Applicant submitted photo of the site looking back to the subject residential flats with views:

Submission showing photo of the site looking north from The Parade:

Step 2 Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.

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

Comments: The views from several units at No.2 Woodford Road are orientated across a side boundary of across the development site. The assumed river views can be achieved based on submission photos and real estate listings from sitting and standing positions in main living areas and balconies. The angles of view relative to assumed key living areas in existing units at No.2 Woodford Road are at a level which any additional building height on the site would compromise the quality of the whole views of the Camden Haven River.

Step 3 Assess the extent of the impact.

This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more

significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

Comments: The view loss will be for the majority of the width of the subject site with the top of the building assumed to be proposed to just above the sag points in the lower powerlines which can be seen in the above photo. The view losses of the Camden Haven River and foreshore qualitatively ‘severe’. It is noted that there will be some limited views of the Camden Haven River for some units retained further abroad to the south-west towards North Brother Mountain and limited views south-east either side of the development site.

Step 4 Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.

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

Comments: The key relevant planning controls for the site are the 8.5m maximum height limit and 0.65:1 floor space ratio for the site which are both complied with. It is noted that the objectives of the height control are to minimise disruption to views and set a desired expected built form and character for the locality.

The views from several units are No.2 Woodford Road orientated across a side boundary of the development site. The angles of view relative to assumed key living areas in existing units at No.2 Woodford Road which are at a level which any additional height on the site would compromise the quality of the whole views of the Camden Haven River.

The existing views to the river from 2 Woodford Street are over the single storey rooves of the existing motel. The building at 2 Woodford Street is located one block back from the river and it is considered unreasonable to expect that there will be no development of the properties between it and the river and any consequential loss of views to the river. The views are across a side boundary which has reduced assessment weight in any consideration to look at requiring an alternate building design.

It is also noted that there will be some further losses of sections of the Camden River having regard to the current approved shop-top housing on the western neighbouring site under DA2020 - 1170.

Following an assessment of the design of the additions and it positioning, it is considered that there is little opportunity to propose an alternative skilful design that could reduce the impact on the views of neighbours in a qualitative way. The orientation of the units has also taken into consideration of other aspects with other views and obtaining satisfactory solar access to the north in part. The view sharing impacts whilst being significant are therefore considered reasonable.

Based upon the above details, the proposal does not warrant refusal of the application on the grounds of view sharing impacts.

Access, Traffic and Transport

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

Site Frontage and Access

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

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

· Reinstatement of any redundant driveway crossovers to type SA kerb and gutter, and

· Removal of any redundant asphalt driveway and reinstatement of concrete footpath and turf, and

· New heavy duty driveway crossing to conform with Auspec standard drawing ASD202 specifications.

· New public footpath section where sections of the existing driveway are removed.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 22 parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces) have been provided on-site. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been recommended to reflect these requirements.

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

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development sites have two 40mm metered water services. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the development as well as addressing fire service coverage to AS 2419 and backflow protection.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application. Appropriate conditions have been recommended.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to sewer via junction to the existing dead end sewer main, to the north of the development site. Due to the scale of the development and the increased load on sewer infrastructure, it is necessary to discharge all sewage to a new or existing manhole.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application. Appropriate conditions have been recommended.

Stormwater

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

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s stormwater pit within The Parade road reserve.

Council’s stormwater engineer has reviewed the hydraulic and drainage plans prepared by NAS Hydraulics and dated 22 February 2022 and provided the following comments:

1) The easement to drain water that traverses the far eastern portion of the development contains an existing pipeline. The plans provided by NAS do not appear to show this pipeline on the drawings. Show this detail on the plans prior to CC / S68.

2) The internal drainage system for the site is a significant upgrade, which justifies the legal point of discharge to Councils piped drainage system at the frontage of no 7. A condition will be drafted on the consent document specifying the existing junction pit is the legal point of discharge, unless it can be justified by the applicant this is not feasible.

3) Drainage easements and interallotment specification drainage is required where internal drainage crosses into separate Torrens lots i.e. Lot 122 requires an easement where Lot 121 drains into, and where Lot 1 drains back into Lot 122. Will there be a condition requiring the consolidation of the three lots so that interallotment / easements are not required?

4) Da condition to replace redundant laybacks and existing disused kerb outlets along the frontage of the development site.

5) Unless it can be confirmed prior to DA that the 1.8m wide easement noted on SP0030054p has been created, a condition has been entered to create a drainage easement over the existing interallotment pipeline benefitting Lot 0 SP0030054.

Subject to further details being provided as part of section 68 application, stormwater is capable of being managed onsite for the proposed development. Appropriate consent conditions are recommended with regard to these comments.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated. The site is considered to be disturbed land.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

The proposed development will not have any 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

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.

The immediately adjacent commercial property to the west contains a ground floor café. There is the potential for odours impacts from cooking activities of the café upon occupants of the proposed first floor unit 201. The existing mechanical ventilation system of the café is located as illustrated in the photo below:

There are no windows in the west facing elevation of unit 201. Having regard to the existing vent height above roof level and lack of windows in the elevation no adverse odour or air quality impacts are anticipated.

A development consent was issued on 6 December 2021 for two storey shop top housing on the adjoining site to the west (DA202/1170). The development will provide for continuation of a lower floor commercial use (café) and first floor residential use. The development is approved to be built to the boundary. While not clear on the approved plans for the shop top housing development it is assumed the mechanical ventilation will either be removed or extended through the first floor roof of the redevelopment in the same location i.e. no closer to the side boundary. There are no openings proposed in the west facing elevation of proposed motel unit 201 and the approved first floor residential use on the adjoining site will not result in any adverse odour impacts.

Flora and fauna

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

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

The immediately adjacent commercial property to the west contains a ground floor café. The current approved operational hours of the café are 7am to 10pm Mondays to Sundays (DA2017/393). There is the potential for noise impacts from dining activities and the mechanical ventilation system upon occupants of the proposed first floor motel unit 201.

There are no openings in the west facing elevation of motel unit 201. The mechanical ventilation system is setback approximately 10m from the wall of the first floor motel addition. Adequate construction and separation is proposed and no adverse noise impacts are anticipated with the existing use on the adjoining property.

A development consent was issued on 6 December 2021 for a two storey shop top housing development on the adjoining site to the west (DA2020/1170). The development will provide for continuation of the lower floor commercial use (café) and first floor residential use. The development maintains the current hours of operation of the café being 7am to 10pm Mondays to Sundays. The development is approved to be built to the side boundary. While not clear on the approved plans it is assumed the mechanical ventilation will either be removed or extended through the first floor roof of the redevelopment in the same location i.e. no closer to the side boundary. There are no openings proposed in the west facing elevation of proposed motel unit 201. Having regard to the current and approved operating hours of the café use and lack of openings in the building design, the proposal will not result in any adverse noise impacts.

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. 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.

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

Six (6) 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
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views from the neighbouring Unit 6/2 Woodford Road.	Refer to view sharing assessment details earlier in report. View impacts do not warrant recommending refusal of the application.
Question validity of Statement of Environmental Effects and timing of neighbour notification.	Statement of Environmental Effects has been considered and assessed as part of this report. There is no statutory requirement to have the Statement prepared by a separate independent specialist. The neighbour notification has been carried out in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan and for an extended period from 9 December 2021 to 14 January 2022.
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views for many of the 10 units at the neighbouring 2 Woodford Road.	Refer to view sharing assessment details earlier in report. View impacts do not warrant recommending refusal of the application.
Visual impact statement should have been submitted to gauge height of 8m building at a distance.
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views from the neighbouring Unit 2/2 Woodford Road.
The view impacts to units at 2 Woodford Road are not fair and reasonable with reference made to Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council Land and Environment Court case law.
Impact to property values with loss of highly valued water views at the neighbouring 2 Woodford Road.	Any potential impact of property values is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of a Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The proposal is not providing for the housing needs for the community in accordance with the R1 general residential zone objectives.	The proposal is for additions to an existing established motel and altered caretaker’s residence. The additional tourist landuse is a permissible non-residential landuse in the R1 zone and not explicitly prohibited. The provision of tourist accommodation in an appropriate location could also be considered to plan for catering for short term rental accommodation demand in difference to existing short term holiday letting of existing housing.
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views from the neighbouring Unit 8/2 Woodford Road.	Refer to view sharing assessment details earlier in report. View impacts do not warrant recommending refusal of the application.
The proposal does not meet the objectives of the floor space ratio standard in that the proposal is not compatible with the bulk and scale of existing and desired future character of the locality.	The proposal is below the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio restriction applying to the site. The architectural built form complies with the primary planning controls which set the desired character for the site and locality.
The positive impacts of the 3 extra short term tourist accommodation units does not outweigh the negative impacts of the loss of views from properties at the neighbouring 2 Woodford Road.	View sharing impacts have been considered to be acceptable in the circumstances as detailed earlier in this report.
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views from the neighbouring Unit 7/2 Woodford Road.	Refer to view sharing assessment details earlier in report. View impacts do not warrant recommending refusal of the application.
The additions will bring the building closer to the street and reduce the open space appeal of the landscape and impact streetscape.	The front setback alignment chosen is compliant with the desired streetscape character set by the Development Control Plan 2013 planning provisions. It is also noted that the mixed use development existing on the western neighbouring property has a zero setback street alignment. The consolidation of the two existing driveways also provides for more landscaping in the site frontage than the existing arrangements.
Concern with glare and reflectivity of replacing the tile roof with colourbond iron roof sheeting.	Council typically doesn’t regulate roof sheeting materials and colours as these materials can be installed and changed as exempt development. It is however noted that the roof sheeting is relatively flat which will assist with potential for glare issues for neighbours.
The Gold Coast or Mediterranean building style chosen is incompatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment and inconsistent with the R1 general residential zone desired future character and amenity.	The architectural built form complies with the primary planning controls which set the desired character for the site and locality. The key controls related to streetscape, building height and setbacks at the front southern section of the site are complied with.
Question if there is any desired future plan for the character of the immediate neighbourhood.	There are no precinct specific neighbourhood planning development controls applying to the site however standard building height, floor space ratio, and other design controls within Development Control Plan 2013 apply and assist with planned guidance to expected development outcomes for the locality.
The proposal is contrary to the mix of single dwellings. medium density housing and local shops and cafes envisaged by the R1 general residential zoning.	The proposal is for additions to an existing established motel and altered caretaker’s residence. The additional tourist landuse is a permissible non-residential landuse in the R1 zone and not explicitly prohibited.
View impacts south to The Parade and adjacent water views from the neighbouring Unit 10/2 Woodford Road.	Refer to view sharing assessment details earlier in report. View impacts do not warrant recommending refusal of the application.
Disagree with submitted justification details that the proposal will mirror approved extensions to the mixed building use to the west and will not enhance the existing residential locality.	The additions proposed are noted to have a similar architectural presentation and form to that approved to the west. There are no precinct specific neighbourhood planning development controls applying to the site however standard building height, floor space ratio, and other design controls within Development Control Plan 2013 apply and assist with planned guidance to expected development outcomes for the locality.
Property was subject to flooding in March 2021 and the flood risk details submitted do not address mitigation of flooding risk to occupants and damage to property.	Flooding risk has been satisfactorily assessed and considered noting the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing motel and caretaker’s residence.
The alterations will create a more restrictive entrance at the front of the property with height restrictions for access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.	The construction of the building additions will be subject to Building Code requirements. Vehicles can still enter into the site with the 2.7m assumed ceiling clearance on top of the new common driveway.
Reference made to Land and Environment court case law in the Northern Beaches with 60 years restriction for development on site affected by sea level rises.	Unfortunately, no specific details of the case have been provided, however it is assumed that the Northern Beaches example could be a site which is much lower in elevation and subject to more regular inundation potential than the subject site which is more subject to flooding risk affectation compounded by potential sea level rises.
No soft landscaping proposed or improvements to provide for on-site ecological habitat.	Satisfactory landscaping is proposed within the front setback area and the existing established palms in the rear north-west corner near the swimming pool are proposed to be retained.
Privacy concerns for neighbouring units at 2 Woodford Road looking at the box façade style building.	The design of the additions will be visible particularly from the properties to the north at No.2 Woodford Road. The roof design adopted for the first floor additions are of a modern architectural style and setback approximately 32m from the rear boundary. The building is 1.16m below the 8.5m standard maximum building height envelope. Whilst the roof design is relatively flat, the height and design of the building additions with the rooved terrace areas provide sufficient relief to the built form to not result in an adverse skyline or adverse visual impacts to neighbouring properties to warrant refusal of the application. There are no roof design precinct character controls in place.

(e) The Public Interest

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

Climate change

Satisfactory consideration has been given to addressing flooding risk and climate change implications noting the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing motel and caretaker’s residence.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

· The development proposal will result in increased demand on the water and sewer supply network. 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 suitable consent condition has been recommended requiring payment.

· The development includes additional residential components (e.g. 3 extra motel units and increased bedrooms to manager’s residence) and development contributions will be required in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A suitable consent condition has been recommended requiring payment.

· 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.

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 - 1051.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2021 - 1051.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2021 - 1051.1 Contributions estimate

4 ⇩. DA2021 - 1051.1 NRAR response with GTAs (22122021)

PDF Creator

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 08/09/2022

Item: 06

Subject: DA2021 - 1237.1 Child Care Centre and Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 7 DP 262361, No 13 Colonial Circuit, Wauchope

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Clint Tink

Applicant: Robert Smallwood Building Plans & Design

Owner: D R Edgar

Estimated Cost: $327,000.00

Parcel no: 4786

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2021 - 1237.1 for a child care centre and torrens title subdivision at Lot 7 DP 262361, No. 13 Colonial Circuit, Wauchope, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, 57 submissions were received (including a petition).

On balance, 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 overall public's interest and will not result a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 3135m².

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 photographs:

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Child care centre for 88 children proposed. Although conditions proposed to reduce this number down to 76.

· Two (2) lot torrens title subdivision included in the application. The subdivision will create a lot containing the child care centre and a vacant residential lot to the rear. An indicative future residence is shown on the plans to illustrate a dwelling is achievable but does not form part of the application.

· Hours of operation for the child care centre are proposed to be 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

· A car park comprising 18 spaces and 1 disabled parking space is proposed to cater for the child care centre.

· 57 submissions (including a petition) have been received objecting to the proposal.

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

Application Chronology

· 24/8/2021 - Applicant had a Pre-lodgement meeting with Council staff regarding the proposal.

· 28/2/2022 - Application lodged with Council.

· 7/3/2022 - Application referred to Essential Energy and NSW Rural Fire Service.

· 10-23/3/2022 - Notification period.

· 15/3/2022 - NSW Rural Fire Service provided a Bushfire Safety Authority.

· 17/3/2022 - Council staff requested additional information on tree removal, ecology, landscaping, signage, waste, loading areas, fencing, outdoor play times, elevations, access arrangements, sign in counter and compliance with provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline.

· 29/3/2022 - Essential Energy provided feedback on the proposal. Copy provided to applicant for their information.

· 31/3/2022 - Applicant advised that submissions had been received on the proposal. Applicant requested a copy of the submissions. Redacted copies were subsequently provided to the applicant on 6/4/2022.

· 13/4/2022 - Council staff requested additional information on one of the proposed outdoor play areas.

· 14/4/2022 - In terms of the Child Care Planning Guideline, Council staff requested additional information on the proximity of the development to Hastings Fuel Depot.

· 28/4/2021 - Applicant provided preliminary response on the proximity to the fuel depot issue.

· 2/5/2022 - Council staff reiterated the need for more information on the proximity to the fuel depot issue. Applicant also provided partial responses to Council’s previous request for additional information.

· 4/5/2022 - Council staff reviewed the information provided by the applicant on 2/5/2022 and provided feedback/requested additional information.

· 5/5/2022 - Discussion with the applicant on the proximity of the development to fuel depot issue.

· 11/5/2022 - Applicant submitted partial response to previous additional information requests.

· 16/5/2022 - Applicant submitted partial response to previous additional information requests.

· 24/5/2022 - Council staff requested further information on tree removal and proximity of the development to fuel depot issue.

· 26/5/2022 - Discussion with the applicant on the proximity of the development to fuel depot issue and status of the application.

· 7/6/2022 - Owner provided feedback on the proposal, additional information requests and submissions.

· 9/6/2022 - Applicant provided additional information on the proximity of the development to fuel depot issue.

· 17/6/2022 - Council staff acknowledged information provided on 9/6/2022.

· 20/6/2022 - Applicant provided ecological assessment.

· 22/6/2022 - Council staff requested further information on the proximity of the development to fuel depot issue.

· 6/7/2022 - Owner requested updated on status of the DA.

· 20/7/2022 - Update on the status of the application provided to the owner.

· 22-25/7/2022 - Council staff and the owner discussed additional information request on the proximity of the development to fuel depot issue.

· 28/7/2022 - Site inspection completed.

· 8/8/2022 - Applicant requested update on the proposal.

· 10/8/2022 - Council staff provided the applicant with an update on the status of the application.

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 (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

Chapter 4 Koala Habitat Protection 2021

Clause 4.4 - This SEPP applies to all non-rural zoned land within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area. The site is zoned R1 General Residential so the SEPP requires consideration.

Clause 4.9 - The property is not over 1ha in size (including adjoining land in the same ownership) and does not have a KPOM in place. Therefore, Clause 4.9 does not apply.

Clause 4.10 - Having considered the SEPP, the application, the ecological report 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.

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

3. The vegetation removal is not considered to be significant.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021

Chapter 3 Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes proposed advertising signage in the form of business identification signage on the front façade of the proposed child care centre building and some ancillary directional signage.

Clause 3.5 - This SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Clause 3.6 - The following assessment table provides an assessment checklist against the Schedule 5 requirements of this SEPP:

Applicable clauses for consideration	Comments	Satisfactory
Clause 3.6(a) Consistent with objectives of the policy as set out in Clause 3(1)(a).	The proposal includes some standard sized business identification signs on the front façade of the child care centre building. There are also some standard directional type signs to be used throughout the carpark. Overall, the proposed signage is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP. The sign is compatible with other child care centre signs and allowable non-residential uses, provides effective communication, is of quality design, has been kept to a minimum and will not impact on the amenity of the area.	Yes
Schedule 5(1) Character of the area.	The character of the area is currently defined my residential housing. However, planning legislation does allow various non-residential uses with consent in the area, home occupations/businesses without consent and subsequent signage without consent. Whilst these non-residential uses/signage may be limited at present within the area, development pressures and the adoption of home occupations/businesses will likely see this type of development occur in the future (as has occurred in other areas throughout the Local Government Area). The signage is also not excessive in number or size and is required to identify the non-residential use. Based on the above, the signage is considered to be consistent with that allowed in the area and the likely future character of the area.	Yes
Schedule 5(2) Special areas.	The signage will not detract from the amenity and visual quality of the immediate residential locality noting it’s limited scale and placement.	Yes
Schedule 5(3) Views and vistas.	The signage will not impact on any views or vistas.	Yes
Schedule 5(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The signage is not excessive in number or size and creates no adverse impact on streetscape, setting or landscaping principles.	Yes
Schedule 5(5) Site and building.	The signage is compatible with the site and building scale.	Yes
Schedule 5(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	None proposed.	Yes
Schedule 5(7) Illumination.	None proposed.	Yes
Schedule 5(8) Safety.	The signage does not create any safety issues.	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Chapter 2 Coastal Management

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Clause 4.6 - Following an inspection of the site, review of the application by one of Council’s Environmental Health Officers and a search of Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is considered suitable for the intended use.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021

The development does not trigger any of the clauses or thresholds under the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Primary Production) 2021

Part 2.5 Division 4 - The proposed development will create no adverse impact on any oyster aquaculture development or priority oyster aquaculture area.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Clause 2.48 - Referral to Essential Energy is required 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.

A referral to Essential Energy was carried out with no objection received. Standard advice about Dial Before You Dig etc was provided, which was forwarded to the applicant.

Clause 2.119 & 2.120 - The subject Clause refers to development with frontage to a classified road and the need to consider potential conflicts. In this case, the development does not have frontage to a classified road. However, it is noted that High Street/Oxley Highway (classified road) is within approximately 160m of the child care centre. In considering traffic data for the Oxley Highway, the 160m separation, the existing obstructions/buildings and Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads guideline; a noise assessment on road noise impacts is not required for the proposed child care centre in this case under the SEPP. In particular, the most recent traffic data shows the Oxley Highway Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is just over 10,000 vehicles at the busier Cameron St intersection. The trigger for a noise assessment would be approximately 15,000 AADT with a 160m setback and that’s assuming there are no obstructions.

Regardless of the above, the applicant did commission a noise assessment, which showed the child care centre can operate without being adversely impacted by external noise sources.

Council’s Engineering staff have also reviewed the application in terms of traffic impacts in the area with no significant adverse impacts identified.

Based on the above, there is unlikely to be any significant adverse conflict between the Oxley Highway and the child care centre use in terms of noise, vibration and operation.

Clause 2.122 - The development does not trigger any of the traffic generating development thresholds of Clause 104. In particular, vehicles per hour are less than the 50 referral trigger.

Being a centre-based child care facility, Chapter 3 of the SEPP applies to the proposal. In this regard, the following comments are made in relation to the relevant Clauses from the SEPP.

SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 - Childcare, Chapter 3, Assessment Table
Requirement	Proposed		Complies
Clause 3.22 - Development complies with indoor and outdoor areas. 3.25m² per child (indoor) 7m² per child (outdoor) Note: Concurrence from Department of Education required if indoor/outdoor area requirements not achieved.	Refer to Child Care Planning Guideline assessment below. 88 children proposed although conditions will restrict to 76 children based on parking. Figures below have been based on the more onerous 88 children. 286m² indoor required with 286m² provided (Note: educational kitchen). 616m² outdoor required with 804.17m² provided.		Yes
Clause 3.23 - Development consider Child Care Planning Guideline	Refer to Child Care Planning Guideline assessment below.
Clause 3.24 - Centre based child care in IN1 and IN2 zone. - Minimise land use conflicts. - Consider safety of occupants. - Compatible with surrounding uses. - Development should not sterilise surrounding industrial uses.	Not located in IN1 or IN2 zone.		N/A
Clause 3.25 - Development consent must not be granted for the purposes of a centre-based child care facility in the R2 zone if the FSR for the building exceeds 0.5:1. The section does not apply if another environmental planning instrument or DCP sets a maximum FSR for centre-based child care facility.	Not located in R2 zone.		N/A
Clause 3.26 - Non discretionary standards, that if complied with, prevent the consent authority applying more onerous standards. a) Location - the development may be located at any distance to another child care. b) Indoor/outdoor spaces comply with Clause 22 above. c) The development may be located on a site of any size, over any part of the site and have any length of street frontage or allotment depth. d) The development can use any colour, building materials or shade structures (if not heritage).	Standards noted and not being challenged or more onerous condition applied.		Yes
Clause 3.27 - Lists DCP provisions that do not apply (covered by Child Care Planning Guideline)	Clause noted and not being challenged by a DCP provision.		Yes
Child Care Planning Guideline – Matters for Consideration (Chapter 3)
Matter for Consideration/ Requirement		Proposed	Complies
3.1 Site selection and location p9-10
C1 For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone, consider: · the acoustic and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the residential properties · the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context · traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity. For proposed developments in commercial and industrial zones, consider: · potential impacts on the health, safety and wellbeing of children, staff and visitors with regard to local environmental or amenity issues such as air or noise pollution and local traffic conditions · the potential impact of the facility on the viability of existing commercial or industrial uses. For proposed developments in public or private recreation zones, consider: · the compatibly of the proposal with the operations and nature of the community or private recreational facilities · if the existing premises is licensed for alcohol or gambling · if the use requires permanent or casual occupation of the premises or site · the availability of on site parking · compatibility of proposed hours of operation with surrounding uses, particularly residential uses · the availability of appropriate and dedicated sanitation facilities for the development. For proposed developments on school, TAFE or university sites in Special Purpose zones, consider: · the compatibly of the proposal with the operation of the institution and its users · the proximity of the proposed facility to other uses on the site, including premises licensed for alcohol or gambling · proximity to sources of noise, such as places of entertainment or mechanical workshops · proximity to odours, particularly at agricultural institutions · previous uses of a premises such as scientific, medical or chemical laboratories, storage areas and the like.		The applicant submitted noise and traffic reports, which were reviewed by specialist Council staff. Overall, the provisions in the SEPP were considered and the development/design was deemed acceptable and compliant. In particular, no significant adverse conflicts between the development and adjoining areas to occur.	Yes

C2 When selecting a site, ensure that: · the location and surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development or use · the site is environmentally safe including risks such as flooding, land slip, bushfires, coastal hazards · there are no potential environmental contaminants on the land, in the building or the general proximity, and whether hazardous materials remediation is needed · the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to: - size of street frontage, lot configuration, dimensions and overall size - number of shared boundaries with residential properties - the development will not have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area, particularly in sensitive environmental or cultural areas · where the proposal is to occupy or retrofit an existing premises, the interior and exterior spaces are suitable for the proposed use · there are suitable drop off and pick up areas, and off and on street parking · the type of adjoining road (for example classified, arterial, local road, cul-de-sac) is appropriate and safe for the proposed use · it is not located closely to incompatible social activities and uses such as restricted premises, injecting rooms, drug clinics and the like, premises licensed for alcohol or gambling such as hotels, clubs, cellar door premises and sex services premises.	Development is permissible and compatible with the site characteristics and surrounding/future desired uses. In particular, it is common to see child care centres positioned within residential zoned areas. Furthermore, specialist traffic, bushfire, noise etc assessments have been submitted and reviewed by Council staff/NSW Rural Fire Service and deemed acceptable, subject to conditions.	Yes
C3 A child care facility should be located: · near compatible social uses such as schools and other educational establishments, parks and other public open space, community facilities, places of public worship · near or within employment areas, town centres, business centres, shops · with access to public transport including rail, buses, ferries · in areas with pedestrian connectivity to the local community, businesses, shops, services and the like.	Whilst the development is not located near schools/education or have pedestrian connectivity, there are still considered to be elements that complement the use and location selection. In particular, there is industry, the IGA shopping centre, shops, cafes, Timbertown, bus route/stop etc all within approximately 1km of the site. The centre will also serve the local residential population/estate of Colonial Circuit and surrounding streets. On balance, the child care centre location is considered acceptable.	Yes
C4 A child care facility should be located to avoid risks to children, staff or visitors and adverse environmental conditions arising from: · proximity to: - heavy or hazardous industry, waste transfer depots or landfill sites - LPG tanks or service stations - water cooling and water warming systems - odour (and other air pollutant) generating uses and sources or sites which, due to prevailing land use zoning, may in future accommodate noise or odour generating uses - extractive industries, intensive agriculture, agricultural spraying activities · any other identified environmental hazard or risk relevant to the site and/ or existing buildings within the site.	There is a diesel fuel depot approx. 100m away. The applicant provided additional information on the separation, air quality impacts and low flammable/explosion potential of diesel fuel. The situation was also reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Given the screening by structures in between, the large separation distance and the low flammable/explosion potential of diesel - no adverse impact or risk will occur. The site is also bushfire prone. The applicant submitted a bushfire assessment in support of the proposal. The bushfire assessment was also reviewed and accepted by the NSW Rural Fire Service, subject to conditions. Therefore, bushfire is unlikely to create any adverse risks to the centre.	Yes
3.2 Local Character, streetscape and the public domain interface p11-12
C5 The proposed development should: · contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape · reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas • recognise predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, materials and colours · include design and architectural treatments that respond to and integrate with the existing streetscape · use landscaping to positively contribute to the streetscape and neighbouring amenity · integrate car parking into the building and site landscaping design in residential areas.	The development will compliment other existing non-residential uses within 100-500m of the site and the associated built form will remain similar to that of a residential dwelling, when viewed from the street. There is also a car park at the front of the premises, which will be screened by landscaping to offset any visual impact.	Yes
C6 Create a threshold with a clear transition between public and private realms, including: · fencing to ensure safety for children entering and leaving the facility · windows facing from the facility towards the public domain to provide passive surveillance to the street as a safety measure and connection between the facility and the community · integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.	Clear transition area provided with suitable fencing, window placement and landscaping.	Yes
C7 On sites with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with the child care facility should be differentiated to improve legibility for visitors and children by changes in materials, plant species and colours.	There are multiple entry points. Signage will be required to clarify entry procedures.	Yes
C8 Where development adjoins public parks, open space or bushland, the facility should provide an appealing streetscape frontage by adopting some of the following design solutions: · clearly defined street access, pedestrian paths and building entries · low fences and planting which delineate communal/ private open space from adjoining public open space · minimal use of blank walls and high fences.	Development does not adjoin such areas.	N/A
C9 Front fences and walls within the front setback should be constructed of visually permeable materials and treatments. Where the site is listed as a heritage item, adjacent to a heritage item or within a conservation area front fencing should be designed in accordance with local heritage provisions.	The front side fences are minimal in height (1.2m high) and still allows an acceptable permeable frontage either side. The fence design also remains consistent with others in the street.	Yes
C10 High solid acoustic fencing may be used when shielding the facility from noise on classified roads. The walls should be setback from the property boundary with screen landscaping of a similar height between the wall and the boundary.	High solid acoustic fencing (2.1m) is limited to side and rear fencing and does not impact frontage design.	Yes
3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design p12-14
C11 Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to: · ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by: - facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties - placing play equipment away from common boundaries with residential properties - locating outdoor play areas away from residential dwellings and other sensitive uses · optimise solar access to internal and external play areas · avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties · minimise cut and fill · ensure buildings along the street frontage define the street by facing it · ensure that where a child care facility is located above ground level, outdoor play areas are protected from wind and other climatic conditions.	Development has been suitably designed to comply or will implement requirements to ensure compliance. Fencing, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable window placement utilised.	Yes
C12 The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character: · building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality · building height should respond to the scale and character of the street · setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility · setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance • setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character.	Development has been suitably designed to comply or will implement requirements to ensure compliance. Overall, the built form of the premises retains dwelling elements, bulk and scale that are consistent with surrounding development.	Yes
C13 Where there are no prevailing setback controls minimum setback to a classified road should be 10 metres. On other road frontages where there are existing buildings within 50 metres, the setback should be the average of the two closest buildings. Where there are no buildings within 50 metres, the same setback is required for the predominant adjoining land use.	Setback remains relatively unchanged and consistent with surrounding front setbacks.	Yes
C14 On land in a residential zone, side and rear boundary setbacks should observe the prevailing setbacks required for a dwelling house.	Design consistent with residential setbacks of 4m to rear (or equivalent area to the north) and 900mm to side.	Yes
C15 The built form of the development should contribute to the character of the local area, including how it: · respects and responds to its physical context such as adjacent built form, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage · contributes to the identity of the place · retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant · considers heritage within the local neighbourhood including identified heritage items and conservation areas · responds to its natural environment including local landscape setting and climate · contributes to the identity of place.	Development has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. Overall, the built form of the premises retains dwelling elements, bulk and scale that are consistent with surrounding development.	Yes
C16 Entry to the facility should be limited to one secure point which is: · located to allow ease of access, particularly for pedestrians · directly accessible from the street where possible • directly visible from the street frontage · easily monitored through natural or camera surveillance · not accessed through an outdoor play area. · in a mixed-use development, clearly defined and separate from entrances to other uses in the building.	The access has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. In particular, a main access point (NE corner of the building) has been provided for parents/children. A separate ancillary rear access point is available for staff entering from the rear car park.	Yes
C17 Accessible design can be achieved by: · providing accessibility to and within the building in accordance with all relevant legislation · linking all key areas of the site by level or ramped pathways that are accessible to prams and wheelchairs, including between all car parking areas and the main building entry · providing a continuous path of travel to and within the building, including access between the street entry and car parking and main building entrance. Platform lifts should be avoided where possible · minimising ramping by ensuring building entries and ground floors are well located relative to the level of the footpath. NOTE: The National Construction Code, the Discrimination Disability Act 1992 and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 set out the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.	Development has been suitably designed to comply or will implement requirements to ensure compliance.	Yes
3.4 Landscaping p15
C18 Appropriate planting should be provided along the boundary integrated with fencing. Screen planting should not be included in calculations of unencumbered outdoor space. Use the existing landscape where feasible to provide a high quality landscaped area by: · reflecting and reinforcing the local context · incorporating natural features of the site, such as trees, rocky outcrops and vegetation communities into landscaping.	Landscaping has been suitably designed to comply or will implement requirements to ensure compliance. Area also exists onsite for future plantings.	Yes
C19 Incorporate car parking into the landscape design of the site by: · planting shade trees in large car parking areas to create a cool outdoor environment and reduce summer heat radiating into buildings · taking into account streetscape, local character and context when siting car parking areas within the front setback · using low level landscaping to soften and screen parking areas.	Landscaping has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. In particular, the car park is not considered large and proposed landscaping creates a suitable balance of creating a visual and aesthetic environment whilst not impacting the safety and operation of the site.	Yes
3.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy p15-16
C20 Open balconies in mixed use developments should not overlook facilities nor overhang outdoor play spaces.	Use of fencing, high sill windows and separation - ensure no adverse overlooking issues created.	Yes
C21 Minimise direct overlooking of indoor rooms and outdoor play spaces from public areas through: · appropriate site and building layout · suitably locating pathways, windows and doors · permanent screening and landscape design.	Development has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. Fencing and mirror tint windows will ensure public areas/the street do not look into indoor or outdoor areas.	Yes
C22 Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through: · appropriate site and building layout · suitable location of pathways, windows and doors · landscape design and screening.	Development has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. Fencing, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable window placement utilised.	Yes
C23 A new development, or development that includes alterations to more than 50 per cent of the existing floor area, and is located adjacent to residential accommodation should: · provide an acoustic fence along any boundary where the adjoining property contains a residential use. (An acoustic fence is one that is a solid, gap free fence). · ensure that mechanical plant or equipment is screened by solid, gap free material and constructed to reduce noise levels e.g. acoustic fence, building, or enclosure.	The applicant submitted a noise report, which was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Overall, the provisions in the SEPP were considered and the development/design was deemed acceptable and compliant. In particular, no significant adverse conflicts between the development and adjoining areas to occur via use of fencing/screening and conditions of operation.	Yes

C24 A suitably qualified acoustic professional should prepare an acoustic report which will cover the following matters: · identify an appropriate noise level for a child care facility located in residential and other zones · determine an appropriate background noise level for outdoor play areas during times they are proposed to be in use · determine the appropriate height of any acoustic fence to enable the noise criteria to be met.	The applicant submitted a noise report, which was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Overall, the provisions in the SEPP were considered and the development/design was deemed acceptable and compliant. In particular, no significant adverse conflicts between the development and adjoining areas to occur via use of fencing/screening and conditions of operation.	Yes
3.6 Noise and air pollution p17
C25 Adopt design solutions to minimise the impacts of noise, such as: · creating physical separation between buildings and the noise source · orienting the facility perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses · using landscaping to reduce the perception of noise · limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources · using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (wintergardens) · using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties, such as solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits · locating cot rooms, sleeping areas and play areas away from external noise sources.	Development has been suitably designed to comply with requirements. Fencing, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable window placement utilised.	Yes
C26 An acoustic report should identify appropriate noise levels for sleeping areas and other non play areas and examine impacts and noise attenuation measures where a child care facility is proposed in any of the following locations: · on industrial zoned land · where the ANEF contour is between 20 and 25, consistent with AS 2021 – 2000 · along a railway or mass transit corridor, as defined by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 · on a major or busy road · other land that is impacted by substantial external noise.	Development does not adjoin such a noise source.	Yes
C27 Locate child care facilities on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development.	Facility location is acceptable and designed to minimise impacts from outside sources.	Yes
C28 A suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care facilities close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines. The air quality assessment report should evaluate design considerations to minimise air pollution such as: · creating an appropriate separation distance between the facility and the pollution source. The location of play areas, sleeping areas and outdoor areas should be as far as practicable from the major source of air pollution · using landscaping to act as a filter for air pollution generated by traffic and industry. Landscaping has the added benefit of improving aesthetics and minimising visual intrusion from an adjacent roadway · incorporating ventilation design into the design of the facility.	Development contains a suitable setback to busy roads/industrial type uses.	Yes
3.7 Hours of operation p18
C29 Hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The hours of operation of the proposed child care facility may be extended if it adjoins or is adjacent to non-residential land uses.	7:00am to 6:00pm proposed, which complies.	Yes
C30 Within mixed use areas or predominantly commercial areas, the hours of operation for each child care facility should be assessed with respect to its compatibility with adjoining and co-located land uses.	Location and hours acceptable.	Yes
3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation p18-19

C31 Off street car parking should be provided at the rates for child care facilities specified in a Development Control Plan that applies to the land. Where a Development Control Plan does not specify car parking rates, off street car parking should be provided at the following rates: Within 400 metres of a metropolitan train station: · 1 space per 10 children · 1 space per 2 staff. Staff parking may be stack or tandem parking with no more than 2 spaces in each tandem space. In other areas: · 1 space per 4 children. A reduction in car parking rates may be considered where: · the proposal is an adaptive re-use of a heritage item · the site is in a B8 Metropolitan Zone or other high density business or residential zone · the site is in proximity to high frequency and well connected public transport · the site is co-located or in proximity to other uses where parking is appropriately provided (for example business centres, schools, public open space, car parks) · there is sufficient on street parking available at appropriate times within proximity of the site.	DCP 2013 requires 1 space per 4 children and a set down/pick up area. It should be noted that the set down/pick up area is not enforced by Council as modern child care centres require parents to park, take the child into the facility and sign them in. 88 children/4 = 22 spaces. 19 spaces provided based on a traffic assessment. The shortfall in spaces is not supported by Council staff. In residential areas, it is important that child care centres provide compliant parking so as to not impact on the neighbourhood. Therefore, the child care centre will be restricted to 76 children (ie 19 spaces x 4 children = 76). The applicant still has the ability to come back and review or modify the application, especially once operating and there is more site specific data available.	Yes
C32 In commercial or industrial zones and mixed use developments, on street parking may only be considered where there are no conflicts with adjoining uses, that is, no high levels of vehicle movement or potential conflicts with trucks and large vehicles.	No on street parking proposed.	N/A
C33 A Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised. The study should also address any proposed variations to parking rates and demonstrate that: · the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected · there will be no impacts on the safe operation of the surrounding road network.	Traffic report done and reviewed by specialist Council staff as being acceptable, subject to children numbers being amended/reduced to 76. No significant adverse impacts to occur.	Yes
C34 Alternate vehicular access should be provided where child care facilities are on sites fronting: · a classified road · roads which carry freight traffic or transport dangerous goods or hazardous materials. The alternate access must have regard to: · the prevailing traffic conditions · pedestrian and vehicle safety including bicycle movements · the likely impact of the development on traffic.	Development does not front a classified road etc.	N/A
C35 Child care facilities proposed within cul-de-sacs or narrow lanes or roads should ensure that safe access can be provided to and from the site, and to and from the wider locality in times of emergency.	Council Engineering staff have reviewed and accepted the proposal on road design/conditions.	Yes
C36 The following design solutions may be incorporated into a development to help provide a safe pedestrian environment: · separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility · defined pedestrian crossings included within large car parking areas · separate pedestrian and vehicle entries from the street for parents, children and visitors · pedestrian paths that enable two prams to pass each other · delivery and loading areas located away from the main pedestrian access to the building and in clearly designated, separate facilities · in commercial or industrial zones and mixed use developments, the path of travel from the car parking to the centre entrance physically separated from any truck circulation or parking areas · vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction.	Design allows sufficient room for informal pedestrian paths and provides a slow speed environment. The car park design has also been reviewed and accepted by Council Engineering staff.	Yes
C37 Mixed use developments should include: · driveway access, manoeuvring areas and parking areas for the facility that are separate to parking and manoeuvring areas used by trucks · drop off and pick up zones that are exclusively available for use during the facility’s operating hours with spaces clearly marked accordingly, close to the main entrance and preferably at the same floor level. Alternatively, direct access should avoid crossing driveways or maneuvering areas used by vehicles accessing other parts of the site · parking that is separate from other uses, located and grouped together and conveniently located near the entrance or access point to the facility.	Development is not a mixed use development.	N/A
C38 Car parking design should: · include a child safe fence to separate car parking areas from the building entrance and play areas · provide clearly marked accessible parking as close as possible to the primary entrance to the building in accordance with appropriate Australian Standards · include wheelchair and pram accessible parking.	The development incorporates such measures. The car park has also been reviewed and accepted by Council Engineering staff.	Yes
Child Care Planning Guideline – National Regulations (Chapter 4)
Requirement	Proposed	Complies
4.1 Indoor space · 3.25m² per child. Areas to exclude outlined in Guideline. · Verandahs can be included as indoor space with written approval from Department of Education - see page 24 of Guideline. · Cannot double up on use of verandahs in indoor and outdoor space calculations · Minimum 0.3m³ external storage per child. · Minimum 0.2m³ internal storage per child. · Storage of items such as prams, bikes and scooters should be located adjacent to the building entrance. ·	286m² indoor required with 286m² provided (Note: educational kitchen). External storage exceeds 88 x 0.3m³ = 26.4m³ (over 35m³ provided). Internal storage exceeds 88 x 0.2m³ = 17.6m³ (over 18m³ provided). Overall, the development has been suitably designed to comply with requirements.	Yes
4.2 Laundry and hygiene facilities · Must contain washer(s), dryer, laundry sinks and storage for soiled items. · If external laundry to be utilised, the proposal must address requirements on p25 of Guideline.	Development has been suitably designed and provides such facilities.	Yes
4.3 Toilet and hygiene facilities · Designed for use by children. · Contain screening but allow supervision. · Allow for direct access to activity and outdoor play areas. · Minimum number outlined in BCA. · A sink and handwashing facilities in all bathrooms for adults. · External windows in locations that prevent observation from neighbouring properties or from side boundaries.	Development has been suitably designed and provides such facilities. Internal and external bathroom provided.	Yes
4.4 Ventilation and natural light · Good design using mixture of natural and mechanical ventilation. · Consideration of ceiling heights being adequate when room depth exceeds 2.5 times the ceiling height. · Minimise reliance on artificial lighting.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements.	Yes
4.5 Administrative Space · Must provide for admin functions, consultation with parents, be private, desk and chair areas, storage and filing area.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements.	Yes
4.6 Nappy change facilities · Properly constructed nappy change bench. · Provide a baby bath within 1m of nappy change. · Hand cleaning facilities for adult within vicinity of nappy change. · Provide storage for steps. · Position nappy change to allow staff to supervise play area.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements.	Yes
4.7 Premise designed to facilitate supervision · Development allow supervision but dignity of child. · Requirements on p30 of Guideline.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements.	Yes
4.8 Emergency and evacuation procedures · Requirements for multi storey listed on p31. · Safe haven provided to count numbers before evacuation. · Emergency and evacuation plan submitted with DA in accordance with p31 requirements.	The site contains suitable area to manage emergency situations. Conditions will require an emergency and evacuation plan.	Yes
4.9 Outdoor space requirements · 7m² per child. Areas to exclude outlined in the Guideline. · Verandahs as outdoor space see p32 of Guideline. · Exemptions (ie including verandah areas, simulated indoor areas etc) allowed and outlined on p23-25 of Guideline.	616m² outdoor required with 804.17m² provided.	Yes
4.10 Natural Environment · Create a natural environment using trees, sand, rocks etc. · Avoid having unsafe trees/plants. · Provide a variety of experiences. · Avoid elements that will limit supervision. · Create an environment that enhances learning, interaction etc.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements. Site also allows for future site specific treatments.	Yes
4.11 Shade · Provide solar access to at least 30% of ground area. · Provide shade to at least 30% and evenly distributed. · Not more than 60% of outdoor space should be shaded. · Planting for shade and solar access is enhanced by: - placing appropriately scaled trees near the eastern and western elevations - providing a balance of evergreen and deciduous trees to give shade in summer and sunlight access in winter. · Built structures should not create safety hazards. Support systems such as upright posts should be clearly visible with rounded edges or padding. Vertical barriers at the sides of shade structures should be designed to prevent children using them for climbing. Shade structures should allow adults to view and access the children’s play areas, with a recommended head clearance of 2.1 metres. The floor area underneath the structure should be of a sufficient size and shape to allow children to gather or play actively.	Development has been suitably designed and complies or is capable of complying with such requirements. Site also allows for future site specific treatments.	Yes
4.12 Fencing · Required around outdoor areas. · Design prevent climbing, going through or under. · Prevent outside people gaining access. · Not create a sense of enclosure. · No climbing points higher than 150mm from the ground. · No gaps greater than 100mm between pickets. · Have self closing gates as per AS2890. · Side and rear fences must be solid, minimum 1.8m high and be non climbable.	Development has been suitably designed and complies or is capable of complying with such requirements.	Yes
4.13 Soil assessment · Soil assessment required - see p38 of Guideline.	The application has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Given the past use of the site for standard residential purposes, a soil assessment is not required in this case.	N/A

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. In accordance with Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, a centre-based child care facility and subdivision are permissible with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

o The development will allow a land use that serves the day to day child care 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 4.1 - The lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from approximately 1,001m² (proposed vacant lot 2) to 2,136m² (proposed child care centre lot 1). All proposed lots comply with the 450m² minimum lot size standard identified in the Lot Size Map relating to the site. In addition, proposed lot 2 complies with the 450m² when excluding the battleaxe handle area component as per Clause 4.1(3A).

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 5.34m, which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is approximately 0.18:1, which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

· Clause 5.10 - The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance. The site is also disturbed from past residential activities onsite.

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The application and an accompanying ecological assessment was reviewed by Council’s Natural Resources Section who confirmed that while the rear of the lot is mapped under the Biodiversity Values Map, the proposal does not require the clearing of any native vegetation within the mapped area or create any prescribed impact (as set out in Clause 6.1 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017).

Based on the above, Council staff are satisfied that the development will not result in a significant impact and the proposal is considered to comply with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

(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 - B1: Advertising and Signage*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
1	a) Signs primarily identifying products or services are not acceptable, even where relating to products or services available on that site.	Only business identification signage and minor ancillary directional signage proposed.	Yes
	b) Signage is not permitted outside property boundaries except where mounted upon buildings and clear of pedestrians and road traffic. No signage is permitted upon light or power poles or upon the nature strip (the area between the property boundary and constructed roadway). Limited directional signage and “A” frame signage may separately be approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993 or section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.	No such signage proposed.	Yes
	c) An on-building 'chalkboard' sign, for the purpose of describing services or goods for sale which vary on a regular basis generally should not be any larger than 1.5m2, and should contain a sign written heading indicating the premises to which it refers.	No such signage proposed.	Yes
	d) On-premise signs should not project above or to the side of building facades	Signage does not project above or to the side of the building facade.	Yes
2	a) Where there is potential for light spill from signage in a non-residential zone adjoining or adjacent to residential development, illuminated signage is to be fitted with a time switch to dim by 50% or turn off the light by 11pm each night, depending on the nature of the development.	Signage is not proposed to be illuminated and will be reinforced via conditions of consent.	Yes

*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.	Standard conditions will control waste during construction and operation. Area exits onsite to cater for operational waste. Kerbside collection is to be used. Where kerbside is not sufficient, the applicant will need to utilise a private collection arrangement.	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 and fill does not exceed 1m.	N/A
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	No retaining walls over 1m proposed.	N/A
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.	The development includes a retaining wall fence combination exceeding 1.8m in height. The combination is located along the southern boundary with the cut being located within the subject site. Therefore, any imposing bulk of such a combination does not face a public area or neighbouring property. Development is considered to comply with the objectives of the DCP.	No, but acceptable.
6	a) Significant land reforming proposals where >10% gross site area or >1.0ha is to have surface levels changed by more than 5m or where earthworks exceed an average of 10,000m3 per ha shall: − identify the impact of the proposed land reforming on the environment, landscape, - visual character and amenity, natural watercourses, riparian vegetation, topographical features of the environment and public infrastructure; − demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Council’s AUS-SPEC design specification; − assess the impacts and benefits of the proposal to all impacted persons and the general public; - provide measures to compensate for and minimise any net adverse impacts.	Proposed earthworks do not trigger the clause.	N/A
	b) The use of high earthworks batters should be avoided.	None proposed.	N/A
	c) Preliminary plans indicating the final landform are required to be submitted with any master plan or subdivision application.	Provision applies more to a major subdivision, not a boundary adjustment.	N/A
	d) The subdivision should be designed to fit the topography rather than altering the topography to fit the subdivision.	Provision applies more to a major subdivision, not a boundary adjustment.	N/A
Environmental Management Areas, Buffers and Tree Management
7-14	Environmental management, buffer and tree management provisions.	The site does not adjoin any environmental management areas or Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs). No buffer requirements triggered. No significant tree removal proposed (ie main tree removal relates to planted backyard species). Tree removal has also factored in a potential building site on the rear proposed lot. Based on the above, the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions/objectives of the DCP.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
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 does not contain any environmental protection zones and APZs capable of being managed onsite.	Yes
18	b) Perimeter roads are to be provided to all urban areas adjoining environmental management areas and their buffers. Refer to Figure 2.	The site does not adjoin any significant sized environmental management area or require the need for a perimeter road.	N/A

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
23	a) New direct accesses from a development to arterial and distributor roads is not permitted. Routes should differ in alignment and design standard according to the volume and type of traffic they are intended to carry, the desirable traffic speed, and other factors.	No new direct access to an arterial or distributor road proposed.		Yes
	b) Existing direct accesses from a development to arterial and distributor roads are rationalised or removed where practical.	No new direct access to an arterial or distributor road proposed.		Yes
	c) Vehicle driveway crossings are minimal in number and width (while being adequate for the nature of the development), and positioned: − to avoid driveways near intersections and road bends, and − to minimise streetscapes dominated by driveways and garage doors, and − to maximise on-street parking.	Whilst a new access is proposed, the applicant has submitted a traffic report in support of the proposal. The report has also been reviewed and accepted by Council Engineering staff. Furthermore, the access and egress locations are considered to contain suitably separation to ensure no adverse impact on streetscape or on street parking.		Yes
Parking Provision
24	a) Off-street Parking is provided in accordance with Table 3. 1 space per 4 children and set down/pick up area.	It should be noted that the set down/pick up area is not enforced by Council as modern child care centres require parents to park, take the child into the facility and sign them in. 88 children/4 = 22 spaces. 19 provided. The shortfall in spaces is not supported by Council staff. In residential areas, it is important that child care centres provide compliant parking so as to not impact on the neighbourhood. Therefore, the child care centre will be restricted to 76 children (ie 19 spaces x 4 children = 76). The applicant still has the ability to come back and review or modify the application, especially once operating and there is more site specific data available.		No, but acceptable based on a condition reducing child numbers.
	b) Where a proposed development does not fall within any of the listed definitions, the provision of on-site parking shall be supported by a parking demand study.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
	c) Where a proposed development falls within more than one category Council will require the total parking provision for each category.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
25	a) A development proposal to alter, enlarge, convert or redevelop an existing building, whether or not demolition is involved, shall provide the total number of parking spaces calculated from the schedule for the proposed use, subject to a credit for any existing deficiency, including any contributions previously accepted in lieu of parking provision.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
26	a) On street parking, for the purposes of car parking calculations will not be included unless it can be demonstrated that: − there is adequate on street space to accommodate peak and acute parking demands of the area; − parking can be provided without compromising road safety or garbage collection accessibility; − parking can be provided without jeopardising road function; and − that streetscape improvement works, such as landscaped bays and street trees are provided to contribute to the streetscape.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
	b) On street parking is provided in accordance with AS2890.5.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
27	a) On street parking will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: − parking does not detract from the streetscape; and − that streetscape improvement works, such as landscaped bays and street trees are provided.	Provision not applicable to proposal.		N/A
Parking Layout
28	a) Visitor and customer parking shall be located so that it is easily accessible from the street.	Development has been suitably designed and complies with such requirements.		Yes
	b) Internal signage (including pavement markings) should assist customers and visitors to find parking and circulate efficiently and safely through a car park.	Development has been suitably designed and complies or is capable of complying with such requirements. Conditions to reinforce.		Yes
	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.	The nature of the use warrants that the parking be located in front of the building. Regardless, the parking design remains safe, easy to use, creates no adverse conflicts and was accepted by Council Engineering staff. Screening will also be utilised to minimise any streetscape impacts. Based on the above, the objectives of the DCP are not compromised.		No, but acceptable.
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking and AS 2890.6 - Off-street parking for individuals with a disability and AS/NZS 2890.2 - Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities.	Development has been suitably designed and complies or is capable of complying with such requirements. Conditions to reinforce.		Yes
	e) Stack or tandem parking spaces will not be included in assessment of parking provision except where: − the spaces are surplus to that required; − in motor showrooms; − for home business; − for exhibition homes; − in car repair stations; − staff parking spaces are separately identified and delineated; − it is visitor parking associated with a dual occupancy multi dwelling and/or terrace housing, directly in front of the garage with a minimum depth of 5.5m.	None proposed.		N/A
29	a) Parking is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking, AS/NZS 2890.2 - Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities, AS 1428 - Design for access and mobility and AS 2890.6 - Off-street parking for individuals with a disability.	Development has been suitably designed and complies or is capable of complying with such requirements. Conditions to reinforce.		Yes
30	a) Bicycle and motorcycle parking shall be considered for all developments.	Development has been suitably designed and is capable of catering for bicycle/motorcycle parking.		Yes
	b) Bicycle parking areas shall be designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS2890.3 - Parking facilities - Bicycle parking facilities.	Development has been suitably designed and is capable of catering for bicycle/motorcycle parking.		Yes
	c) Motorcycle parking areas shall be 1.2m (wide) x 2.5m (long).	Development has been suitably designed and is capable of catering for bicycle/motorcycle parking.		Yes
Landscaping of Parking Areas
33	a) Landscaping areas shall be provided in the form of large tree planting, understorey plantings, mulch areas, mounding, lawns and the like	Site is capable of providing a range of landscaping features/species.		Yes
	b) Landscaping areas shall be used throughout the car park and on the perimeters of the property where it addresses the public domain.	Development has been suitably designed to provide adequate landscaping, including on the perimeter of key public domain areas (ie the street).		Yes
	c) Garden beds shall be a minimum of 3m in width between car parking areas and street boundaries.	Development has been suitably designed to provide adequate landscaping. Whilst the garden bed is not 3m, it remains large enough to provide a suitable screened hedge.		No, but acceptable.
34	a) All plantings on public lands are to be selected from Council’s Indigenous Street and Open Space Planting List from the relevant vegetation community adjacent to the Development.	None proposed.		N/A
	b) Trees are to be grown and installed in accordance with AS 2303:2015 Tree Stock for Landscape Use and Council’s AUS-SPEC design specifications.	No street trees proposed or required.		N/A
	Surface Finishes
35	a) All parking and manoeuvring areas shall be constructed with a coarse base of sufficient depth to suit the amount of traffic generated by the development, as determined by Council. It shall be sealed with either bitumen, asphaltic concrete, concrete or interlocking pavers. Preliminary details of construction materials for access and car parking areas shall be submitted with the development application. Detailed plans shall be prepared for the construction certificate by a practising qualified Civil Engineer.	Surface finish to be conditioned to comply.		Yes
	b) In special cases (e.g. where traffic volumes are very low) Council may consider the use of consolidated unsealed gravel pavement for car parks. However, this should not be assumed and will need to be justified by the applicant at the Development Application stage.	Provision not utilised.		N/A
	Drainage
36	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Council’s Stormwater Engineer has reviewed and accepted the development from a stormwater perspective. In this regard, no adverse stormwater conditions will be created as a result of the development.		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’s Stormwater Engineer has reviewed and accepted the development from a stormwater perspective.		Yes
37	a) Car parking areas should be drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas.	Council’s Stormwater Engineer has reviewed and accepted the development from a stormwater perspective. In this regard, no adverse stormwater conditions will be created as a result of the development.		Yes
	Loading Bays
38	a) Off street commercial vehicle facilities are provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.2 - Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities.	Standard car parking has been provided near the entry to the facility, which will cater for the loading requirements of the development.		Yes
	b) Loading bays should be provided in accordance with the following requirements; - Minimum dimensions to be 3.5m wide x 6m long. (This may increase according to the size and type of vehicle). - Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of 5m. - Adequate provision shall be made on-site for the loading, unloading and manoeuvring of delivery vehicles in an area separate from any customer car parking area. - A limited number of ‘employee only’ car parking spaces may be combined with loading facilities. - Loading areas shall be designed to accommodate appropriate turning paths for the maximum design vehicle using the site. - Vehicles are to be capable of manoeuvring in and out of docks without causing conflict with other street or on-site traffic. - Vehicles are to stand wholly within the site during such operations.	Standard car parking has been provided near the entry to the facility, which will cater for the minor loading requirements of the development.		Yes
	c) Industrial development shall provide adequate heavy vehicle access to building entries, or alternatively, external bays located appropriately for goods distribution.	Proposal is not an industrial development. Therefore, the provision does not apply.		N/A
	d) For external bays, one bay is required for 500m² of floor space or 1000m² of site area.	Standard car parking has been provided near the entry to the facility, which will cater for the minor loading requirements of the development.		Yes
	e) Commercial development having a floor space less than 500m² need not provide a loading bay.	Proposal is not a commercial development. Therefore, the provision does not apply.		N/A
	f) Other commercial development shall provide one loading bay for the first 1,000m² floor space and one additional bay for each additional 2,000m².	Proposal is not a commercial development. Therefore, the provision does not apply.		N/A
	g) If parcel pickup facilities are provided on-site they shall be located so as to avoid conflict with general traffic flow within parking areas. Parcel pickup lanes shall be separate from through traffic lanes in major shopping developments.	Proposal is not a commercial development with parcel pick up. Therefore, the provision does not apply.		N/A
39	a) The location and design of loading bays should integrate into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.	Standard car parking has been provided near the entry to the facility, which will cater for the minor loading requirements of the development and integrate with the building design.		Yes
	b) Where visible from the public domain, loading bays are located behind the building.	Standard car parking has been provided, which will cater for the minor loading requirements of the development. Furthermore, the subject parking/loading area is well setback from the street and unlikely to be heavily utilised. This negates any specific loading area having to be located behind the building.		Yes
	c) Where loading bays are located close to a sensitive land use, adequate visual and acoustic screening is provided.	The use of the premises for loading and unloading vehicles in a typical loading bay scenario is likely to be minor. Furthermore, there is fencing and vegetation to screen such an activity and conditions will manage the time such aspects can occur. It should be noted that this Clause and the comments provided relate more to standard loading bays and associated activities and not the process of picking up and dropping off children.		Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B5: Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Social Impact Assessment
42	a) A social impact assessment shall be submitted in accordance with the Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy.	Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy requires a social impact comment for the subject development. The applicant subsequently provided a basic comment, which outlined the positive impact the development would have. Council staff agree with the comment and on balance, the development is considered acceptable on social impact grounds.	Yes
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.	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any adverse concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The development will also provide a level of natural surveillance within the locality. Lighting and CCTV can be installed retrospectively by the owner, should they wish to have further security in the future.

*DCP 2013: PART C - Development Specific Provisions - C5: Subdivision* Note: Certain Provisions from the Subdivision Part of the DCP have not been included below as they were more relevant to larger scale greenfield subdivisions and not small scale infill subdivisions such as this DA.
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Site Analysis
139	a) A site analysis is required for all development and should illustrate: - microclimate including the movement of the sun and prevailing winds; - lot dimensions; - north point; - existing contours and levels to AHD; - flood affected areas; - overland flow patterns, drainage and services; - any contaminated soils or filled areas, or areas of unstable land; - easements and/or connections for drainage and utility services; - identification of any existing trees and other significant vegetation; - any existing buildings and other structures, including their setback distances; - heritage and archaeological features; - fences, boundaries and easements; - existing and proposed road network, including connectivity and access for all adjoining land parcels; - pedestrian and vehicle access; - views to and from the site; - overshadowing by neighbouring structures; and - any other notable features or characteristics of the site.	An acceptable site plan has been provided for a subdivision of this scale (ie 2 lot infill subdivision) and identifies relevant key elements.	Yes
Urban Structure and Lot Layout
140	a) Any residential allotments created by Torrens title subdivision should satisfy the following standards: - A minimum width of 15 metres when measured at a distance of 5.5 metres from the front property boundary; - A minimum width of 7 metres measured when side boundaries are extended to the kerb line; A minimum depth of 25 metres; - For lots where the average slope of the development site is equal to, or exceeds 16%, indicative road and driveway grades are required demonstrating satisfactory access.	The lots comply with the relevant standards.	Yes
141	a) Battleaxe allotments are discouraged in greenfield development.	Not a greenfield site.	N/A
141	b) Council may consider permitting Torrens Title battleaxe allotments for “infill” development where it is demonstrated that: - A Torrens Title lot, that is not a battleaxe lot, cannot be achieved; and - the number of crossovers do not reduce the amenity of the street or on street parking; and - the impact of noise, dust and headlights on the land owners adjoining the driveway is addressed by the construction of an acoustic fence for the full length of the driveway; and - addresses privacy between the rear lot and the rear open space of the front lot by the provision of adequate screening, larger lot size and setbacks; and - extends utilities to the end of the axe handle; and - There is sufficient space for garbage collection on the frontage.	Due to the child care centre, a second non battleaxe shape lot is not possible. However, the following justification applies: - The number of crossovers have been minimised between the two proposed lots. - Suitable on street parking is retained. - Fencing will manage amenity/privacy impacts. - The child care centre will predominately operate during daylight hours so headlight glare is unlikely to be an issue. - Suitable servicing can be arranged. - The grassed kerb retains suitable area for garbage collection.	Yes
142	a) The subdivision of land with slopes exceeding 25% is generally discouraged.	Slopes do not exceed 25%.	Yes
143	a) Wherever possible orientate streets to maximise the number of east, west and south facing lots and to minimise the number of narrow north facing lots.	No new streets proposed.	N/A
	b) Residential street blocks should preferably be orientated north-south with dimensions generally limited to 60 - 80 metres by 120 - 150 metres.	No new streets proposed. Nonetheless, a suitable north south residential lot is being created.	N/A
	c) Lot size and shape are to reflect orientation to ensure future dwelling construction has optimal opportunity for passive solar design.	A suitable north south residential lot is being created.	Yes
144	a) The site analysis, including the lot orientation, layout, and natural topography should inform and aid the design of the street pattern.	No new streets proposed.	N/A
144	b) The street plan should provide: - Street network, including those existing (adjacent or opposite); - Cycleways and pathway network - Indicative gradients and cross-sections of roads, cycle ways and pathways, particularly those with steep slopes that may present access and mobility constraints. Provide notional road batters for steep areas - General intersection traffic dampening, related landscape features and constriction points; - Notional drainage pattern and works where affected by road works - Car parking - Consideration of existing and proposed street trees - Existing and proposed fire trails - Street and Service Plans should need to show how the proposal should integrate with the existing system.	No new streets proposed.	N/A
145	a) Subdivision applications close to urban centres should achieve a high-medium population yield (>35 dwellings per hectare).	The development is located close to a commercial area and will further maximise subdivision yield via the creation of the lot.	Yes
145	b) Subdivisions along arterial roads and serviced by public transport should achieve a high-medium population yield (>35 dwellings per hectare).	Whilst the development is not located on an arterial road, it is located within the vicinity (500m) of a public bus route/stop. The development will further maximise subdivision yield via the creation of the lot.	Yes
Infrastructure - Pedestrians and Cycleways
147-149	Provisions for road construction.	No new roads proposed.	N/A

Infrastructure - Integrated Water Cycle Management
150-152	Stormwater provisions.	The development has been reviewed by Council’s Stormwater Engineer and deemed acceptable/compliant.	Yes
Infrastructure - Water and Sewer Supply
153-155	Water and sewer requirements.	Council’s Water and Sewer Section have reviewed the application and advised that suitable arrangements exists for reticulated water and sewer to service the development. Arrangements for connection to be made at the applicant’s expense.	Yes

Whilst there are no specific controls for child care centres in the DCP like there are for commercial, industrial and residential uses; the setbacks, siting, bulk and scale of the development are considered acceptable and consistent with the surrounding residential zone and future desired development.

(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 61

Demolition work on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be conditioned.

Fire Safety

Fire Safety and other considerations – Clause 62

This clause applies to a development application for a change of building use for an existing building where the applicant does not seek the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of a building. In determining the development application, the consent authority is to take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate to the building’s proposed use. Consent to the change of building use sought by a development application to which this clause applies must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building complies (or will, when completed, comply) with the relevant fire safety provisions as are applicable to the building’s proposed use.

Having considered the above, the proposal involves alterations and additions. As a result, the clause does not apply.

Consent authority may require buildings to be upgraded – Clause 64

This clause applies to a development application for development involving the rebuilding or alteration of an existing building where:

(a) the proposed building work, together with any other building work completed, represents more than half the total volume of the building, as it was before any such work was commenced, measured over its roof and external walls, or

(b) the measures contained in the building are inadequate.

In determining a development application to which this clause applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration whether it would be appropriate to require the existing building to be brought into total or partial conformity with the Building Code of Australia.

In this case, it is considered that the building work is significant to require relevant fire safety provisions to be upgraded/conditioned.

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

Context and Setting

The site has street frontage to Colonial Circuit.

Immediately adjoining the site to the north, south, east and west is residential housing.

A neighbourhood shopping area comprising various shops and commercial premises exists approximately 200m to the south west. Additional industrial and commercial type uses exist approximately 150-250m to the south and south east.

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

The proposal is considered to be compatible with other existing development in the locality and what is planned/permissible for the area. Planning controls have also been adequately addressed.

Access, Traffic and Transport

The applicant submitted a traffic impact assessment in support of the proposal, which was reviewed and accepted in principle by Council Engineering staff.

The access, parking and manoeuvring was deemed accepted by Council Engineering staff, subject to conditions and the children numbers being reduced to match proposed parking numbers. Overall, the proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development lot has an existing service from the 100mm water main located on the opposite side of Colonial Circuit. This service shall be removed.

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

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

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

Overall, the reticulated system is capable of catering for the development, subject to conditions.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has sewer mains parallel to the front boundary. A manhole shall be constructed over the existing junction with a junction from the manhole to service the proposed child care. A sewer main extension shall be required from the new manhole to service proposed Lot 2.

Any manholes located in proposed driveways shall be fully located in the driveway and shall require a trafficable lid.

Details are to be shown on the engineering plans.

Overall, the reticulated system is capable of catering for the development, subject to conditions.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards Colonial Circuit, with the existing dwelling on site draining to the kerb and gutter.

In accordance with Council’s AUSPEC specifications, development of the type proposed are required to drain directly to the underground public piped drainage network in instances where the nearest point of connection is within 80m of the site frontage. In this scenario, the closest downstream pit is located approximately 93m to the north, hence the development will be permitted to discharge to the kerb and gutter.

In this regard, discharge to the kerb is permissible subject to:

· On-site stormwater detention facilities (or similar) being incorporated into the design to ensure that the total post development site stormwater discharge rate does not exceed the pre development discharge rate, or 55 L/s, whichever the lesser for all storm events up to 1% AEP and

· Discharge to the kerb and gutter being via a council approved single suitably sized kerb adaptor per lot.

Stormwater plans have been submitted in support of the application that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements is achievable.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

Refer to comments on heritage in the LEP 2011 section of this report.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

The applicant has submitted an ecological assessment in support of the proposal. The ecological report was subsequently reviewed by Council’s Natural Resources Management staff. Overall, the development was deemed to create no significant adverse impact on flora and fauna, subject to conditions.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. Weekly kerbside collection is proposed and there is sufficient area available on the kerb for bins to be collected. Where weekly kerbside collection is unable to cope, the applicant will need to engage their own private collection. The private collection will be conditioned to occur between 10am and 2pm so as to negate parking and noise impacts.

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

The applicant submitted a noise report that looked at both external noise impacts created from the development as well as external noise impacts (ie road traffic noise) on the centre. Subject to conditions, the report was reviewed and accepted by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Overall, the construction and operations of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse noise impacts or be adversely impacted by any external noise sources.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Section 100B - Rural Fires Act 1997 - the application proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be used for residential purposes and a child care centre. As a result, the applicant submitted a bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant. The report was forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service who reviewed, accepted the proposal on bushfire grounds and issued the required Bushfire Safety Authority (which will be incorporated into the consent).

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any adverse concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The development will also provide a level of natural surveillance within the locality.

Lighting and CCTV can be installed retrospectively by the owner, should they wish to have further security in the future.

Social impacts in the locality

Refer to comments on social impacts in the DCP 2013 assessment table component of this report.

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 and child care industries, which will lead to flow impacts such as expenditure in the area.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

57 written submissions (including a petition) 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
Safety and traffic issues created by the child care centre vehicles, deliveries etc.	The application was reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed acceptable on traffic and safety grounds. In particular, the layout and surrounding road network were considered capable of supporting the development.
Increased traffic and associated noise.	Traffic and noise impacts were assessed by Council’s Engineering and Environmental Health staff. Subject to conditions, the development was considered to create no significant adverse traffic or noise impacts on the area.
Inadequate parking, especially for special events (ie Easter, Mothers Day, Fathers Day etc) and chartered buses. 18 spaces for a centre of 88 children with 12 staff, leaves 6 spaces for parents. This will lead to parking on the street.	Parking has been reviewed by Council staff and considered acceptable, subject to reducing/conditioning children numbers from 88 down to 76. The reduction is to ensure compliance with Council’s DCP requirements based on the 19 spaces provided. The comment on special events is noted but parking requirements are based on normal operating practices/situations. To require parking for one off unusual situations is not realistic. Nonetheless, to minimise such events and their associated impacts, a condition will be imposed that special one off events such as Mothers Day, Fathers Day etc be limited to four (4) per year.
Traffic and congestion at High St, Forest Way and Colonial Circuit.	The application was reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed acceptable on traffic and safety grounds. In particular, the layout and surrounding road network were considered capable of supporting the development.
Forest Way is the only entrance/exit, which will create issues in emergencies.	The application was reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed acceptable on traffic and safety grounds. In particular, the layout and surrounding road network were considered capable of supporting the development. The application was also considered by the NSW RFS and considered acceptable on bushfire grounds.
Proximity of the child care centre to the Hastings Co-op bulk fuel depot. Site selection for child care centres should have regard to hazards. There are already two child care centres nears the fuel depot.	The applicant provided additional information on the separation, air quality impacts and low flammable/explosion potential of diesel fuel. The situation was also reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Given the screening by structures in between, the large separation distance and the low flammable/explosion potential of diesel - no adverse impact will occur and site is considered acceptable.
Traffic survey was based on a different centre, in a different location and during Covid lockdown. The outcome would not be accurate.	Comment noted. The application and traffic assessment were also reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and considered to provide a reasonable summary of the development and potential impacts. It also appears the traffic survey was done on a centre pre-Covid in 2018.
Centre will operate 7:00am to 6:00 pm weekdays. Given the residential nature of the area, it is unreasonable to create commercial type noise activities prior to 7:00am (ie vehicles dropping kids off, staff arriving at work etc).	A noise assessment was submitted with the application and subsequently reviewed/supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. In summary, no significant adverse noise impacts would occur to the surrounding areas from the development, subject to conditions being imposed around fencing, hours of operation etc. Furthermore, with the hours being restricted to 7:00am to 6:00pm weekdays, any activities prior to 7:00am will be subject to compliance action.
Traffic noise and dropping off children was not factored into the noise assessment.	Noise associated with the use of the carpark was factored into the noise assessment.
Outdoor play and associated noise occurring 6:30-7:00am. Noise from kids.	Outdoor play and associated noise from kids was factored into the noise assessment and deemed acceptable, subject to conditions. The assessment on this aspect was also reviewed/supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.
Noise from fire drills and assembling of children.	These are not considered to be an everyday activity, which limits any associated impact.
Noise emissions from constant use of air conditioning not considered.	Noise from plant was factored into the noise assessment and deemed acceptable, subject to conditions. The assessment on this aspect was also reviewed/supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.
Noise impacts from existing child care centre on High Street already occurring.	This report is assessing the noise impacts associated with the proposed development, which have been deemed acceptable. Any noise impacts being created from another existing child care centre would be subject to separate consideration and potential compliance action.
Noise from vehicles using the battleaxe lot handle to access parking.	Noise from vehicles using the site were factored into the noise assessment and deemed acceptable, subject to conditions. The assessment on this aspect was also reviewed/supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.
Impacts of waste. Volume of waste, smell of nappies, collection arrangements etc. Once a week collection is not enough. Health and safety issue.	The site contains suitable area to store and collect waste. Kerbside and/or private collection can be utilised depending on demand. The application will also be conditioned to maintain waste areas to ensure no significant adverse odour impacts.
The operation of the childcare centre in the current zoning is not appropriate. Council has zoned the area to not allow such a facility. There are more appropriate locations that will not compromise surrounding neighbourhood. Approving such a development will set a precedent for developers to place inappropriate development in residential areas.	The actual zoning allows child care centres, which are often found within residential areas - no precedent created. The development is also considered to be located in close proximity to other commercial and industrial developments on High Street. This coupled with expanding residential housing in the locality, provides a complimentary use for the area and surrounding development.
There are already traffic issues in the area from cars parking on the road, truck and forklift movements near the IGA supermarket. More traffic from the childcare centre will compound the issues and increase risks to pedestrians, cars reversing out their driveways.	The application was reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed acceptable on traffic, parking and safety grounds. In particular, the surrounding road network were considered capable of supporting the development.
The road is not built safely to accommodate the added traffic. Too narrow.	The application and surrounding road network were reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed capable of supporting the development, without creating any significant adverse traffic or safety issues.
There are no continuous footpaths in the estate so parents often have to push their prams on the road.	Comment is noted. However, the lack of pedestrian footpaths in the area, on balance, is not a justifiable reason to refuse the application.
Cars parked on the road will blocks views of cars reversing out of their driveways and creates a safety issue.	Provided cars park legally on the road, no adverse safety issue will occur to that which could occur at present. Where cars park illegally, they can be addressed via a separate compliance process.
The development will turn a quiet area into a commercial/business area.	The zoning allows child care centres, which are often found within residential areas. The development is also considered to be located in close proximity to other commercial and industrial developments on High Street. This coupled with expanding residential housing in the locality, provides a complimentary use for the area and surrounding development.
Development will devalue properties.	This is not a planning matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
Loss of lifestyle.	The application and various accompanying reports indicate that the development will have no significant adverse impact, including on lifestyle. Review of the application by specialist Council staff also support this outcome. Whilst the proposal will provide an alternate/different form of development, the impacts are either acceptable, can be managed via conditions, the use is permissible in the zone, the use is commonly found in residential areas and is considered to compliment surrounding uses.
The development will create a fire trap for children and carers.	Refer to comments on Bushfire above in this report.
What is a BFA of 12.5?	Construction standard for building in bushfire prone areas.
Impact on infrastructure e.g. sewerage. Old pipes, small diameter etc. There are sewerage spills/runoff occurring already.	The application and associated water usage/sewer waste has been reviewed by Council’s Water and Sewer Section. Overall, Council’s reticulated systems are capable of supporting the application and additional load, without creating any adverse impact.
The development will change the character of the street. Development is not consistent with surrounding development. Large commercial development in a quiet residential street.	The actual zoning allows child care centres, which are often found within residential areas. There are also other commercial uses within close proximity on High Street. Whilst the proposal is not the same type of development as the majority of single dwellings in the area, the planning controls envisage a certain degree of change in character. The proposal also satisfactorily responds to essential elements that make up the urban character of the existing built environment in this locality. In particular, the building built form, setbacks, height etc will retain a residential appearance with the front car park element being screened by fencing and vegetation. Based on the above, the development is a change but is not out of character with the existing surrounding area and what is deemed permissible with consent.
There is a new child care centre being built near the Wauchope Hospital. Do we need another one?	The decision on whether there is a need for a child care centre is a commercial decision by the applicant. However, it is unlikely that an applicant will go to the expense of building a child care centre, unless there is a genuine need. Furthermore, Colonial Circuit and surrounding streets are noted as creating a reasonable pocket of housing with fringe commercial on High Street. These uses will create a need for child care facilities.
88 children is a large number of kids for the building and yard.	The size of the yard exceeds child care standards for a facility of 88 kids.
Shift workers will not be able to sleep living next to a child care centre comprising 88 kids.	The applicant submitted a noise report that looked at both external noise impacts created from the development as well as external noise impacts (ie road traffic noise) on the centre. Subject to conditions, the report was reviewed and accepted by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Overall, the construction and operations of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse noise impacts.
Council needs to consult with RMS to create a second entry/egress into the estate.	The application and surrounding road network were reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff and deemed capable of supporting the development, without creating any significant adverse traffic issues or need for a second access onto High Street/Oxley Highway.
Large lots in Colonial Circuit should be protected from further development, including commercial uses.	This assessment can only consider the current legislation that is in place. It is noted that the current zoning and lot size standard in Colonial Circuit allow the larger lots to be further developed. It is also envisaged that the larger lots are likely to come under re-development pressures in the future. Any decision to down zone the larger lots would need to go through a separate zoning process, notification process and likely agreement from all impacted owners.
Child care centres should be located next to existing schools.	Agree this would be a good outcome where possible. However, legislation also allows child care centres to be located independent of schools as well.
Development does not comply with parking requirements, especially with the restricted rear parking area.	As stated above in this assessment, children numbers are proposed to be restricted to 76 via conditions. This will result in the development complying with DCP requirements.
The development will deter people from exercising as the streets will become too busy.	There will still be opportunities for people to safely exercise in the area, including along the grassed road verge.

(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.

Additional Comments

Deposited Plan and 88B Instrument - There is a restriction that the site cannot be subdivided without Council’s consent. The application follows such a process.

Site inspection date: 28 July 2022

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Section 7.11 Contributions

In assessing s7.11 contributions, Council staff have reviewed the development in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Development Contributions Assessment Policy (DCAP) and applicable Contribution Plans.

The site has been provided contribution credit based on the existing residential lot.

The proposed development will comprise a child care centre with a two lot subdivision and contributions have been charged accordingly.

Having considered the above, s 7.11 contributions do not apply in this case as there is no increase in demand on public amenities/services.

Section 7.12 Contributions

In assessing s7.12 contributions, Council staff have reviewed the development in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Development Contributions Assessment Policy (DCAP) and the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Section 94A Levy Contributions Plan 2007.

The proposed development will comprise a child care centre with two lot subdivision. The value of works exceeds $100,000 and contains a non-residential component. Noting s7.11 contributions are not being levied and there is deemed to be an increase in demand for public amenities/services, s7.12 contributions apply.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Contributions

In assessing s64 water and sewer contributions, Council staff have reviewed the development in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Development Contributions Assessment Policy (DCAP) and applicable Development Servicing Plans.

The site has been provided contribution credit based on a residential lot exceeding 2000m².

The proposed development will comprise a child care centre with two lot subdivision and contributions have been charged accordingly.

Having considered the above, the proposed development will increase the demand on water and sewer services.

As a result, s64 contributions apply and a condition of consent has been imposed to ensure payment.

An estimate for contributions is provided 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 proposed development does not raise any significant general public interest issues beyond matters already addressed in this report. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the provisions and objectives of the relevant planning controls and will have an acceptable impact on the surrounding natural and built environment. Approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest as it achieves the LEP objectives for development in the zone. No significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality have been identified. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2021 - 1237.7 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2021 - 1237.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2021 - 1237.1 Contributions Estimate

Member	18/11/21	16/12/21	3/2/22	17/2/22	20/4/22	4/5/22	1/06/22	6/7/22	20/7/22	17/8/22
David Crofts (Independent Chair)	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	A	P
Chris Gee (Independent Member)	P		P		P		P	P	P	P
Michael Mason (Independent Member)	P	P	P	P				P	P	P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Services)	P	P	P	P	P	P	A	P	P	P
Tony McNamara (Independent Member)		P		P	P	P	P	P	P
Other attendees
Mayor Peta Pinson			P	P		P				P
Grant Burge (Development Engineering Coordinator)	P	P	P	P	P		P	P	P	P
Patrick Galbraith-Robertson (Development Planning Coordinator)	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P
Steven Ford (Development Assessment Planner)								P	P	P
Chris Gardiner (Development Assessment Planner)						P	P	P
Vanessa Penfold (Development Assessment Planner)								P
Clinton Tink (Development Assessment Planner)						P	P
Jon Power (Act Development Engineer Coordinator)						P
Beau Spry (Development Assessment Planner)						P
Ben Roberts (Development Assessment Planner)			P			P
Councillor Josh Slade				P
Kate Kennedy (Building Surveyor)				P
Warren Wisemantel				P
Deputy Mayor Adam Roberts			P

20/01/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
3/02/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
17/02/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
2/03/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
16/03/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
6/04/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
20/04/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
4/05/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
18/05/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
1/06/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
15/06/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
6/07/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
20/07/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
3/08/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
17/08/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
7/09/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
21/09/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
5/10/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
19/10/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
2/11/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
16/11/2022	Function Room	2.00pm
7/12/2022	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.