Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

Agenda

Item: 05

Subject: DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

RECOMMENDATION

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

Name of Meeting:

Meeting Date:

Item Number:

Subject:

I, the undersigned, hereby declare the following interest:

Pecuniary:

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

Non-Pecuniary – Significant Interest:

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

Non-Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest:

May participate in consideration and voting.

For the reason that:

Name:

Signed:

Date:

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

(Refer to next page and the Code of Conduct)

Pecuniary Interest

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

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

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

(a) your interest, or

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

4.4 For the purposes of clause 4.3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Pecuniary

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

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

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

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

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

Managing non-pecuniary conflicts of interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

This form must be completed using block letters or typed.

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

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

By [insert full name of councillor]
In the matter of [insert name of environmental planning instrument]
Which is to be considered at a meeting of the [insert name of meeting]
Held on [insert date of meeting]
PECUNIARY INTEREST
Address of the affected principal place of residence of the councillor or an associated person, company or body (the identified land)
Relationship of identified land to councillor [Tick or cross one box.]		 The councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease, trust, option or contract, or otherwise).  An associated person of the councillor has an interest in the land.  An associated company or body of the councillor has interest in the land.
MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST[1]
Nature of land that is subject to a change in zone/planning control by proposed LEP (the subject land2 [Tick or cross one box]		 The identified land.  Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.
Current zone/planning control [Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]
Proposed change of zone/planning control [Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]
Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor or associated person [Tick or cross one box]		 Appreciable financial gain.  Appreciable financial loss.

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

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

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

Last Updated: 3 June 2019

Important Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Reports

Item: 05

Subject: DA2021 - 335.3 - SECTION 4.55 MODIFICATION TO DESIGN OF PREVIOUS APPROVED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION AT Lot 6 DP 231816 No. 9 DAVIS CRESCENT, PORT MACQUARIE

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

Applicant: J DI IROIO

Owner: GR & RL Kennedy and ND & LH Vadala

Estimated Cost: $840K

Parcel no: 5607

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

Recommendation

That the section 4.55 modification DA2021 - 335.3 for a proposed modification to design of previous approved dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision at Lot 6, DP 231816, No.9 Davis Crescent, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to recommended wording changes to conditions A(1), B(15) and E(10).

Executive Summary

This report considers a modification application for design changes to a previous approved dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act).

Following exhibition of the application, 3 submissions were received.

The site is considered suitable for the proposed modified development and the proposal adequately addresses relevant planning controls. The modified development is not considered to be contrary to the public's interest and will not result a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact.

The plans have been amended and additional information submitted during assessment of the application post neighbour notification. The following changes and additional information are summarised below:

· A small deck on the north-eastern rear corner of the site has been removed from the proposal. The applicant has advised that the existing landscaped and screened area will be retained as is at the existing levels.

· Minor reconfiguration of the alignment of north-western basement wall.

· Updates to south-eastern elevation to clarify window changes.

· A rooftop maintenance platform assumed to be a roof top terrace has been removed from the proposal.

· Addition of new concrete retaining wall in south-eastern corner of the front section of the site.

· Changes to the location of stairs and retaining areas in the rear and side yards particularly of Unit 1 (right dwelling).

· Rooftop air conditioning units have been realigned to be the same as currently approved.

· Both proposed driveway crossings narrowed to 3.6m in width.

· Clarification that the existing east-west retaining wall at the rear of the property is to be retained. Proposed finished levels have been added to the plans.

· Changes to stormwater management proposed for the servicing of both torrens title lots.

· The current amended plans have been more clearly clouded with notations to identify changes during assessment.

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

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

Report

1. Background

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 557.2m2.

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 (source Nearmap):

2. Description of Development

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

· Minor reconfiguration of the alignment of north-western basement wall.

· Updates to south-eastern elevation to clarify window changes.

· Internal layout changes to rear of Level 3 of the main living spaces of both units.

· Addition of new concrete retaining wall in south-eastern corner of the front section of the site.

· Changes are proposed to the rear northern elevations of both proposed units including introducing sliding doors to replace door entrances and windows.

· Addition of small deck and stairs to rear of Unit 1.

· Changes to the location of stairs and retaining areas in the rear and side yards particularly of Unit 1 (right dwelling).

· Clarification that the existing east-west retaining wall at the rear of the property is to be retained. Proposed finished levels have been added to the plans.

· Changes to stormwater management proposed for the servicing of both Torrens title lots.

· No changes are proposed to the floor space areas of the habitable levels as currently approved.

Plans of the proposed development are at the end of this report (Attachment 2).

Application Chronology

· 22 February 2022 - Original development approved under staff delegations (2 submissions unresolved).

· 25 February 2025 - Modification application lodged.

· 27 February 2025 - Application assigned to assessing officer.

· 5 March to 18 March 2025 - Neighbour notification of modification proposal. Submissions received. All submissions acknowledged.

· 2 April 2025 - Assessment update provided to applicant including advice of submission issues received which were recommended to be considered in design plan updates.

· 4 April 2025 - Assessment update provided and additional information request made to applicant.

· 8 April 2025 - Additional information received from applicant including amended plans.

· 9 April 2025 - Assessment update provided to applicant.

· 14/15 April 2025 - Amended plans forwarded to eastern neighbour No.11 Davis Crescent for consideration and seeking feedback.

· 17 April 2025 - Assessment update provided to applicant including advice that seeking feedback from neighbouring properties who lodged submissions on amended plans.

· 1 May 2025 - Assessment update provided to applicant including advice that following up feedback from neighbours who lodged submissions.

· 1 May 2025 - Initial feedback from eastern neighbour No.11 Davis Crescent with queries and concerns on amendments made to proposal. Inconsistencies with current Construction Certificate plans also raised.

· 2 May 2025 - Inconsistencies with current Construction Certificate plans raised with applicant.

· 2 May 2025 - Applicant confirmed commitment that Construction Certificate documentation will be updated to reflect modification application subject to consent being granted.

· 2 May 2025 - Applicant advised that eastern neighbour No.11 Davis Crescent will be advised of the update.

· 2 May 2025 - Eastern neighbour No.11 Davis Crescent raised query whether Council as Certifier for the current Construction Certificate will require Council to withdraw current Construction Certificate.

· 6 May 2025 - Feedback received from neighbours at 6 and 7 Lighthouse Road seeking confirmation of roof structure plan changes with amendments, inconsistencies with plans and height, width and positioning of air conditioning units and view impacts from current approved development.

· 12 May 2025 - Applicant requested to reconsider roof top air conditioning units’ orientation to revert back to what is approved or reconsider view sharing impacts and raised issue of status of dilapidation report investigations and structure integrity of existing retaining wall running along eastern boundary at rear. Applicant advised that it appears that finished ground levels are below base of existing retaining wall. Advice provided that stormwater design to be amended in line with condition B(17).

· 13 May 2025 - Applicant advised that it is proposed to re-orientate air conditioning units to that previously approved, additional section plan provided to show detail of existing boundary retaining wall on eastern side of site, advice received that there is no encroachment or disturbance into zone of influence, advice that dilapidation report is underway, and that the stormwater design will be amended.

· 14 May 2025 - Applicant requested to formally amend plans and clarified delegations for determination of application having regard to status of submissions lodged.

· 15 May 2025 - Amended plans and additional information received from applicant.

· 19 May 2025 - Amended plans and explanation of further changes and details forwarded for consideration to all 3 x neighbours who lodged submissions.

3. Statutory Assessment

The application has been lodged pursuant to Section 4.55(1A) on the basis that it is substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to.

Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modifications into Section 4.55(1) for modifications involving minor error, mis-description or miscalculation, Section 4.55(1A) are for modifications involving minimal environmental impact and Section 4.55(2) are for other modifications. Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented.

In determining the modification 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 modification application relates. The requirements of Section 4.55(1A) are considered as follows:

Section 4.55(1A)(a) Is the proposal of no or minimal environmental impact?

The modification proposal (as amended) is considered to have minimal environmental impact change having regard to the current approved development and its likely impacts.

Section 4.55(1A)(b) Is the proposal substantially the same?

In considering the modification, an assessment of the following has been undertaken to establish whether the modification proposal (as amended) is substantially the same development with a particular focus on the following:

· Comparison of the quantitative and qualitative differences between the original and modified development.

· Comparison of the material and essential features (critical elements) of the original and modified development.

· Comparison of the consequences of carrying out the modification with the original approval.

The applicant has submitted justification details with a statement that the proposal is substantially the same development and listed the design changes proposed.

Having regard to the above focus points, the following assessment comments are provided:

· The proposal does not change the use of the approved development and alters the approved development without radical transformation. The development will remain essentially the same with 2 dwellings with 3 levels with the same orientation and a 2 lot torrens title subdivision.

· There is no radical transformation to the building envelope or built form.

· The totality of the proposed modifications will not cause any additional or worsening of any privacy, shadowing or amenity impacts expected to result from the current approved development.

The assessment has established that the modified proposal overall is substantially the same development to that originally approved.

Section 4.55(1A)(c) The application has been notified in accordance with the regulations and Council’s Community Participation Plan

Adjoining properties and previous submitters were notified of the modification application in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan. Additional consultation has occurred during assessment with 3 neighbours who have raised an interest in the proposed changes to share proposed amendments to plans.

Section 4.55(2)(d) Consideration of any submissions received

Following neighbour notification of the modification application, 3 submissions were received.

The key issues raised in the submissions received have been forwarded to the applicant for consideration. Amendments and additional information have been received during assessment. These amendments have been forwarded for consideration to the 3 neighbours who have raised an interest in the proposal to seek feedback.

Copies of the written submissions have been provided separately to members of the DAP.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Concern raised with previous submission concerns raised for the original development not being suitable are still valid.	Issues raised in the original approved development relating to bulk, scale, character, privacy, light, shadowing, outlook, views, roof top terraces, building height, front and side setbacks, streetscape, LEP and DCP compliance were all considered as being acceptable in determination of the original approved development.
Concern raised with privacy impacts to No.6 and No.7 Lighthouse Road, and No. 11 Davis Crescent with rooftop viewing platforms assumed to be potentially for roof terrace use. Inadequate detail to address potential impacts and compliance with DCP not addressed.	The rooftop viewing platforms have been removed during assessment of the application with submission of amended plans.
Impact to views to No. 6 and no.7 Lighthouse Road from an assumed increase in building height.	The rooftop viewing platforms have been removed and roof top air conditioning units realigned to be the same as currently approved during assessment of the application with submission of amended plans. The modified building is proposed (as amended) to be the same as the current approved building height. Refer also to LEP considerations provided earlier in this report.
Concern with swimming pool being added to proposed Construction Certificate application and potential impacts on privacy to No.6 Lighthouse Road.	Swimming pool stated to have been added to Construction Certificate application is not part of modification application. A swimming pool is not part of this application.
Concern with deck proposed against rear boundary and impacts to No.6 Lighthouse Road and No.11 Davis Crescent.	Proposed rear deck referred to in rear yard has been removed from the modification plans. Amended plans have been submitted which are satisfactory.
Concern with the size and impact of the development on the streetscape.	The modification application makes only minor design changes at the frontage to the approved development. The modified development remains to be assessed as being satisfactorily compatible with the streetscape, and planning controls relating to but not limited to setbacks and building height.
Concern with incomplete documentation including lack of highlighting proposed changes to current approved plans with the modification and supporting details.	This concern was raised during assessment of the application with the applicant. The design plans for this modification application have been updated to highlight the changes proposed.
Questioned the proposed floor space ratio of the modified proposal and whether any changes are appropriate.	The Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the proposal is not proposed to change. The first floor and second floor habitable levels areas remain the same. The current approved floor space ratio was originally assessed as being 0.65:1 which complied with the 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site. The GFA has been calculated with the assumption of an existing approved basement with storage and particular exclusions factored into exemptions.
Concern with changing the traditional character of the neighbourhood to include medium to higher density accommodation that has flow on impacts to increased traffic, noise and street parking availability.	The modified development remains to be assessed as being satisfactorily compatible with the streetscape and planning controls relating to but not limited to setbacks and building height. The existing street network has capacity for increased traffic and the planning controls seek to encourage provision of a varied type of housing.
Concern with status of submitted Construction Certificate and Section 68 application documents as relate to the modification application.	The modification application is being assessed independently of the submitted Construction Certificate and the Section 68 plumbing application. It is noted that a separate Subdivision Works Certificate is required to be obtained particularly in regard to the stormwater works proposed in the public domain.
Concern with new staircase in north-eastern corner of site adjoining the common boundary with 11 Davis Crescent making use of part of the existing brick fence adjoining that common boundary and demolishing the southern extent of the existing brick fence. Concern raised particularly with detail lacking with respect to how the proposed works will be completed without undermining the land within 11 Davis Crescent immediately adjacent to the proposed staircase.	The plans have been amended during assessment to provide detail of the proposed finished levels. A section plan has been added to the plan set on Drawing DA-17 (sheet 17). Existing conditions with minor amendments are recommended to ensure construction detail addresses appropriate engineering requirements.
No section provided within the land proposed to be retained at its existing ground level adjoining and within 1m of the common boundary. Difficulty with confirming that the existing ground level is to be maintained within the 1m landscaped area adjoining the common boundary. Reference made to the L2 paving on the eastern side of proposed Unit 1 being RL 28.05 and the existing ground level at the southern end of the existing retaining wall (opposite door D-1-2-0) being RL 28.30 and the existing ground level at the south-western corner of the existing house being RL 28.25. Additional information should be provided to confirm how the land within the eastern 1m wide landscaping area is proposed to be dealt with to maintain the existing ground levels within that setback area and drain overland flows to the street.
Concern that the plans show the existing east-west retaining wall at the rear of the existing dwelling to be retained. The approved plans show this existing retaining wall to be removed. Question raised if the land between the existing wall and the proposed dwelling to be filled. The east-west retaining wall has levels at the top of the wall of RL 30.43 and RL 30.77. Section 12 does not include a finished level for the backyard of Unit 1. The potential impact of filling the Unit 1 background raised as an issue of concern with potential loss of the existing privacy within the private open space and pool area of No. 11 Davis Crescent and the potential for the redirection of overland stormwater flows from No. 9 into No. 11 Davis Crescent.	Amended plans have been submitted during assessment which have reconsidered the proposed works in the north-eastern corner of the site. The amended plans are considered acceptable subject to more engineering justification being provided to demonstrate retention of the existing wall prior to and during construction. An amendment is recommended to more specifically recommend requirements for a dilapidation report to be undertaken.
Concern raised that the structural design plans do not reference the approved Construction Methodology which forms part of the existing development consent DA (Condition A1). The intent of the Construction Methodology is to ensure that the “For Construction” designs carefully consider the potential impacts of the extensive earthworks of the existing dwellings on Nos 7 and 11 Davis Crescent.	This is considered to be a post consent matter that needs to be managed and assessed as part of the Construction Certificate process. No change to existing conditions proposed to call up construction methodology.
Concern that the plans don’t provide for the retaining wall extension to return across the property frontage of Unit 1 per condition B(14).	This is considered to be a post consent matter that needs to be managed and assessed as part of the Construction Certificate process. However, the modified plans have been amended during assessment to show stairs and new retaining on sheet DA-03.
Concern raised that a dilapidation report hasn’t been prepared to date. Issue raised that the detailed design for construction involving such significant earthworks and infrastructure/building construction should be prepared with careful consideration of the outcomes of the dilapidation report. Confirmation is sought from Council that the dilapidation report will be provided to No.11 Davis Crescent with sufficient time allowed for review and potential input prior to the issue a Construction Certificate.	An amendment is recommended to more specifically require a dilapidation report to be undertaken. The applicant has advised during assessment that the dilapidation report process has commenced. This is considered to be a post consent matter that needs to be managed and assessed as part of the Construction Certificate process.
Concern that the existing development consent deals with the detailed design of the stormwater drainage including the submission of a geotechnical report dealing with the discharge of the subsoil drainage associated with the basement carpark and retaining structures. The construction documents on the Council DA Tracker do not include a geotechnical report.
Concern that the Section 68/Description of the Works Plans do not include detailed design details of how the filled back yard within Unit 1 is to be drained to Davis Crescent. The concern is raised that the filling of the back yard of Unit 1 creates a greater potential for overland flow into 11 Davis Crescent unless it is captured in pits/pipes and directed to the existing/proposed stormwater drainage infrastructure in Davis Crescent.

4.55(3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the modification application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

Planning assessment matters, as only relevant to the modification application are reconsidered below having regard to Section 4.15(1) of the Act below:

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP)

The modification proposal (as amended) remains consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

· Clause 4.3 (height of buildings) - The current approved development was assessed as having a maximum overall building height of 7.93m from existing ground level. This complied with the maximum 8.5m building height standard control to the site at the time of the current consent being granted. The modification proposal was originally submitted and neighbour notified with additional new structures proposed above the approved roof lines. These structures which have been removed during assessment and amended plans have been submitted. The amended proposal does not propose changes to the current approved roof heights and the proposal remains to comply with the maximum 8.5m building height limit applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 (floor space ratio) - The Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the proposal is not proposed to change. The first floor and second floor habitable levels areas remain the same. The current approved floor space ratio was originally assessed as being 0.65:1 which complied with the 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site. The GFA has been calculated with the assumption of an existing approved basement with storage and particular exclusions factored into exemptions.

· Clause 7.13 (satisfactory arrangements for servicing) - Satisfactory arrangements remain in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage (noting changes required to stormwater design plans) and suitable road access to service the development. Provision of electricity will remain to be subject to obtaining satisfactory arrangements certification prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate as per current consent condition.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The modification proposal (as amended) remains sufficiently consistent with the DCP having regard to the following changes reconsidered for assessment below:

· Part B Section 4 (Cut and fill):

Outside of 1m from the main building cut there is proposed changes in the rear of the site to the design treatment for retaining, stairs and extent of cut proposed.

The current approved plans show the following design treatment for the site:

The modified plans (as amended) propose the following design treatment for the site. The highlighted clouded section for the right hand back corner

shows additional cut proposed for a new stair case being repositioned to provide access to the rear yard of Unit 1 in particular:

From an assessment perspective, there are no changes proposed to the existing approved finished floor levels particularly for the Level 3 second floor plan level (currently at proposed RL31.65m).

The cut at the rear of the site maintains several of the existing retaining walls as shown with additional cut assumed in the north-eastern corner for the stairs greater than the standard 1m cut to follow approximately 100 to 150mm below the second lower level 2 floor level at approximately RL28m. It is assumed that the depth of the extended cut in this location on-site will be required to approximately 2m deep. This represents an additional variation to the DCP standard of 1m cut recommended.

In this regard the objectives of the DCP are considered below:

The areas where the cut and retaining wall heights are proposed to change are considered acceptable as assessed against the objectives of the DCP with no adverse impact identified to neighbouring properties. The retaining will be required to be appropriately engineered and a dilapidation report assessment undertaken. An update to the current consent condition is recommended to address this additional cut particularly due to the proposed retention of the existing retaining wall on the common boundary.

No changes are proposed to the consent requirements for engineering for the retaining walls.

· The width of the approved driveways proposed at 3.6m per driveway is not proposed to change. The plans have been amended during assessment.

· The modified plans propose design changes to the west side setback for the proposed basement level 1 from a varied minimum setback of 900mm, 1.4m and 1.8m as approved to a consistent 1m west side setback to the edge of an assumed retaining wall for the basement. The basement is largely below existing ground levels at this point with no reassessment of amenity impacts required. The retaining will be required to be appropriately engineered and a dilapidation report assessment undertaken. An update to the current consent condition is recommended to address this additional cut particularly due to the proposed retention of the existing retaining wall on the common boundary.

· On Level 2 and 3, the 3m side setbacks to the building on the eastern and western sides are maintained as approved.

· Part C1 - Section 51: The eastern and western elevations have been amended in regards to windows and privacy screen treatment for particularly for the Level 3 second floor level with the main living spaces. The modified windows and privacy screen heights with minimum effective 1.7m sill heights retained and achieved is considered acceptable and satisfies the DCP requirements.

(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 modified proposal (as amended) will not have any significant adverse impacts on existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

The modified proposal (as amended) remains to be sufficiently compatible with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

View sharing

The modified proposal has been amended during assessment which has removed the need for any reconsideration of impacts on existing view sharing.

The rooftop viewing platforms assumed to be capable for use as roof terraces have been removed and roof top air conditioning units realigned to be the same as currently approved during assessment of the application with submission of amended plans. The modified building is proposed (as amended) to be the same as the current approved building height. Refer also to LEP considerations provided earlier in this report.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the Davis Crescent frontage and is currently serviced via an existing kerb outlet.

Amendments have been made to the design plans for this modification application including that it is noted that a separate Subdivision Works Certificate will be required to be obtained particularly in regard to the stormwater works proposed in the public domain.

The current consent condition addressing stormwater is replicated below for reference and no changes are recommended to its wording:

Construction

A significant amount of cut remains to be proposed for the proposal which is largely within the confines of the proposed building footprint. Given the depth of excavation and proximity to neighbouring properties and submission issues raised it is recommended that the conditions requirements be retained and updated to require a dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified engineer be submitted with the Construction Certificate and at Occupation Certificate and shared with Council and neighbouring properties within a 7 day timeframe period.

Construction impacts are considered capable of being managed, standard construction and site management conditions together with a specific requirement for containing construction storage to the property frontage in the road reservation have been recommended.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The modified proposal remains to fit into the locality and the site attributes are conducive to the development.

Section 4.55(4) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

Noted.

Section 4.55(5) To avoid doubt, a consent authority is not prevented from modifying a consent under subsection (1A) merely because the modification only modifies a condition of consent and would not result in a change to the development the subject of the consent.

Noted. Amendment only required to conditions A(1), B(15) and E(10) relating to modified plans to be approved.

4. Development Contributions Applicable

No changes are proposed to existing consent conditions relating to development contributions applicable to the proposal and no changes are proposed to the number of bedrooms or dwellings or lot size to trigger reconsideration of applicable development contributions.

5. Conclusion and Statement of Reason

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.55 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Issues raised during assessment and neighbour notification of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application. Where relevant, amendments have been made to the proposed plans and existing conditions remain in place to manage the impacts attributed to the development as currently approved.

The proposed modified development does not raise any significant general public interest issues beyond matters already addressed in this report. Overall, the proposed development remains 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 modification proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Attachments

1 ⇩. Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. Attachment 2 - Plans

AGENDA

Development Assessment Panel

04/06/2025

Item: 06

Subject: DA2023 - 934.1 Multi Dwelling Housing and Strata Subdivision at Lot 68 DP 37543, No 95 Cameron Street, Wauchope

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Chris Gardiner

Applicant: JKD Partners

Owner: 95 Cameron Street Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $5,167,103

Parcel no: 3596

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

Recommendation

That DA2023 - 934.1 for Multi Dwelling Housing and Strata Subdivision at Lot 68, DP 37543, No. 95 Cameron Street, Wauchope, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, 3 submissions were received.

The proposal has been amended through the assessment process, including improvements to privacy, fencing, waste management and landscaping.

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 conditions in (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 2023m².

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:

Previous Development Application

Development Application DA2021 - 733.1 was lodged in 2021 for a similar multi dwelling housing development (9 units) on the subject site. The application was refused on 22 August 2022 for the following reasons:

1. The application contains a number of unjustified variations and insufficient information on matters around height, floor space ratio, BASIX, privacy, overshadowing, parking, driveway design, impact on electricity infrastructure, stormwater and bushfire assessment to allow an informed decision to be made on the overall suitability of the site for the development.

2. It is not in the public interest to allow a development application that contains insufficient information or justification as the impacts of the proposal cannot be accurately assessed.

3. The development as submitted, will have adverse privacy impacts on neighbours, parking and manoeuvring impacts on future residents, overshadowing impacts on neighbours, potential bushfire risk on future residents, stormwater impacts on the development and surrounding area, bulk and scale impacts on the surrounding area and potential energy inefficiencies. Overall, such matters lead to adverse impacts on the built environment for the area.

A subsequent review of determination was not successful because the matters were not able to be resolved within the 6 month period in which the review decision must be made.

The current application seeks to resolve the matters that led to refusal of DA2021 - 733.1.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Demolition of the existing dwelling.

· Construction of multi dwelling housing comprising 7 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units.

· Strata subdivision.

It is noted that the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site has also been granted separate development consent under DA2022 - 331.

Plans of the proposed development are at the end of this report (Attachment 2).

Application Chronology

· 28 March 2024 - Application accepted for lodgement.

· 5 April 2024 to 18 April 2024 - Neighbour notification.

· 19 April 2024 - Referral response received from Essential Energy.

· 2 May 2024 - Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 5 July 2024 - Additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 22 July 2024 - Further additional information requested from Applicant.

· 25 October 2024 - Further additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 31 October 2024 - Further additional information requested from Applicant.

· 5 December 2024 - Referral response received from NSW Rural Fire Service.

· 7 April 2025 - Further additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 11 April 2025 - Further additional information requested from Applicant.

· 6 May 2025 - Further additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

Chapter 4 Koala Habitat Protection 2021

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

Clause 4.10 - Council is not prevented from granting consent in this case for the following reasons:

1. The property is not subject to a KPOM, and

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

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.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

Provision	Comment
Chapter 2 - Standards for residential development - BASIX
2.1 Standards for BASIX development and BASIX optional development (1) Schedule 1 sets out the standards that apply to BASIX development referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of *BASIX development* in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. (2) Schedule 2 sets out the standards that apply to— (a) BASIX development referred to in paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of *BASIX development* in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, and (b) BASIX optional development if the development application or the application for a complying development certificate was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. (3) The standard specified in Schedule 2, section 4 extends to a swimming pool or spa that has a capacity of less than 40,000L if the swimming pool or spa is part of development referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of *BASIX development* in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. (4) A standard specified in Schedule 1 or 2 does not apply to development involving a heritage item or in a heritage conservation area to the extent that the Planning Secretary is satisfied that the development is not capable of achieving a standard because of other development controls that apply.	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.
(5) Development consent must not be granted to development to which the standards specified in Schedule 1 or 2 apply unless the consent authority is satisfied the embodied emissions attributable to the development have been quantified.	Emissions quantified through BASIX process.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

Clause 2.48 - The proposal has been referred to Essential Energy in accordance with this clause. Essential Energy have no specific concerns regarding the development, but have provided some general advice. The advice received from Essential Energy has been forwarded the Applicant for consideration.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table - The multi dwelling housing is a permissible landuse with consent. Following subdivision, each lot will contain an attached dwelling.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· Clause 2.7- The application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling. It is noted that the demolition of the existing dwelling has also been granted separate consent under DA2022 - 331.

· Clause 4.1 - The minimum 450m² lot size for subdivision does not apply to the proposal as it proposes a strata subdivision.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 8.498m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.64:1 (gross floor area 1284.8m²) which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

· 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 Strata 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.	The Statement of Environmental Effects and plans address the Policy and has calculated the waste generation for the development to be: · General waste - 1960L/fortnight. · Commingled recycling - 1920L/fortnight. · Food and garden organics waste – 680L/week. The plans show 5 x 660L bins (2 general waste, 2 recycling, 1 organics) in the communal waste room at the ground floor of Unit 1. The waste storage volumes proposed would be adequate for a weekly collection service, based on the anticipated volumes in Council’s Policy. A private waste collection service will be required for the development and appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard. As the proposal would have a private waste service, more frequent collections could be arranged as necessary if the operational waste volumes exceed those that have been planned for. A standard condition is also recommended for the management of construction and demolition waste.	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).	Fill of up to 1.12m in the north-west corner of the site, up cut of up to 0.8m in the south-east corner. The exceedance of the maximum permitted fill is for a small part of the site adjoining the golf course and would not result in any significant privacy or stormwater impacts. Engineering certification will be required for the retaining walls to ensure structural stability.	Consistent with objectives.
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	Condition recommended requiring certification.	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.	No front fence and retaining wall combination proposed.	N/A

DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management

Bushfire Hazard Management

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.

No APZ proposed in environmental zone.

Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B- General Provisions- B4: Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Parking Provision
24	a) Off-street Parking is provided in accordance with Table 3. 1 parking space per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit + 1 visitor’s space per 4 units. 1.5 spaces per each 3 or 4 bedroom unit + 1 visitor’s space per 4 units.	The proposal includes 7 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and requires a minimum of 12.5 resident parking spaces (rounded to 13 spaces) and 2.25 visitor parking spaces (rounded to 3 spaces). Total parking requirement - 16 spaces. The proposal includes 9 single garages, 2 designated visitor parking spaces adjacent to Unit 1, 1 designated visitor parking space adjacent to Unit 3, and 4 parallel parking spaces along the common driveway (total of 16 spaces). The parallel parking spaces have been allocated to Units 2, 4, 6, and 8 on the draft strata plan, noting that they are intended to meet the resident parking demand for the 3 bedroom units. The proposal satisfies the minimum total parking requirements of the DCP.		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.	One of the visitor parking spaces is located forward of Unit 1. A 2.4m wide landscaped strip and 1.2m high front fence will provide appropriate screening to this area.	Acceptable on merit.
	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.	Capable of complying. Certification to be provided at CC and OC stages.	Yes
35	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Concept stormwater plans show stormwater being drained to existing piped system on the western side of the site.	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.

*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 articulation elements proposed.	N/A
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	4.5m front setback.	Yes
45	a) A garage, carport or car parking space should: − be at least 1m behind the building line, where the dwelling(s) has a setback from a front boundary of 4.5m or more, or − be at least 5.5m from a front boundary, where the dwelling(s) has a setback of less than 4.5m.	All garages are located more than 1m behind the front building line and face the shared access road.	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.	Garage openings 2.4m wide and less than 50% of the width of each dwelling. No garages face towards the street.	Yes
	c) Driveway crossovers are no greater than 5.0m in width.	5.5m wide, but additional width necessary to facilitate two-way movement for the scale of the development. A condition is recommended requiring the removal of the existing crossover at the northern end of the site frontage, which would preserve adequate street parking in the site frontage.	Consistent with objectives.
	d) Where a dual occupancy or attached dwelling is proposed on a corner lot a garage and driveway is provided on each road frontage.	N/A	N/A
Side and Rear Setbacks
46	a) A minimum rear boundary setback of 4m is to be provided to dwellings (including verandahs, patios and decks).	4m rear setback to golf course.	Yes
	b) A minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to sheds and swimming pools subject to achieving minimum required private open space area.	N/A	N/A
	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.	N/A	N/A
47	a) Ground floors (being <1m above existing ground level) should be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.	Minimum 2.2m ground floor side setback.	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.	Minimum 2.2m first floor side setback to northern boundary. Given the orientation of the site, the reduced side setback would not result in any adverse overshadowing impacts.	Yes
	c) First floors and above should have building walls that step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm articulation. Where first floors and above are setback >3m, wall articulation is not required.	First floor walls articulated at least every 12m.	Yes
Private Open Space
48.	a) All dwellings should have a minimum area of private open space of 35m2, which includes a principal private open space area with: − a minimum dimension of 4m x 4m, and − a maximum grade of 5% for minimum 4m x 4m of the total open space requirement, and − direct accessibility from a ground floor living area and orientated to maximise use.	Each dwelling is provided with over 35m² private open space (by combining areas) and includes a 4m x 4m area directly accessible from a living room. The development also contains a number of useable balcony spaces.	Yes
	b) Private open space may include clothes drying areas and garbage storage.		Yes
Public Domain and Fencing
49	a) Front fences built forward of the building line for the primary road frontage should be detailed on the development application plans.	Front fencing shown on plans.	Yes
	b) Solid Front fences up to 1.2m high should be: − Setback 1.0m from the front boundary, and − Suitably landscaped to reduce visual impact, and − Provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites.	1.2m high timber infill and brick pier fence proposed along 7.5m of the site frontage (36% of the frontage). The fence will provide integrated mail facilities and it is not practical to set it back behind 1m of landscaping. The fence will assist in screening the visitor parking area. The northern end of the Unit 1 front yard will be landscaped and have no front fence.	Acceptable on merit
	b) Front fences proposed to be more than 1.2m high should be a maximum of 1.8m in height, above existing front property boundary level, and either: − Include landscaped recesses having minimum dimensions of 1.8m long x 900mm deep which occupy no less than 50% of the total length of the fence, or − be erected up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 50% of the street frontage,	N/A	N/A
	c) have openings which make it not less than 25% transparent (no individual opening more than 30mm wide);	N/A	N/A
	d) provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and	N/A	N/A
	e) provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	N/A	N/A
50	a) For tennis courts or other similar areas, chain wire fences should be black or dark green plastic coated mesh.	N/A	N/A
50	b) Solid fences enclosing these facilities should not be permitted over 1.8m.	N/A	N/A
Bulk and Scale
51	a) Direct views between indoor living rooms and principal private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots, including possible dwellings on future lots, should be obscured or screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius. − Direct views between principal private open space areas where within a 12m radius. − Direct views between indoor living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings within a 12m radius.	First floor living room windows are screened to a height of 1.7m on the northern elevation. Other living areas are located on the ground floor of the units and views are screened with 1.8m high boundary fencing.	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.	1.7m high privacy screens proposed for northern side of first floor balconies of Units 1-7 where they adjoin residential property. Unit 8 and 9 adjoin the golf course and do not require privacy screening to first floor balconies. Ground floor decks are screened with 1.8m high boundary fencing.	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.	High sill windows not proposed as means of privacy screening.	N/A
	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.	Direct views screened by a combination of fencing and privacy screens consistent with these specifications.

*DCP 2013: PART C - Development Specific Provisions - C5: Subdivision*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Strata / Community Title Subdivision
167	a) Strata subdivision may be applied for: - as part of a development application for a new proposal.	Strata subdivision applied for as part of the new application.	Yes
168	a) The use/s of the land are lawful and any existing buildings are lawfully built, and use/s and/or building/s comply with the development approval/s; OR	N/A	N/A
168	b) Where, for the subdivision of approved buildings yet to be constructed, the subdivision is consistent with the development approval/s.	Acceptable strata plan provided.	Yes

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

Adjoining the site to the north and south are predominately single dwellings, whilst to the east are industrial and government agency uses. To the west of the site is the Wauchope Golf Course.

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

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

Traffic and Transport

Commonly used industry estimates for this type of development indicate that nine (9) units would generate approximately 63 movements per day. This relatively minor increase in traffic associated with the development site is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

A bus stop exists on the Cameron Street south bound carriageway opposite the proposed development.

Site Frontage and Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed via a single 5.5m wide driveway crossover with direct frontage to Cameron Street, a public road under the care and control of Council. Cameron Street is a sub-arterial road with a road formation width of 11.9m within a 20m wide road reserve. Cameron St has SA kerb and gutter and a 1.2m footpath on both sides of the road adjacent to the development site.

The plans indicate a driveway of 5.8m width at the front boundary extending approximately 10 metres inside the property allowing a suitable holding area for traffic meeting on entry/exit. Past this point, the driveway width varies with an average width of 5.5m.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of nine (9) parking spaces have been provided on-site within garages and an additional four (4) parking spaces are provided adjacent to the driveway. Three (3) visitor parks and a turning bay have been provided within the site. Minimum parking and manoeuvring dimensions meet minimum AS 2890 recommendations.

Due to the type of development, car park circulation is required to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward manner. The layout provided indicates that this is achievable for passenger vehicles and is considered acceptable for this type of development. The front visitor parking spaces are tight to access and the usability could be improved by rounding off the section of kerb where the front space joins the driveway.

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

· Replacement of any damaged section of footpath across full frontage of property.

· Provision of an industrial strength crossover and driveway as per ASD202/207.

Water Supply Connection

The site has an existing water supply connection. The developer will be required to seek a notice of requirements in accordance with Section 305 and 306 of the Water Management Act 2000 for the servicing of the development.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Sewer Connection

The site has an existing sewer connection and is traversed by a sewer main serving the subject site and adjoining property to the south.

The proposed development will impact the existing sewer main, and the Applicant has submitted a sewer strategy including the relocation of the existing sewer main around the buildings. The proposal is acceptable in principle and detailed design will be addressed through the notice of requirements in accordance with Section 305 and 306 of the Water Management Act 2000.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the rear and the existing dwelling on the site does not appear to be connected to a stormwater drainage system.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via an existing interallotment drainage system in neighbouring Lot 1 DP 1274111 to the west of the site. Written consent from the owner of the neighbouring property for connection to this drainage system has been provided as part of the application. The land doesn’t currently benefit from the existing easements to drain water over the neighbouring property (existing easements created by DP 1226836 and DP 269678). The terms of the drainage easement over this interallotment pipeline will need to be updated to list the development lot as a beneficiary as it is not listed currently on the 88B instruments. A condition is recommended requiring evidence of registration of the easement prior to the issue of any Section 68 approval or Construction Certificate.

On-site detention (OSD) will be required due to the location of the property in regard to downstream stormwater impacts, and the scale of the proposed development. The OSD design must ensure post-development discharge does not exceed pre-development discharge (assumed greenfield).

Suitable OSD design and calculations have not been demonstrated with the development application. However, detailed stormwater design and OSD calculations / modelling may be provided prior to the Section 68 approval or Construction Certificate noting that the development layout appears suitable to contain multiple locations and forms of OSD. The proposed below ground rainwater tanks provided in JKD Partners stormwater plan do not appear to be compatible with proposed sewer alignment and are likely clash. This detail will need also need to be rectified on the stormwater plans prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval or Construction Certificate.

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

· On site stormwater detention facilities including hydrological modelling or calculations summary meeting requirements of AUSPEC D5.

· Internal drainage design clearly showing how stormwater system services the development, including rainwater tanks (for BASIX purposes) will be compatible with other services on site (water, sewer etc.).

· Update terms of existing drainage easement for the interallotment drainage line in Lot 1 DP 1274111 to list the development lot as a beneficiary.

Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard.

Other Utilities

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

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

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 native vegetation and therefore does not trigger the biodiversity offsets scheme. Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is considered to be satisfied.

Waste

The Statement of Environmental Effects and plans address Council’s Developments, Public Place & Events - Waste Minimisation and Management Policy and have calculated the waste generation for the development to be:

· General waste - 1960L/fortnight.

· Commingled recycling - 1920L/fortnight.

· Food and garden organics waste – 680L/week.

The plans show 5 x 660L bins (2 general waste, 2 recycling, 1 organics) in a communal waste room at the ground floor of Unit 1. The waste storage volumes proposed would be adequate for a weekly collection service, based on the anticipated volumes in Council’s Policy.

A private waste collection service will be required for the development and appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard. As the proposal would have a private waste service, more frequent collections could be arranged as necessary if the operational waste volumes exceed those that have been planned for.

A standard condition is also recommended for the management of construction and demolition waste.

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 the application proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be used for residential purposes. The applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant. The report was forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service who have issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority without any specific conditions.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

The submitted plans indicate the use of ‘Triboard’ engineered panels for internal walls and party walls between units. Triboard is an engineered 3-layered wood panel system that is not commonly used in Australia.

The system does not appear to comply with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia and would therefore be the subject of a Performance Solution, to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Specifically, to be used in a multi-residential context, the system would need to demonstrate compliance with the structural, weatherproofing, spread of fire and sound insulation performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

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

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
The development will overshadow solar panels on the roof of the dwelling and shed at 97 Cameron Street.	The shadow diagrams submitted with the application represent the extent of shadow that would be cast by the development between at ground level on the neighbouring properties. An analysis of sun angles indicates that at 9am or 3pm midwinter (worst case scenario in this period), the shadow would fall on the neighbouring building at a height of 3.75m above ground level if the sites were at the same level. The finished floor level of the proposed dwellings adjacent to 97 Cameron Street would be 10.5m AHD and the available contour information suggests that the existing ground level at the neighbouring dwelling is approximately 12m AHD and the shed is approximately 11.5m AHD. On this basis, the shadow from the proposed development is likely to be below the eave level of both buildings for the majority of the period between 9am and 3pm midwinter. Retention of almost 6 hours of sunlight to the solar panels between 9am and 3pm is considered to be reasonable as Council has no specific controls relating to retention of solar access to solar panels, and the building is within the permitted height and setback controls for the area. The side setback of the buildings to the southern boundary is significantly greater than the minimum 3m permitted for two storey buildings under the DCP.
Loss of privacy to residents of 91 and 93 Cameron Street from first floor balconies on the northern elevation of the development.	The plans have been amended to provide 1.7m high privacy screens to the northern end of the first floor balconies adjoining 91 and 93 Cameron Street.
The development does not have enough parking and will adversely impact street parking in Cameron Street. Street parking will affect the ability for emergency services vehicles to exit the site on the opposite side of the road safely and efficiently.	The proposal satisfies the minimum total parking requirements in Council’s Development Control Plan.
The high fence and retaining wall on the northern boundary will reduce natural light and ventilation to the existing dwelling at 93 Cameron Street.	The development is located to the south of the existing dwelling at 93 Cameron Street and would not result in any loss of sunlight to the windows of the dwelling.
Construction noise impacts.	A condition has been recommended restricting construction to standard hours.
The plans note the back yards of 91 and 93 Cameron Street as vacant land, which does not accurately represent their use.	Noted. The assessment has been carried out on the basis that the land is part of the back yards of the neighbouring property.
The proposed 2100mm high fence should extend the full length of the northern boundary.	The proposal includes a 2.1m high fence directly adjoining the existing dwelling at 93 Cameron Street and a 1.8m high fence for remainder of the common boundary with this property. A 1.8m high fence is considered appropriate to protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and is consistent with the DCP requirements for privacy screening. It is also noted that the boundary fence would be built on top of a retaining wall with a height ranging from 0.5m to 1.1m and the boundary fence would already appear much higher than 1.8m when viewed from the neighbouring property.
The privacy screens should extend for the full length of the northern balconies.	The plans have been amended to provide privacy screens for the full length of the northern balconies of Units 1 to 7. The Unit 8 and 9 balconies have an outlook over the golf course and screening is not considered necessary in this location.
Additional traffic from the development will result in increased congestion and traffic safety impacts in Cameron Street.	The traffic generated by the proposed development is within the design capacity of Cameron Street. The development layout allows for vehicles to enter and exit in a forward manner.
Proposal would adversely impact the character of the street, which generally consists of larger lots with homes built in the 1950’s. Single storey development would be more appropriate in the streetscape.	The objectives of the LEP are to provide for a range of housing types and densities, and the height control of 8.5m envisages the future character of the area to include 2 storey buildings.
The existing stormwater system on the Wauchope Country Club to the west of the site already backs up and overflows into neighbouring properties during heavy rainfall. The system does not have the capacity to accommodate additional stormwater from this development.	The development will require on-site stormwater detention to restrict the discharge into the downstream stormwater system in the Wauchope Country Club. Appropriate conditions have been recommended in this regard.
The site is on the fringe of a light industrial area and higher density residential uses will create more potential for complaints about the operations of existing businesses.	The site is further from the light industrial uses than a number of other residential properties in the locality. Light industrial uses operating within their approved hours of operation and noise controls are not expected to adversely impact the proposed development.

(e) The Public Interest

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

The proposed development satisfies the provisions or objectives of the relevant planning controls and will not have any significant adverse impacts on the wider public interest.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 7.11 Contributions

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

The site has been provided contribution credit based on an existing dwelling on a large lot (>2000m²).

The proposed development will comprise 7 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and contributions have been charged accordingly.

Having considered the above, the proposed development will increase the demand for public amenities/services as listed under the following Contribution Plans:

1. Port Macquarie-Hastings Administration Building Contributions Plan 2007

2. Hastings S94 Administration Levy Contributions Plan

3. Port Macquarie-Hastings Open Space Contributions Plan 2018

4. Hastings S94 Major Roads Contributions Plan

5. Port Macquarie-Hastings Community Cultural and Emergency Services Contributions Plan 2005

As a result, s7.11 contributions apply and a condition of consent has been imposed to ensure payment.

Section 7.12 Contributions

The proposed development does not contain any commercial/industrial component. As a result, s7.12 contributions do not 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 an existing dwelling on a large lot (>2000m²).

The proposed development will comprise 7 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units and contributions have been charged accordingly.

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

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, amendments to the plans have been made and 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 ⇩. Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. Attachment 2 - Plans

3 ⇩. Attachment 3 - Contributions Estimate

AGENDA

Development Assessment Panel

04/06/2025

Item: 07

Subject: DA2024 - 810.1 DWELLING, INCLUDING CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION TO CLAUSE 4.3 (HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS) OF THE PORT MACQUARIE- HASTINGS LEP 2011 AT LOT 30 DP 285493, No. 15 BIRRAMAL DRIVE, DUNBOGAN

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Fiona Tierney

Applicant: D R Bedingfield

Owner: D R Bedingfield & C Muter

Estimated Cost: $1,044,704

Parcel no: 45761

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

Recommendation

That DA 2024 - 810.1 for a dwelling, including Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 (height of buildings) of the Port Macquarie- Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, at Lot 30, DP 285493, No. 15 Birramal Drive, Dunbogan, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a new dwelling (manufactured home and garage) at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, 7 submissions were received. In response to submissions the plans have been amended to reduce the height, remove screens on the boundary and address privacy concerns.

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

Report

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 1361m².

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 vegetation clearing and construction of new dwelling (manufactured dwelling installation) and garage.

Plans of the proposed development are at the end of this report (Attachment 2).

Application Chronology

· 27 November 2024 - Application lodged with Council.

· 7 January 2025 - Referral to Essential Energy.

· 10 January 2025 - Essential Energy comments received.

· 10 to 23 January 2025 - Notification period.

· 8 January 2025 - Council staff requested additional information - plan set.

· 8 January 2025 - Applicant responded to request for additional information.

· 17 January 2025 - Council staff requested additional information on the privacy screen on boundary, ecology and vegetation restriction.

· 21 February 2025 - Response from applicant submissions.

· 15 April 2025 - Meeting with applicant, height variation, vegetation restrictions and bushfire.

· 14 May 2025 - Amended plans received, reduced height and clarification.

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 subject lot is zoned R1 General Residential

(non-rural zone), so the SEPP applies.

Clause 4.10 - Having considered the SEPP, the application and on completion of a

site inspection, Council is not prevented from granting consent in this case for the

following reasons:

1) The property is not subject to a KPOM;

2) The subject lot is less than 1ha in size;

3) Some clearing of Blackbutts (14 trees). Compensatory plantings proposed in accordance with DCP.

4) 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.

The site is located within a coastal environment area.

Having regard to clauses 2.10 of the SEPP the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bulk, scale and size of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment. The site is located within an area zoned for R1 General Residential purposes.

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

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Clause 4.6 - Following an inspection of the site and a search of Council records, the

subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the

intended use. In particular, the site also has a long history of residential

accommodation.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004

Provision

Comment

Chapter 2 - Standards for residential development - BASIX

2.1 Standards for BASIX development and BASIX optional development

(1) Schedule 1 sets out the standards that apply to BASIX development referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of BASIX development in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

(2) Schedule 2 sets out the standards that apply to—

(a) BASIX development referred to in paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of BASIX development in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, and

(b) BASIX optional development if the development application or the application for a complying development certificate was accompanied by a BASIX certificate.

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:

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

The development does not trigger any of the traffic generating development thresholds of Clause 2.121. Referral to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is not required.

Based on the above, the proposed development satisfies the relevant clauses in 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.

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 garage, as a form of residential accommodation, is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 9.35m which does not comply with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site. Further consideration of the variation request is considered below.

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

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

Request for Clause 4.6 Variation - Height of Buildings

Clause 4.6 - This clause establishes a degree of flexibility for certain development standards in certain circumstances which have demonstrated that a better planning outcome will occur from that flexibility. In this regard, the proposal seeks a variation to the building height standard to the extent noted under Clause 4.3 above. The applicant has submitted a written request for an exception to the development standard.

Assistance on the approach to a variation is taken from NSW Land and Environment Court and NSW Court of Appeal decisions in:

1. Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 (Wehbe);

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

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

The assessment will now step through and address the requirements of Clause

4.6(3) and (4).

4.6(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

Comments: In considering the above, the Applicant has submitted additional information and a separate request in writing to justify non-compliance with the building height standard at (Attachment 3). Key details submitted during assessment set out reasons for seeking the variation as follows (as summarised):

1. The proposal meets the intent of the height clause and only exceeds the numerical development standard at the rear of the property due to the contours of the land falling to the rear.

2. Due to the contours of the site the dwelling has been designed in a manner to provide compliant off-street parking directly accessible from the street.

3. Strict compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the particular case due the nature of the site.

4. An alternate design would result in additional cut, alternate driveway design, loss of vegetation and increased impacts to adjoining properties.

5. The general area has a height limit of 8.5m therefore the façade, street presence and scale will not result in any adverse effects on the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

6. The development allows positive visual privacy, solar access and retention of view lines.

7. There is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance.

8. A compliant building would result in no better outcome or lesser impact.

9. The development otherwise complies with the of DCP and LEP provisions, zone objectives etc.

Clause 4.6(4) states the following:

4.6(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that

contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

i. the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by 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

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

The above components of Clause 4.6(4) are repeated below with associated

comments on compliance.

4.6(4)(a)(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the

matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3)

Comments: It is noted that the applicant has submitted a written request to vary

the height limit. This assessment report will now consider whether the request satisfies and adequately addresses the matters required by subclause 3.

In addressing Clause 4.6(3)(a), Wehbe established ‘five methods’ to test whether compliance with the standard was unreasonable or unnecessary:

1. The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical standard and therefore compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

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

3. The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable.

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

5. The zoning of particular land was unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Having regard to the ‘five methods’, the first method is considered applicable, and the following comment is provided:

· The objectives of the height standard are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical 8.5m height standard - refer to comments on Clause 4.3 above in this report. Therefore, compliance with the standard would be unnecessary in this case.

· In addressing Clause 4.6(3)(b) and the fact that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, the following comments are provided:

1. The proposed development will meet the objectives of maximum building height. In considering the height variation, compliance with the following objectives of Clause 4.3 of the LEP must be considered:

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

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

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

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

In this case, the variation is compliant with the Clause 4.3 objectives for the following reasons:

i. The building presents as single storey from the street and is a fairly modest design that nestles within the landscape and vegetation, due to the pole design framework. From the rear is presents as two storeys, which is consistent with other development in the area and normally what is allowed on surrounding blocks via an 8.5m height limit. Many dwellings are 3 levels in the same precinct.

ii. The majority of the building is below the height limit where the scale is intended to be limited at the rear of the site.

iii. The building complies with the FSR provisions and covers a low area of the site, which is normally representative of acceptable bulk.

iv. The variation only applies to limited section of the rear of the site and centrally located.

v. The dwelling and height variation do not create any adverse visual impact, view loss, impact on privacy or significant loss of solar access.

vi. The building will not have any significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties.

vii. The proposed variation will not result in a development which is out of character with that envisioned for the immediate locality.

viii. The variation is created by a change in existing topography and the building is fully compliant otherwise.

ix. The justification provided by the applicant is supported by the assessing officer.

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

Section indicating 8.5m line and area of variation.

Variation of Clause 4.3 of LEP 2011 is considered acceptable in this case.

(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.	Yes
Cut and Fill Regrading
4	a) Development shall not exceed a maximum cut of 1.0m and fill of 1.0m measured vertically above the ground level (existing) at a distance of 1.0m outside the perimeter of the external walls of the building (This does not apply to buildings where such cut and fill is fully retained within or by the external walls of the building).	The site has a significant fall to the central vegetation bowl, with approximate 13m fall from west to east.	Yes- Cut and fill generally retained within building envelope
5	a) A certified practicing structural engineer must certify any retaining wall greater than 1.0m.	Standard condition recommended.	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.	No front fencing and retaining wall combination is proposed.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provision - B3: Hazards Management*
Bushfire Hazard Management
18	a) APZs are to be located outside of environmental protection zones and wholly provided within private land. Note perimeter roads provided as part of a residential subdivision are classified as being part of the subdivision and not a separate permissible land use within environment protection zones.	No APZ proposed on environmental land.	Yes
Flooding
19	a) Development must comply with Council’s Floodplain Management Plan and Flood Policies.	Site is not identified as flood prone.	N/A

*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.	Required: 1x parking space for primary dwelling required. Proposed: Detached double garage proposed + opportunity for stacked parking within the driveway. Proposal exceeds the minimum requirements.	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.	No front building line applies as the site is located within a private estate and fronts a private road.	Yes
28	d) Parking design and layout is provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 - Parking facilities - Off-street car parking.	Capable of complying.	Yes
35	a) All parking and manoeuvring spaces must be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Capable of complying.	Yes
35	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 complying.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Part B - General Provisions - B5: Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
Crime Prevention
43	a) The development addresses the generic principles of crime prevention: − Casual surveillance and sightlines; − Land use mix and activity generators; − Definition of use and ownership; − Basic exterior building design; − Lighting; − Way-finding; and − Predictable routes and entrapment locations; − as described in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.	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. Lighting and CCTV can be installed retrospectively by the owner, should they wish to have further security in the future.	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 front building line applies as the site fronts a private road. The setback is considered reasonable and appropriate and is set below road level.	N/A
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	The garage is set back a minimum 1.85m and the dwelling is setback 8.433m to the front boundary. As the road is a private road no primary building line applies. This is consistent with adjoining properties.	N/A
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.	Attached double garage is set in below road level and with the entrance from the North at 90 degrees to road. Landscaping screening is provided minimising dominance of garage in streetscape. Again, setback is to a private road and DCP restrictions do not apply.	Acceptable
	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.		N/A
	c) Driveway crossovers are no greater than 5.0m in width.	To private road max 5m.	Yes
	d) Where a dual occupancy or attached dwelling is proposed on a corner lot a garage and driveway is provided on each road frontage.	Provision does not apply.	N/A
Side and Rear Setbacks
46	a) A minimum rear boundary setback of 4m is to be provided to dwellings (including verandahs, patios and decks).	12.85m to rear boundary from deck.	Yes
	b) A minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to sheds and swimming pools subject to achieving minimum required private open space area.		N/A
	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.	Provision not utilised.	N/A
47	a) Ground floors (being <1m above existing ground level) should be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.	Minimum side setback to ground floor is 900mm to southern boundary and 2.8m to northern boundary from deck.	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.	First floor setback to northern boundary is a minimum 2.8m. There is sufficient setback and level change for no significant overshadowing to occur.	Yes
	c) First floors and above should have building walls that step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm articulation. Where first floors and above are setback >3m, wall articulation is not required.	Main portion of building set back >3m from side boundaries.	Yes
Private Open Space
48	a) All dwellings should have a minimum area of private open space of 35m2, which includes a principal private open space area with: − a minimum dimension of 4m x 4m, and − a maximum grade of 5% for minimum 4m x 4m of the total open space requirement, and − direct accessibility from a ground floor living area and orientated to maximise use.	The proposal exceeds the minimum 35m2 private open space area provisions, including a 4m x 4m area at appropriate grade and accessible off a living area.	Yes
	b) Private open space may include clothes drying areas and garbage storage.	Capable of complying.	Yes
Public Domain and Fencing
49	a) Front fences built forward of the building line for the primary road frontage should be detailed on the development application plans.		N/A
	b) Solid Front fences up to 1.2m high should be: − Setback 1.0m from the front boundary, and − Suitably landscaped to reduce visual impact, and − Provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites.	N/A	N/A
	b) Front fences proposed to be more than 1.2m high should be a maximum of 1.8m in height, above existing front property boundary level, and either: − Include landscaped recesses having minimum dimensions of 1.8m long x 900mm deep which occupy no less than 50% of the total length of the fence, or − be erected up to the front boundary for a maximum length of 6.0m or 50% of the street frontage,	N/A	N/A
	c) have openings which make it not less than 25% transparent (no individual opening more than 30mm wide);	N/A	N/A
	d) provide a 3m x 3m splay for corner sites, and	N/A	N/A
	e) provide a 900mm x 900mm splay for vehicle driveway entrances.	N/A	N/A
Bulk and Scale
51	a) Direct views between indoor living rooms and principal private open space of adjacent dwellings, including proposed dwellings approved on adjoining lots, including possible dwellings on future lots, should be obscured or screened where: − Ground and first floor (and above) indoor living room windows are within a 9m radius. − Direct views between principal private open space areas where within a 12m radius. − Direct views between indoor living rooms of dwellings into the principal area of private open space of other dwellings within a 12m radius.	Given the bushland setting, numerous decks and windows exist within adjacent dwellings. A 1.8m privacy screen will be proposed to the southern elevation and a planter box with screen plantings proposed along the northern deck as shown on plan. Fin walls are proposed to the rear that will also provide additional privacy between adjacent dwellings. Retention of trees will also assist in increasing privacy.	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.	Refer to comments on 51(a) above.	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.	Refer to comments on 51(a) above.	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.	Refer to comments on 51(a) above.	Yes

Ancillary Development

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.

Yes

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

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

(iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations

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 is located on the eastern side of Birramal Drive, Dunbogan and is a vacant vegetated lot.

Existing development in the locality typically comprise a mixture of two storey and

three storey dwellings set within a gated estate.

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 traffic generation resulting from the development.

Water Supply Connection

Service available – details required with Section 68 application.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Sewer Connection

The proposed works are to be clear of the existing sewer junction. The required distance off the junction is to be determined in relation to the depth.

Service available - details required with Section 68 application.

An appropriate standard condition is recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

Collection and disposal of stormwater is capable of being managed. Specific details will be required with Section 68 application. 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.

Other land resources

The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant

mineral or agricultural resource.

Water cycle

The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on water

resources and the water cycle.

Soils

The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on soils in

terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to a standard condition

requiring erosion and sediment controls to be in place prior to and during

construction.

Air and microclimate

The construction and/or operations of the proposed development will not result in any

significant adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will require removal of native vegetation. The application is supported by an Ecological assessment that has been reviewed by Council’s Ecologist and extracts form comments provided below:

· The site vegetation comprises a small part of a larger remnant of PCT 3544 Coastal Sands Apple-Blackbutt Forest which falls within the community title Timbarra Estate.

· No threatened flora were detected or considered potential to occur.

· No EECs occur on site or in the study area.

· Habitat values of the site are limited by previous underscrubbing of the understorey, with 1 low value actual hollow-bearing tree present being the main habitat feature.

· Site is likely to form part of the home range of Squirrel Gliders and support wide ranging raptors and bats, but lacks any particular value for the Koala.

· The site is <1ha, hence the Chapter 4 Koala Habitat Protection 2021 of the BC SEPP 2021 does not apply.

· The proposal will require removal of approximately 570m2 (including trees previously approved for removal) for the dwelling and associated infrastructure, with modification of most of the current vegetation over the approximately 1361m2 lot for bushfire standards compliance. Eight current canopy trees are retained around the periphery.

· Compensatory plantings under DCP 2013 only apply to loss of 14 Blackbutts, which are impractical to retain on site. The proponent has proposed to plant 3 Koala food trees, with number limited by compliance with bushfire provisions. The remainder of the DCP offset can be met via PMHC’s Fees & Charges system.

· Assessment under the Five Part Tests and EPBC Act MNES Assessment determined the impact, while a generic negative effect in terms of incremental loss of habitat, is unlikely to be of sufficient order of magnitude to have a significant impact. Hence a BDAR is not considered required.

Council’s ecologist has concurred with the report and has recommended conditions to be included in the consent.

Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is considered to be satisfied.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste

and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site

management condition and private collection arrangement 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 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.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The applicant has submitted a bushfire report. An assessment of bushfire risk having

regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 including vegetation

classification and slope conclude that a Bushfire Attack Level of 29 shall be

required.

Management of bushfire risk is acceptable subject to BAL construction levels being

implemented and APZ and fuel levels being maintained. An appropriate condition is recommended to ensure BAL 29 construction is incorporated into the construction plans.

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

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is not

considered to have any significant adverse social impacts.

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse economic impacts on

the locality. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment

in the construction industry, which will lead to flow impacts such as expenditure in the

area.

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and

will fit into the locality. No adverse impacts likely.

Construction

Construction impacts are considered capable of being managed, standard

construction and site management conditions have been recommended.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed development is not considered to have any significant adverse

cumulative impacts on the natural or built environment or the social and economic

attributes of the locality.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The proposal will 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

7 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
Recommendation preferred koala food trees.	Suitable species have been indicated in the ecological report recommendations.
Concern that the dwelling will be constructed within no build areas and tree retention areas.	The community management statement indicates a vegetation retention zone exists ( see map opposite) at the rear of the site (surrounding the C2 zoned bowl) located centrally within the estate. No record of a “no-build” area could be located (as mentioned in a number of submissions) and contact was made with the chairperson of the Timbarra Estate committee. Discussions were held with applicant, chairperson and bushfire consultant during the assessment process. The intention is to retain all trees within the designated zone and manage the vegetation below to a standard to assist in bushfire protection. This is consistent with the treatment of the C2 bowl area. The chairperson has submitted an email stating this is a requirement of the estate and that the rear of these properties have been managed/slashed over many years. Accordingly, it is considered the intent of the restriction has been maintained through the retention of the trees in this zone and compensatory plantings.
Oppressive/ screen on boundary that will block movement of fauna within estate and overshadow adjoining properties.	The applicant has removed the proposed boundary screens from the plans.
Request for plan of management during building works.	Standard construction conditions will be imposed. The internal roads and assets are not owned or maintained by Council. It is recommended that the estate manage their private/common areas in accordance with any estate policies.
Height is in excess of allowable 8.5m under planning guidelines and is out of character with the area.	The dwelling presents as a single dwelling but the poles that are required to enable access from road and the steep topography results in the dwelling exceeding the 8.5m limit. The dwelling has been lowered slightly to a less than 10% variation during the assessment process. It sits below road level and presents as less than 8.5m when viewed from the adjoining dwelling at 17 Birramal. It is considered that the dwelling is in keeping with the existing desired character and bulk and scale of adjoining dwellings.
Privacy- request originally proposed 1.8m screens to southern elevation deck/walkway.	Given the character of the area and windows and decks constructed to take advantage of the bushland setting, there is potential for privacy impacts between dwellings. In this instance it is recommended that a 1.8m privacy screening to be provided along the southern edge of the deck/walkway. Suitable screen plantings are to be maintained in the planter boxes to the northern elevation. A condition is proposed in the recommended conditions.

(e) The Public Interest

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

N/A

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 ⇩. Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions

2 ⇩. Attachment 2 - Plans

3 ⇩. Attachment 3 - Clause 4.6 Assessment

Member	11/12/24	05/02/25	05/03/25	19/03/25	16/04/25	21/05/25
David Crofts (Independent Chair)	P		A	P	P	P
Tony McNamara (Independent Member)	P	P	P			A
Chris Gee (Independent Member)		P	P	P	P
Murray Blackburn-Smith (Independent Member)		P		P	P	P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Services)	P	P	P	P	A	P
Other attendees
Melissa Watkins (Director Community, Planning and Environment)
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)
Chris Gardiner (Development Assessment Planner)	P		P			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)
Kate Kennedy (Building Surveyor)
Warren Wisemantel (Building Surveyor)
Bob Slater (Development Assessment Planner)
Alton Dick (Stormwater Engineer)
Fiona Tierney (Development Assessment Planner)
Nicholas Powers (Development Assessment Planner)

5 February	Function Room	2.00pm
19 February	Function Room	2.00pm
5 March	Function Room	2.00pm
19 March	Function Room	2.00pm
2 April	Function Room	2.00pm
16 April	Function Room	2.00pm
7 May	Function Room	2.00pm
21 May	Function Room	2.00pm
4 June	Function Room	2.00pm
18 June	Function Room	2.00pm
2 July	Function Room	2.00pm
16 July	Function Room	2.00pm
6 August	Function Room	2.00pm
20 August	Function Room	2.00pm
3 September	Function Room	2.00pm
17 September	Function Room	2.00pm
1 October	Function Room	2.00pm
15 October	Function Room	2.00pm
5 November	Function Room	2.00pm
19 November	Function Room	2.00pm
10 December	Function Room	2.00pm