Agenda of Development Assessment Panel - Wednesday, 19 April 2023

AGENDA

Development Assessment Panel

19/04/2023

Item: 05

Subject: DA2022 - 774.1 48 Lot Industrial Subdivision and Associated Infrastructure including Clause 4.6 Variation to Clause 4.1 (Minimum Subdivision Lot Size) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, Lot 36 DP 1292179, Waapangal Road Thrumster

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Hopkins Consultants Pty Ltd

Owner: Fernbank Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $3,153,832

Parcel no: 66593

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2022 - 774.1 for a 48 lot Industrial Subdivision and Associated Infrastructure including a Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.1 (Minimum Subdivision Lot Size) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 36 DP 1292179, Waapangal Road, Thrumster, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a 48 Lot Industrial Subdivision and associated Infrastructure 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, no submissions were received.

The application includes a variation to the minimum lot size development standard in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 by more than 10% and the application is required to be determined by Council following consideration by the Development Assessment Panel.

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.

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

The reason for the application being referred to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) is because the application includes a Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard under the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011. 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 total site has an area of approximately 49ha. The cleared area of the site has an area of approximately 27ha. Stages 4 and 5 have an area of approximately 14ha.

The site is zoned IN1 General Industrial, IN2 Light Industrial and SP2 Infrastructure in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Torrens Title subdivision to create 48 industrial development lots, plus residue lot.

· Proposal constitutes Stages 4 and 5 of Fernbank Park.

· Note: Stages 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 3 of Fernbank Park have all been approved previously under two separate DAs and currently under construction.

· Construct water, sewer, stormwater and all infrastructure to service all lots.

· Earthworks including retaining walls.

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

Application Chronology

· 26/02/2015 - DA2014/533 approved stage 30 Lot Industrial Subdivision and Residue Lots, as modified 23 September 2021.

· 22/09/2016 - DA2016/606 approved 14 Lot Industrial Subdivision, as modified 24 September 2021.

· 06/09/2022 - Application Lodged for Stage 4 and 5, 48 Lots Industrial Subdivison

· 20/09/2022 to 03/10/2022 - Public notification period.

· 07/10/2022 - Essential Energy comments received.

· 09/03/2023 - Stage 1 works completed and Lots released.

· 30/03/2023 - Additional information received, revised staging.

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

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

In accordance with Clause 4.9(3), Council is satisfied that the development is likely to have low or no impact on koalas or koala habitat as the site is already cleared of any vegetation.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

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.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2 - The subject site is zoned IN1 General Industrial, IN2 Light Industrial and SP2 Infrastructure.

· Clause 2.3(1) The proposed development for a 48 Lot Torrens Title Industrial Subdivision and associated infrastructure is a permissible with consent.

The objectives of the IN1 zone are as follows:

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

• To encourage employment opportunities.

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

• To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

The objectives of the IN2 zone are as follows:

• To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

• To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

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

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

• To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

• The objectives of the SP2 zone are as follows:

• To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

• To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

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

• The proposal is a permissible landuse;

• The proposal will encourage employment and additional opportunities to the industrial zoned area.

· Clause 4.1 - The lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from 1009m2 to 26027m2. The site has a minimum subdivision lot size of 1,000m2 and 1.5ha pursuant to LEP 2011 as shown in below.

The proposal includes a variation to Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size. Proposed Lot 92 has a dual minimum lot size of 1,000m2 and 1.5ha, and just over half of Lot 92 is mapped as a minimum 1,000m2. The proposed lot size of Lot 92 is 1,218m2 which is a variation to the minimum lot size.

· Clause 4.1B - (Minimum Lot Size for Certain Split Zones) cannot be utilised as it does not apply to SP2 zoned land.

· Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards. A clause 4.6 variation is

submitted requesting a variation to the minimum lot size (1.5Ha) to allow the with a minor variation. Refer to assessment below.

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 variation request to allow proposed Lot 92 to be less than the prescribed minimum lot size of 1Ha (IN1) and 1.5Ha (SP2) pursuant to Clause 4.1 of PMHLEP 2011. (Attachment 3)

Clause 4.6 (6) states that development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone RU5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

(a) The subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b) The subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

Comment:

The proposal will not result in contravention of either of these standards.

Proposed Lot 92 has an area of 1,218m2. Approximately 55% of the lot has a minimum lot size of 1,000m2 and that portion complies. Approximately 45% of the lot has a minimum lot size of 1.5ha and does not achieve the minimum lot standard.

The SP2 zoned area will primarily contain a stormwater detention basin. The basin has been designed and substantially commenced as part of the subdivision works certificate for the earlier stages of Fernbank Park. The extent and design of the required stormwater detention has been analysed and engineered in detail which doesn’t require the whole footprint of the SP2 zoning. In this regard the lot size for proposed Lot 92 and design layout is appropriate to the site constraints and it is determined that it is appropriate to recommend that an administrative rezoning be undertaken to adjust the lot size mapping and zoning. It should be noted that this can occur in the last Stage 6 and should not be an impediment to supporting the proposal on planning grounds.

It is considered that the lot size variation is a minor variation and will not result in any significant adverse planning impacts.

The proposal does not result in any identifiable adverse impact on public amenity, infrastructure or density. The proposed lots are capable of accommodating industrial development and are suitable for the location, topography and context of the subject site.

Clause 4.6(3) requires Council to be satisfied that the written request justifies the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

The applicant submits that:

· Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the minimum lot size standard.

· Compliance with the 1.5ha minimum lot size would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. The 1.5ha minimum lot size was imposed on the SP2 land for the provision of infrastructure. The stormwater basin infrastructure can now be provided in a smaller area than what was approved. The SP2 land is excess to requirements and is proposed to be reduced by a minor amount. The creation of one undersize lot will not materially impact the amenity of the surrounding area.

· It is unnecessary to preserve the SP2 land, which would result in an inefficient use of industrial zoned land and an inefficient use of SP2 zoned land.

· All other proposed lots comply with the minimum lot size standard.

The applicant’s submission establishes that there is a case to consider the development standard as unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposal.

Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 outlined acceptable justifications for contravention of development standards. In this instance the proposed variation is considered acceptable because the objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard in Clause 4.1 of LEP 2011.

Clause 4.6(4) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

The applicant’s submission has adequately addressed the matters in subclause 4 above.

Comment:

The proposed development is sufficiently consistent with the objectives of the SP2 zone noting the required minimum stormwater infrastructure has been adequately provided for in the SP2 zone as designed. The minimum lot size standard for the industrial component of proposed Lot 92 has planning merit to use part of that land to create a functional industrial lot would comply with the objectives.

The proposed creation of an industrial lot will not create development that is not compatible with the infrastructure use and the creation of the lot will not detract from the provision of infrastructure.

Therefore, the proposal achieves the zone objectives.

The minimum lot size objectives are as follows:

(a) to ensure that lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints,

Comment:

The minor variation does not impact on the local environmental values of the area.

(b) to facilitate efficient use of land resources for residential and other human purposes,

Comment:

The minor variation better utilisation of the land.

(c) to minimise the fragmentation of rural land suitable for sustainable primary production,

Comment:

The proposed subdivision does not impact rural land.

(d) to protect high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values of land in environment protection zones.

Comment:

There are no adverse impacts identifiable, the variation is considered minor and there will no unreasonable impact on the amenity of the locality.

Summary:

The applicant has established that strict compliance with the minimum lot size in this case is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and merits of the site.

The creation of Lot 92 will form part of stage 6, to allow timing of intended back zoning of the land and not impact the stages 4 or 5. An appropriate condition is recommended in this regard.

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

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B2: Environmental Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3	a) Development must comply with Council’s Developments, Public Place & Events - Waste Minimisation and Management Policy.	All lots will have direct road frontage. There are no adverse concerns identifiable.	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 buildings proposed.	Yes
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	Retaining walls up to 1.5m are proposed and will be certified by a structural engineer where they exceed 1m in height. This is consistent with the previous stages to provide adequate drainage and level sites for future development.	Yes
5	b) Where a combination of a fence and a wall is proposed to be greater than 1.2m high: - be a maximum combined height of 1.8m above existing property boundary level; - be constructed up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 30% of the street frontage, whichever is less; − the fence component has openings which make it not less than 25% transparent; and − provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and - provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	N/A - No retaining walls or fences proposed along street frontages.	N/A
6	Cut and Fill Regrading 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. b) The use of high earthworks batters should be avoided. c) Preliminary plans indicating the final landform are required to be submitted with any master plan or subdivision application. d) The subdivision should be designed to fit the topography rather than altering the topography to fit the subdivision.	The surface levels will not be altered by more than 5m or 10,000m3 per ha. The site has previously been cleared and will not materially impact the environment or landscape of the site. The existing natural features of the site are basic and without habitat. The benefit of earthworks on the site is to provide level building sites as required in industrial areas. The proposed earth batters are approximately 2-3m high at the northern end of the site and up to 7m at the southern end of the site. The batters are generally located between the perimeter road and adjoining bush land and slope down from the road. The earth batters are required as a result of the existing topography of the site and do not result in an inhospitable or inappropriate landform.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Road Hierarchy
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 accesses.		N/A
	b) Existing direct accesses from a development to arterial and distributor roads are rationalised or removed where practical.	N/A		N/A
	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.	Industrial subdivision proposed only. Individual driveways will be proposed with development of lots.		N/A

*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 proposal will have a positive impact on the employment opportunities in the area. A social impact assessment was undertaken when the site was zoned for industrial and no further SIA is required.	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 proposal addresses general principles of crime prevention, with casual surveillance of public areas, each site will generate activity and will be defined by fences and buildings. Streetlights will also be provided.	Yes

*DCP 2013: PART C - Development Specific Provisions - C5: Subdivision*
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.	Adequate site analysis provided.	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.	N/A	N/A
141	a) Battleaxe allotments are discouraged in greenfield development.	None proposed.	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.	None proposed.	N/A
142	a) The subdivision of land with slopes exceeding 25% is generally discouraged.	N/A	N/A
Infrastructure - Pedestrians and Cycleways
147	1. a) Development for the subdivision for land or major residential development should provide footpaths on both sides of all collector and arterial roads. A shareway/cycleway may be permitted on one side of collector roads in lieu of footpath on both sides, provided it has a width of 2.5m or greater, has paved footpath connections to bus stops on both sides, and is located along natural edges (e.g. perimeter roads, vegetative corridors, or drainage reserves).	The area is unlikely to be affected by speeding or encourage ‘rat runs”. On street parking will not be encouraged, each site is adequate size to provide their own parking. The circular and compact nature of the development negates the need for internal directional signage to Wambuyn Drive and the Pacific Highway.	Yes
147	2. b) Footpaths should be provided on one side of the street for access places and local streets in accordance with Council’s adopted AUS-SPEC design specification documents.	All proposed roads are in accordance with AUS-SPEC.	Yes
150	a) An application for subdivision should include a WSUD prepared by a certified practicing engineer and in accordance with Council’s adopted design specification documents.	WSUD has been considered for the site and is provided for the entire site in Stages 1-3. Stages 4 and 5 will connect to the approved infrastructure.	Yes
151	a) An application for subdivision should be accompanied by a Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by a certified practicing engineer and in accordance with Council’s adopted AUS-SPEC design specification documents. b) The Designer should adopt the ‘major/minor’ approach to urban drainage systems as outlined in the current version of Australian Rainfall and Runoff utilising local parameters and factors where necessary and as defined in AUS-SPEC.	Stormwater is shown on the submitted plans and connects to infrastructure already approved in Stages 1-3. The approved basins are adequate to accommodate stormwater from Stages 4 and 5.	Yes
152	a) All Council owned stormwater infrastructure is designed in accordance with the Council’s	All proposed stormwater infrastructure will be in accordance with AUS-SPEC.	Yes
162	a) Any industrial allotment created by Torrens title subdivision should satisfy the following standards: − Comply with minimum subdivision requirements of clause 4.1 of LEP 2011. − Minimum width of 20m. − Minimum depth of 40m. − The depth to width ratio should not exceed 3 to 1. b) Lots are to be generally rectangular in shape and lot boundaries should have regard to the landform and the character of the site. c) Battleaxe allotments should not be permitted. d) Industrial subdivision should not be supported on land with slope greater than 15%.	The minimum lot width proposed is 21m. Lots 55, 56 and 57 propose small non-compliances at the street frontage due to the bend in Road 3, but widens to the rear. All proposed sites are wide enough to provide adequate access and are large enough to accommodate industrial uses. Lots 58, 59 and 68 propose a variation to the minimum depth. Lot 58 and 59 propose a minor variation of 37m and 36.705m respectively. These variations are minor and within 10% of the control and are considered acceptable. Lot 67 proposes a variable depth between 31.61m and 32.5m. The lot width is 46.535m and the lot size is 1474m2. The proposed lot is considered to be acceptable as it is capable of accommodating an industrial use and meets Council’s minimum dimensions except lot orientation requirements. Proposed lots are generally rectangular in shape. Where they are irregular it is due only to topography of the site.	No, but acceptable on merit.

*DCP 2013: Part D - Locality Specific Provisions - D7 - Highway Employment Lands: D7.1 Fernbank Park Employment Lands*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Visual and Environmental Amenity
294	a) Development of land at the intersection of the highway overpass service road and entry to Fernbank Park should be designed to create a distinctive, recognisable gateway entry to the site. Plans for subdivision should include landscaping of the public domain entry and plans for co-ordinated estate signage.	Development of land at the intersection is not proposed.	Yes
295	a) Industrial development is to be screened from the highway overpass service road and Thrumster Street road reserve through landscaped buffers to a minimum depth of 5.0 metres and to include mounding and canopy trees to limit the visual impact of development.	Proposed Stages 4 and 5 are located on the eastern side of the site and not adjacent to the highway.	N/A
	b) Trees are to be selected from those that are indigenous to the area and are to be planted at the time of subdividing the land.	N/A	N/A
	c) Design details to be provided with the DA for approval at the time of subdividing the site, or land use, whichever occurs first.	N/A	N/A
Native Vegetation and Habitat Areas
296	a) A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is required for all environmental lands for approval prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for earthworks, subdivision and/or building works, whichever occurs first.	There is no vegetation removal or revegetation proposed on this site. The site was previously cleared.	N/A
296	b) Approved VMP works are to be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to the issue of the subdivision or building construction certificate.	N/A	N/A
Roads, Access and Transport
297	a) The subdivision design is to reflect the road hierarchy in and cater for an efficient bus route and a combination of on- road and off-road pedestrian and cycleways.	The proposed subdivision design includes the final stage of the perimeter road shown in Figure 193 of the Area based provisions of the DCP.	Yes
297	b) Industrial lots are to be designed to obtain access from the internal road network. Direct lot access to the overpass service road and the Thrumster Street road reserve will not be permitted.	All proposed lots have access from the proposed internal road.	Yes
298	The perimeter road between the industrial footprint and environmental lands is to be designed to control the industrial interface to manage potential conflicts of bushfire hazard, stormwater quality and environmental conservation.	The proposal completes the perimeter road around the industrial park. The perimeter road is a 13m carriageway and 23m reserve. The proposed road provides a suitable barrier between the industrial interface with environmental lands. The perimeter road assists in the management of stormwater, bushfire and conservation.	Yes
Stormwater Management
299	a) Industrial development is to incorporate water sensitive urban design (WSUD) elements in the treatment train including: - Source control via rain gardens and permeable pavements at a minimum size of 2.5% of the gross lot area, - Conveyance treatment via vegetated swales and bio-retention trenches, - End of line treatment via gross pollutant traps and bio-retention systems, - Precinct-scale stormwater treatment systems within SP2 zoned lands to treat runoff from public roads.	Each lot is of adequate size to comply with the requirements.	Yes
299	b) Detailed design of the WSUD elements is to be undertaken in accordance Council's Design Development Specification for Stormwater Drainage D5 and D7 and Hopkins, Water Sensitive Urban Design Strategy, Nov 2012.	Proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Engineers and is considered to comply. No adverse impacts identifiable,	Yes
Bushfire Hazard
300	a) A perimeter road is to be provided generally in accordance with the location in Figure 192 and outside of Zones E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management. Internal road layout to provide for evacuation routes in major bushfire events.	The proposed perimeter road is to be completed by this DA generally in accordance with Figure 192 of the Area based provisions of the DCP. The road is not within the C2 or C3 zone. The internal road network provides straightforward perimeter loop road which connects to both exit points to Wambuyn Drive.	Yes
301	a) Prior to any earthworks, clearing works, or excavation works, an inspection of the proposed development site is to be undertaken by an Aboriginal Cultural Sites Officer from the local Aboriginal Land Council and a report on the site inspection is to be obtained.	The site has been completely cleared in the past. An Aboriginal Site Investigation was completed by Birpai Local Aboriginal Land Council in 2019. No evidence of Aboriginal Heritage was found on the site.	Yes
Industrial Land Adjoining Sensitive Land Uses
302	a) DAs for industrial development adjoining the southern site boundary are to be accompanied by noise impact assessment carried out by a suitably qualified person to: - Determine the noise reduction required to achieve suitable levels for the proposed industry (if any); - Design and incorporate any necessary noise mitigation measures to demonstrate achievement of acceptable noise levels at sensitive receivers, including visual detail of how the proposal integrates into the existing locality; - Provide justification for any proposed acoustic treatment(s), based on site characteristics and the nature and intensity of the proposed use; an - Demonstrate consideration of attenuation strategies of like industries with similar sites and requirements for noise reduction.	The proposed lots do not adjoin the southern site boundary. Acoustic justification is not required for the proposed lots. Individual industrial uses proposed on the site may require their own separate acoustic assessments.	N/A
Electricity and Telecommunications
303	a) Arrangements are to be made with local service authorities for the provision of underground power and telecommunications to all industrial lots prior to release of the first subdivision construction certification for development of Lot 101 DP1106752.	Underground power and telecommunications will be provided for all lots.	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

A planning agreement has been entered into under Section 7.4 of the Act that relates to development on the site. The provisions of the agreement will not be impacted as a result of the proposal.

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Nil

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

Context and Setting

The site has frontage orientation to the Pacific Highway/Sancrox interchange service road and the new road system to be built as part of DA2014 - 533.

Adjoining the site is a mixture of industrial uses, rural and environmental land.

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.

Access, Traffic and Transport

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

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the proposed development site is not connected to Council’s Water Supply Network. An extension of Council’s Water Supply Network to the proposed development site has been approved as part of DA2014 - 533. The proposed development may extend from the 150mm water mains approved as part of DA2014 - 533. Any extension to Council’s Water Supply network is to be designed in accordance with Council’s AUSPEC design and construction requirements.

A water supply strategy shall be provided that details any subdivision staging and the corresponding water supply work (including augmentation) necessary to support each stage. The strategy is to incorporate the latest changes in water supply design requirements as well as being modelled on software compatible with that used by Council. The water mains shall loop within the subdivision where possible as well as providing connections for any possible subdivision of proposed Lot 71. Detailed engineering plans complying with Auspec are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate and approved prior to issue of the CC.

The completion of all works required under Council's consent to DA2014 - 533 prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate or the registration of a satisfactory 88B Instrument which restricts the development of each allotment to that approved under that consent.

No building is to be connected to Council's future water main until Council has accepted such main.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is not connected to Council’s Sewerage System. An extension of Council’s Sewerage System has been approved as part of DA2014 - 533. The proposed development may extend from the sewer infrastructure approved as part of DA2014 - 533. Any extension to Council’s Sewer network is to be designed in accordance with Council’s AUSPEC design and construction requirements.

A sewer strategy shall be provided that details any subdivision staging and the corresponding sewer work (including augmentation) necessary to support each stage. The strategy is to incorporate the latest changes in water supply design requirements as well as being modelled on software compatible with that used by Council. The design shall take into consideration any possible subdivision of proposed Lot 71. Detailed engineering plans complying with Auspec are to be submitted with the application for a construction certificate and approved prior to issue of the CC.

No building is to be connected to Council's future sewer main until Council has accepted such main.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

The development will connect in with the stormwater system to be built as part of DA2014 - 533. Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

The site is within an established and developing 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.

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. In particular, impacts of the overall subdivision footprint were considered as part of DA2014 - 533 with this application being for infill lots only. Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

Waste

No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

Industrial subdivisions are excluded from s100B pursuant to Clause 45 of the Rural Fires Regulation 2013. Regardless, it is considered that the use of perimeter roads and materials used to construct industrial buildings (normally non-combustible), will ensure suitable protection.

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

No written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application. Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

(e) The Public Interest

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls with the exception of the clause 4.6 variation recommended for minimum lot size for one(1) lot and will overall adversely impact on the wider public interest.

Ecologically Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle

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

The four principles of ecologically sustainable development are:

· the precautionary principle,

· intergenerational equity,

· conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity,

· improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

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

Climate change

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Development contributions will be required in accordance with Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

The applicant is to comply with the planning agreement under section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, known as the Fernbank Park Planning Agreement dated 17 December 2013.

Appropriate conditions have been recommended.

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 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 ⇩. DA2022 - 774.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2022 - 774.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2022 - 774.1 Clause 4.6 Variation

AGENDA

Development Assessment Panel

19/04/2023

Item: 06

Subject: DA2022 - 1071.1 Secondary Dwelling at Lot 73 DP 814922, No.18 Coucal Close, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: T & E Boyagi

Owner: T & E Boyagi

Estimated Cost: $120,000

Parcel no: 5234

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2022 - 1071 for a Secondary Dwelling at Lot 73, DP 814922, No. 18 Coucal Close, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, 3 submissions were received.

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

The reason for the application being referred to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) is 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 has an area of 1106m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Demolition of existing shed

· Proposed Secondary Dwelling with off street car parking

· Tree removal, as shown on site plan

· Existing driveway from right of carriage way over Lot 71 and 72 DP814922

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

Application Chronology

· 06/12/2022 - Application Received

· 16/12/2022 to 04/01/2023 Public notification, 3 submissions received

· 09/01/2023 - Essential Energy comments received.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

Chapter 3 Diverse Housing

Part 1 - Secondary Dwellings

Clause 50 - The site is in a prescribed residential zone and secondary dwellings are permissible with consent pursuant to the SEPP and Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP).

Clause 51 - It is noted that the consent authority must not consent to a development application that would result in any subdivision of a lot on which development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling has been carried out.

Clause 52(2)(a) - Only a principal dwelling and secondary dwelling will result from the development on the land.

Clause 52(2)(b) - The total floor area does not exceed the maximum floor space ratio under the LEP.

Clause 52(2)(c) - The proposed secondary dwelling would not have a floor area exceeding 60m² and/or the combined floor area of the primary and secondary dwelling would not exceed the maximum permitted under the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (see comments below under LEP).

Clause 53(2)(a) - It is noted that consent cannot be refused on the grounds of site area.

Clause 53(2)(b) - The number of parking spaces on the site is proposed to be the same as the number of parking spaces provided on the land with the principal dwelling immediately before the secondary dwelling is to be constructed/completed. The secondary dwelling is unable to be constructed without the principal dwelling and this provision overrides parking provision requirements in Council’s Development Control Plan.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

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 (other land - not subject to Clause 4.8 or 4.9) - 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. 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.

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 (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Clause 2.48 - Development in proximity to electricity infrastructure - referral to Essential Energy has been completed having regard for any of the following:

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

(b) development carried out:

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

(ii) immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or

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

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

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

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

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

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is consistent with the established residential locality. The additional dwelling will provide a variety of housing types.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 3.73m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

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

· Clause 5.4 - Total floor area of secondary dwelling is 59.7m2, which complies with this clause.

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

· Clause 7.13 - Satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, on-site sewage management/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 - B2: Environmental Management*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3	a) Development must comply with Council’s Developments, Public Place & Events - Waste Minimisation and Management Policy.	Satisfactory arrangements can be put in place for storage and collection of waste. Standard condition recommended for construction waste management.	Yes
Cut and Fill Regrading
4	a) Development shall not exceed a maximum cut of 1.0m and fill of 1.0m measured vertically above the ground level (existing) at a distance of 1.0m outside the perimeter of the external walls of the building (This does not apply to buildings where such cut and fill is fully retained within or by the external walls of the building).	NA	NA
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	NA	NA
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.	NA	NA

*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: - 1 parking space per each dwelling for dwelling-house.	Existing dwelling complies. Proposed secondary dwelling provided with 1 hardstand space.		Yes
Parking Layout
28	c) Parking spaces shall generally be behind the building line but may be located between the building line and the street when: − it is stacked parking in the driveway; or − it can be demonstrated that improvements to the open space provided will result; and − the spaces are screened (densely landscaped or similar) from the street by a landscaping with a minimum width of 3.0m for the entire length of the parking area.	Proposed parking suitably located.		Yes
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.	Capable of complying. Turning swept path provided and demonstrates vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.		Yes
34	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Capable of being managed.		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.	Capable of being managed.		Yes

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

*DCP 2013: Part C - Development Specific Provisions - C1: Low Density Residential Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Front Setbacks
44	a) Dwellings may incorporate an articulation zone to a street frontage at no less than 3m from property boundary. The following building elements are permitted within the articulation zone: − an entry feature or portico; − a balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah; − a window box treatment; − a bay window or similar feature; − an awning or other feature over a window; − a sun shading feature. b) These building elements should not extend above the eave gutter line, other than a pitched roof to an entry feature or portico that has the same pitch as the roof on the dwelling house.	No elements within articulation zone.	NA
44	c) The primary road front setback shall be: Classified road = any frontage 6.0m Primary frontage = 4.5m Secondary frontage = 3.0m Ancillary Lane = 2.0m Large lot residential and rural zones = 10.0m	No change proposed to front setback.	NA
45	a) A garage, carport or car parking space should: − be at least 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from a front boundary of 4.5m or more, or − be at least 5.5m from a front boundary, where the dwelling(s) has a setback of less than 4.5m.	Proposed hardstand space is located behind the primary dwelling.	Yes
	b) The total width of the garage/carport openings should not be more than 6m and not more than 50 per cent of the width of the building.	NA	NA
	c) Driveway crossovers are no greater than 5.0m in width.	No new crossover proposed.	NA
	d) Where a dual occupancy or attached dwelling is proposed on a corner lot a garage and driveway is provided on each road frontage.	NA	NA
Side and Rear Setbacks
46	a) A minimum rear boundary setback of 4m is to be provided to dwellings (including verandahs, patios and decks).	3.23m rear setback proposed. See justification below.	No, but considered acceptable
	b) A minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to sheds and swimming pools subject to achieving minimum required private open space area.	NA	NA
	c) Council may consider varying rear setback requirements where it is demonstrated that the private open space could achieve better solar access between the building and the side setback. In that instance, one side setback should be a minimum 4m in width (for an equivalent length of rear boundary, behind building line) and the rear setback may be reduced to 900mm.	Site plans indicate a minimum side setback to the northern boundary of 6.53m and a minimum 6.19m setback orientated to the western boundary. The site plan indicates satisfactory private open space with solar access for more than the equivalent length of the rear building line has been achieved and satisfies this clause.	Yes
47	a) Ground floors (being <1m above existing ground level) should be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.	North - 6.53m South/West - 6.19m	Yes
	b) First floors and above (including single storey with floor level >1m) should be setback a minimum of 3m from the side boundary, or reduced down to 900mm where it can be demonstrated that the adjoining property’s primary living rooms and principal private open space areas are not adversely overshadowed for more than 3hrs between 9am - 3pm on 21 June.	NA	NA
	c) First floors and above should have building walls that step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm articulation. Where first floors and above are setback >3m, wall articulation is not required.	NA	NA
Private Open Space
48.	a) All dwellings should have a minimum area of private open space of 35m2, which includes a principal private open space area with: − a minimum dimension of 4m x 4m, and − a maximum grade of 5% for minimum 4m x 4m of the total open space requirement, and − direct accessibility from a ground floor living area and orientated to maximise use.	155m2 of private open space indicated on site plan, including minimum dimensions. There are no concerns that the existing dwelling cannot comply with this minimum private open space development provisions.	Yes
	b) Private open space may include clothes drying areas and garbage storage.	Noted on site plans	Yes
Bulk and Scale
51	a) Direct views between indoor living rooms and principal private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots, including possible dwellings on future lots, should be obscured or screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius. − Direct views between principal private open space areas where within a 12m radius. − Direct views between indoor living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings within a 12m radius.	Single storey dwelling proposed that does not have an elevated floor level. There are no direct views from indoor living areas to principle living areas within 9m or principle private open space within 12m.	Yes
	b) A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah should have a privacy screen where there are direct views of: − Indoor living room windows of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within 9m radius; or − Principal areas of private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots within a 12m radius.	No privacy screening required as single storey dwelling which is not elevated.	Yes
	c) Privacy protection is not required for: − Any Indoor living room windows with a sill height of greater than 1.5m above the finished floor level of that room or where fixed non-openable translucent glass is installed to the same height.	No additional screening required from proposed living areas.	Yes
	d) Direct views described above may be reduced or obscured by one of the following measures (details to be submitted with the development application): − 1.8m high fence or wall between ground-floor level windows or between a dwelling and principal private open space − Screening of minimum 1.7m height, that has 25% openings (max), with no individual opening more than 30mm wide, is permanently fixed and is made of durable materials. − A window, the whole of which has translucent glass and is not able to be opened.	There are no adverse privacy concerns to principle living areas that require additional privacy screening. Exempt boundary fencing and existing privacy screening provides adequate privacy.	Yes
Ancillary Development
56	a) For ancillary development in R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential, R5 Large Lot Residential and RU5 Village zones: − The height of an outbuilding or the alterations and additions to an existing outbuilding on a lot should not be more than 4.8m above ground level (existing). − The building should be single storey construction with a maximum roof pitch of 24 degrees. − The maximum area of the building should be 60m2 for lots less than 900m² and maximum of 100m² for larger lots. − Ancillary development that is a garage, or an outbuilding, or a rainwater tank should not be located in front of the main building line with the exception of swimming pools.	Ancillary development appropriately located including water tank. Proposed fence and clothes drying area behind the building line of the principle dwelling.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to the building line encroaching the assumed 4m rear setback on the eastern side of the site.

The relevant objectives are:

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

· To allow adequate natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private

· open space areas.

· To provide useable yard areas and open space.

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

· The secondary dwelling will have a 3.24m rear setback, encroaching the rear setback zone of 4m.

· The secondary dwelling is utilising the location and floor slab of the existing shed.

· The rear building line and rear setback is established by the existing shed.

· The secondary dwelling will have a minimum north and south/west side setback of 6.19m and 6.53m.

· There are no identifiable concerns regarding overshadowing, privacy that could support refusal.

· There are no identifiable concerns regarding ventilation impacting adjoining developments.

· The proposed property is 1106m2 and suitable private open space has been demonstrated on the proposed site plan for the existing dwelling and the secondary dwelling.

· The DCP 2013 permits transfer of rear setbacks.

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

(iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or

any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 - Clause 61

Demolition work on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be 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 proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts on existing adjoining properties or the public domain.

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

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

Access, Traffic and Transport

The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts in terms of access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development. In addition, the site has existing access from a right of carriage way to the rear of the site, no additional crossovers are proposed or on street car parking impacted.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service from the 100mm water main on the near side of Coucal Close, the meter being located on the front RHS. The ancillary dwelling shall be provided with a water service from the same meter as the principal dwelling unless otherwise approved.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Council’s 150mm diameter UPVC sewer via an existing junction to the sewer main, which traverses under the existing shed inside of the eastern boundary of the development site. The proposed development may discharge all sewage to the existing point of connection to Council’s sewer system.

The proposal requires construction works over the top of Councils 150mm UPVC Sewer main as described above.

Stormwater

Service available - details required with Section 68 application.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

This site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage item or site of significance. The site is considered to be disturbed land.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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.

Tree removal has already been approved via a separate tree removal permit process.

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

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

An assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 12.5 shall be required.

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

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Deceptive description of proposed development. The proposed development better described as a Dual Occupancy than a “Granny Flat”	Under the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011), Secondary Dwellings are type of residential accommodation. Specifically defined as; *secondary dwelling* means a self-contained dwelling that— (a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and (b) is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and (c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling. The proposed development is consistent with this definition for landuse characterised and clause 5.4 of the LEP 2011 for controls relating to the total floor area of secondary dwellings. Secondary dwellings are permitted in residential zones (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5). They may also be permitted in other zones under a council’s local environmental plan. A lot on which a secondary dwelling is constructed cannot be subdivided. The development of a secondary dwelling can only result in there being one principal dwelling and one secondary dwelling on the site.
Section 88b, specifies no more than one main dwelling per lot and states no subdivision of burden lots. This development contradicts these covenant.	Council’s planning provisions specifically set aside private covenants. It is noted that Council is not party to any of the s88B matters raised in Items 1 3, and therefore these private covenant matters are not part of Council’s assessment under the provisions 4.15. The relevant provision of the Port Macquarie – Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 is set out as follows: 1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments (1) For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose. The Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, allows for Secondary dwellings within the R1 General Residential land zoning. Also prevailing over the Section 88b instrument, planning provisions for secondary dwellings were recently transferred from the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP). The proposed development is also considered consistent with the Housing SEPP.
Privacy will be disrupted.	Privacy impacts have been summarised earlier in this report. It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the provisions and objectives of the Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2013. The adjoining balcony at 16 Coucal Close, is elevated and partially screened by a trellis. The proposed alfresco area of the secondary dwelling is a minimum 6.1m from the south/west side boundary and approximately 13.5m from the north east corner of the balcony of 16 Coucal Close.
Proposed development will not have street frontage and relies on access from the right of carriageway over adjoining Lots 71 and 72.	The development land Lot 73 is nominated in the DP814922 as a lot benefited from the right of carriageway over lots 71 and 72. There is no restriction as to the location along the adjoining boundary or how many driveways. Noted that the proposal is utilising the existing crossover.
Further development of the land	Note that there is no subdivision or further development proposed as part of this assessment. The assessment is based on the merit of the current development proposal for a secondary dwelling only.
Traffic, off street parking and repair to the right of carriageway.	The Housing SEPP does not require any additional parking for a secondary dwelling, however a separate additional park is provided. The proposal does not remove or impact the existing on-site car parking for the principle dwelling. The development exceeds the minimum off street car parking requirements. With this type of development, it would be unusual to require a dilapidation report to be done for the shared driveway within the right of carriageway. The repair and ongoing maintenance of this driveway is considered a civil matter between the landowners and lots benefited.

(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.

Climate change

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Development contributions will not be required under S64/S7.11 for the following reasons, as the Development Contributions Assessment Policy exempts payment of developer charges for secondary dwellings under 60m2.

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.

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2022 - 1071.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2022 - 1071.1 Plans

AGENDA

Development Assessment Panel

19/04/2023

Item: 07

Subject: DA2022 - 933.1 Centre-based child care facility at Lot 13 DP 262597, No. 15 Kulai Place, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Clint Tink

Applicant: Love Project Management

Owner: R & C Fagan Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $994,800.00

Parcel no: 11364

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2022 - 933.1 for a centre-based child care facility at Lot 13, DP 262597, No. 15 Kulai Place, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a centre-based child care facility 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, six (6) submissions were received.

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 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 3,380m².

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning map:

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:

· The centre-based child care facility will cater for 94 children.

· The development will retain the existing building onsite with alterations and additions creating the centre-based child care facility.

· Hours of operation for the child care centre are proposed to be 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday. It should be noted that staff may be onsite outside these times for cleaning, meetings etc.

· A car park comprising 24 spaces is proposed to cater for the centre.

· Six (6) submissions have been received objecting to the proposal.

· One (1) juvenile tallowwood tree to be removed.

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

Application Chronology

· 12/04/2022 - Applicant had a pre-lodgement meeting with Council staff regarding the proposal.

· 25/10/2022 - Application lodged with Council.

· 1/11/2022 - Referrals done.

· 4-17/11/2022 - Exhibition period.

· 9/11/2022 - Council staff requested additional information.

· 21/11/2022 - Feedback from Essential Energy received and passed onto the applicant.

· 14/12/2022 - Applicant requested copies of any submissions. Council staff provided redacted copies.

· 15/12/2022 - Applicant provided response to additional information request from 9/11/2022.

· 3/1/2023 - Council staff sought clarification from the applicant on the additional information provided on 15/12/2022. Council staff also advised that additional submissions were received and redacted copies would be provided.

· 4/1/2023 - Applicant clarified information provided on 15/12/2022.

· 9/1/2023 - Objector requested an update on the application. Response provided by Council staff.

· 12/1/2023 - Site inspection done.

· 18/1/2023 - Bushfire Safety Authority received from NSW Rural Fire Service.

· 20/1/2023 - Council staff requested additional information following a review of the responses to previous additional information requests and having subsequently carried out the site inspection.

· 24/1/2023 - Applicant acknowledged the request.

· 27/2/2023 - Applicant provided response to additional information request from 20/1/2023.

· 1/3/2023 - Council staff sought clarification from the applicant on the additional information provided on 27/2/2023. Applicant clarified the information provided on 27/2/2023. The additional information was re-referred to relevant internal sections of Council.

· 17/3/2023 - Objector requested an update on the application. Response provided by Council staff on 20/3/2023.

· 27/3/2023 - Applicant requested an update. Response provided by Council staff and again on 28/3/2023.

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 R2 Low Density 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 arborist report, on completion of a site inspection and having received feedback from Council’s Natural Resource Management Team - 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 or involve any substantial koala feed trees.

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/building identification signage on the front façade of the Centre.

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 a standard sized business/building identification sign on the front façade of the Centre. 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. Overall, the proposed signage is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP.	Yes
Schedule 5(1) Character of the area.	The character of the street is currently defined by residential housing with various other non-residential uses being found within the surrounding area. It is noted that 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 some non-residential 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 space.	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 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

Chapter 2 Infrastructure

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 2.122 - The development does not trigger any of the traffic generating development thresholds.

Chapter 3 Educational establishments and child care facilities

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.

94 children proposed.

306m² indoor required with 337m² provided.

658m² outdoor required with 879m² provided.

Yes

Clause 3.23 - Development consider Child Care Planning Guideline

Refer to Child Care Planning Guideline assessment below.

Yes

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.

The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the clause applies. The proposed floor space ratio is approximately 0.2:1 and does not exceed the 0.5:1 standard.

There is no FSR stipulated in another environmental planning instrument or DCP.

Yes

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

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 onsite 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 and accepted by specialist Council staff.

The retention of the majority of the existing dwelling built form will ensure the development does not adversely impact on character or streetscape.

Fencing, separation and landscaping will be used to maintain privacy.

Overall, the provisions in the Guideline 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

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 zones and there are also a range on non-residential uses within the nearby area.

The building and site design create a compliant child care design whilst creating no significant adverse impact on the area.

The site also contains a suitable 70m setback to the nearby industrial area with housing, vegetation, fencing etc located in between. This ensures no hazardous impacts/conflict will occur.

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

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.

The development is located within close proximity (less than 1km) to schools/education, employment areas, pedestrian linkages and public transport. The centre is also likely to draw from the local residential population/estates within the surrounding area.

On balance, the child care centre location is considered acceptable.

Yes

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.

Refer to comments on C2 above. There are no hazardous elements within close proximity to the centre.

Yes

3.2 Local Character, streetscape and the public domain interface p11-12

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 while the associated built form will remain similar to that of a residential dwelling. There is a car park at the front of the premises, which will largely be screened by landscaping to offset any visual impact.

Yes

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

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.

Whilst there are multiple entry points, the main entry is emphasized in the design. Signage will also be required to clarify entry procedures.

Yes

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

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 fences allow an acceptable permeable frontage and comprise only short runs. The fence is also well setback from the front boundary to ensure no impact on streetscape.

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 (1.8m) 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, landscaping, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable room type/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.

The closest point of the existing dwelling/building to the road does not change after the alterations and additions.

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 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 has been provided for parents/children. Separate ancillary rear/side access points are also available for staff (to be reinforced by conditions).

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, landscaping 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, landscaping, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable room placement utilised to avoid overlooking.

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, landscaping, high sill windows, setbacks and suitable room placement utilised to avoid overlooking.

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 Guideline 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.

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, landscaping, setbacks, suitable room placement and conditions of operation 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.

N/A

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.

Some after-hours ancillary cleaning, office work etc may occur from time to time but is not expected to create adverse noise impacts to that which could occur in a residential setting.

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/pickup 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.

94 children/4 = 23.5 spaces, which rounds to 24 spaces.

24 spaces provided.

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 has been done and reviewed by specialist Council staff as being acceptable. 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.

306m² indoor required with 337m² provided.

External storage exceeds 94 x 0.3m³ = 28.2m³ (over 115m³ provided in shed).

Internal storage exceeds 94 x 0.2m³ = 18.8m³ (over 50m³ 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 or can be easily modified to comply at the construction stage.

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 or can be easily modified to comply at the construction stage.

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 or can be easily modified to comply at the construction stage.

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 should be submitted with DA in accordance with p31 requirements.

The design and site contains suitable areas to manage emergency situations.

Conditions will reinforce the need for 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.

658m² outdoor required with 879m² 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 or is capable of complying with such requirements.

Yes

4.13 Soil assessment

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 R2 Low Density Residential. In accordance with Clause 2.3(1) and the R2 zone landuse table, a centre-based child care facility is permissible with consent.

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density

• residential environment.

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

• To provide for low density housing that does not compromise the

• environmental, scenic or landscape qualities of land.

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

• The proposal is a permissible landuse;

• The development will allow a land use that serves the day to day child care needs of residents in the area.

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is approx. 6.5m, which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site. It should be noted that the highest part of the building is existing with new sections to be located below such a level.

· Clause 4.4 - There is no floor space ratio applicable to the site. Nonetheless, the floor space ratio of the proposal is approximately 0.2:1 and presents a building consistent with the surrounding area.

· 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.

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

None relevant.

(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/usage signage proposed/required.	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 storage in conjunction with 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 will exceed 1m in certain parts of the site. Where such an exceedance occurs, a structural engineer will need to certify the retaining wall design. The locations where the exceedances occur do not create any adverse impacts on neighbours or the area.	No, but acceptable.
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	To be conditioned.	Yes
5	b) Where a combination of a fence and a wall is proposed to be greater than 1.2m high: - be a maximum combined height of 1.8m above existing property boundary level; - be constructed up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 30% of the street frontage, whichever is less; − the fence component has openings which make it not less than 25% transparent; and − provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and - provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	The development includes retaining wall fence combinations exceeding 1.8m in height. The combinations are either located in areas that do not impact on neighbours (ie are located next to a driveway) or so that the cut occurs within the site (ie combination will present as a standard 1.8m fence when viewed from the neighbouring property). Therefore, any imposing bulk of such a combination does not face a public area or key neighbouring property area. 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.	An approx. 1.5m high batter is proposed to the north eastern corner of the site. The batter occurs over a 5m span and is to be suitably landscaped. The battered section will also be fenced off.	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.	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.	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 the main vegetation removal relates to planted backyard species). The tree removal has also been reviewed and accepted by Council’s Natural Resource Management Section, subject to the small tallowwood onsite being replaced 2:1. 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 or adjoin any environmental protection zones and APZs are capable of being managed onsite within private land.	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.	DCP 2013 requires 1 space per 4 children and a set down/pick up area. It should be noted that the set down/pickup 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. 94 children/4 = 23.5 spaces, which rounds to 24 spaces. 24 spaces proposed.		Yes
	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 some of the parking spaces 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 have been proposed to reinforce this.		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 have been proposed to reinforce this.		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 front garden bed is not consistently 3m, it remains large enough to provide suitable screening.		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 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 comment, which outlined the positive impact the development would have. In particular, the centre will provide employment, a service in a location where people live and work (ie industrial area, hospital, commercial, education premises are all located within 1km of the site) and a mechanism to attract and retains staff. Potential negative impacts from the centre are noise and traffic. However, assessments by qualified consultants and review by specialist Council staff, conclude that such negative impacts will be acceptable/manageable. 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 over the site and street. Lighting and CCTV can be installed retrospectively by the owner, should they wish to have further security in the future.

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 frontage to Kulai Place.

Adjoining the site to the north is a medical centre.

Adjoining the site to the east, south and west is residential housing.

Further afield, there are additional medical based uses to the north and industrial zoned land to the 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 development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. Adequate building separation and screening is proposed/existing.

Roads

The site is located at the eastern cul-de-sac end of Kulai Place, a Council-owned and maintained access place approximately 350m long with a road width of 8m within a 19m wide reserve. Both sides of the road are bordered by layback (SE) type kerb and gutter without concrete footpath. Kulai Place intersects with Kingfisher Road.

Traffic

As child care centres are typically high turnover, high peak demand facilities, Council advised the applicant that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) would be required. Streetwise Road Safety and Traffic Services were engaged by the applicant to complete a TIA.

General findings of this assessment determined:

· The development is expected to generate approximately 75 am peak hour trips and 46 pm peak hour trips

· On-site car parking numbers comply with Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP)

· Existing vegetation at the Kingfisher Road & Kulai Place limits Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) at this intersection

· Kulai Place has an Approach Sight Distance (ASD) at the bend of approximately 40 metres, which does not meet the minimum Austroads design specification of 55m

· The proposed driveway and carpark meets or exceeds minimum Australian standards

· Significant delays are currently experienced for the eastbound right-turn movement at the intersection of John Oxley Drive & Kingfisher Road. Field observations revealed some vehicles turned left at the intersection and conducted a U-turn movement at the John Oxley Drive & Major Innes Road roundabout rather than attempting to turn right at the intersection

Council staff generally agree with the findings of the TIA and through site inspections and its own rudimentary assessment, also found the following:

· Inadequate sight distance at the 90-degree bend in Kulai Place

· Inadequate sight distance at the intersection of Kulai Place and Kingfisher Road, westwards due to the presence of low-level foliage and a mix of mature and immature Koala Food Trees

· Parts of the Kulai Place road pavement are in a poor condition

· Council is also aware of a low level of service for traffic entering the intersection of Kingfisher Road/John Oxley Drive particularly during the commuter peaks.

While it is acknowledged that this development will increase traffic to the area, Council does not believe it will unreasonably exacerbate the current situation. The sight distance issues on the bend and at the intersection of Kulai Place and Kingfisher Road are issues that currently exist and it is not believed they are grounds that can affect this development.

Final designs have been prepared for signalisation of the Kingfisher Road/John Oxley Drive intersection, however, works are currently unfunded and a construction date is unknown. While this development will contribute to a small proportion of overall delays and congestion at the intersection, the works remain a Council responsibility, including equitably funding these through the reciept developer contributions in connection with developments in the area.

Although the Kulai Place pavement is in poor condition, a review of proposed traffic loads being predominantly cars has led to the opinion that the development will not result in a significant increase in need for pavement maintenance. The existing poor condition is more likely to be a symptom of the seal and/or road pavement approaching its end of life and/or moisture compromising parts of the pavement, which are for Council to address as part of its operational plan.

Based on the above and acknowledging some of deficiencies in the area, the development is unlikley to create any significant adverse impact on traffic in the area.

Access and Parking

Parking numbers are addressed in the DCP 2013 section of this report.

The design of the carparking layout meets AS/NZS 2890.1 design specifications and is considered suitable for purpose. 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.

The Traffic Impact Assessment recommends that a no parking area be signposted at the end of the cul-de-sac to ensure parking on site is utilised at all times. Regulatory signs such as ‘No Stopping’, ‘No Parking’ or timed parking are typically not recommended in low traffic urban areas such as residential streets so as not to undermine their effectiveness. Any recommendation to approve regulatory signs would require Local Traffic Committee (LTC) approval and be addressed outside the merits of this application.

Due to the type and size of development, additional works are required to include concrete footpath paving (minimum 1.5m wide) along the full frontage.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development, as well as fire service and backflow protection requirements in accordance with AS3500.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to sewer via junction to the existing sewer main, which runs outside of the northern boundary of the development site. Details of sewer loading to be provided by a hydraulic engineer. Should the sewer load exceed 4ET, it will be necessary to discharge all sewage to a new or existing manhole. Owners consent may be required where any works are proposed within a neighbouring lot. Any abandoned sewer junctions are to be capped off at Council’s sewer main and Council notified to carry out an inspection prior to backfilling of this work.

Stormwater

A stormwater drainage plan submitted in support of the proposal demonstrates how the development can be drained to the existing piped drainage system in Kulai Place via a minor pipeline extension.

This approach is generally consistent with Council’s AUSPEC requirements for a development of this type. The plan does not include on-site stormwater detention facilities, which are generally required for commercial developments that result in the creation of >40m² of new impervious area. A review of the site layout illustrates that there is scope to incorporate such facilities and as such it is proposed to address this omission by way of a condition of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site. Evidence of satisfactory arrangements with the relevant utility will be required prior to release of the Occupation Certificate.

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

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any substantial native vegetation, does not trigger any thresholds and is also not located within a mapped Biodiversity Values area. The site comprises predominately introduced garden species and is heavily disturbed from past activities onsite. As a result, the site is also unlikely to contain or impact on any threatened species. Development is considered to be compliant with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

The vegetation removal was also reviewed by Council’s Natural Resource Management staff and deemed acceptable, subject to the small Tallowwood being replaced at 2:1. The site contains sufficient open landscape areas to enable such a request and will be reinforced via conditions.

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

Noise and vibration

The applicant submitted a noise report to accompany the proposed development. Subject to conditions, the report was subsequently reviewed and accepted by one of Council’s Environmental Health Officers. Overall, the construction and operations of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse noise impacts.

It should be noted that conditions will be imposed to manage:

• Restricted operational hours.

• Restricted hours for ancillary cleaning, garbage collection etc activities.

• Certification of glazing, mechanical plant etc

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Section 100B - Rural Fires Act 1997 - the application proposes a special fire protection purpose (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 on 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

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
Traffic increase with large number of children. Traffic impact issues will increase. Child care pick up/drop off will coincide with the busy school pick up/drop off time and likely increase in traffic congestion.	The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment in support of the application. The Assessment was subsequently reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff. Overall, the road network and area were considered capable of supporting the development and associated traffic without creating a significant adverse impact.
Traffic Impact Assessment shows a decrease in traffic, which seems unrealistic.	Comment is noted. The Assessment was also reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff. Overall, the road network and area were considered capable of supporting the development and associated traffic without creating a significant adverse impact.
Most traffic turning into Kingfisher Road will occur during peak traffic.	Comment is noted. The Traffic Impact Assessment was also reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff. Overall, the road network and area were considered capable of supporting the development and associated traffic without creating a significant adverse impact. It is also likely that the people using the child care centre would be those living/working in the area and that there movements are already in the network.
Kulai Place contains a number of unsafe/non-compliant elements such as the crest, bend and intersection with Kingfisher Road. Some referenced in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Safety to all users. Suggest removing trees at the Kulai Place/Kingfisher Road intersection, change speed limit to 40km/h and parking bays in Kulai Place.	The road network and conditions were reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff. Overall, the road network and conditions were considered capable of supporting the development. Suggestions are noted but were not deemed necessary by Council Engineering staff.
Lack of footpath for pedestrians.	The applicant will be required to provide a footpath in front of their premises. Overtime, further connections will be completed as the need arises and/or development occurs in the area. It is noted that there are also generous road reserves in the area to allow informal pedestrian traffic.
Lack of parking. Lack of parking for staff. Disabled parking will not be used and subsequently reduce the number of available spaces. What if everyone turns up at once.	The development complies with the parking requirements of Council’s DCP 2013 and the Child Care Planning Guideline. Staff parking is also factored into the rates. Parking rates for all development types are derived to cover the most common scenarios. It is not practical to require developments to provide excessive parking for rare events.
Quality of road pavement.	Although the Kulai Place pavement is in poor condition, review of proposed traffic loads being predominantly cars, has led to the opinion that the development will not result in a significant increase in need for pavement maintenance. The existing poor condition is more likely to be a symptom of the seal and/or road pavement approaching its end of life and/or moisture compromising parts of the pavement, which are for Council to address as part of its operational plan.
The development should have fewer child numbers until traffic and parking has been demonstrated.	Comment is noted. However, it is considered that this assessment shows the child numbers and subsequent traffic/parking impacts are acceptable.
How does the DA link in with master planning for Kingfisher Road and Kulai Place. Improved pedestrian linkages to the Hospital/Highfields Circuit etc would possibly minimise traffic.	The development is not inconsistent with the Health and Education Precinct Master Plan. The applicant will be required to provide a footpath in front of their premises. Overtime, further connections will be completed as the need arises and/or development occurs in the area. It is noted that there are also generous road reserves in the area to allow informal pedestrian traffic in the interim.
The proposed child care centre is not a good fit for Kulai Place/area due to the scale of the development (number of child places - 94), surrounding residential housing, traffic, lack of parking and cul de sac road.	Comment is noted. However, it is considered that this assessment shows the development is acceptable from a scale, location, road network, parking and compatibility with surrounding development perspective. In particular, child care centres are allowed and commonly located within residential areas, Engineers have confirmed the road network/cul de sac can cater for the development, suitable parking is provided onsite, noise impacts can be managed, the development still presents as a dwelling to the street etc.
No parking signs at the end of the cul de sac will create visual amenity via introduction of signs, loss of resident parking, enforcement issues.	Council Engineering staff have considered the Traffic Impact Assessment. Regulatory signs such as ‘No Stopping’, ‘No Parking’ or timed parking are typically not recommended in low traffic urban areas such as residential streets so as not to undermine their effectiveness. At this point, Council staff believe that no parking signage is not required. Any recommendation to approve regulatory signs in the future would require Local Traffic Committee (LTC) approval and be addressed outside the merits of this application.
Is there sufficient width between the centre and adjoining properties at the kerb.	The separation at the kerb/between driveways will not change significantly to the eastern neighbour (ie the eastern driveway will be updated to marry in with the new footpath but is envisaged to still leave a gap to the neighbour’s driveway). The new driveway to the west will retain approximately 5m separate to the boundary. Both widths are acceptable.
Traffic noise impacts. Impact on lifestyle of surrounding residents.	The application was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed acceptable on noise grounds, subject to conditions. The limited hours and days of operation (ie development isn’t open early, late or on weekends) further limits adverse traffic noise or impacts on lifestyle.
Parking along the cul de sac will occur and is not safe.	Compliant parking numbers have been provided on site to reduce the likelihood of on street parking. However, occupants may still choose to park on the street. Council Engineering staff have factored this into their assessment of the application and deemed the development and area as being suitable for the intended use. The cul de sac and parking area are also low speed environments, which further supports the child care use.
Development should be designed to retain koala habitat. Koalas are seen and heard around the area. Are there koala feed trees onsite? Consider retaining koala food trees and/or planting natives. Potential ecological impacts and impacts on vegetation structural root zones/tree protection zones not clear. Impact on northern vegetation due to incorrect boundary fence location.	Comments are noted. The application and a subsequent Arborist Report were reviewed by Council’s Natural Resource Management staff and no objection raised on koala or ecological impact grounds. The majority of vegetation being removed is planted/introduced garden species. One juvenile Tallowwood was identified and it is proposed to be replaced by koala food trees at 2:1 onsite.
The proposed development does not meet the Child Care Planning Guideline.	The development is considered to comply or capable of complying - refer to comments on the Child Care Planning Guideline above in this assessment.
The Health and Education Precinct planning is on hold.	Comment is noted. Key to this development is that it is currently permissible (does not rely on strategic planning changes) and is not inconsistent with the overall Precinct planning.
Child care centre in Kulai Place would be better located within the boundary of the Health and Education Precinct.	Comment is noted. The assessment considers the current site, which has been deemed acceptable by Council staff.
Negative social impact.	Refer to comments on Social impacts in the locality. Development is considered acceptable on social impact grounds.
A moratorium should be placed on this application and any others, until such time as the future of the Health and Education Precinct is clearer.	Comment is noted. Key to this development is that it is currently permissible (does not rely on strategic planning changes) and is not inconsistent with the overall Precinct planning. The status of the Precinct planning can also be pursued as a separate matter with Council’s Strategic Planning Section.
Development should be rejected as occurred with another child care centre application within the street.	Comment is noted. Applications are assessed on site specific matters and the merits of the individual application. The previous application that was not supported had differing site conditions whereas this application has been shown to be acceptable.
Conflict of interest for the consultant preparing the Traffic Impact Assessment for the applicant.	The process of engaging a separate consultant to assess a specific aspect of a development application (ie traffic) is common practice. The application and any accompanying assessments are then independently assessed by Council staff as to whether they are acceptable or not. In some cases, what the applicant or their consultant states/recommends, can also differ to Council staff, who also have expertise in such matters. In this case, a further independent arm to the assessment process is that the application will also be assessed and a decision made by Council’s Development Assessment Panel. This process ensures accountability in the development application process.
Timeframe for upgrade to John Oxley Drive and Kingfisher Road is conceptual and not known. Upgrade should not be relied upon. Impact of development in the interim.	Comment is noted. While the upgrade will improve traffic, Council Engineers have advised that the development and associated traffic is acceptable/does not rely on the upgrade occurring now.
Comment that occupants of the centre will be from surrounding areas is not true. Residents choose child care providers based on reputation and whether they can get in.	Council staff note and agree that some people will choose a child care centre based on reputation and/or availability of a space. However, it is also considered that people will also choose a child care centre that is conveniently close to home and/or located on their drive to work.
Construction impacts - parking on the street, road reserve etc.	The construction process is normally a short term impact. Furthermore, construction workers/processes will be subject to normal offensive noise, odours, traffic/parking rules to ensure they create no adverse impact.
Who will check to see that not more than 50% of children are using the outdoor space as per the noise assessment?	Conditions of consent will be imposed on the operator to ensure they monitor and comply with such a requirement. Being a condition, Council’s Compliance staff can also investigate the matter if there are suggestions of non-compliance.
The development is not in the interests of residents.	Whilst the development is not a residential use, it is permissible with consent and a relatively common use that is found within a residential zone/area. The assessment also shows that the development will create no significant adverse impact on the area, whilst providing additional child care facilities to the wider community.
Cost of works is not realistic.	Cost of works is acceptable, noting that parts of the existing dual occupancy will be retained.
The catchment is oversupplied with child care spaces and there is a lack of staff.	Comment is noted. Whether there is a demand/staffing for a use is not a matter for consideration. In most cases, an applicant won’t go to the time and expense of proposing and building a particular development, unless there is a demand or that it can work financially. In circumstances where a proposal fails, opportunity still exists for the site to be re-converted/developed via another development application.
Traffic Impact Assessment relies on out of date information. Current analysis/modelling should be undertaken.	The Traffic Impact Assessment, road network and traffic conditions etc were reviewed by Council’s Engineering staff. Overall, the road network was considered capable of supporting the development.
The Noise Impact Assessment recommends the installation of an acoustic barrier. Based on finished levels, the barrier (in part) sits below the outdoor play area. Effectiveness of the barrier questionable.	Comment is noted. The applicant has since moved the barrier to coincide with the outdoor play area finished level. The revised location was supported by the noise consultant and also Council’s Environmental Health Officer as providing effective noise attenuation.
Plans indicate a 2m difference between the car park and building. A timber retaining wall is shown and is not considered suitable for such a wall height.	Comment is noted. A condition is proposed on the consent to cover retaining wall design being signed off by a suitably qualified engineer. This is standard practice.
The fence type proposed along the retained car park edge is unlikely to stop a car going over the edge.	The car park will be conditioned to comply with the relevant Australian Standard. The detailed design and any car proofing of the edge/fence requirements can be addressed at the Construction Certificate stage.
How is privacy to the north to be addressed?	The northern property is a non-residential medical use with a car park directly adjoining the child care centre boundary. As a result, there is unlikely to be any privacy issues. Nonetheless, fencing and landscaping are also proposed to the north, which will further ensure privacy is maintained between the uses.
Child care centres in bushfire prone areas require specific assessment and measures. The SOEE notes a bushfire hazard assessment was done but such a document was not available on DA tracker. Unclear whether an assessment etc has been done.	Refer to comments above in this report under the Bushfire heading.

(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.

Climate change

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

Additional Comments

Health and Education Precinct Master Plan

Council has adopted a Health and Education Precinct Master Plan, which applies to the subject site. In particular, the Health and Education Precinct is located in an area bounded by John Oxley Drive to the west, Lake Road to the north, the industrial area and Lake Innes Nature Reserve to the east, and the southern boundary of St Columba Anglican School. A key outcome for the Masterplan is to provide a vibrant and well connected health and education precinct via creation of a pedestrian spine, bus loop, road connections, balance of facilities/services etc.

Having considered the Masterplan, the site and proposed development are not inconsistent with the strategic vision for the area and do not create any obstacles for future strategic work (ie the development is not located within the pedestrian spine, bus loop, road connection areas etc).

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 proposed development will comprise a 94 child centre-based child care facility (non-residential use) so 7.11 contributions do not apply.

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 centre-based child care facility. 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 the existing approved dual occupancy (2 x 3 bedroom dwellings).

The proposed development will comprise a centre-based child care facility 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. (Attachment 3)

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

Attachments

1 ⇩. DA2022 - 933.1 Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. DA2022 - 933.1 Plans

3 ⇩. DA2022 - 933.1 Contribution Estimate

Member	18/01/23	15/02/23	01/03/23	15/03/23	05/04/23
David Crofts (Independent Chair)	P	P	P		P
Chris Gee (Independent Member)	P	P	P	P	P
Michael Mason (Independent Member)			P	P	P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Services)		P	P	P	P
Tony McNamara (Independent Member)		P		P
Other attendees
Mayor Peta Pinson				P	P
Grant Burge (Development Engineering Coordinator)	P		P	P	P
Kerrod Franklin (Acting Development Engineering Coordinator)
Patrick Galbraith-Robertson (Development Planning Coordinator)	P		P
Steven Ford (Development Assessment Planner)	P			P	P
Chris Gardiner (Development Assessment Planner)					P
Vanessa Penfold (Development Assessment Planner)				P
Clinton Tink (Development Assessment Planner)					P
Jon Power (Act Development Engineer Coordinator)
Beau Spry (Development Assessment Planner)
Ben Roberts (Development Assessment Planner)		P
Councillor Josh Slade
Councillor Sharon Griffiths
Kate Kennedy (Building Surveyor)
Warren Wisemantel
Deputy Mayor Adam Roberts
Bob Slater (Development Assessment Planner)
Alton Dick (Stormwater Engineer)

18/01/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
01/02/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
15/02/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
01/03/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
15/03/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
05/04/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
19/04/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
03/05/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
17/05/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
07/06/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
21/06/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
05/07/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
19/07/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
02/08/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
16/08/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
06/09/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
20/09/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
04/10/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
18/10/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
01/11/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
15/11/2023	Function Room	2.00pm
06/12/2023	Function Room	2.00pm

1.0 OBJECTIVES

2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS

Delegated Authority of Panel

3.0 MEMBERSHIP

3.1 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

5.1 Meeting Format

5.2 Decision Making

5.3 Quorum

5.5 Secretariat

5.6 Recording of decisions

6.0 CONVENING OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS

7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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.