Development Assessment Panel

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

location:

 

Function Room,

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council,

17 Burrawan Street,

Port Macquarie

time:

 

2.00pm


Development Assessment Panel

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

Functions:

 

1.       To review development application reports and conditions.

 

2.       To determine development applications outside of staff delegations.

 

3.       To refer development applications to Council for determination where necessary.

 

4.       To provide a forum for objectors and applicants to make submissions on applications before DAP.

 

5.       To maintain transparency for the determination of development applications.

 

 

Delegated Authority:

 

Pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993 delegation to determine development applications under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 having regard to the relevant environmental planning instruments, development control plans and Council policies.

 

 

Format Of The Meeting:

 

1.       Panel meetings shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practise for Council Sub-Committees, except where varied by this Charter.

 

2.       Meetings shall be "Open" to the public.

 

3.       The Panel will hear from applicants and objectors or their representatives. Where considered necessary, the Panel will conduct site inspections which will be open to the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

Member

10/04/13

24/04/13

08/05/13

12/06/13

26/06/13

Paul Drake

A

P

P

P

P

Matt Rogers

P

 

 

 

P

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

A

 

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

A

P

P

P

P

P

Cliff Toms

David Troemel (alternate)

P

P

A

P

 

P

P

 

 

Member

10/07/13

24/07/13

14/08/13

28/08/13

11/09/13

Paul Drake

P

P

P

P

P

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

Member

25/09/13

09/10/13

23/10/13

 

 

Paul Drake

P

P

P

 

 

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

 

 

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

 

 

David Troemel

P

P

P

 

 

 

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

        

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

 

Items of Business

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 1

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 1

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 1

04           Disclosures of Interest....................................................................................... 5

05           DA 2013/0346 - ADDITIONS TO DWELLING........................................................ 9

06           DA2013 - 0458 - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING - LOT 39 DP 231816, 33 MATTHEW FLINDERS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE............................................................ 72

07           DA 2013/0515 - ADDITIONS TO MEDICAL CENTRE & INCREASED HOURS OF OPERATION LOTS 1 & 2 DP 1177043, 150 & 152 GREENMEADOWS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE....... 101

08           DA2013 - 0593 PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION - LOT 105 DP 1183714 ECHNIDA STREET, PORT MACQUARIE. 119

09           DA 2013 - 0464 - LOG PROCESSING WORKS, LOT 1 DP 779638, 2952 OXLEY HIGHWAY, HUNTINGDON............................................................................................... 143

10           DA 2013 - 0216 - STAGED 23 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH RESIDUE LOT AT LOT 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 PACIFIC DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE............................... 167  

11           General Business

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

Item:          01

Subject:     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

 

"I acknowledge that we are gathered on Birpai Land. I pay respect to the Birpai Elders both past and present. I also extend that respect to all other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present."

 

 

Item:          02

Subject:     APOLOGIES

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the apologies received be accepted.

 

 

Item:          03

Subject:     CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 23 October 2013 be confirmed.

 


pmhc_logo_VER_smallMINUTES                                                                                      Development Assessment

                                                                                                                           Panel Meeting

                                                                                                                                  23/10/2013

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

Paul Drake

Dan Croft

David Fletcher

David Troemel

 

Other Attendees:

Fiona Tierney

Clinton Tink

Bevan Crofts

 

 

The meeting opened at 2.02pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

02       APOLOGIES

Nil.

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 9 October 2013 be confirmed.

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

Dan Croft declared a Non-Pecuniary - less than significant interest in Item 7 - DA 2013 - 0190 Completion of Partially Constructed Carport, Lot 10 DP 251011, 13 Tallowood Avenue, Wauchope as he is the author of the report.  In  accordance with the Development Assessment Panel Charter , Dan Croft did not vote on the item.

 

05       DA 2013 - 372 - TEMPORARY ROAD AT LOT A DP 382960, 744 BEECHWOOD ROAD, BEECHWOOD

CONSENSUS:

 

Speaker:

Tony Thorne (o)

 

That DA 2013 - 372 for a temporary road at Lot A, DP 382960, No. 744 Beechwood Road, Beechwood, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and as amended below:

·           Amend condition B(9) to read as follows:

“A notation is to be placed on the title of Lot A DP 382960 and any associated lot created from the subdivision of Lot A DP 382960, advising future owners that the temporary road approved under DA 2013/372 is only temporary and will be closed once the number of lots and/or dwellings with access to the temporary road exceeds 30, including any residue or upon construction and dedication of either the road link to the east to Beechwood Road or a road link to the west as shown by the approved subdivision of the land under DA 2007/0701, whichever of the above occurs first. In addition, the notation is to outline that the obligation to construct the Neville road intersection prior to the release of the 30th lot approved under DA 2007/701 pursuant to the existing planning agreement titled ‘The Beechwood Water Supply, Sewerage Services and Road Works Planning Agreement’ executed on 16 February 2010 will apply despite the potential existence of the temporary road access to lot A DP 382960.”

 

 

06       DA 2013 - 0481 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED SHED INCLUDING CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION TO CLAUSE 4.3 ( HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS) PORT MACQUARIE HASTINGS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2011 - LOT 5 DP 22158, 23 ORR STREET, PORT MACQUARIE

CONSENSUS:

That it be a recommendation to Council that DA 2013-481 for a alterations and additions to a two storey dwelling house and construction of a detached shed, including clause 4.6 variation to clause 4.3 (height of buildings) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 5, DP 22158, No. 23 Orr Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

07       DA2013 - 0190 COMPLETION OF PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT, LOT 10 DP 251011, 13 TALLOWOOD AVENUE WAUCHOPE

 

Dan Croft did not vote on this item.

 

The Chair tabled a letter from Alan Gill objecting to the proposal.

CONSENSUS:

1.       That DA 2013 - 0190 for completion of partially constructed carport at Lot 10, DP251011, No.13 Tallowood Avenue, Wauchope be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

 

-    The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives (OB2 and 3) and performance provisions (DP 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2) of Port Macquarie- Hastings Council Development Control Plan 2011 and will have an adverse impact on the streetscape of Ironbark Close.

2.       Upon refusal of the application, the matter be forwarded to Council’s compliance team for appropriate compliance action.

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 2.28pm.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

Item:          04

Subject:     DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

Name of Meeting:     ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Meeting Date:           ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Item Number:            ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Subject:                      ………………………………………………………………………..

                                    …………………………………………………….……………...…..

 

 

I, ..................................................................................... 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:  ....................................................................................................

 

.......................................................................................................................................

 

 

 

Signed:  .........................................................................  Date:  ..................................

 

 

Growth Bar b&w(Further explanation is provided on the next page)


 

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that a Council official could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out their public duty. Interests can be of two types: pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

 

All interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary are required to be fully disclosed and in writing.

 

Pecuniary Interest

 

A pecuniary interest is an interest that a Council official has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the Council official. (section 442)

 

A Council official will also be taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if that Council official’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the Council official or a partner or employer of the Council official, or a company or other body of which the Council official, or a nominee, partner or employer of the Council official is a member, has a pecuniary interest in the matter. (section 443)

 

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting. (section 451)

 

Non-Pecuniary

 

A non-pecuniary interest is an interest that is private or personal that the Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act.

 

Non-pecuniary interests commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

 

The political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest.

 

The management of a non-pecuniary interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

 

As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest, but it involves:

(a)   A relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the Council official or of the Council official’s spouse, current or former spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household.

(b)   Other relationships 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 a Council official an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

 

If a Council official declares a non-pecuniary significant interest it must be managed in one of two ways:

1.     Remove the source of the conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

2.     Have no involvement in the matter, by taking no part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting, as if the provisions in section 451(2) apply.

 

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

 

If a Council official has declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest and it does not require further action, they must provide an explanation of why they consider that the conflict does not require further action in the circumstances.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

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 land in which councillor or an  associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)i

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 

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).

 

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 

Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

 

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land iii

[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

[Tick or cross one box]

 

Appreciable financial gain.

 

Appreciable financial loss.

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

 

Important Information

 

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993.  You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular.  Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i.   Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relativeiv or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may 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.

ii.  Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 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 section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

iii.   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 section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest—see section 448 (g) (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993.

iv.   Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 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.

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          05

 

Subject:     DA 2013/0346 - ADDITIONS TO DWELLING

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Property:                 LOT 32 DP261737, 36 OCEAN VIEW TERRACE, PORT MACQUARIE

Applicant:               COLLINS W COLLINS

Owner:                    AUSLING F

Application Date:   3 JULY 2013

Estimated Cost:     $99,250

Location:                 PORT MACQUARIE

File no:                    DA 2013/0346

Parcel no:               15598

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/0346 for a additions to the dwelling at Lot 32, DP 261737, No. 36 Ocean View Terrace, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

 

1.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(b) the proposal will have a significant impact in terms of overshadowing on the primary open space area of the adjacent property at 38 Ocean View Terrace.

2.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(a)(iii) the proposed development fails to meet development provision 5.2 and the relevant objectives of the DCP.

3.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(e) it would be contrary to the public interest to vary the requirements and intent of the DCP in this instance.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for an addition to an existing dwelling house at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, one (1) submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 852.2m2.

 

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:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl8316_C0A8C986:0141EC85E10F:1819:67F8827C%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141EC85E10F:1819:67F8827C

 

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

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl5210_C0A8C986:0141EC85E10F:1819:67F8827C%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141EC85E10F:1819:67F8827C

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Additions to the existing dwelling in the form of first floor additions and lower level cabana.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    3 July 2013 - Application lodged.

·    18 July - 1 August 2013 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

·    9 August 2013 - Applicant advised that clause 4.6 variation required for height variation and concern expressed about impact of overshadowing. It was recommended that the application be withdrawn.

·    22 August 2013 - Staff met with applicant to discuss overshadowing impact. Advised to provide additional supporting documentation and clause 4.6 variation if proceeding with application.

·    26 August 2013 - Applicant provided shadow diagrams comparing a 3m side setback and 8.5m height (with different roof design) to the proposed design to justify overshadowing impacts.

·    28 August 2013 - Applicant advised that comparison should be made using the same roof design for review. Additional supporting information and clause 4.6 variation to be provided should they wish to proceed with the application.

·    4 October 2013 - Report provided from Love Project Management providing justification for overshadowing and clause 4.6 variation to height limit.

·    10 October 2013 - Additional information provided to objector for opportunity to review and make further comment.

·    17 October 2013 - Report provided from Chris Jenkins Architect on behalf of the adjoining land owner (objector).

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(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 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, 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.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71. In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clauses 8 and 12 to 16 of SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of Hastings LEP 2011 inclusive the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

a)      any restricted access (or opportunities for access) to the coastal foreshore;

b)      any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on the scenic qualities of the coast;

c)      any identifiable adverse impacts on any known flora and fauna (or their natural environment);

d)      subject to any identifiable adverse coastal processes or hazards;

e)      any identifiable conflict between water and land based users of the area;

f)       any identifiable adverse impacts on any items of archaeological/heritage; and

g)      reduce the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality.

In particular, the site is predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

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

In accordance with clause 6, a BASIX (certificate number A165641) 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.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for additions to a single dwelling house is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

 

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the established residential locality.

 

In accordance with Clause 2.6AA, the part demolition requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008.

 

In accordance with clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposal from above ground level (existing) is 9.065m which exceeds the height limit of 8.5m applicable to the site. The applicant has lodged a clause 4.6 variation seeking the departure from the to the height limit standard. 

 

In accordance with clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.5:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applicable to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 4.6 a variation to the 8.5m height limit is proposed and the applicant has lodged a clause 4.6 objection. The maximum overall height of the proposal from above ground level (existing) is 9.065m which exceeds the height limit by 0.565m. It is noted that a small portion of the existing roof line exceeds the 8.5m height limit (refer to elevation plans). Having regard for the Department of Planning and Infrastructure Circular PS 08-014, it is noted that where a variation is within 10% of the development standard, it does not have to be determined by full Council.

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a)     to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)     to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

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.

The applicant has provided a written request and provided the following justification relating to the objectives of the height of building clause:

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

Applicant’s comments: The dwellings in this area are typically two storey in nature with further lower levels incorporated as the buildings typically step down the sloping sites. The bulk and scale of the extensions are consistent with the dwellings in the locality and will present as a two storey dwelling from Ocean View Terrace.

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

Applicant’s comments: The prominent view line for properties in this locality is to the east. The site is set lower that surrounding properties and the proposal will not affect impact on views. The design of the proposed additions have ensured privacy is addressed including screening of south facing elevated deck areas. An analysis of solar access on the adjoining land to the south has been undertaken and it is clear that the primary living and open space areas of this dwelling will not be impacted by shading, and the property will retain a good level of solar access, particularly the north-eastern portion of the dwelling and property.

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

Applicant’s comments: The subject land and adjoining properties do not contain items of heritage significance.

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

Applicant’s comments: The proposal is consistent with the height of properties in this locality.

It is agreed that the proposed additions to the dwelling would be consistent with the existing height, bulk and scale of dwellings in the locality.

It is agreed that the proposed additions will not compromise views or adversely impact upon privacy of existing development.

The extent of impact upon solar access to the property adjoining to the south is debatable. The impacts of overshadowing are considered in detail later within the report. In summary it is considered that the reduced side setback is the primary reason for the overshadowing impacts. When the proposed building height is considered in conjunction with the reduced side setback, solar access impacts are deemed to be more than minimal.

It is agreed that the site does not contain or adjoin any items of heritage significance.

It is agreed that the nominated 8.5m height provides a transition in built form and land use intensity which is reflective of this area.

In accordance with clause 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 Director-General has been obtained.

Having regard to the above the applicant’s written request addresses the matters specified in subclause (3).

The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of this clause because allowing flexibility in this particular circumstance will not provide better outcomes for and from the development.

In accordance with clause 5.6 the original application proposed to exceed the height limit as an architectural roof feature. The applicant was advised that the proposed extension of the existing roof line and form did not represent an architectural roof feature. Subsequently a clause 4.6 variation to the height limit was lodged.

In accordance with clause 7.2, the following comments are provided with regard to the likely earthworks proposed to be undertaken as part of the proposal:

·     the works will be unlikely to lead to any significant identifiable adverse effects upon existing drainage patterns, soil stability of the site or adjoining/adjacent sites, any nearby water course or known environmental sensitive area within the immediate locality.

·     the works will be unlikely to adversely affect potential additional future landuses on the site.

·     the existing soil quality and structure will not present an identifiable constraint to the construction of the proposal on the site.

·     no fill is proposed to be imported to the site to construct the development.

·     the likely change in levels associated with the proposed development will not have any identifiable adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining/adjacent properties to the site.

·     the site does not contain any known items of aboriginal or other cultural significance.

In accordance with clause 7.13 satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

The requirements of this LEP are therefore not satisfied. In particular the clause 4.6 objection is not consistent with the objectives of the clause.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

Ancillary development:

·    4.8m max. height

·    Single storey

·    60m2 max. area

·    24 degree max. roof pitch

·    Not located in front setback

Cabana proposed in rear yard.

Approx 3.8m max height.

Single storey.

Approx 20m2.

15 degree roof pitch.

Located in rear yard.

Yes

Articulation zone:

·    Min. 3m front setback

·    25% max. width of dwelling

 

N/A

 

N/A

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

·    Min. 6.0m classified road

·    Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot

·    Min. 3.0m secondary road

·    Min. 2.0m Laneway

·    Garage 5.5m min. or 1m behind front facade

 

No change to existing front setback.

 

N/A

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

Cabana setback 1.761m

Dwelling setback unchanged.

No*

Side setbacks:

·    Ground floor 3.8m wall height = min. 0.9m

·    Floors >3.8m wall height = min. 3m setback

·    Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

 

Ground floor existing 1.55m.

 

First floor south side = 1.55m.

First floor north side unchanged.

 

Unarticulated length max 10.6m.

 

 

N/A

 

No*

 

 

Yes

 

35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade

Sufficient private open space provided.

Yes

Privacy:

·    Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

·    Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m

·    Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

 

Adequate screening proposed to maintain privacy between open space areas of adjoining dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South facing bathroom window. Approx 1.2m sill height. It is anticipated that the window will be frosted or opaque. If consent was to be granted a condition to this affect should be applied.

 

1.5m privacy screen provided on south facing aspect of first and upper floor balconies.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conditioned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Assessment Checklist for DCP 2011 – General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

Minimal to nil excavation proposed.

Yes

Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report.

N/A

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

N/A

Off-street Parking spaces:

·    1 space = single dwelling (behind building line) and dual occupancies

 

Existing double garage.

Yes

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 4.1 requiring a minimum rear boundary setback of 4m. The proposed cabana to be located in the rear yard is setback 1.761m from the rear boundary.

 

The relevant objectives are to allow adequate natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private open space areas and to provide useable yard areas and open space.

 

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

 

·     The cabana is single storey (3.8m max height) and open in design.

·     There are no identified impacts upon natural light and ventilation with the adjoining dwelling to the east.

·     There are no impacts upon open space areas of the adjoining dwelling to the east and there is still significant useable open space area for the subject site.

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision DP5.2 requiring first floors and above to be setback a minimum of 3m from the side boundary. The standard provides that the side boundary setback may be reduced down to 900mm where it can be demonstrated that the adjoining property primary living areas and private open space areas will not be overshadowed for more than 3hrs between 9am-3pm on 21 June. The proposed first floor southern side setback ranges from 1.55m to 1.58m.

 

The relevant objectives are to reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy and to provide visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

 

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams and supporting report from Love Project Management, dated October 2013, advising that the reduced side setback will not adversely impact upon solar access to the primary living areas and private open space areas of the adjoining southern dwelling (38 Ocean View Terrace).

 

In summary the applicant provides that the reduced side setback is to enable the first floor extension to line up with the load bearing walls of the existing ground floor. Providing a 3m setback would require substantial structural works and render the project unviable.

 

In justifying the reduced side setback the applicant has indicated that the adjoining dwelling contains numerous outdoor areas and that the primary living and open space areas are located on the first floor. These areas contain the kitchen, dining, lounge rooms and direct connection to open space deck areas facing north and east taking advantage of the views. The applicant also suggests that a significant amount of ground floor open space areas will experience sunlight for a period of at least 3 hours on 21 June.  As such, the applicant provides that the shadow diagrams demonstrate the primary living and open space areas on the first floor and some areas of the ground floor are not impacted by overshadowing and satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP.

 

The owner of 38 Ocean View Terrace has submitted a supporting report to their objection prepared by Chris Jenkins Architects, dated 17 October 2013. The report argues that the development will reduce solar access to their principal area of ground level private open space to less than the minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21. The report specifies that the impact arises from non-compliances with the height, side setback, rear setback and solar access provision of the DCP. The report provides that as a general principle, a development that complies with all planning controls is usually considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. It is argued that a more skilful design could provide the proponent with the same development potential while minimising overshadowing impacts upon the adjoining neighbour.

 

The objectors report refers to the energy conservation and access objective OB17 and provision DP17.1 within the DCP. The objective being to avoid the potential for significant overshadowing of habitable rooms and private open spaces. The provision requires that sunlight to the principle area of ground level private open space of adjacent properties shall not be reduced to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21. The report suggests that the ground level north facing courtyard and swimming pool area are the principle open space area. The report then refers to the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant to suggest that sunlight to these areas will be reduced to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

 

In summary the objector believes that the cumulative effect of non compliance with the height limit, side setback and solar access standards in the LEP and DCP will cause the proposed development to unreasonably impact upon solar access to principle ground level private open space at 38 Ocean View Terrace.

 

It should be noted that objectives OB17 and development provision DP17.1 of the DCP apply to Residential Flat Development, Tourist Accommodation and Mixed Use Development. The proposed development is none of the above and technically these provision do not apply to the development. However the provision does give some guidance in terms of solar access to ground level private open space being considered more valuable than first floors or above.

 

Having regard to development provision DP5.2 of the DCP it is important to note that reference is made to ‘the adjoining property primary living areas and private opens space areas’. There is no distinction between ground floor or first floor areas and no definition of either term within the DCP.

 

The Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 provides the following definition of private open space:

 

private open space means an area external to a building (including an area of land, terrace, balcony or deck) that is used for private outdoor purposes ancillary to the use of the building.

 

The following definition of principle private open space is provided in the General Housing Code (SEPP Exempt and Complying Development) 2008:

 

principal private open space means an area that:

 

(a)  is directly accessible from, and adjacent to, a habitable room, other than a bedroom, and

(b)  is at least 3m wide, and

(c)  is not steeper than 1:50 gradient.

 

The layout of the adjoining dwelling contains a north facing level grassed courtyard and swimming pool with surrounding deck area at ground level. Both areas meet the definition of private open space area. The courtyard is directly accessed from a ground floor rumpus room. The pool area is directly accessed from the ground floor pool room. Based on the use of these areas and unrestricted nature of the space and notion that ground level open space is more valuable than first floor or above it is considered that this ground floor area is the primary open space area. The first floor deck whilst being directly accessible from the primary living area is considered to be restrictive in nature and not valued as highly as ground floor open space.

 

The planning principle firstly referenced in Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai [2004] NSWLEC 347, Roseth SC and later revised In The Benevolent Society v Waverly Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082, Moore SC concerning access to sun light provides some guidance in determining acceptable impact. The terms of the principle are as follows:

 

Where guidelines dealing with the hours of sunlight on a window or open space leave open the question what proportion of the window or open space should be in sunlight, and whether the sunlight should be measured at floor, table or a standing person’s eye level, assessment of the adequacy of solar access should be undertaken with the following principles in mind, where relevant:

 

·     The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed.) At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

·     The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

·     Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

·     For a window, door or glass wall to be assessed as being in sunlight, regard should be had not only to the proportion of the glazed area in sunlight but also to the size of the glazed area itself. Strict mathematical formulae are not always an appropriate measure of solar amenity. For larger glazed areas, adequate solar amenity in the built space behind may be achieved by the sun falling on comparatively modest portions of the glazed area.

·     For private open space to be assessed as receiving adequate sunlight, regard should be had of the size of the open space and the amount of it receiving sunlight. Self-evidently, the smaller the open space, the greater the proportion of it requiring sunlight for it to have adequate solar amenity. A useable strip adjoining the living area in sunlight usually provides better solar amenity, depending on the size of the space. The amount of sunlight on private open space should ordinarily be measured at ground level but regard should be had to the size of the space as, in a smaller private open space, sunlight falling on seated residents may be adequate.

·     Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

·     In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

 

In response to the relevant points within the planning principle the following comments are provided:

 

·    Density of development within this area is considered to be low and given the height limit and side setback standards there would be an expectation that the primary north facing open space area would retain this sunlight.

·    The amount of sunlight lost in relation to the whole property is provided for in the figures within the report provided by Love Project Management. The amount of sunlight lost to the primary ground floor open space area is considered substantial.

·    No alternative sensitive design measures have been investigated, noting the applicant’s reason being the likely substantial costs.

·    Not applicable in this instance as no windows are affected.

·    The primary open space area is considered to be the north facing courtyard with pool and surrounding deck area. The shadow diagrams indicate a substantial portion of these areas will be overshadowed.

·    The shadow diagrams take into account fencing and change in levels between the properties. It is noted that the site of the development is cut in and is lower than the adjoining residence to the south. Vegetation has not been taken into consideration with regard to impact of shadows.

·    The site is located within a well established residential area. No change to height limit or density has been planned for this area.

 

Having regard to all of the above and in particular the relevant development provision of the DCP is clear in that any reduction in the side setback of 3m would need to demonstrate that both the primary living area and private open space areas are not overshadowed for more than 3 hours at 21 June. The relevant objectives are to reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and provide visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings. To this extent is considered that the increased bulk of the south facing elevation as a result of the height and reduced side setback will result in overshadowing of the adjoining residents primary open space area for more than 3 hours. The variation is considered to be unjustified and not supported in this instance.

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

No planning agreement offered or entered into.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy

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

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601

The part demolition of the dwelling to undertake the additions is capable of compliance with the standard.

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

No coastal zone management plan applies to the site.

 

(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 & Setting

The site is currently occupied by a two storey residential dwelling with swimming pool located at rear of the property.

 

The locality is characterised by a dominance of two storey dwellings orientated to the east taking advantage of elevated ocean and lighthouse views.

 

The potential impacts upon adjacent properties in terms of views and privacy is considered minimal.

 

The potential impact upon adjacent properties in terms of solar access is addressed earlier within the report under DCP heading. 

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms of access, transport and traffic.

 

Utilities

Services are existing. Any changes to water, sewer and stormwater connections would be addressed through section 68 process.

 

Soils

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of vegetation.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Energy

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

 

Noise & Vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated. Condition recommended restricting construction to standard construction hours.

 

Natural Hazards

The site is not identified as being bushfire or flood prone.

 

Safety, Security & 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.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its, location the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The positioning and design of the additions are considered to result in adverse impacts, as identified within DCP assessment, with regard to solar access.

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the temporary construction activities of the proposal.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

The proposal will fit into the locality however the site attributes are not conducive to the proposed development design. Refer to comments within the report regarding the proposed south side setback and overshadowing impact to adjoining property.

 

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

 

One (1) written submission has been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

Key issues raised in the submission received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Impacts of overshadowing on principle area of ground level private open space.

Refer to assessment comments under DCP heading earlier within the report.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development does not satisfy relevant planning controls. It is considered contrary to the public's interest to vary the provision of the DCP in this instance.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·    Development contributions not applicable.

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C 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.

 

Having regard to the relevant planning instruments and their intent it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

·    In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(b) the proposal will have a significant impact in terms of overshadowing on the primary open space area of the adjacent property at 38 Ocean View Terrace.

·    In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(a)(iii) the proposed development fails to meet development provision 5.2 and the relevant objectives of the DCP.

·    In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(e) it would be contrary to the public's interest to vary the requirements and intent of the DCP in this instance.

 

Please note that draft recommended conditions have been attached to this report in the event that the panel intend to grant consent to the proposal.  

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 0346 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 0346 Applicant Project Report

3View. DA2013 - 0346 SOEE

4View. DA2013 - 0346 Shadow Diagram

5View. DA2013 - 0346 Neighbour Impacts Report

6View. DA2013 - 0346 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     DA2013 - 0458 - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING - LOT 39 DP 231816, 33 MATTHEW FLINDERS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Report Author: Stephen Ryan

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 39 DP 231816, 33 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie

Applicant:               Chris Jenkins Design - Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    L C Morris & C I Davis

Application Date:   13 August 2013

Estimated Cost:     $17.3700

Location:                 Port Macquarie

File no:                    DA2013 - 0458

Parcel no:               13295

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013 - 0458 for alterations and additions to dwelling at Lot 39, DP 231816, No.33 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, one (1) submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 556.4m².

 

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:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl1592_C0A8C986:0141E232D7FF:E1FD:5816B21C%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141E232D7FF:E1FD:5816B21C

 

The property is located at the north western side of Matthew Flinders Drive in the Lighthouse Beach residential precinct of Port Macquarie.

 

The surrounding developments are residential and could be considered to be in transition where older dwellings are being extended and renovated into larger dwellings.

 

The site is currently occupied by an existing 2 storey dwelling-house and has a slight fall from west to east towards Matthew Flinders Drive.

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2115_C0A8C986:0141E232D7FF:E1FD:5816B21C%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141E232D7FF:E1FD:5816B21C

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·     Addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling comprising a ground level garage and first floor living area and deck.

 

·     Renovation of the existing dwelling including addition of a new deck.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·          13 August 2013 - Application lodged.

·          26 August - 9 September 2013 - Exhibition via neighbour notification.

·          29 August 2013 - Submission received from the adjoining neighbour.

·          11 October 2013 - View analysis requested from applicant.

·          14 October 2013 - View analysis received.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(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 14 - Coastal Wetlands

The site is not identified as containing Coastal Wetlands as identified in the SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, 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.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, and its’ location; the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on any existing aquaculture industries within the Hastings River approximately 7 kilometres from the site.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71.

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

Having regard to clauses 8 and 12 to 16 of SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of Hastings LEP 2011 inclusive, the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

 

a)    any restricted access (or opportunities for access) to the coastal foreshore;

b)    any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on the scenic qualities of the coast;

c)    any identifiable adverse impacts on any known flora and fauna (or their natural environment) noting that several existing trees are necessary to be removed to enabled construction of the dwelling;

d)    subject to any identifiable adverse coastal processes or hazards;

e)    any identifiable conflict between water and land based users of the area;

f)     any identifiable adverse impacts on any items of archaeological/heritage; and

g)    reduce the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality.

 

In particular, the site is located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

In accordance with clause 6, a BASIX (certificate number A167371) 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.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are satisfied.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a single dwelling house is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

 

·     To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse, will contribute to the range of housing types and densities in an existing established residential locality.

 

In accordance with clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposal from ground level (existing) is 6.050m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 4.4 the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.25:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 5.9, no listed trees in Development Control Plan 2011 are proposed to be removed.

 

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site is not identified as containing Acid Sulphate Soils.

 

In accordance with clause 7.2, the following comments are provided with regard to the likely earthworks proposed to be undertaken as part of the proposal:

 

·     the works will be unlikely to lead to any significant identifiable adverse effects upon existing drainage patterns, soil stability of the site or adjoining/adjacent sites, any nearby water course or know environmental sensitive area within the immediate locality

·     the works will unlikely to adversely affect potential additional future landuse on the site.

·     The existing soil quality and structure will not present and identifiable constraint to the construction of the proposal on the site.

·     No fill is identified to be imported to the site to construct the development

·     The likely change in levels associated with the proposed development will not have any identifiable adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining/adjacent properties to the site.

·     The site does not contain any known items of aboriginal or other cultural significance.

 

In accordance with clause 7.3 the site is not land within a mapped ‘flood planning area’ (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrent interval flood event plus 0.5m freeboard) or is land at or below the flood planning level.

 

Clause 7.5 - Koala Habitat - The land is not identified as a “Koala Habitat area” on the Koala Habitat Map.

 

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

The requirements of the LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

DCP 2011: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development.

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

 

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

25% max. width of dwelling

Front corner of deck located within the articulation zone. 3.432m setback from boundary. < than 25% within articulation zone.

Yes

 

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

·   Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot

·   Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade

 

 

5.5m scaled to wall of dwelling

3.432m to deck edge (within articulation zone.

-Garage 5.5m from boundary and 3m behind edge of front deck.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

 

Yes

 

6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building

5.2m & less than 50% width of entire building

Yes

 

Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width

Maintains existing

N/A

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

No rear setback due to orientation of the site

N/A

Side setbacks:

·   Ground floor = min. 0.9m

·   First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min.

·   Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

 

-

2.8m to northern boundary.

Deck 0.835m to south western boundary. No overshadowing of adjoining properties.

 

Articulated every 12m.

 

Yes

Yes

No*

 

 

 

Yes

 

35m² min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade

Available at front of lot facing Matthew Flinders Drive

Yes

Privacy:

·   Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed.

·   Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m

·   Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

 

The majority of the primary living area windows are facing onto the street frontage. Rear windows on the addition are set in 1.5m from the building façade. Existing setbacks and privacy are maintained with the refurbishment of the existing portion of the dwelling.

 

 

Windows are setback greater than 3m from the dwelling and sill heights are 1.5m.

 

 

 

A privacy screen will be conditioned to be installed along the southern western edge of the side deck adjoining the existing portion of the dwelling.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Refer to main body of report.

 

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

No excavation is proposed that exceeds 1m in depth or 1m outside the building walls

Yes

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint

Two coastal Banksias to be removed within 3m of dwelling additions

Yes

Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report.

 

Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking

Maintains existing single driveway

Yes

Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.

Surface water contained within site

Yes

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Available in front of dwelling

Yes

Off-street Parking spaces:

1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Available within garage

Yes

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision DP5.2.

 

The relevant objectives are:

 

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

·     To provide or visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

 

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

 

·     Although the deck is setback off the south western boundary at 0.835m which exceeds the required 0.9m, the deck is orientated toward the street and will be conditioned to be screened as per DCP 2011 at the western side to reduce any possible impact on the adjoining property.

·     No objections where received from the adjoining property.

·     The adjoining property primary living areas and private open space areas will not be overshadowed by the proposed deck.

·     The relative objectives will be achieved.

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

None applicable.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy

N/A

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601  - Cl 66 (b)

N/A

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

N/A

 

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

 

Context & Setting

 

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

·     There are minor adverse impacts on existing view sharing - refer to discussion in submission section of report (view analysis provided).

·     There are no adverse privacy impacts.

·     The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

 

Public Domain

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the public domain.

 

Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Stormwater

Service available - details required with S.68 application.

 

Water

Service available - details required with S.68 application.

 

Soils

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

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Two Coastal Banksias are proposed to be removed within the footprint of the dwelling additions.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Energy

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

 

Noise & Vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated. Condition recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

 

Natural Hazards

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. The applicant has submitted a bushfire report which determined a Bushfire Attack Level of BAL 19 & 12.5 for the building.  An assessment undertaken by Council concurs with the report provided. The assessment concludes that the bushfire risk is acceptable subject to Bushfire Attack Level construction requirements of BAL 19 for the new additions and BAL 12.5 for the existing portions of the dwelling.

 

Safety, Security & 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.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (i.e. increased expenditure in the area).

 

Site Design and Internal Design

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

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

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

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

 

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

 

One (1) written submission has been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

Key issues raised in the submission received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Privacy impact

The windows at the rear of the addition are set in 1.5m from the rear building facade and 4.106m from the adjoining side boundary. The potential for overlooking is not considered to be significant and the windows will in part be shielded by timber screens. Windows in the existing dwelling maintain existing setbacks and privacy impacts.

Loss of views

Although there will be a loss of views toward Lighthouse Beach the existing views are currently obscured by vegetation and occur across an adjoining property side boundary. Overall the view impact is considered to be minor and of insufficient grounds to sustain refusal of the application. A view analysis report has been provided by the applicant. The assessment undertaken and the findings are considered accurate and acceptable (refer to attachment).

Traffic hazard

The existing topographic nature of Matthew Flinders Drive obscures traffic movements northwards along the road adjacent to the objector’s driveway. It is not anticipated that any significant change in the line of sight of oncoming traffic will occur as a result of the proposed building works. It is difficult to ascertain as to whether any minimisation of acoustic awareness of oncoming traffic will occur as a result of the development. Further the proposed additions will not increase vehicle movements along Matthew Flinders Drive. 

Economic impact

The refurbishment of the dwelling is consistent with the character of Matthew Flinders drive with older dwellings being renovated to larger dwellings. Any potential economic impact on the adjoining property is not of sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

N/A

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 458 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 458 Architect View Comments

3View. DA2013 - 458 SOEE

4View. DA2013 - 458 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     DA 2013/0515 - ADDITIONS TO MEDICAL CENTRE & INCREASED HOURS OF OPERATION LOTS 1 & 2 DP 1177043, 150 & 152 GREENMEADOWS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Property:                 LOTS 1 & 2 DP1177043, 150 & 152 GREENMEADOWS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Applicant:               KING & CAMPBELL PTY LTD

Owner:                    S M & R C CLARKE

Application Date:   17 SEPTEMBER 2013

Estimated Cost:     $20,000

Location:                 PORT MACQUARIE

File no:                    DA 2013/0515

Parcel no:               63024 & 63025

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/0515 for additions to the medical centre and increased hours of operation at Lots 1 & 2, DP1177043, No. 150 & 152 Greenmeadows Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for additions to the medical centre and increased hours of operation at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, one (1) submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site comprises two allotments. Lot 1 being an area of 3120m2 which contains the medical centre building and associated car park. Lot 2 being an area of 3655m2 containing an existing dwelling recently approved for a change of use to health consulting rooms.

 

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:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2275_C0A8C986:0141E23AECCA:F7E1:377AFFAD%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141E23AECCA:F7E1:377AFFAD

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the immediate locality is shown in the following aerial photograph (2012):

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl1806_C0A8C986:0141E23AECCA:F7E1:377AFFAD%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0141E23AECCA:F7E1:377AFFAD

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Addition to covered terrace area at rear of medical centre building and construction of a pedestrian connection to the health consulting room building.

·    Change to hours of operation to 7am to 7pm seven (7) days per week.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    17 September 2013 - Application lodged

·    25 September - 9 October 2013 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(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 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

No Koala Plan of management exists on the site. The proposal does not involve the removal of any koala browse tree species.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7 of this SEPP, Council is required to consider if the site is contaminated before issuing determination of a DA. The site is identified as being potentially contaminated according to Council records. The prior development application for the medical centre building identified the extent of this contamination based on the previous use of the site as a service station.

 

In accordance with the previous consent the removal and remediation of the affected area has been undertaken and the provisions of this policy are considered satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

 

No advertising is proposed under this application. No further consideration of this policy is necessary.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

 

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for additions and change to hours of operations to the existing medical centre is permissible with consent in the R1 zone.

 

The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are as follows:

 

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as the proposal is a permissible landuse and the existing medical centre is considered to play an important role in servicing the needs of residents in the locality.

In accordance with clause 4.3 the maximum building height of 8.5m applies to the site. The proposed additions are single storey in nature below the existing roof line.

 

In accordance with clause 4.4 the maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 that applies to the site is not affected by the minor addition.

 

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

 

The requirements of this LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to this site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

The applicable general provisions of the plan are addressed as follows:

 

Part 3 - General Provisions

 

Tree Management

The proposal does not require the removal of and significant vegetation. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking

The minor additions or change to hours of operation do not generate any additional off street car parking demand.

 

Part 4 – Development Specific Provisions

Although there are no specific development provisions applicable to a medical centre, consideration should be given to the relevant sections of the residential, tourist and visitor accommodation and ancillary development section of this plan.

 

Scale, Built form and Density

The proposed minor additions satisfy the relevant height limit and floor space ratio controls applicable under the PMH LEP 2011. The proposed additions are single storey in nature and adequately setback from the rear boundary.

 

Amenity

There will be no adverse impact on the privacy of any adjoining dwellings from the minor additions

 

Aesthetics

The building design and finish is of a high standard and will compliment the visual amenity of the area.

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

No planning agreement offered or entered into.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

No coastal zone management plan applies to the site.

 

(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 & Setting

The proposed alterations and additions to the external outdoor space will have no impact on the residential amenity of the locality.

 

The proposed change to the hours of operation would permit the facility to operate from 7am to 7pm seven (7) days a week.

 

The facility is currently restricted to the following hours by a condition of the development consent relating to DA 2011/488:

 

-  7am to 7pm - Monday to Fridays inclusive

-  7am to 5pm - Saturdays

-  No work is to carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays

 

The change to the hours is not anticipated to impact on the amenity of the locality. Refer to additional comments under noise heading within the report.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

There is no change to the existing access and parking arrangements. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Pedestrians

The proposed gate and pedestrian connection link between the medical centre and future health consulting building is intended to provide staff of both practices easy access between the  buildings. It is noted that both allotments are held in common ownership and it’s the intention to have the practices run in conjunction with one another.

 

Stormwater

The minor additional stormwater created from the extended covered roof area to the staff terrace is capable of being managed through connection to the existing stormwater system.

 

Flora & Fauna

No significant vegetation proposed to be removed for the additions or pathway connection.

 

Noise & Vibration

Potential exists for the proposed extended trading hours to impact on nearby residents. A review of the application by Council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed that no noise complaints had been lodged from nearby residents since the opening of the medical centre in late December 2012.

 

Having regard to the setting in of the car park, proximity of the medical centre to the nearest residence (approx 50m) and lack of noise concerns from current operations, which include 7am to 7pm weekday operations, it is considered that no adverse noise impacts will result from the proposed 7am to 7pm seven day a week operation.

 

It is additionally noted that the site is on a relatively busy intersection and the main noise source in the locality would come from traffic external to the development.  Noise from customers and vehicles within the car park is considered to be a minor insignificant impact.  

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any crime spots that would result in a loss of safety or security in the area.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development it is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development.

 

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

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the minor alterations and additions.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

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

 

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

 

Two (2) written submissions have been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Concern expressed for the safety of pedestrians who intend to use the proposed connecting walkway as it will conflict with the requirement for a turning area for cars accessing the garage to the health consulting building on Lot 2.

A review of DA 2012/0401 for a change of use from dwelling to health consulting rooms on Lot 2 reveals a condition (A9) requiring a turning area be provided for the access driveway servicing the garage area and appropriate signage be provided stipulating the driveway servicing the garage is reserved for “Employees Only”.

 

The intent of the condition being to improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety to allow employee cars to leave in a forward direction.

 

It is considered that the potential interaction with employee vehicles and employee pedestrians from the reversing manoeuvre will be very limited to nil. The safety of employee pedestrians moving between the buildings is not considered to be compromised by the proposed location of the walkway.

Concern expressed that a previous application relating to the change of use of the dwelling on Lot 2 to a health consulting room was mysteriously changed to a medical centre use in the DAP report. A copy of the issued consent is requested as concern for modifications to occur without notification was expressed.

A copy of the DAP report for DA 2012/0401 and the minutes of that meeting are available from Councils website. The concerns expressed about the development description do not relate to this development.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

Not applicable.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 0515 SoEE  & Plans

2View. DA2013 - 0515 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          08

 

Subject:     DA2013 - 0593 PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION - LOT 105 DP 1183714 ECHNIDA STREET, PORT MACQUARIE

Report Author: Fiona Tierney

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 105 DP 1183714 Echnida Street, Port Macquarie

Applicant:               A I & H Ignacio

Owner:                    A I & H Ignacio

Application Date:   1 October 2013

Estimated Cost:     $392,507

Location:                 Port Macquarie

File no:                    DA2013 - 0593

Parcel no:               62964

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013 - 0593 for a single storey detached dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision at Lot 105, DP 1183714 Echnida Street, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions .

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for a detached dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, one (1) submission was received.

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 696.2m2.

 

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:

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl1085_C0A8C986:01422BB5A2CD:2A8C:6B550647%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01422BB5A2CD:2A8C:6B550647

The site is located within an existing residential subdivision consisting mainly of single residential dwellings interspersed with a significant number of dual occupancy development. The site is located on a corner allotment bounded by Echidna St and Ferrous Cl. The site has a fall of approximately 3m from east to west.

 

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

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl7547_C0A8C986:01422BB5A2CD:2A8C:6B550647%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01422BB5A2CD:2A8C:6B550647

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    A single storey detached dual occupancy

·    Torrens title subdivision

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    1 October 2013- Application lodged

·    15 October-29 October 2013-Application notified to adjoining owners

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, 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.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, proposed stormwater controls and its’ location, the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on any existing aquaculture industries.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

In accordance with clause 6, a BASIX (certificate number 504510S) 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.

The requirements of this SEPP are satisfied.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a single dwelling house (or ancillary structure associated with a dwelling house) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and will contribute to the variety of housing types and densities in an established residential locality.

In accordance with clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposal from ground level (existing) is 5.094 m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5 m applying  to the site.

In accordance with clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.54:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

In accordance with clause 7.2, the following comments are provided with regard to the likely earthworks proposed to be undertaken as part of the proposal:

•     the works will be unlikely to lead to any significant identifiable adverse effects upon existing drainage patterns, soil stability of the site or adjoining/adjacent sites, any nearby water course or known environmental sensitive area within the immediate locality.

•     the works will be unlikely to adversely affect potential additional future landuses on the site.

•     the existing soil quality and structure will not present an identifiable constraint to the construction of the proposal on the site.

•     no fill is identified to be imported to the site to construct the development.

•     the likely change in levels associated with the proposed development will not have any identifiable adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining/adjacent properties to the site.

•     the site does not contain any known items of aboriginal or other cultural significance.

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

The requirements of this LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

 

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

 

Nil

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

DCP 2011: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Ancillary development:

4.8m max. height

Single storey

60m2 max. area

100m2 for lots >900m2

24 degree max. roof pitch

Not located in front setback

None proposed

N/A

DP 2.1

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

25% max. width of dwelling

3m minimum setback unit 1

Y

DP2.2

 

DP3.1

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 6.0m classified road

Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot

Min. 3.0m secondary road

Min. 2.0m Laneway

Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade

4.575m to unit 2 primary setback

4.638 to Unit 1 primary setback

Y

DP3.1

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Both unit garages setback

Y

DP3.2

6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building

5m garage door width

Y

DP3.3

Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width

4.5m width proposed

Y

DP3.4

Garage and driveway provided on each frontage for dual occupancy on corner lot

Yes

Y

DP4.1

DP4.2

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

Two side setbacks. Increased solar access provided to northern frontages.

Y

DP5.1

DP5.2

DP5.3

 

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min.

Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

1m min side setback provided.

Y

DP6.1

35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade

Both have POS areas >35m2

Y

DP7.1

DP8.1

DP8.2

Front fences:

If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m  with landscaping

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel

Front fence proposed to Unit 1

10m length to secondary frontage and landscape spacing provided- considered to comply.

Y

DP10.1

DP10.2

DP10.3

DP10.4

Privacy:

Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. i.e. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

Single storey dwelling only. 1.8m high fence proposed between dwellings provides adequate screening.

Y

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

DP5.1

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

Max 1m proposed

Y

DP6.1

0.8m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

No retaining walls proposed along frontage

Y

 

Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP2.3

Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking

Single access to each dwelling

Y

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

 

Y

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

Minimal Landscaping proposed

Y

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Sealed

Y

DP15.1

Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length

Satisfactory

Y

DP17.1

Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.

Graded to street

Y

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Available

Y

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

•  1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Available

Y

 

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

Nil

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

Nil

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

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 & Setting

 

•     The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

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

•     There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

•     There is no adverse privacy impacts.

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

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

 

Roads

The roads abutting this site were constructed during one of the stages of the Brierley Hill Development. The roads surrounding this site are in the care and control of Council. The road is AC sealed with a layback kerb.

 

Traffic

The additional traffic that this development would generate (approx 7vpd) is not considered significant.

 

Access

The access for Unit 1 is from Ferrous Close via a 4.5m wide driveway to a double garage. The garage is setback from the boundary by 5.5m. This will allow for additional parking on the driveway when required.

 

The access for Unit 2 is via Echidna Street via a 4.5m driveway to a double garage. The garage setback varies from 4.57m to 5.5m.

 

Parking

Parking is provided for both units with a double garage.

 

Stormwater

The stormwater has been designed using interallotment drainage, draining lot 2 through lot 1 via a 225mm diameter pipe and 1.5m easement. The location and final position of the inter-allotment drainage is acceptable and capable of being managed through the S.68 and Construction Certificate process.

 

Natural Hazards                 

The site is not prone to bushfire or flooding.

 

Water

The existing 20mm sealed water service from the 100mm PVC water main on the same side of Ferrous Close will be able to the used for proposed Lot 1 with a new water meter required. A 20mm metered water service will be required for proposed Lot 2 from the 100mm PVC water main on the opposite side of Echidna Street.

The water service plans provided with the application are acceptable for Water Supply section purposes.

 

Sewer

Council records indicate that there are two existing sewer mains that cross the lot. The first is a 150mm sewer main that runs parallel to the western boundary of the site approximately 1.2m off the property boundary. There is one existing junction from this main which can be used for proposed Lot 1. The second 150mm sewer main runs parallel to the northern boundary of the site approximately 2m off the property boundary. A new junction from this main will be required for proposed Lot 2.

 

Utilities

Existing services available.

 

Earthworks

The development of this site will require soil erosion management as the site is classified with “extreme soil erosion risk”. This management will need to be in place prior to the commencement of any works and be maintained for the duration of the works.

 

Soil

According to Council records the site is not prone to acid sulphate soils.

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated

 

Noise & Vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated. Condition recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

 

Safety, Security & 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.  

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (i.e. increased expenditure in the area).

 

Site Design and Internal Design

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

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

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

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

 

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

 

One (1) written submission was received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Request increased distance between units and their property from 1m to 2m to allow greater sense of space and solar access.

Proposal complies with required setback distances given corner allotment. Relocation is unlikely to achieve greater amenity for solar access given that the adjoining patio is cut in by approximately 0.5m and the 1.8m colourbond fence on top of this cut will enclose the area leaving very little area for sun to enter.

Request relocation of gas bottles for safety reasons.

Gas bottles are to comply with regulations set by installers and are not subject to Council requirements.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

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

·    Development contributions will be required under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

 

Refer to draft contribution schedule attached to this report and recommended conditions.

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 0593 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 0593 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          09

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 0464 - LOG PROCESSING WORKS, LOT 1 DP 779638, 2952 OXLEY HIGHWAY, HUNTINGDON

Report Author: Clint Tink

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 1 DP 779638, 2952 Oxley Highway, Huntingdon

Applicant:               Steve Dobbyns

Owner:                    MA & RJ Hoffman

Application Date:   20 August 2013

Estimated Cost:     N/A

Location:                 Huntingdon

File no:                    DA 2013 - 0464

Parcel no:               17775

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/464 for a log processing works at Lot 1 DP 779638, No. 2952 Oxley Highway, Huntingdon, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for log processing works at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, two (2) submissions have been received. The submissions are from the same property with one being the owners of the property and the other having been prepared by consultants on behalf of the property owners.

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

In providing some background to the development it needs to be acknowledged that the cutting and processing of firewood was being undertaken unlawfully from the site.
The current application is seeking approval for the log processing works to continue onsite.

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 11.42ha.

 

The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl883_C0A8C986:01421FDE2F25:11D3:77492371%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01421FDE2F25:11D3:77492371

 

The site has frontage to the Oxley Highway to the east/south east and the Hastings River to the west. The site is predominately cleared except for some timbered areas in the north east corner surrounding the proposed log processing site. The site slopes from the Oxley Highway down to the Hastings River.

 

Surrounding the development is a mixture of larger lot rural residential properties and farm land. There is substantial state forest land to the south over across the Oxley Highway.

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl6759_C0A8C986:01421FDE2F25:11D3:77492371%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01421FDE2F25:11D3:77492371

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    A log processing mill is to be established for the purposes of processing timber into firewood.

·    Hours of operation are proposed at 8am to 4pm Monday to Friday.

·    Maximum of three (3) staff operating the mill.

·    1500-2500 tonnes (approx 2200m³) to be processed per year with less than 1000 tonnes to be stored onsite at any one time.

·    Approximately two (2) truckloads (28 tonnes per load) of timber will be delivered per week during the aforementioned hours of operation.

·    Timber to be sold via wholesale market.

·    A noise impact assessment has been undertaken.

·    Access to the property is gained off the Oxley Highway. The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) have provided input on the proposal.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    20/8/2013 - Application lodged with Council.

·    27/8/2013 - Application referred to RMS.

·    30/8/2013 to 13/9/2013 - Notification period.

·    30/8/2013 - Amount of timber processed onsite clarified with applicant.

·    14/10/2013 - RMS responded to referral.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(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 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

The subject SEPP was introduced to clarify the definitions for hazardous and offensive industries and to apply guidelines for the assessment of industries that have the potential to create hazards or an offence. In this case, the development has the potential to be an offensive industry by virtue of the noise component. Having considered the SEPP along with the associated application and imposition of conditions; the proposed development is not considered to be an offensive industry and will create no adverse impact.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The subject land has an area of more than 1 hectare in size and therefore the provisions of SEPP 44 must be considered. However, NSW Planning's Circular No. B35, Section 1.5 states that "In relation to affected DAs it is the intention of the policy that investigations for 'potential' and 'core' koala habitats be limited to those areas in which it is proposed to disturb habitat.

The application has demonstrated that no habitat will be removed or modified and therefore, no further investigations are required.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, 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.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, proposed stormwater controls and its’ location, the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on any existing aquaculture industries within the nearby Hastings River. There is over 200m of grassland to traverse before any water or leachate from the log processing reaches the river.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

No signage proposed, which will be reinforced through conditions.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

In accordance with Clause 101 of the SEPP, there are no alternate roads in the area to gain access to the site. However, the proposed development will utilise an existing access point to gain entry. This results in no new entry points from a classified road, which is a key requirement of the SEPP.

 

Vehicle movements are considered limited in number and through conditions, the development will also not create any dust or emission that would create a hazard to road users. In accordance with Clause 102, the use is also not sensitive to road noise or vibration.

 

The application was also referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) who subsequently responded on 14 October 2013. The comments provided by the RMS have been considered by Council’s Engineering Section and addressed in the Access, Transport & Traffic Section of this report. In summary and having considered the RMS’s comments, Council’s Engineers accepted the application on traffic and access issues.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

SEPP requirement

Comment

Complies

Objectives

 

 

2(a)  to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes,

Log processing is a permissible use in a rural zone. The use will not impact on the overall rural use of the site or surrounding areas. In addition, the portable nature of the business ensures no long term impact on the land.

Yes

2(b)  to identify the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles so as to assist in the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State,

Refer to above comment. The rural planning principles are specifically addressed later in this assessment table.

Yes

2(c)  to implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts,

Conditions are to be imposed to manage conflicts arising from such issues as noise and visual impact of the development on adjoining properties. In particular, screening of the site, additional mufflers, enclosure around engines etc will be utilised.

Yes

2(d)  to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and environmental considerations,

 

The development will not affect the viability of any state significant agricultural land.

Yes

2(e) to amend provisions of other environmental planning instruments relating to concessional lots in rural subdivisions.

Local environmental planning provisions have removed concessional lots.

N/A

Rural Planning Principles

 

 

7(a) the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas,

The development will not affect the productivity and sustainability of surrounding rural areas. Most of the immediate properties comprise state forests or smaller rural farms.

Yes

7(b) recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State,

 

Refer to above comment. In addition, the proposed use comprises rural based elements i.e. processing of a primary product (timber).

Yes

7(c) recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development,

 

The processing of a primary product for firewood purposes plays a role in the local community through maintenance of jobs and expenditure, while also providing a product (firewood) to the area, state etc.

Yes

7(d) in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community,

 

The zoning of the site allows for the use with other issues such as noise, access, servicing etc having been considered in this assessment report. Impacts are considered manageable through conditions.

Yes

7(e) the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land,

This application deals with the processing of a primary product. The product has already been approved to be removed in supplying this business as a separate process under the Native Vegetation Act.

The processing of the timber on a cleared section of land well separated from the Hastings River ensures no further adverse impact on flora and fauna.

Yes

7(f) the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities,

The development does not involve subdivision or impact on rural settlement opportunities.

N/A

7(g) the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing,

No new housing proposed.

N/A

7(h) ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General.

The development is not inconsistent with any strategy.

Yes

Rural Subdivision Principles

No subdivision proposed.

N/A

Matters to be considered in determining development applications for rural subdivisions or rural dwellings

No subdivision or dwellings proposed.

N/A

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape. It should be noted that the development is located within the RU1 zone and for the purposes of this assessment, provisions relating to the RU2 will not be considered and are deemed not applicable.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the RU1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for log processing work (rural industry - sawmill or log processing works) is a permissible landuse with consent.

 

The objectives of the RU1 zone are as follows:

 

·          To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

·          To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

·          To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

·          To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

(a)            

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives having regard to the following:

 

·          the proposal is a permissible landuse;

·          the proposal does not specifically impact on the resource base;

·          the proposal encourages diversity by providing an alternate primary industry;

·          conditions will be utilised to reduce conflict with neighbouring properties; and

·          the proposal does not fragment land or alienate a resource base;

 

In accordance with clause 5.9, no listed trees in Development Control Plan 2011 are proposed to be removed.

 

In accordance with Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance. The site has also been disturbed from past activities such as grazing, motorbike track and now log processing.

 

In accordance with clause 7.3, the site is not identified as being affected by the 1:100 year flood event. The site does have frontage to the Hastings River and is likely to be affected by localised flooding. However, the development is located well above the Hastings River and unlikely to be affected by flooding. In particular, the site is located approx 30m above the river and located on the opposite side to the flood plain.

 

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, on-site sewage management, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development. In particular, the development will need to utilise a range of onsite facilities for water storage and effluent disposal, which will be reinforced through conditions.

 

Designated Development

33   Wood or timber milling or processing works

Wood or timber milling or processing works (being works, other than joineries, builders supply yards or home improvement centres) that saw, machine, mill, chip, pulp or compress timber or wood:

 

(a)     that have an intended processing capacity of more than 6,000 cubic metres of timber per year and:

          (i)  are located within 500 metres of a dwelling not associated with the milling works, or

(ii)  are located within 40 metres of a natural waterbody or wetland, or

(iii)  burn waste (other than as a source of fuel), or

(b)  that have an intended processing capacity of more than 50,000 cubic metres of timber per year.

 

The proposed development is not designated as it does not have an annual processing capacity of 6000 cubic metres. 2200 cubic metres are proposed to be processed per annum.

 

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

 

None relevant.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

DCP 2011 Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Signage

DP1.1 Signage complies with SEPP 64

No signage proposed.

N/A

Notification/Advertising

Development has been notified in accordance with DCP 2011

Adjoining property owners were notified of the application in accordance with the DCP.

Yes

DP 6.1 Social Impact Assessment required

The proposed development does not trigger the need for a social impact assessment.

Yes

Crime Prevention

DP 1.1 CPTED principles considered.

The Oxley Highway and residence onsite provides casual surveillance.

Yes

Environmental Management

DP 10.1 Development complies with LEP flood clauses and Floodplain Management Plan.

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

Yes

DP 12.1 Stormwater complies with Auspec

Being a rural property, sufficient area exists onsite to manage stormwater.

Yes

Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking

DP 2.1-2.3 New direct access to arterial or distributor road not permitted and existing accesses rationalised where possible.

No new direct access proposed to the Oxley Highway. The development will utilise an existing access point.

Yes

DP 3.1-3.3 Off street parking is provided in accordance with Table 2. Where a use does not fall within a listed definition a parking demand study will be required. Credit can be provided as per DP 4.1 and 5.1.

Being a rural property, the site contains sufficient area for informal parking associated with the development.

 

DP 12.1-12.5 Landscaping of parking areas should:

·    Include tiered landscaping design.

·    Provided throughout the car park and perimeter.

·    Provide shade.

·    Provide screening.

·    Not affect sight lines, especially near entry/exit points.

The development will be conditioned to provide landscape screening in order to provide visual protection to the house to the north.

Yes

DP 13.1-13.2 Landscaping requirements on Council land.

 

 

DP 14.1-14.2 Car parking seal requirements.

Being a rural property and based on the low employment numbers, informal parking onsite will suffice.

Yes

DP 19.2-20.3 Loading bays:

·    Min 3.5m wide x 6m long & 5m high.

·    Separate from visitor parking.

·    Limited number of employee parking may be utilised.

·    Must allow vehicles to stand onsite and not impact on surrounding area.

·    Must ultimately be designed to suit the vehicles intended to use them.

·    External bays require 1 bay for 500m2 floor space or 1 bay for 1000m2 site area.

·    Commercial <500m2 do not require bay.

·    Commercial 1 bay for first 1000m2 floor space and 1 bay for every 2000m2 after.

·    Integrate into the design and be setback/screened.

Being a rural property, sufficient area exists onsite to allow trucks and other vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion and be loaded/unloaded onsite.

Yes

DP 21.1-21.3 Detailed plans of turning areas are to be provided to show that the site can accommodate the vehicles that use it

Refer to above comment.

Yes

Industrial (provisions used as a guide)

DP 2.1 Front setbacks

·    10m classified road

·    7.6m other roads

·    3m secondary road

The development is setback over 10m from the Oxley Highway.

Yes

DP 5.1 Details to be provided of outside storage areas and work areas. Where approved, these should be in the rear and screened (2m min height screen).

The proposed development comprises an outside work area. There is a strip of natural vegetation approx 15m wide separating the development from the road. Given the rural/forested landscape in the area, the materials being processed (i.e. timber) and the equipment not looking dissimilar from other rural machinery; the proposal does not look out of character from the highway.

Yes

DP 6.1-6.2 Detailed landscape plan to be submitted outlining trees to be removed/planted. Landscape must be:

·    3m wide and cover 2/3 of each frontage.

·    Vegetation tiered with trees >10m, shrubs 5m at 1 per 3m2 density.

Landscape plan to be conditioned.

Yes

DP 7.1 Onsite recreation area provided for staff.

Informal areas exist onsite.

Yes

DP 9.1 Industrial development must comply with Industrial Noise Policy

Refer to comments on Noise later in this report.

Yes

DP 9.2 Windows, doors etc arranged to minimise noise impacts on residences within 400m.

While no buildings are proposed, the development will utilised firewood produced onsite to form a noise barrier to the adjoining house to the north. Conditions will be included to ensure the barrier is maintained for the life of the development.

Yes

DP 9.3 External plant should be enclosed and located away from residential receivers.

Firewood noise barrier proposed to screen the development. In addition, extra mufflers and enclosures for motors as per noise report will be conditioned.

Yes

DP 9.4 External lighting should be shielded or directed away from residences.

No lighting proposed. Work hours are limited to daytime only.

N/A

DP 9.5 Driveways designed to avoid headlight glare to residences.

Work hours are limited to daytime only.

N/A

DP 12.1 Garbage storage not visible from a public place.

To be conditioned.

Yes

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

None relevant.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

None relevant.

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

None relevant.

 

(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 & Setting

 

The site has frontage to the Oxley Highway to the east/south east and the Hastings River to the west. The site is predominately cleared except for some timbered areas in the north east corner surrounding the proposed log processing site. The site slopes from the Oxley Highway down to the Hastings River.

 

Surrounding the development is a mixture of larger lot rural residential properties and farm land. There is substantial state forest land to the south over the other side of the Oxley Highway.

 

Subject to the imposition of noise control measures and screening, the proposal will be unlikely to have any significant impact on adjoining properties. The site is considered to be compatible in the rural/forested setting and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

 

Roads

The property fronts the Oxley Highway. This is a Main Road and concurrence has been given by the RMS subject to considerations; these are discussed under ‘Access’ below. It is noted that the road is under the control and management of the Council. The Oxley Highway in this location is a sealed rural road with 80 km/h speed limit.

 

Traffic

The Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE) provided by the applicant states that there will be 2 truckloads of timber delivered each week from Monday to Friday between the hours of 8am and 4pm, with additional truck volumes associated with removal of the split wood and sawdust not estimated in the SoEE. The market is noted to be wholesale. The total traffic increase at the entrance to the property due to the development is therefore likely to be far less than one (1) movement per hour.

 

Access

Access from the adjacent Oxley Highway is proposed via an existing driveway. Access to the site is to be provided in accordance with AUSTROADS standards for rural road (Section 7.2.3 and Figure 7.4 in Part 4 Intersections and Crossings - General), including relocation of the gate so as to enable semi-trailer deliveries to stand outside the road reserve. The access shall be sealed, and is to include a drainage crossing (reinforced concrete pipe of diameter 375mm).

 

Submissions were raised regarding concerns with sight distances on the Oxley Hwy. Calculation by method of AUSTROADS Part 3 yields an adequate stopping sight distance of ~145m for a truck - worst case. The minimum gap sight distance required by Figure 7.4 is 111m (ref. AUSTROADS Part 4a Table 3.5 for 5 second gap), which is less than the available sight distance and is therefore acceptable.

 

The application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).  The RMS had no objection and provided comments. The RMS advised inclusion of appropriate advisory signage conforming to the requirements of AS 1742 in the intersection design for both approaches to the property access driveway. The RMS may require a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) depending on the extent of works required on the Oxley Highway. Construction drawings will be referred to the RMS for review upon receipt of the Roads Act application.

 

The RMS also suggested Council consider limiting heavy vehicle movements to and from the site during school zone operating hours, as Huntingdon Public School is located 500-1000m northeast along the Oxley Hwy. Due to the fact that Oxley Hwy is an arterial trucking route with no heavy vehicle restrictions and the proposed site will have less than 1 heavy vehicle movements per day, such a restriction is not considered to be practical.

 

Manoeuvring

Adequate room is available on the site to cater for manoeuvrability of vehicles.

 

Utilities

Utilities are not specifically required for the development but can be made available at the applicant’s expense.

 

Stormwater

Capable of being managed onsite.

 

Water

Potential exists for surface waters to be impacted by leachate from the stockpile and operational areas. Surface runoff from these areas will drain over grass to a dam, the overflow of which is a further 275m from the Hastings River. It is considered unlikely that there will be any adverse impacts.

 

Soils

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

 

Air & Micro-climate

Potential exists for sawdust to be generated onsite however given the separation distance to the neighbouring properties, it is unlikely that there will be any impact on adjoining residents.

 

Potential exists for wood smoke to adversely impact on adjoining residents and local air quality if wastes are burnt on the premises. It is recommended that the consent prohibit the burning of any waste products and/or off cuts etc and require all wastes to be disposed of properly.

 

Flora & Fauna

The proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any significant vegetation onsite and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna.  Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Waste

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

 

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Noise & Vibration

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) report “Noise Impact Assessment of Log Processing Works for Jamax Forest Solutions Report No. M13212.01A Site: Lot 1 DP 779638, 2952 Oxley Highway Huntingdon NSW 2446” dated 20 August 2013 by Philip Thornton Acoustic Consultant has concluded that the noise from the proposed log processing mill will not adversely impact on the adjoining residents and will not result in offensive noise being generated onsite, provided at least one of the three recommendations made in the report are implemented, being:

 

1.   Positioning of fire wood stack between the saw mill operation and the closest dwelling. This will have the effect of  reducing noise impact by at least 5dB(A).

2.   Install additional mufflers on machinery. This will have the effect of  reducing noise impact by approximately 5dB(A).

3.   Place a sheet metal enclosure around the engines. This will have the effect of  reducing noise impact by approximately 5dB(A).

 

Greater noise reduction will be achieved by the implementation of all three recommendations.

 

It is recommended that all three (3) recommendations made in the report be implemented through conditions of consent to reduce noise impact.

 

Natural Hazards

The site is mapped as bushfire prone land. The applicant has provided a bushfire risk assessment report using the dwelling template. However, no buildings are proposed and it is considered that the bushfire legislation does not apply.

 

Similar sawmill type developments have been referred to the local NSW Rural Fire Service for comment in the past. However, based on the nature of the operation and lack of residential structures, the NSW Rural Fire Service provided a response raising no concerns or issues in relation to bushfire.

 

In terms of the wood piles creating a hazard, the site contains a dam that can be used as a water source to help put out any fires that may occur. In addition, the site is afforded separation to major tracts of vegetation by internal driveways and also the Oxley Highway.

 

Adjoining dwellings are also well separated from the woodpile by over 100m. This would also allow adjoining property owners to provide protection to their own houses etc in the event of a fire.

 

Based on the above, bushfire or adverse fire hazards are unlikely to occur as a result of the development.

 

Contamination Hazards

Refer to comments on Water above in this report. No impacts foreseen.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.  The existing house onsite and the Oxley Highway will provide casual surveillance over the site.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its’ location the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the operation of the development through the maintenance of employment in the timber/logging industry and associated flow on effects such as expenditure in the area.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and the imposition of various conditions will ensure the development fits into the locality.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

The proposal will fit into the locality and site attributes are conducive to the proposed development. The site is located within a rural setting and is zoned for primary production activities and it can be reasonably expected that primary production activities will be conducted in the area.

 

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

 

Two (2) written submissions have been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

The site is zoned RU1 which requires a minimum lot size of 40 to 100ha. The subject lot is well below these standards and is more conducive to an R5 zone whereby log processing works are prohibited.

Log processing works are permissible with consent in the zone. Permissibility is only one component of an application. A proposal must also satisfy other relevant legislation and provisions relating to the suitability of the site for the proposal. Based on the application and this assessment, the site is considered acceptable.

In addition, lot size are not always linked or an indication of permissibility. As an example, Clause 4.2 of LEP 2011 allows lots to be created under sized for primary production purposes.

The proposed land use commenced without approval.

Noted. The application has been lodged to allow the continued use of the development.

Retail sale of processed timber directly to the public is not permissible.

Agree. Condition to be imposed restricting retail sale of timber.

The bushfire report contains incorrect information. Impacts from the timber pile and flammables onsite have not been considered.

Noted. Refer to comments on Natural Hazards above in this assessment report.

The acoustic assessment only considers the residential receiver to the north and not others onsite or surrounding the development. This is important in terms of identifying the location of wood pile noise barriers.

The noise impact assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed to be acceptable.

Conditions imposed allow for barrier to be adjusted to ensure compliance.

The wood pile barriers will only work while stock is available and will therefore fluctuate. More permanent barriers should be required.

The wood pile barrier will be conditioned to be in place at all times. Once in place, the applicant will not be allowed to take wood from such areas, unless the site/use is ceasing operation.

The use of the wood pile barriers does not factor is noise from loading and unloading of vehicles.

The noise impact assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed to be acceptable. Furthermore, loading and unloading of trucks is identified as a noise source in the report.

Mufflers will not reduce noise from splitting timber and loading/unloading timber.

Mufflers are only part of the recommendations listed. Council staff have conditioned all recommendations of the report be incorporated. In addition, the mufflers will help control noise of vehicles, which can occur without the other noise sources/uses. The mufflers will help during such times. Mufflers will also help during construction and removal of the wood pile noise barriers.

The noise report does not consider open space areas or main living areas.

The noise impact assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed to be acceptable. Intrusive noise criteria are based on what noise levels are acceptable for residential uses.

The application has not demonstrated that suitable access is available.

Refer to access transport and traffic comments. Impacts acceptable.

The application does not include vehicle movements taking processed timber offsite.

Refer to access transport and traffic comments. Impacts acceptable.

Visual impact of the site and timber stockpiles have not been considered.

Property to the north will be impacted by view of timber pile, machinery etc.

The development is out of character with the area.

There is a strip of natural vegetation approx 15m wide separating the development from the Oxley Highway. Given the rural/forested landscape in the area, the materials being processed (i.e. timber) and the equipment not looking dissimilar from other rural machinery; the proposal does not look out of character from the highway or surrounding area. It is common to see different forms of primary production such as large scale dairies, quarries, timber mills etc sporadically placed in rural areas.

In addition, the zoning allows the development with consent and there should be a degree of expectation from anyone purchasing in the area that development listed as permissible with consent, may potentially occur on an adjoining property, now or in the future.

In terms of impact on other adjoining residences, a condition has been recommended to provide a landscape screen to the north.

Dust and sawdust has not been considered.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has considered impacts from sawdust and dust. Where relevant, conditions have been imposed to control dust such as watering down the area during dry times.

Suggested hours of operation be limited to 8:30am to 4:30pm.

The noise impact assessment has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed to be acceptable. The hours of operation are also considered acceptable with many rural based activities occurring well outside of these times. There is also noise from the Highway, which is not restricted.

The Statement of Environmental Effects has inaccuracies in terms of impacts.

Noted. Part of the assessment process is to identify what is accurate in an application and deal with any inconsistencies or issues through additional information, site inspections, conditions etc. It is considered that the application contains enough information to allow an assessment of the proposal. Where relevant, inaccuracies have been addressed with conditions of consent. This is standard practice with any development application.

The development creates social impacts of stress and devaluing properties.

Through the imposition of conditions controlling noise, visual impact etc any existing impacts occurring from the unauthorised use will be rectified. The use is permissible with consent in the zone.

The wood piles will harbour vermin.

This issue is considered capable of being managed and does not represent grounds to refuse the application.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

Not applicable to this application, which does not have any residential or construction component. There is also no reticulated water or sewer available to the site.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 464 Plan

2View. DA2013 - 464 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013

 

FOR USE BY PLANNERS/SURVEYORS TO PREPARE LIST OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS - 2011

 

NOTE:  THESE ARE DRAFT ONLY

 

DA NO:  2013/464                              DATE: 5/11/2013

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

The development is to be undertaken in accordance with the prescribed conditions of Part 6 - Division 8A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

A – GENERAL MATTERS

(1)     (A001) The development is to be carried out in accordance with the plans and supporting documents set out in the following table, as stamped and returned with this consent, except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan / Supporting Document

Reference

Prepared by

Date

Statement of Environmental Effects and associated attachments

 

Steve Dobbyns

3/7/2013

Noise Impact Assessment

Report No. M13213.01A

Philip Thornton

20/8/2013

Site Map

 

Jamax Forest Solutions

2/7/2013

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plans/supporting documents referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

(2)     (A009) The development site is to be managed for the entirety of work in the following manner:

1.  Erosion and sediment controls are to be implemented to prevent sediment from leaving the site. The controls are to be maintained until the development is complete and the site stabilised with permanent vegetation;

2.  Appropriate dust control measures;

3.  Building waste is to be managed via an appropriate receptacle;

(3)     (A014) This approval does not provide any indemnity to the owner or applicant under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 with respect to the provision of access and facilities for people with disabilities.

(4)     (A017) A separate development application for any proposed advertising signs (other than signs which are exempt development or approved under this consent) must be submitted to and approved by council prior to the erection or display of any such signs.

(5)     (A031) Approval pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993 to carry out works required by the Development Consent on or within public road is to be obtained from Port Macquarie-Hastings Council.

Such works include, but not be limited to:

·    Functional vehicular access

(6)     (A033) The applicant shall provide security to the Council for the payment of the cost of the following:

a.  making good any damage caused to any property of the Council as a consequence of doing anything to which the consent relates,

b.  completing any public work (such as road work, kerbing and guttering, footway construction, utility services, stormwater drainage and environmental controls) required in connection with the consent,

c.  remedying any defects in any such public work that arise within twelve (12) months after the work is completed.

Such security is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate/Construction Certificate or Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.

The security is to be for such reasonable amount as is determined by the consent authority, being an amount that is 10% of the contracted works for Torrens Title subdivision development/the estimated cost plus 30% for building development of public works or $5000, whichever is the greater of carrying out the development by way of:

i.   deposit with the Council, or

ii.  an unconditional bank guarantee in favour of the Council.

The security may be used to meet any costs referred to above and on application being made to the Council by the person who provided the security any balance remaining is to be refunded to, or at the direction of, that person. Should Council have to call up the bond and the repair costs exceed the bond amount, a separate invoice will be issued. If no application is made to the Council for a refund of any balance remaining of the security within 6 years after the work to which the security relates has been completed the Council may pay the balance to the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue under the Unclaimed Money Act 1995.

(7)     (A195) Functional vehicular access at the property boundary to the Oxley Hwy shall be designed and located by an appropriately qualified consultant and certified to be in accordance with AUSTROADS Part 3 “Geometric Design”, giving particular attention to sight distance.

 

Access to the rural allotment shall be in accordance with AUSTROADS Part 4 and particularly Figure 7.4 to cater for delivery vehicles at the site (semi-trailer). The access shall be sealed and is to include a drainage crossing (reinforced concrete pipe of minimum diameter 375mm).

 

Appropriate advisory signage conforming to the requirements of AS 1742 is to be detailed in the design for both approaches to the property access driveway.

 

Details shall be submitted as part of the Roads Act s138 application. All of the works are to be constructed at no cost to Council.

 

(8)     (A196) Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) shall be executed with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) prior to any Roads Act Approval, or agreement made with the RMS that no Works Authorisation Deed is required. 

 

B – PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 Nil

 

 

C – PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING ON SITE

(1)     (C001) A minimum of one (1) week’s notice in writing of the intention to commence works on public land is required to be given to Council together with the name of the principal contractor and any major sub-contractors engaged to carry out works.  Works shall only be carried out by a contractor accredited with Council.

 

D – DURING WORK

(1)     (D001) Development works on public property or works to be accepted by Council as an infrastructure asset are not to proceed past the following hold points without inspection and approval by Council.  Notice of required inspection must be given 24 hours prior to inspection, by contacting Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 6581 8111. You must quote your Construction Certificate number and property description to ensure your inspection is confirmed:

a.   at completion of installation of erosion control measures

b.   at completion of installation of traffic management works

c.   prior to sealing and laying of pavement surface course.

All works at each hold point shall be certified as compliant in accordance with the requirements of AUSPEC Specifications for Provision of Public Infrastructure and any other Council approval, prior to proceeding to the next hold point.

(2)     (D006) A copy of the current stamped approved construction plans must be kept on site for the duration of site works and be made available upon request to either the Principal Certifying Authority or an officer of the Council.

 

 

E – PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OR CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR LOG PROCESSING

(1)     (E005) Prior to the release of any bond securities held by Council for infrastructure works associated with developments, a formal written application is to be submitted to Council specifying detail of works and bond amount.

(2)     (E034) Prior to continued use of the property for log processing, provision to the Principal Certifying Authority of documentation from Port Macquarie-Hastings Council being the local roads authority certifying that all matters required by the approval issued pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act have been satisfactorily completed.

(3)     (E053) All works shall be certified by a practicing Civil Engineer or Registered Surveyor as compliant with the requirements of AUSPEC prior to continued use of the property for log processing or release of the security bond, whichever is to occur first.

(4)     (E061) Prior to continued use of the property for log processing, a landscaped screening plan is to be submitted, approved by Council and completed onsite. The landscape screening should provide a mixture of species to enable visual protection from the development to adjoining properties.

          The applicant shall implement a landscape maintenance program for a minimum period of twelve (12) months to ensure that all landscape screening work becomes well established by regular maintenance. Details of the program must be submitted with the landscape screen plan.

(5)     (E195) A toilet is to be provided onsite for use by the employees and visitors of the site prior to continued use of the property as log processing. Approval must be obtained from Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993, for work to install or alter any onsite sewage management facility related to the development.

(6)     (E196) Certification is required to be submitted to Council prior to continued use of the property for log processing, showing that the three recommendations made in section 15 of the “Noise Impact Assessment of Log Processing Works for Jamax Forest Solutions Report No. M13212.01A Site: Lot 1 DP 779638, 2952 Oxley Highway Huntingdon NSW 2446” dated 20 August 2013 by Philip Thornton, Acoustic Consultant, have been installed onsite. The certification must be provided by a suitably qualified person.

 

 

F – OCCUPATION OF THE SITE

(1)     (F001) On site car parking in accordance with the approved plans to be provided in an unrestricted manner at all times during the operations of development for use by both staff and patrons.

(2)     (F003) All loading and unloading operations associated with servicing the site must be carried out within the confines of the site, at all times and must not obstruct other properties/units or the public way.

(3)     (F013) All garbage areas are to be screened from the street, create no adverse odour impact on adjoining properties and be kept free of pests at all times.

(4)     (F016) Offensive odours shall not be generated by the development.

(5)     (F017) Materials stockpiles and handling areas shall be maintained in a condition that prevents wind blown or traffic generated dust.

(6)     (F024) Offensive noise as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, shall not be generated as a result of the operation of the development.

(7)     (F025) Hours of operation of the development are restricted to the following hours:

- 8.00 am to 4.00 pm – Mondays to Fridays

- No work is to be carried out on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays

(8)     (F195) Once in place, timber will not be allowed to be removed from the wood pile noise barrier until the log processing use of the site ceases and is being cleaned up (ie completely removed of stock).

 

(9)     (F196 ) Retail sales direct to the public are prohibited.

 

(10)   (F197) A truck shakedown area is to be provided onsite to ensure mud is not transported onto the Oxley Highway.

 

(11)   (F198) Fuels are to be contained within an enclosed and bunded area.

 

(12)   (F199) A water cart is to be maintained onsite at all times to eliminate any dust and act as a water source for managing any bushfire threats that may occur onsite.

 

(13)   (F195)  Wastes from the timber mill operation including any timber offcuts, logs, firewood or sawdust shall be disposed of properly and shall not be disposed of by burning.

(14)   (A196) The wood pile screen must provide suitable noise protection to surrounding residents and may need to be adjusted from time to time to ensure noise levels stay within acceptable levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      13/11/2013

 

 

Item:          10

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 0216 - STAGED 23 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH RESIDUE LOT AT LOT 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 PACIFIC DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Report Author: Clint Tink

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 Pacific Drive, Port Macquarie

Applicant:               Kallin Property Pty Ltd c/- King & Campbell Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Kallin Property Pty Ltd

Application Date:   6 November 2013

Estimated Cost:     $5,450,000

Location:                 Port Macquarie

File no:                    DA 2013 - 0216

Parcel no:               19397 & 33838

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.   That DA 2013/0216 for a staged 23 lot residential subdivision with residue lot  at Lot 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 Pacific Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

2.   That the General Manager exercise delegation granted by the Council resolution of 22 October 2008 to enter into the Pacific Drive Integrated Housing Environmental Management Land Planning Agreement.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for a staged 23 lot residential subdivision and residue lot at the subject site. The application includes a Voluntary Planning Agreement, which provides for the establishment, management, and dedication of environmental management land and payment of monetary development contributions towards ongoing management.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, three (3) submissions have been received.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement one (1) submission was received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 2.8077ha.

 

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:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2067_C0A8C986:014224FBDC90:C803:39DA797A%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:014224FBDC90:C803:39DA797A

 

The site is located on the western side of Pacific Drive with Sea Acres Nature Reserve located on the eastern side. Adjoining the site to the north and south is a mixture of residential development. An unformed crown road reserve adjoins the southern boundary and is currently used as an informal pedestrian access.

 

The site is vacant and slopes south east to north west down into Wrights Creek. The site is heavily vegetated with a major portion comprising regrowth and weeds.

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl3374_C0A8C986:014224FBDC90:C803:39DA797A%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:014224FBDC90:C803:39DA797A

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Development is to be generally staged as follows:

Stage 1 = Construction of roads and infrastructure work.

Stage 2 = Creation of each lot with proposed Lot 1 likely to be an initial sub stage.

Stage 3 = Construction of dwellings.

Conditions will be imposed to allow variations to staging where there is no impact.

·    Twenty three (23) residential lots will be created, each containing a dwelling.

·    A residue lot will also be created and contain the residue environmental lands. The residue lot is to be dedicated to Council as public land completing a vegetated link from Wrights Creek to Sea Acres Nature Reserve. The residue lot is also the subject of a vegetation management plan (VMP) and draft voluntary planning agreement (VPA). The VPA provides for the establishment, management, and dedication of environmental management land and payment of monetary development contributions towards ongoing management.

·    The residential lot sizes vary from 377.8m² to 701.7m². Residue lot is 1.128ha.

·    Access to the site will be made available from a new entry point to be created off Pacific Drive. The single entry point will provide the only access point to Pacific Drive (i.e. no lot will have direct access onto Pacific Drive).

·    The area to be developed for housing will need to be cleared. The clearing is offset by the residue lot that is to be dedicated to Council. As a result, the application is accompanied by an ecological report.

·    Approximately 53 mature and 160 immature trees will be retained.

·    The proposed housing is predominately 3 bedroom single storey. Proposed Lot 11, 13 & 15 will be two (2) storey.

·    The development is integrated development under the Rural Fires Act 1997 and requires a Bushfire Safety Authority.

·    Council staff consider the that the majority of remanent vegetation is Lowland Rainforest as listed under the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The applicant will be responsible for any referral and comments from the Department of Environment (DSEWPaC), which is a separate process and can override any consent issued.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    9/4/2013 - Application lodged with Council.

·    23/4/2013 to 8/5/2013 - Notification period for the development application.

·    19/4/2013 - Council staff requested additional information on cost of works, location of services to street tree plantings, details of existing and proposed side and rear fencing, plans printed off to scale and copy of Appendix G.

·    26/4/2013 - Masterplan waiver provided by Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the development under State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 Coastal Protection.

·    3/5/2013 - Applicant provided response to the additional information letter dated 19/4/2013.

·    7/5/2013 - Email sent to the applicant regarding a number of ecological issues. Onsite meeting held to discuss issues.

·    16/5/2013 - Deferral of development contributions requested by the applicant.

·    21/5/2013 - NSW Rural Fire Service advised that they are not in a position to issue a Bushfire Safety Authority. Additional information required.

·    27/5/2013 - Applicant offered to enter into a VPA as a means to establish and manage the residue environmental land, prior to Council taking responsibility. Applicant responded to additional information letter dated 7/5/2013.

·    29/5/2013 - Council staff believed the additional information on ecological aspects did not fully address all the issues but staff had sufficient knowledge of the site to reach a conclusion on acceptability.

·    6/6/2013 - Applicant responded to NSW RFS issues and submitted an amended VMP.

·    12/6/2013 - VMP accepted by Council’s Environmental Services staff.

·    18/6/2013 to 4/7/2013 - Issue of Asset Protection Zones (APZs) being located on Council land (as detailed in the additional information provided by the applicant) was discussed amongst relevant sections in Council and deemed not an acceptable practice. A letter was subsequently forwarded to NSW RFS advising this position.

·    6/7/2013 - Draft VPA provided to applicant.

·    16/7/2013 to 18/7/2013 - Discussions with NSW RFS regarding APZ on Council land issue.

·    18/7/2013 - Non acceptance of APZs and associated maintenance on Council land was provided to the applicant to address.

·    2/8/2013 - Meeting held with the applicant and Council staff to discuss the APZs on Council land issue and general status of DA.

·    2/8/2013 to 13/8/2013 - Follow up request and discussions with the applicant on additional information request regarding initial development costings.

·    27/8/2013 - Applicant responded to additional information request on APZ issue and provided comments on the VPA. Cost of development was revised and outstanding fees paid.

·    6/9/2013 - Council staff provided feedback on VPA and APZ issue.

·    20/9/2013 to 18/10/2013 - VPA exhibition period.

·    20/9/2013 to 27/9/2013 - Discussions with applicant and NSW RFS regarding APZ issue.

·    4/10/2013 - Applicant requested and was advised of upcoming DAP meeting dates in order to gain an understanding on when the application may be determined.

·    9/10/2013 - Follow up email sent to NSW RFS regarding referral comments.

·    21/10/2013 to 5/11/2013 - Further discussions were held between Council staff, the applicant and NSW RFS regarding the issue of the APZ for proposed Lot 7 being partially on Council land (i.e. stormwater detention area). The NSW RFS issued the Bushfire Safety Authority on 5/11/2013. Following a meeting, the applicant also amended the application on 5/11/2013 to reduce the size of the stormwater detention area so that the APZ required by the NSW RFS was now completely within proposed Lot 7/private land. The APZ issue is considered to have been resolved.

·    5/11/2013 to 6/11/2013 - NSW RFS advised that the changes were consistent with the Bushfire Safety Authority issued on 5/11/2013. Furthermore, a revised Bushfire Safety Authority would be issued so that it was consistent with the new documents and referenced properly.

·    6/11/2013 - Amended plan set received.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(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 26 - Littoral Rainforests

Pursuant to Clause 4(1)(b), the SEPP applies to land not so enclosed but within a distance of 100 metres from the outer edge of that heavy black line except residential land. The development meets the distance requirements of the SEPP but is zoned residential. In this regard, the SEPP does not apply.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The property is over 1ha in size and therefore triggers the provisions of SEPP 44 to be considered. An ecological report considering SEPP 44 was submitted with the application and confirmed that the site shows use by koalas but does not contain Potential Koala Habitat.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

A Preliminary Stage 1 Contaminated Land investigation has been undertaken by David Pensini Building Services in accordance with SEPP55 - Remediation of Land and has found on the basis of the records available that contamination from former land uses is unlikely to occur onsite.  However due to the vegetative cover, the report recommends that a contaminated land consultant be present onsite during subdivision land clearing works to confirm this conclusion. A condition requiring the presence of a contaminated land consultant during subdivision land clearing works is  recommended to determine whether there is need to carry out any further site testing.

At this stage, the site is not considered to be contaminated and in need of remediation. Further consideration of the SEPP is not warranted in this case.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, proposed stormwater controls and the location of the subdivision; the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on any existing aquaculture industries within the Hastings River.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

No signage proposed.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71. The site is further identified as being within a sensitive coastal location.

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

Having regard to clauses 8 and 12 to 16 of SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of Hastings LEP 2011 inclusive the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

a) any restricted access (or opportunities for access) to the coastal foreshore;

b) any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on the scenic qualities of the coast;

c) any identifiable adverse impacts on any known flora and fauna (or their natural environment);

d) subject to any identifiable adverse coastal processes or hazards;

e) any identifiable conflict between water and land based users of the area;

f) any identifiable adverse impacts on any items of archaeological/heritage; and

g) reduce the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality.

In particular, the site to be developed has considered the ecological value of the site, provided offsets and is located within an area zoned for residential purposes. The site is shielded from the coast and waterways by topographical features. Pedestrian access from western properties to the beach will be retained via the crown road reserve to the south and an internal footpath.

In addition to the above, the development triggered the need for a Masterplan under Clause 18 of the SEPP. The applicant subsequently requested a Masterplan waiver from the Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DoPI) under Clause 18(2). The DoPI approved the waiver on 26 April 2013.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

In accordance with clause 6, BASIX certificates have been submitted demonstrating that the proposal (dwellings) 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.

The requirements of this SEPP are satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005

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

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for an integrated housing development comprising residential subdivision using both Clause 4.1 and also Clause 4.1A to allow the creation of undersized lots for the purposes of erecting a dwelling house on each lot is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the established residential locality. The development will also provide additional housing types and densities within the locality.

In accordance with Clause 4.1, the proposed lots either comply with the 450m² minimum lot size standard or utilise Clause 4.1A to allow the creation of undersized lots. When both construction and subdivision are included in the one application, Clause 4.1A allows the minimum lot size standard to be varied.

The intent of the clause is to encourage housing diversity without compromising residential amenity. This overall assessment shows that the development will have limited impact on adjoining properties. The area contains a mixture of low and medium density residential development. This proposal will be consistent with such a density.

In accordance with clause 4.3, all dwellings comply with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying  to the site. It should be noted that the majority of dwellings are single storey. The two storey dwellings of Lot 11, 13 & 15 are all below 8m in height.

In accordance with clause 4.4, the floor space ratio for the dwellings do not exceed 0.55:1 on each of their respective lots, which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the area.

In accordance with clause 5.9, trees listed in Development Control Plan 2011 are proposed to be removed. This application includes the removal of such vegetation. The removal of the vegetation has been accepted by an ecologist report and Council’s Natural Resource Section.

In accordance with clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance. A certificate from Biripai Local Aboriginal land Council dated 30 November 2004 stated that the site had no significance, Furthermore, Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) searches revealed no items or sites of significance onsite. Notwithstanding this, a precautionary condition of consent has been recommended to be imposed in the event items are discovered during the development process.

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site does not contain potential acid sulfate soils.

In accordance with clause 7.3, the site is not land within a mapped “flood planning area”.

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

 

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

 

None relevant.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

DCP 2011: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP 2.1

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

25% max. width of dwelling

A number of the proposed dwellings include porticos within the articulation zone. The porticos do not encroach on the 3m setback or equate to more than 25% of the articulation allowable area. It should be noted that the porticos to Lot 19 & 21, would normally be over the 25% standard but are considered to be on a secondary frontage (i.e. Pacific Drive is the Primary Frontage). In addition, the variations to the 25% are only minor and would not impact on the streetscape of objectives of the DCP.

Yes

DP2.2

 

DP3.1

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 6.0m classified road

Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot

Min. 3.0m secondary road

Min. 2.0m Laneway

Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade

The development generally complies when considering front and secondary street setback locations. Notable non compliance include proposed Lot 1 dwelling being setback 3m to Pacific Drive instead of being setback 4.5m and proposed Lot 8 being setback only 3.2m from the new western road frontage instead of being 4.5m. Both cases involve corner lots, so there is a degree of ambiguity. In terms of proposed Lot 1, the dwelling entrance is located towards the new internal road. Furthermore, the existing development to the north along Pacific Drive is setback less than 3m. In this regard, the proposed Lot 1 dwelling setback exceeds the new internal road setback requirement, remains consistent with the setback adopted for the other dwellings facing the new internal road heading west and provides a transition from the development to the north on Pacific Drive. In this regard, the proposed development will not impact on streetscape and is considered an acceptable measure in terms of developing the site internally and blending in with the surrounding development.

The proposed Lot 8 dwelling being on a corner lot provides a wrap around that transitions with two relatively short frontages. As a single dwelling on a corner lot it will not standout on either streetscape and is articulated with non enclosed areas to further reduce the amount of encroachment. Fencing will also minimise any impact on streetscape.

Each unit contains a driveway setback 1m behind the front of the dwelling where the front setback is 4.5m and more or 5.5m where front setbacks are less than 4.5m. While the garage to proposed Lot 15 is not setback 1m, the garage is considered to be more located on a secondary frontage and the setback of 5.5m is acceptable.

No, but acceptable.

DP3.1

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Garage doors are recessed.

Yes

DP3.2

6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building

Garage doors do not exceed 6m in width or take up 50% width of building.

Yes

DP3.3

Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width

Driveway crossovers do not exceed 5m or 1/3 of the site frontage.

Yes

DP4.1

DP4.2

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

The development has a number of rear setback variations. In some cases the variations are offset by larger setbacks on the same boundary so as to provide articulation, while retaining useable areas.

In other cases, the setbacks have been shifted from the rear boundary to either the front or side of the property to ensure suitable northerly aspect.

In both cases, the development achieves the objectives of the DCP by providing useable open space areas with adequate natural light and ventilation.

The integrated and infill nature of the development also allows the variations to be considered holistically to ensure no impact.

No but acceptable.

DP5.1

DP5.2

DP5.3

 

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min.

Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

All dwellings are setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries.

The 2 storey dwellings are not setback 3m from side boundaries but will not create any adverse overshadowing. The 2 storey units basically overshadow each other but their key living areas are focused towards the front and rear of the lots. The small building depths will also still allow suitable morning and afternoon sun to penetrate the key living areas.

The development contains a number of areas where walls are 12m+ without articulation. This does not occur on any frontage and the predominant single storey nature of the design, coupled with fences, ensures no bulk or visual impact outside of each lot.

No but acceptable.

DP6.1

35m² min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade

Each unit contains over 35m² private open space including a 4m x 4m area directly accessible from a living room. The open space areas also make use of a north aspect.

Yes

DP7.1

DP8.1

DP8.2

Front fences:

If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m  with landscaping

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel

Fencing to be conditioned to comply with DCP, which is achievable onsite.

Yes

DP10.1

DP10.2

DP10.3

DP10.4

Privacy:

Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. i.e.. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m

Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

1.8m high fencing is proposed to ensure privacy between dwellings.

In terms of the 2 storey dwellings, the upstairs areas views are focused to the front and rear of each lot, which ensures limited overlooking or privacy concerns.

Yes

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP 2.1

Development has been notified in accordance with DCP.

Adjoining property owners were notified in accordance with the DCP.

Yes

DP 6.1

Social Impact Assessment

The development does not trigger the need for a social impact assessment.

Yes

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available. No significant entrapment or concealment areas proposed. Property boundaries defined. Pathways have clear lines of site.

Yes

DP5.1

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

Cut and fill not does not exceed 1m.

Yes

DP6.1

0.8m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

Retaining walls for Lots fronting the western road (i.e. Lot 11 & 13) will have quarry boulder style retaining walls that exceed 0.8m at 1m high. Given the aesthetic and natural boulder design, no adverse impact is foreseen on streetscape.

No, but acceptable.

DP6.2

Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer

Retaining walls do not to exceed 1m.

Yes

DP6.3

Combination of retaining wall and front fence height

To be conditioned to comply with DCP. Compliance is achievable. Some of the dwellings will need to either reduce the height of the front retaining wall or front fence to ensure compliance.

Yes

DP 10.1

Habitat offset requirements where vegetation removed. VMP required for any environmental land.

VMP and VPA submitted to address tree removal and offsets.

Yes

DP11.1 onwards

Removal of hollow bearing trees

Tree removal including hollow bearing trees has been addressed in the ecological assessment that accompanied the application and also through the submission of the VPA and VMP. No hollow bearing trees were identified and no adverse impacts foreseen.

Yes

DP1.1

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint

Tree removal including hollow bearing trees has been addressed in the ecological assessment that accompanied the application and also through the submission of the VPA and VMP. No adverse impacts foreseen.

Yes

 

Bushfire risk, Heritage, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report. APZ’s are contained within perimeter roads and private property.

Yes

DP2.3

Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking

Driveway number and width acceptable.

Yes

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

Parking acceptable.

Yes

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

Yes

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

The site contains sufficient area to provide landscaping.

Yes

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Driveways are proposed to be sealed.

Yes

DP15.1

Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length

Driveway grades acceptable.

Yes

DP17.1

Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.

Parking areas standard for residential.

Yes

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Each site contains grassed areas suitable for washing vehicles.

Yes

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

•  1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Each dwelling is provided with a double garage and area in the driveway to accommodate visitor parking.

Yes

 

DCP 2011: Subdivision

DP1.1 Provision of suitable site analysis in accordance with listed requirements.

Site plan submitted with the application included suitable analysis detail.

Yes

DP2.1

·    Min. 15m width measured at 5.5m from front boundary;

·    Min. width of 7m when side boundaries are extended to kerb line

·    Min. depth 25m;

·    If avg. slope equal to or greater than 16 degrees, road and driveway grades provided.

The dimensional requirements are considered more applicable to a conventional subdivision whereby the design of dwellings is unknown (i.e. creation of vacant lots). This development is for an integrated development allowing consideration of the suitability of a particular dwelling design on the lot to be created. The development is acceptable in terms of height, FSR, setbacks, open space etc. Furthermore, the development could still occur without subdivision and the outcome would be the same.

Based on the above, the variation is acceptable.

No, but acceptable.

DP2.2 Lots smaller than 450m created only through community or strata title scheme, or integrated torrens housing development

 

Note: All newly created lots meet minimum lot size in accordance with Cl. 4.1 of LEP

The proposed lots are less than 450m² but comply with Clause 4.1A of LEP 2011 as the proposal is being undertaken as an integrated torrens title housing development.

Yes

DP4.1 Lots designed to create dwellings with no more than 1m cut and fill outside building walls.

Addressed previously.

Yes

DP4.2

·    Lot area and width created in accordance with slope category (prevails over zoning)

Slope %

Category

Min lot area (m2)

Min width in any direction (m)

0-10

A

450

15

11-15

B

600

18

16-20

C

1000

20

21-25

D

1200

25

>25

Subdivision discouraged

 

·    In addition to DP1.1, information provided regarding slope in accordance with Table 5.

 

The lots have been created in accordance with Clause 4.1A of LEP 2011 and DP 2.2 of DCP 2011 above.

N/A

DP5.1-5.2 Solar access considered through:

·    Minimal creation of narrow north facing blocks;

·    Blocks generally created with north-south orientation & in accordance with fig. 12;

 

The lots and housing design make good use of solar access and views.

Yes

DP5.3 Lots ensure future dwelling has ample opportunity for solar passive design.

Refer to above comment.

Yes

DP6.1 & DP6.2

·    Provision of suitable street plan derived from site analysis (see DP1.1);

·    Street Plan provided in accordance with requirements listed in DP6.2

Street design has been accepted by Council’s engineering staff.

Yes

DP6.3

·    Kerb and guttering provided, or alternative solution demonstrated.

·    Acceptable drainage techniques demonstrated

Street design has been accepted by Council’s Engineering Section.

Yes

DP6.4 Size of blocks may vary provided acceptable ease of movement demonstrated.

Size of lots are acceptable.

Yes

DP7.1 & DP7.2 Subdivisions close to urban centres, or along arterial roads serviced by public transport achieve >35 dwellings per hectare (high – medium yield)

Lots sizes are in accordance with the LEP and not too dissimilar from adjoining areas. Density is considered acceptable in this case, especially when considering the important dedication of key environmental land.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

The Developer has offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the purposes of Section 93F of the Act in relation to the application.

 

The Planning Agreement has been signed by the Developer.  Public notification of the proposed Planning Agreement was provided on 20 September to 18 October 2013.  One submission was received and the matters raised are considered later in this report. 

 

The planning agreement provides for

·    Establishment, management and dedication of Environmental Management Land.

·    Payment of monetary development contributions to be held and applied by Council towards the ongoing management of Environmental Management Land.

 

Council’s resolution 22 October 2008 (Item 27) provides the General Manager delegated authority to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement on behalf of Council where the development to which the Agreement relates is approved by Council’s Development Assessment Panel.

 

Development Contributions for water, sewer and s94 development contributions apply to the development.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy. Refer to comments on SEPP 71 for further context.

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

None relevant.

 

(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 & Setting

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

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

There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

There is no adverse privacy impacts.

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

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

Roads

The proposal has a single intersection with Pacific Drive and all allotments are to be accessed from internal subdivision roads. The site has existing kerb and gutter for its full length along Pacific Drive.

 

Traffic

Intersection with Pacific Drive to be designed in accordance with Council’s edition of AUS-PEC Geometric Road Design, specifically in regards to D1.17 Intersections and Turning Areas. The internal subdivision roads are to be designed in accordance with Table D1.5 - Characteristics of Roads in Residential Subdivision Road Networks.

 

Access

The subdivision road network access is acceptable.

 

Manoeuvring

The subdivision road system caters for manoeuvring in accordance with AUS-PEC.

 

Pedestrians

Footpath paving has been provided for the full length of Pacific Drive that fronts the development and single side for internal subdivision roads (DCP 2011). Additional footpath has been provided to the south west subdivision, this adjoins a current earth track linking Nangara Place. While the track links into the Crown Road to the south, no work is proposed on the Crown Road.

 

Public Domain

The development will provide additional road and pedestrian linkages to public areas, which will create a positive impact on the public domain. The establishment and dedication of environmental land will also improve the connectivity of the Wrights Creek area to Sea Acres Nature Reserve.

 

Utilities

Utilities are available to the site and will need to be installed/upgraded at the applicant’s expense.

 

Stormwater

Stormwater is to be collected on-site with a bio-retention basin and detention basin to be developed on the western portion of the site. The design of the stormwater system will need to comply with AUSPEC.

 

Sewer

Sewer is available to the site and will require alteration and extension to serve the proposed dwellings.

 

The application proposes a sewer strategy that is generally satisfactory in principle.

The strategy includes re-routing a section of existing sewer main that currently traverses the site.

 

A check of Council records compared to the submitted dwelling details indicates that the floor level of dwelling 4 may need to be raised in order to provide the necessary 1.05m above the soffit of Council sewer main as the proposed main deviation connects to the existing manhole in the vicinity.

 

Whilst the existing sewer gravity pipelines are adequate to serve the site, the effluent will be received by SPS PM 09. Any upgrading of this pump  station, necessitated by the increase in load will be at the applicant’s cost.

 

Water

The development site is currently serviced from the existing 100mm AC water main on the same side of Pacific Drive. The water main layout shown on the plans are acceptable in principle.

 

The water main in Pacific Drive at the proposed entry is to be replaced in 150mm ductile iron. Council may chose to replace the Pacific Drive water main along the frontage of the development site in conjunction with footpath construction work.

 

In addition to the above, no work is proposed within 40m of a drainage line. In this regard, integrated approval under the Water Management Act 2000 is not required.

 

Soils

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

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

The applicant has submitted a flora and fauna impact assessment report prepared by Peter Parker Ecological dated 8 February 2013.

The report addresses the requirements of the ‘7 part test’ under Section 5A of the Act and has been reviewed by Council’s Natural Resources Section.

Through the report and Council staff assessment, it was concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on flora and fauna. While it was identified that vulnerable species were identified onsite and vegetation and habitat is proposed to be disturbed, the proposal also seeks to establish and enhance the existing wildlife corridor between Wrights Creek and Sea Acres Nature Reserve. The enhanced corridor will be achieved through a VPA and VMP covering the establishment and maintenance of the 60m wide corridor.

Based on the above, the ecological assessment and Council staff review confirmed that the proposed development will have no adverse impact on threatened species, populations, communities or habitat. The ameliorative and conservation measures surrounding the proposed corridor will enhance the ecological value of the site and area.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Energy

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

 

Noise & Vibration

The data available from Council’s Infrastructure services indicates that the daily traffic count on Pacific Drive was 2972 in November 2012. Based on an annual 3% increase in traffic movements per year, an estimate of 4000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Pacific Drive in the year 2022 has been calculated, which is considerably less than the 40,000AADT required by the Infrastructure SEPP 2007 for Road Traffic Noise (RTN) to be taken into consideration. 

Therefore RTN is not considered to be an issue and standard noise control DA consent conditions during subdivision works have been recommended.

Natural Hazards

The site is identified as being bushfire prone and due to the subdivision aspect; the proposal represents integrated development. The applicant has submitted a bushfire report, which was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service. The NSW Rural Fire Services have since provided their General Terms of Approval/Bushfire Safety Authority. The design has been amended since the Bushfire Safety Authority was received so that the APZ for proposed Lot 7 is no longer on Council land but rather wholly contained within proposed Lot 7. The intention of the Bushfire Safety Authority is still achieved. This was confirmed with the NSW Rural Fire Service. To avoid confusion with plan and lot references, the NSW Rural Fire Service is going to issue a revised Bushfire Safety Authority. The general nature of the recommended conditions allow this to occur.

 

 

Contamination Hazards

Refer to comments on SEPP 55 above in this report.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

Adequate casual surveillance available. No significant entrapment or concealment areas proposed. Property boundaries defined. Pathways have clear lines of site.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

The development is unlikely to have any adverse social impact given the following:

-     The site has been identified for residential purposes for some time.

-     The site makes use of existing and adjoining infrastructure.

-     The development will improve linkages and access to the area.

-     Access to the beach will be retained.

-     The more valued ecological areas will be retained and maintained.

-     Improved bushfire protection to the area.

The development may create negative impacts during construction. However this is considered to be capable of being managed to an acceptable level. Overall, it is considered that the development will not have a significant adverse social impact.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects, such as increased employment and expenditure in the local area.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality. The proposal has retained the more ecological sensitive land and secured long term management through the proposed planning agreement. The subdivision layout also makes use of existing roads and services. In this regard, the design is unlikely to create any adverse impact.

 

Construction

No potential long term impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal. Conditions will be imposed limiting construction hours.

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

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

Site constraints 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 have been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the development application and one (1) submission following completion of the required public exhibition of the voluntary planning agreement (VPA). In terms of the submission on the VPA, the issue related to a previous submission on the DA regarding access to a property to the west rather than the VPA specifically. The access issue is discussed below.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Access to an adjoining property to the west is constrained. Consideration should be given to access through proposed Lot 24.

Access to the subject property to the west is available from an unconstructed Crown Road off Pacific Drive, although it is noted formalisation of the road could prove costly. Council would also be reluctant to take on the ownership of the road. The subject Lot also has frontage to Reading Street, albeit constrained by having to access across Environmental zoned land and Wrights Creek. It is further noted that the actual area zoned R1 General Residential on the subject lot is heavily timbered and located close to Wrights Creek. This may create drainage, bushfire and ecological issues, which ultimately may deem the site unsuitable for development. This is evident in the assessment of this DA, whereby a significant portion (i.e. proposed Lot 24) has been listed for environmental land. Providing any access through Lot 24 has potential to compromise the wildlife corridor.

Ultimately gaining access over another property owners land is a civil matter between property owners. In this case the subject property is not considered landlocked but rather constrained. Access and development potential of the property will ultimately be subject to further specific assessment.

The property should be re-forested with koala food trees and other species to support the wildlife in the area.

The land is zoned for residential purposes. It is considered that an appropriate balance has been reached with the preservation of environmental lands and the facilitation of urban development. The VPA and VMP have been specifically developed to improve the wildlife corridor and capabilities of the site.

The site should be developed for something more substantial than just residential.

The development is permissible in the zone and is considered to have been designed to not only achieve a suitable residential outcome but also the preservation of important habitat links.

Impact of construction noise on adjoining properties during construction. Will adjoining property owners be compensated for loss of rent.

Construction of the development is not a long term impact and is conditioned to occur during allowable times. This will ensure limited impact on surrounding areas.

Will all the solar hot water systems be low line units.

The hot water systems will be solar (electric boosted) in accordance with BASIX requirements.

Where fill is built up to 1m for Lots 1-7 engineered retaining walls and fencing providing privacy will be required.

Retaining walls will be utilised and 1.8m high fences constructed above to ensure privacy is retained between the development and adjoining properties.

What is the colour of roofing materials?

Council does not usually get involved in roof colour unless there is a potential glare issue. It is noted that the plans of the houses indicate anti glare roofing.

The construction of new sewer and stormwater mains running down the block, it is likely that the boundary fence will be affected by underpinning. Will the fence be warranted for future years at developer’s expense?

New side and rear fences are proposed to be constructed. Fences running parallel to services are common with any future maintenance being a civil matter between property owners.

Unit 4 east footing may be being built on top of the existing ac sewer main running across from south to north. I cannot see why it cannot be utilised  for most of the development seeing it’s been paid for once already.

Sewer servicing for the development has been accepted by Council’s Sewer Section with any changes being done at the applicant’s expense.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest. The proposed development will be in the wider public interest by facilitating appropriate additional housing while at the same time protecting key ecological areas and linkages.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·          Dedication of Environmental Management Land

·          Monetary Development Contribution as provided for in the Planning Agreement between Port Macquarie Hastings Council and

·          Water & Sewer headworks contributions

·          Section 94 Development Contributions

 

Refer to draft contribution schedule attached to this report and recommended conditions.

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 0216 Master Plan

2View. DA2013 - 0216 Lot Layout Plan

3View. DA2013 - 0216 Landscape Concept Plan

4View. DA2013 - 0216 VPA

5View. DA2013 - 0216 Development Contributions Calculation Sheet

6View. DA2013 - 0216 Interim Bushfire Safety Authority

7View. DA2013 - 0216 Draft Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

13/11/2013