coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting (land … · l24 development application 311/09 - dual...

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING (LAND USE, HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE)

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COFF AND CASTLE STREETS, COFFS HARBOUR

10 SEPTEMBER 2009

Contents

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE

LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

L24 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 311/09 - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT LOT 310 DP 1074032, 7 BREAKERS WAY, KORORA

1

L25 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 140/09 – MULTI UNIT HOUSING (7 UNITS) AND DEMOLITION (PART EXISTING BUILDING, POOL AND GAZEBO) – LOT 5, DP 252782 AND LOT 6, SECTION 49, DP 758258, NO. 22 CAMPERDOWN STREET, COFFS HARBOUR

26

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

The following item either in whole or in part may be considered in Closed Meeting for the reasons stated:

A portion of this report is confidential for the reason of Section 10A (2) of the Local Government Act, 1993:

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

and in accordance with Section 10A (1) the meeting may be closed to the public.

L26 COMPANION ANIMALS IMPOUNDING AGREEMENT 52

ctscatherine

Note

Minutes for this meeting will be confirmed at the Council Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, Council Administration Building, on 24 September 2009 commencing at 5.00pm

LAND USE, HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10 SEPTEMBER 2009 - 1 -

COFFS HARBOUR CITY COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING (LAND USE, HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE)

10 SEPTEMBER 2009

Mayor and Councillors LAND USE HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS

L24 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 311/09 - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT LOT 310 DP 1074032, 7 BREAKERS WAY, KORORA

Purpose: To consider the request for a review of determination of Development Application 311/09 for a detached dual occupancy at 7 Breakers Way, Korora.

The Development Application file will be placed in the Councillor’s room for perusal prior to consideration by Council and be available at the Council meeting.

Cont'd


L24 Development Application 311/09 - Dual Occupancy Development Lot 310 DP 1074032,

7 Breakers Way, Korora …(Cont’d) Introduction: Council at its meeting of 9 April 2009 resolved to refuse DA311/09 for a detached dual occupancy at the proposed development site on the basis that:

“The application does not meet the future desired character of the area due to amenity, aesthetics and neighbourhood character.”

Following Council's refusal of this application, the applicant has exercised the right to have that decision reviewed, as provided for under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. As the initial application was determined by Council the review must also be determined by Council, according to the requirements of section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The request for review has been lodged with supporting documentation from a consulting planner (Jock Palmer and Associates). The report provides a review of relevant planning considerations and concludes that “the proposal is an appropriate development response for the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:

• It will provide for two high quality residential dwellings within the Korora area. • It has taken into account the environmental features of the site, existing surrounding

development, aspect and energy efficiency. • It is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan

2000, the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1998, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71, the NSW Coastal Policy and other relevant Regulations.

• It is generally consistent with the provisions of Councils Low Density Housing Development Control Plan.

• It is consistent with the existing residential character of the neighbourhood in that similar dual occupancy developments have been approved in the immediate area without any loss of residential amenity or tangible detrimental affectation to the neighbourhood”.

The full report prepared by the planning consultant will be placed in the Councillor’s room for perusal prior to consideration by Council and be available at the Council meeting. As the applicant has requested the review without making any changes to the original plans, the report to Council for this review remains relatively unchanged to that written for the original submission see Appendix A. Consultation: • Notification

The application has been notified in accordance with the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Seven (7) submissions were received following the notification process.

Cont'd



7 Breakers Way, Korora …(Cont’d)

The submissions received raised the following concerns, consistent with those received in relation to the original application;

- Design (neighbourhood character) - Privacy - Density - Driveway (grade) - Reflective Surfaces - Covenant (restricting development to single dwellings) - Koala Habitat removal - Stormwater runoff

The theme of most objections was that the proposed development was out of character with the existing neighbourhood.

• Other Department's Comments:

The request for review does not incorporate any changes to the original application that was assessed by Council's internal sections. There were no objections raised to that proposal, subject to conditions of approval.

Statutory Requirements: • Section 79C Evaluation (see Appendix A)

As the applicant has not modified the original application the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 remain unchanged from the initial assessment and report to Council. The development is not inconsistent with the matters for consideration under Section 79C. A copy of the report is appended (see Appendix A).

• Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LEP)

The site is within a Residential 2A Low Density Residential zone under the LEP. Attached dual occupancy developments are permissible with development consent in the 2A zone.

• North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (REP) 1988

Clause 32B was considered. The development is not inconsistent with the requirements of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997, the Coastline Management Manual, or the North Coast: Design Guidelines. Clause 41 and Clause 43 of the REP direct Council to consider the provision of adequate affordable and suitable housing to meet the needs of the region’s population. The proposal is not inconsistent with these provisions.

Cont'd



7 Breakers Way, Korora …(Cont’d) • State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is within the coastal zone. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP and the “matters for consideration” under Clause 8 of the policy.

• Low Density Housing Development Control Plan (DCP)

The development complies with the provisions of this DCP. Issues: • Design / Neighbourhood Character

The majority of objections to the development relate to the building not being in accordance with the desired future character of the neighbourhood. Comment: The design provides for a single driveway to serve a detached dual occupancy that when viewed from the street will primarily appear as a single dwelling house. The detached development form provides for a development of similar character to other dwellings in the area. The proposed dual occupancy will provide for development that is in accordance with the relevant planning provisions that apply to the land. The proposal satisfies both the Objectives and Controls provisions of the Low Density Housing DCP.

• Privacy

Concern has been raised over the orientation of the buildings overlooking the adjoining land. Comment: The development is adjoined on both sides by undeveloped land. Any future developments on the adjoining vacant land can be designed to account for any issues they may have with existing adjoining developments.

• Density

Concern has been raised that the development does not meet the requirements of the Low Density Housing DCP with regards to density. Comment: The proposal fully complies with Council’s relevant development standards. The development standard requires a minimum of 400m2 per dwelling. The proposal provides for one dwelling per 624 m2.

• Driveway

Concern has been raised as to the appropriateness of the driveway with respect to grades and turning areas. Comment: The review of application remains unchanged from the initial proposal assessed by Council’s City Services Department. The proposed driveway details have been approved as satisfactory.

Cont'd



7 Breakers Way, Korora …(Cont’d) • Reflective Surfaces

The potential impact of glare from the roof of the proposed development has been raised as a concern. Comment: A view of the roof will be visible from developments particularly along Lagoona Close. The applicant has indicated that the roofing colour will be "Dune", a medium grey colour, with medium solar "absorptance". This is considered satisfactory in relation to reflection mitigation.

• Existing Covenant The Conveyancing Act 1919, Section 88B instrument that applies to this site and the estate contains a clause that states: “not more than a single dwelling shall be erected or permitted to remain erected on each lot burdened”. Comment: A developer may place certain covenants on individual sites under a Section 88B instrument. These covenants may apply restrictions beyond those required under Council's planning instruments. For this reason clause 17 of LEP 2000, 'Suspension of Restrictions on Land', contains the following objective:

“To ensure private restrictions do not restrict development or activities being carried out in accordance with this Plan."

The existing land holders are the controlling authority on this restriction, not the Council. Following the recent determination by approval of an application for a dual occupancy development within the same area Council resolved in that instance to notify people who had made submissions that:

“Council regrets that landowners within the estate were given an expectation that single dwelling houses only were permitted, however, such a restriction on title does not override Council's planning controls for the land.”

• Koala Habitat Removal

Concern has been raised in relation to the removal of koala habitat trees. Comment: The proposed development will require the removal of two (2) Secondary Koala Habitat trees. Council’s Biodiversity Section supported the initial proposal following consideration of the Koala Plan of Management subject to conditional approval including a requirement for compensatory planting. The request for review of application remains unchanged from the initial application and accordingly the assessment undertaken by Council’s Biodiversity Section remains unchanged.

• Stormwater Runoff

Concern has been raised regarding additional loadings to the stormwater system and increased site runoff.

Cont'd



7 Breakers Way, Korora …(Cont’d)

Comment: Sediment and erosion control measures will be required in accordance with Council’s relevant policy to minimise site run-off and any impact to the natural environment during construction of the development. Each of the dwellings is to be provided with a 9000L rainwater tank which will aid in the control of stormwater run-off. Overflow stormwater from the development will be collected and directed to the street gutter drainage system. The development will incorporate controls as applicable to normal building practice and being a dual occupancy will have no more of an impact than that of similar large single storey dwellings within the local neighbourhood.

Summary: Dual occupancy development in this area has been strongly contested by the surrounding land owners who have raised objection to this development and other recent development applications for dual occupancies in the area. Although the application remains unchanged from the previous application that was recommended for approval by staff, the application has been accompanied by a detailed planning consultant's report. The report provides an assessment review against the relevant planning controls and supports the approval of the application. Council must assess the application against the relevant planning controls available; i.e. the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan and the Low Density Housing Development Control Plan. It is considered that the review of determination should be supported, given that the proposal complies with these controls. Recommendation: 1. That Development Application 311/09 for a detached dual occupancy development - Lot

310 DP 1074032, No. 7 Breakers Way, Korora, be approved subject to attached conditions (see Appendix B).

2. That people who made submissions regarding the application be advised of Council's determination.

- 7 -

Attachments:

Appendix A

- 10 -

- 11 -

- 12 -

- 13 -

- 14 -

- 15 -

- 16 -

- 17 -

- 18 -

- 19 -

- 20 -

- 21 -

- 22 -

Appendix B

Proposed Conditions of Consent

- 23 -

- 24 -

- 25 -


L25 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 140/09 – MULTI UNIT HOUSING (7 UNITS) AND DEMOLITION (PART EXISTING BUILDING, POOL AND GAZEBO) – LOT 5, DP 252782 AND LOT 6, SECTION 49, DP 758258, NO. 22 CAMPERDOWN STREET, COFFS HARBOUR

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present Development Application 140/09 for Council's consideration, which is an application for a multi unit housing development consisting of seven units and demolition (part of the existing building, pergola and pool). The report recommends conditional approval of the application.

The Development Application file will be placed in the Councillor's room for perusal prior to consideration by Council and be available at the Council meeting.

Cont'd


L25 Development Application No. 140/09 – Multi Unit Housing (7 Units) and Demolition

(Part Existing Building, Pool and Gazebo) – Lot 5, DP 252782 and Lot 6, Section 49, DP 758258, No. 22 Camperdown Street, Coffs Harbour …(Cont’d)

Description of Item: The site comprises Lot 6 Section 49 DP 758258; and Lot 5 DP 252782 and is known as 22 Camperdown Street. It is proposed as a condition of consent to consolidate the lots into one land parcel. The site is rectangular in shape and is approximately 1483m2 in area, is located midway along Camperdown Street on its eastern side, atop a small crest in the street. The site slopes down from Camperdown Street to the east, with the eastern portion quite steep. This part of the site has been subject to landslip in the past. The site's eastern boundary adjoins an unformed public lane across from which is the North Coast Railway. The site is currently known as Allambie Holiday Apartments, which is a three storey building that sits close to Camperdown Street – though the building presents as a two storey building along this frontage. The proposed development incorporates the retention of much of the existing building with substantial alterations and additions to be made to it. The additions are proposed on top of the existing building at the street and on the eastern side of the existing building. The development comprises seven levels tiered down the site from the existing building, with:

- Level 1 comprising pool. Cabana and toilet

- Level 2 comprising Apartment 1 (3 bedrooms) with northern and eastern terraces

- Level 3 comprising Apartment 2 (3 bedrooms) with northern and eastern terraces

- Level 4 comprising existing Allambie Holiday Apartment car park with Apartment 3 (3 bedrooms) with eastern and southern terraces

- Level 5 comprising existing Allambie Holiday Apartments ground floor with Apartment 5 (3 bedrooms) with eastern terrace located on the northern side, and Apartment 4 (4 bedrooms) with eastern and southern terraces located on the southern side

- Level 6 comprising existing Allambie Holiday Apartments first floor with Apartment 6 (3 bedrooms) with eastern and northern balconies located on the northern side, and Apartment 7 (4 bedrooms) with eastern terrace and southern balcony located on the southern side, and

- Level 7 comprising new floor to the existing building comprising an additional bedroom to Apartment 7 with eastern terrace and western balcony.

The building has been designed to incorporate a lift for disabled access. The development also comprises landscaping and facilities for waste storage. Pedestrian and vehicle access is available from Camperdown Street.

The development has an expected construction value of $2.5 million.

Cont'd




The proposed development generally complies with Council’s guidelines for the locality, with the exception of some departures to the controls of the Medium to High Density Housing Development Control Plan (DCP) in relation to setbacks, height and roof design. These departures are largely a result of existing site constraints, such as the retention of the existing building and the site location and topography. The departures from the controls do not result in any adverse impacts to neighbouring properties and in this context, are considered acceptable. A discussion of the departures to the setback controls is provided in the attachment to this report (refer to Appendix A - Section 79C). The application has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP. Nine submissions to the proposal from seven properties (refer to discussion below in the ‘issues’ section of the report for a summary of the issues raised by submissions) have been received to the proposal. Appended to this report are the following: • Appendix A – Section 79C Assessment; • Appendix B – Proposed Conditions of Development Consent. Sustainability Assessment: • Environment

The development site is within an established residential area, which is serviced by reticulated sewer and water. The land is devoid of significant native vegetation and has been previously developed. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the development will result in any impacts on flora, fauna, or wildlife corridors. The proposal is accompanied by a Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) Certificate indicating the building’s compliance with the NSW Government’s requirements for sustainability. Roof water is harvested and stored on site and utilised in the irrigation of garden areas. The proposed conditions of development consent will provide appropriate sediment and erosion controls during construction. The proposal will contribute to urban consolidation.

• Social

The development will provide social benefits to the locality as it proposes a mix of housing types, catering for the varied needs of the housing market. However, it is also likely that the development will result in impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents during the construction of the building. The proposed conditions of development consent have been designed to ensure that these impacts are minimised and managed appropriately (refer to Appendix C for details on the proposed conditions). As discussed in the View Sharing Assessment in the issues section of this report, the development will result in some loss of views for neighbouring residents. This loss is considered to be reasonable given that the development generally complies with the development standards for the locality and that there will be sufficient view corridors retained for affected properties when assessed against the entire views obtained from each property.

Cont'd




The development will also result in overshadowing for the dwelling to the south of the subject site during certain periods of the day, however the impacts are considered to be acceptable, with the development complying with the controls of the Medium to High Density Housing DCP in relation to Solar Access.

• Economic

Broader Economic Implications

The proposal will provide employment opportunity and other economic benefits during and post construction. No adverse economic impacts are likely from this proposal.

Management Plan Implications There are no Management Plan implications.

Consultation: The application has been subject to a comprehensive consultation process. The application was initially advertised and notified to adjoining and nearby property owners in November 2008. Nine submissions from seven properties have been received by Council during the assessment process. A number of submissions raised the issue of height and its impact with respect to loss of views. Council officers inspected the development site from relevant properties to determine impacts. Following inspection and consultation with property owners, height profiles were requested to be erected on the site to better gauge the developments impact on views. Those persons who raised the issues of height and view loss were notified of the erection of the profiles and invited to make further submission or arrange an inspection of the profiles from their property. Council officers attended properties which made the request to further assess impacts resulting from the development. • Internal Consultation

The application has been reviewed by Council’s internal sections, including City Services (subdivision, development and landscaping), Environmental Services (waste, noise), Land Use Management (BCA) and Corporate Business (developer contributions) and no objections have been raised to the proposal, subject to conditions.

• Statutory Consultation

The application was referred to Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) with respect to clause (87) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) in relation to residential development adjacent a rail corridor. ARTC raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions.

Related Policy and / or Precedents: There are no relevant policies or precedents of note.

Cont'd




Statutory Requirements: The following State Policies are relevant to this application and are required to be considered as part of the assessment: - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design of Residential Flat Development; - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Development; - State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure); - North Coast Regional Environmental Plan. The application has been assessed against the controls of these policies (refer to Appendix A for the Section 79C Assessment and further discussion in relation to this matter). • Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000

The land is zoned Residential 2C Medium-High Density under the Coffs Harbour City Local Environmental Plan 2000 for which Multi Unit Housing is permissible with Development Consent.

• Medium to High Density Housing DCP

The proposed development generally complies with the Medium High Density Development Control Plan (see Appendix A - Section 79C assessment for full description of DCP compliance). There were some departures to setback requirements in the development and in roof design. However, these variances were considered acceptable as they were largely due to limitations set by the existing building and the location and topography of the site.

Issues: The issues component of this report has been broken into two main sections:

1) View Assessment; 2) Summary of Issues Raised by Submissions.

The following visual assessment utilised photographs taken from affected properties and is based upon a Land and Environment Court Planning Principle (Principles of View Sharing). The photographs used in the assessment process are labelled and included in the Development Application file. 1) Assessment of View Sharing and Impacts on Neighbours

View sharing is when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. Note: taking all of it away may not be called view sharing, although it may be reasonable in certain circumstances. • Step 1 – Types of Views

What types of views currently exist for affected properties? Note: ‘Water Views’ are more valued than land views, while ‘Iconic Views’ are more valued than without.

Cont'd




Table 1 below provides a summary of the affected properties and the views that currently exist for each.

Table 1: Summary of Existing Views for Affected Properties

Property View Location

18 Camperdown Street

Harbour Northern Coastline

Jetty South Solitary Island

Mutton Bird Island Quarry

Southern Coastline

Rear Side

Rear, Side Side & Rear

Rear Rear, Side

Side

3/156 Edinburgh Street




Southern Coastline

Rear Side Rear

Rear, Side Rear Rear Side

154 Edinburgh Street




Southern Coastline

Rear Side

Rear, Side Rear Rear Rear Side

The above properties currently have significant water and iconic views.

• Step 2 – Part Views are Obtained What part of each affected property are the views obtained, i.e. side, front, or rear boundary? Note: Views across side boundaries are more difficult to protect than those from front and rear boundaries. Further, sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. Table 1 above, provides a summary of where views are currently obtained for each of the affected properties.

• Step 3 – Extent of Impact What is the extent of impact on effected properties? What is the impact on the whole of the property? Note: impacts on living areas are more significant than impacts on bedrooms or service areas. Kitchen areas are highly valued. The loss is quantified by either of the following: negligible, minor, moderate, severe, devastating.

Cont'd




The discussion below describes the extent of impact on each of the properties. Photographs of the existing views and height profiles of the proposed building have formed the basis of the view assessment. These photos are available for review on the development application file. - 18 Camperdown Street

The proposed development will result in a loss of view of the northern coastline and perhaps a small portion of the beginning of the Jetty structure. Contained within that view are distant island views. The view to be lost is currently available from the rear deck, living room and to a lesser extent, the kitchen via a small window. The section of the jetty, if lost, represents the only iconic view. The views to be retained include South Solitary Island (iconic), Jetty (iconic), Muttonbird Island (iconic), Harbour, Quarry (iconic) and the southern coastline. The view loss represented by the development, although a water view, is a side view and does not contain any iconic elements. In these terms the view loss is considered negligible.

- 3/156 Edinburgh Street The loss of views to this property is represented by a third level to the existing building for the purposes of a bedroom. The view to be lost is a rear view and consists of the middle section of the Jetty. The view to be lost is currently observable from a sitting and standing position from the rear deck and living area. The views to be retained include the northern coastline, South Solitary Island (iconic), the beginning and end sections of the Jetty (approximately 50% of the structure) (iconic), Muttonbird Island (iconic), Harbour, Quarry (iconic) and the southern coastline. The view to be lost is valuable in terms of it being a rear view and an iconic view. However, when considering that only one iconic view out four is partially impacted, the view loss can be considered minor.

- 154 Edinburgh Street The loss of views to this property is represented by the third level to the existing building and a section of additional building work running east down the site. The view to be lost is currently available from the living area and rear patio. It should be noted that the view to be lost is already considerably obscured by existing vegetation on neighbouring properties and a marine industry pole. The view to be lost is largely a side view and consists of a portion of the jetty (approx 25%) and marina. The views to be retained include the northern coastline, South Solitary Island (iconic), the Jetty (approximately 50% of the structure) (iconic), Muttonbird Island (iconic), Harbour, Quarry (iconic) and the southern coastline.

Cont'd




The view to be lost contains iconic elements (part jetty), however, when considering the retained iconic views, the existing obscuring of views from vegetation and infrastructure (pole) and the loss is mostly a side view, the view loss could be considered negligible.

• Step 4 – Reasonableness Does the development comply with the relevant planning controls? Could a more skilful design provide the same development potential and amenity impacts on views of neighbours? - 18 Camperdown Street

A section of the roof of the terrace on level seven breaches the 10m Medium High Density height control. This point in the building is adjacent to 18 Camperdown Street. However, the height profiles and photographs indicate that this point of non compliance will not impact on views from 18 Camperdown Street as this point is obscured from the line of sight by a preceding building element which is compliant.

- 3/156 Edinburgh Street The third level bedroom creating the view loss for 3/156 Edinburgh Street does not exceed the 10m height restriction outlined in the Medium High Density Development Control Plan. No other area of non compliance with the relevant controls has an impact on views.

- 154 Edinburgh Street The building elements that represent a loss of views to this property are all within the 10m height controls outlined in the Medium High Density Control Plan.

Conclusion The view loss for 18 Camperdown Street, 3/156 Edinburgh Street and 154 Edinburgh Street can be quantified as negligible and minor respectively. View loss to the properties can not be attributed to non compliance with the relevant controls. In this regard, it is considered that refusal or redesign of the development is not warranted.

2) Summary of Issues Raised by Submissions The application was notified and advertised in accordance with the Notification DCP. As a result of notification and subsequent erection of height profiles to assess visual impact a total of nine submissions from seven properties have been received. A summary of the issues raised is as follows: • View loss as a result of the development

3/156 Edinburgh Street, 18 Camperdown Street, 154 Edinburgh Street and 21 Camperdown Street raised the issue of view loss.

Cont'd




Response: Upon inspection from properties which raised the issue of view loss it was determined that only three of the four properties which raised the issue were impacted. The area of concern for the owner of 21 Camperdown Street was the seventh level or third storey addition to the existing building at the street. However, upon inspection, and consultation at the premises, the owner of 21 Camperdown Street was satisfied that due to the proposed location of the third storey addition, it would have no significant impact to his existing views. No. 21 Camperdown Street did not obtain any significant water views from the proposed location of the additional storey. The applicant was requested to erect height profiles certified by a registered surveyor to assess the degree of view impact to neighbouring properties. Inspection of the site and profiles from the relevant areas of affected properties and a view assessment based upon the principles of view sharing as determined by the Land & Environment Court was undertaken (see previous view assessment). As a result of the visual assessment process it is agreed that while there were properties impacted to some degree, none were impacted sufficiently to warrant refusal or an amendment to the proposal.

• Solar Access

18 Camperdown Street and 1/20 Camperdown Street raised the issue of solar access. Response: Council’s Medium High Density DCP requires buildings to be designed to allow at least two hours of sunshine upon the living areas of adjacent dwellings and open space areas between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June. Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant indicate that the development poses no impact to 18 Camperdown Street in terms of overshadowing. 1/20 Camperdown Street is one of two dwellings, immediately adjoining the subject site on the southern boundary. Its open space areas consist of a small rear courtyard at its western elevation and a deck to its eastern elevation, with the eastern section of the dwelling containing the main living areas. The shadow diagrams indicate that the rear courtyard does not receive 2 hours of solar access between 9.00am and 3.00pm. It should be noted however that this area is already seriously hampered by overshadowing by its lowered position due to past excavation, adjoining vegetation and adjoining elevated parking area which overlooks the courtyard. The primary living area is the eastern portion of the dwelling and front deck, which receives more than the required 2 hours sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm.

Cont'd




• Car parking The owner of No. 21 Camperdown Street was concerned whether the proposed development would have the required car parking, as currently the existing development (Allambie Apartments) often utilises on street parking. Response: The development meets the parking requirements under the Off Street Parking DCP.

• Height of the development in relation to natural ground level Representations were made regarding this issue from No. 154 Edinburgh Street and No. 5/16 Camperdown Street. Response: Height as defined in Council’s Medium High Density Development Control Plan is determined by measuring from natural ground level. Natural Ground Level is interpreted as being ground level which existed prior to excavation, filling or building works. Initial evidence of the accuracy of building height in relation to ground level was provided in the form of a survey plan and elevations marked by the architect indicating building height at critical locations based upon the surveyed contours. Further representations to Council on the issue and a further site inspection by Council officers prompted Council to request a report prepared by a suitably qualified professional to establish natural ground level. A report, prepared by de Groot & Benson, an engineering consultancy firm, was submitted as evidence of natural ground level. The report utilised various pieces of evidence to establish natural ground level. Chief among this evidence was a survey plan of the site submitted in 1968 at the time of the original Allambie Holiday Apartments buildings construction. It is submitted that the dwelling which previously existed on the site was of an age that would not have required excavation in its construction, and therefore the submitted contour plan is an accurate reflection of natural ground level. Council accepts this evidence as being an accurate indication of natural ground level. The applicants architect provided plans indicating building height in various locations based upon the new contours. The building at no point exceeded 13m (the trigger under the Major Projects SEPP for assigning the Department of Planning as the consent authority).

Cont'd




Based upon information provided establishing natural ground level the development exceeds Councils development control requirements in two locations. A portion of the north east corner of level 6 is approximately 10.5m for a 3m length to the eastern elevation and 1m length to the northern elevation. This exception is considered acceptable as it will have no impact on views to surrounding properties given that it is behind level 7 for properties to the west, while properties to the north do not look over this part of the building. The development also breaches the 10m controls via the framework of the terrace to unit 7 on level 6.The departure is considered minor as it is approximately 2m in length and does not impact on neighbouring views (properties to the north do not obtain views across this section of the site and the adjoining property to the south is not impacted as this point is obscured by a preceding compliant building element). The consent will be conditioned such that the building does not exceed the certified heights provided in the application.

• Unrestricted access to work shed at 21 Camperdown Street Response An unformed rear lane provides access to a shed at 21 Camperdown Street. The owner requests that he have unrestricted access to the shed. The lane constitutes a public road. The consent has been conditioned requiring separate approval being obtained from Council if the developer wishes to utilise the lane for construction vehicles during the construction period.

Implementation Date / Priority: Following a resolution by Council, the application may be determined. Summary: The departures to Council’s guidelines do not conflict with the intention of the development standards. Impacts on views are not a result of non-compliance with the relevant planning controls. It is considered that any amendment to the design of the development would not significantly improve the views of affected properties. In light of this, the view impact of the proposed development is considered to be reasonable. Further, the height profiles demonstrate that view corridors will be retained for all affected properties, and when assessing the impacts against the entire property, all of those affected retain water and iconic views. Impacts on adjoining residents during construction works can be managed via the proposed conditions of development consent.

Cont'd




The development provides for a good response with respect to the sites context. The building design is in keeping with the streetscape and contributes to the desired future character of the locality. Recommendation: 1. That Development Application No. 140/09 for a seven Unit Multi Unit Housing

development on Lot 5, DP 252782 and Lot 6 Section 49 DP 758258, Number 22 Camperdown Street Coffs Harbour, be approved subject to technical conditions as appended to the report (Appendix C).

2. That the person(s) who made submissions in relation to the Development Application No. 140/09 be notified of the determination.

- 38 -

Attachments:

Appendix A

Section 79C Evaluation Development Application 140/09

a. the provisions of,

i. any environmental planning instrument, and

• North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

Clause 32B: Council is to take into account: - The NSW Coastal Policy 1997; - The Coastline Management Manual; - The North Coast Design Guidelines.

The Coastal Policy calls up a number of strategic actions for consideration including impacts of development on adjacent estuaries, physical and ecological processes and hazards, design and locational principles. Storm water is to be discharged by Councils’ piped storm water system. Roof water will be collected by a 10 000L water tank. The site is not subject to any coastal process or hazard and no native vegetation species will be removed as a result of the development. The proposal satisfies the strategic actions outlined in the policy. The Coastline Management Manual focuses primarily on coastal processes and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. The North Coast Design guidelines detail a number of design feature considerations for “larger developments”, including breaking up the building form, use of shading devices and verandahs, linkage to surrounding landscape, avoidance of steep roofs and recessive colours. The proposal satisfies these requirements with variable setbacks along all frontages in order to provide for articulation and modulation and to allow landscaping and visual relief. In addition, articulation is provided by the use of various building materials and finishes and the use of balconies and terraces at the upper and lower levels. The proposed development however will not impede public access to the foreshores or result in overshadowing of foreshore areas. Clause 43 This clause requires Council to be satisfied that the density of the dwellings has been maximised without adversely affecting the environmental features of the land. The proposal, for 7 units, provides a suitable balance between maximising yield yet maintaining the desired future character of the medium – high density area. Sediment and erosion controls are proposed as a condition of consent. State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection This policy is relevant to the application as the land is within the Coastal Policy zone and within a sensitive coastal location. There are no issues of note as effluent and storm water disposal have been adequately addressed.

- 39 -

Clause 8 Matters: aims of the Policy, existing public access to the coastal foreshore; opportunities for new public access to the coastal foreshore; the suitability of development and its relationship with the surrounding area; impacts on the amenity of the coastal foreshore; scenic qualities of the NSW coast; conservation of threatened flora and fauna and their habitats; conservation of fish species, marine vegetation and their habitats; impacts on existing wildlife corridors, impacts (or likely impacts) of coastal processes and coastal hazards; conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities; protection of cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals; impacts on water quality of coastal water bodies; conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance; the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment; water and energy efficiency. The matters specified in Clause (8) of the Policy have been considered in the assessment of this application. The development does not contravene any of the specified matters. Existing public access is not altered by the proposed development nor will it have an impact on threatened species or wildlife corridors. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index Basix) 2004 Council received a development application for a residential development which was accompanied by a list of commitments by the applicant as to the manner in which the development will be carried out. The proposed consent conditions aim to ensure these commitments are fulfilled. State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings The application is subject to the controls within this policy relating to context, scale and built form of the development. The application is accompanied by a design verification report prepared by a qualified architect, which demonstrates compliance with the policy. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 The subject site adjoins a rail corridor and under clause 87 of the Policy, the consent authority must consider the impact of rail noise or vibration on residential development adjacent a rail corridor. As such, the proposal was referred to Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) for comment with an accompanying noise report provided by the applicant. ARTC have no objection to the proposal subject to several conditions related to demonstrating that required noise levels can be met. The consent shall be conditioned accordingly. Coffs Harbour City LEP 2000 The land is zoned Residential 2C Medium High Density. The proposal is for “multi-unit housing” and “demolition” which is permissible with consent in this zone. The following clauses of the LEP are relevant to the proposal: (13) Landform modification – Significant excavation will be required in the

construction of the development. However, sediment and erosion controls are proposed as a requirement of consent to prevent any adverse impact on the natural environment.

(14) Services – Reticulated water and sewer are available to the site.

- 40 -

(23) Potential Acid Sulfate Soils – The land is mapped as containing potential class 5 acid sulfate soils. As excavation is required for the construction of the development, Councils Environmental officer was consulted (20/8/09) in regard to the degree this hazard posed to the development. The response indicated that class 5 acid sulfate soils posed no issues for the proposal.

(23) Noise and Vibration – As the site of the proposed development adjoins a rail

corridor the impact of noise and vibration need to be considered. As such, the proposal was referred to Australian Rail Track Corporation and Councils Environmental Services Section for comment. The response from both departments indicated no objection subject to conditions.

ii. any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public

exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, and There are no draft instruments of relevance to this application.

iii. any Development Control Plan (DCP)

• Medium-High Density Housing DCP

Density The proposal does not exceed the density requirements of the DCP. Front Boundary Setbacks The DCP requires a setback of 9m to the front boundary. The proposed development will have a setback of 2m. This area of non compliance is considered acceptable in this instance as the existing building outline is largely being retained and the north west section of the building has already established the 2m setback. An 8m road verge will create a 10m setback to the street for the development. Side and rear setbacks The DCP requires a setback of 6m to side and rear boundaries. Levels 1-3 have been setback 6m from side boundaries, with the exception of a pergola to the terrace on level 2, which has a setback of 3m. This departure is considered acceptable as it will have no impact on the adjoining property in terms of overshadowing or privacy. The new building work for level four is generally set back the required 6m. A 3m x 7.5m long waste storage enclosure is to be constructed to the southern boundary adjacent the existing building. This encroachment is considered acceptable as it will have no impact on the adjoining property. The additions to levels 5 and 6 are proposed around the existing walls of the building, with the northern wall having an existing setback of 5.5m and the southern wall having a setback of 3m. The level seven addition sits more than 6m from both the northern and southern boundaries. The development has a rear setback of approximately 8m, which accords with the required standard of 6m under the DCP.

- 41 -

Design The development complies with the design requirements of the DCP in terms of building length, variety in built form and mix of materials used. A departure in design guidelines is proposed with respect to roof design. The DCP states that “flat rooflines should be avoided except when used as a minor design variation”, whereas the majority of the development incorporates a flat roof. However, such a design departure is considered acceptable in this instance given the sites coastal location and the significance of view retention in the locality. A flat roof design is considered the most appropriate to mitigate the impact of loss of views in the locality. Height The development generally complies with the 10m height requirements of the DCP. Based upon information provided establishing natural ground level the development exceeds this requirement in two locations. A portion of the north east corner of level 6 sits at approximately 10.5m for a 3m length to the eastern elevation and 1m length to the northern elevation. This exceedance is considered acceptable as it will have no impact on views to surrounding properties given that it is behind level 7 for properties to the west, while properties to the north do not look over this part of the building. The development also breaches the 10m controls via the framework of the terrace to unit 7 on level 6.The departure is considered minor as it is approximately 2m in length and does not impact on neighbouring views (properties to the north do not obtain views across this section of the site and the adjoining property to the south is not impacted as this point is obscured by a preceding compliant building element). Private Open Space All dwellings have greater than 16m2 of private open space.

• Off-Street Carparking DCP

The development requires 14 residential and 2 visitor parking spaces under the DCP. The proposed development provides 16 spaces on the site. However, the aisle used to access car spaces 9 and 10 did not meet the relevant Australian Standard AS.2890.1:2004 (blind aisles) as the required meter indent for maneuvering for car spaces adjacent a wall could not be met due to the fabric of the existing building. In response the applicant amended the proposal to relocate the internal garbage storage area and thereby widening car space 10. City Services confirmed that with the increased width car space 10, if not strictly in accord with the standard, would be able to meet the access requirements of the DCP. Due to the constraint of the existing building fabric car space 9 could not be altered. However, it is considered that the issue can be adequately resolved by the imposition of a condition which allocates car spaces 8 and 9 and 10 and 11 to two specific units, thereby helping to ensure that the constrained car spaces are only accessed by small vehicles (The Australian Standard is based on a medium sized vehicle and it is assumed that most two car families will have one large car and one small vehicle).

• Waste Management DCP The application originally proposed locating the waste storage area within the underground car park. However, it was considered that this location did not afford sufficient space to adequately address the waste requirements of the seven units. The application was subsequently amended by proposing a screened waste enclosure on the southern boundary which can be accessed by the car park. The amended proposal was supported by Councils’ Environmental Services Section.

- 42 -

• Notification DCP The application was notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP. Nine submissions have been received from seven properties.

iv. the regulations (to the extent that may prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), that apply to the land to which the development application relates, Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires Council to take the Coastal Policy 1997 and AS2601-1991. The Demolition of Structures into consideration in its determination. As previously detailed the proposal satisfies the relevant provisions of the Coastal Policy. Consent conditions to adequately cater for demolition are proposed.

b. the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts, on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, The locality is one of transition as dwellings give way to multi unit developments, as per the medium high density zoning. The proposed development represents another of several such developments within the street and is of a size and scale that is in keeping with similar developments in the street. Access is to be provided from Camperdown Street and has been supported by Councils City Services Section. Sufficient on-site parking is to be provided to the development (see previous discussion). The proposal will not result in any impacts on existing pedestrian linkages. There are adequate services and facilities provided to the development. Given that the land has been previously cleared and developed it is unlikely that the proposal will result in any impacts on heritage items, places (including those of Aboriginal origin). The development is unlikely to have any impacts on valuable land resources, as the land is zoned for urban purposes, within a well-developed residential neighbourhood. The proposal is unlikely to have any impacts on Acid Sulfate Soils. (see previous discussion). The proposal is unlikely to result in any impacts on flora and fauna (refer to previous discussion). There is sufficient area on site for waste storage facilities. The potential for noise and vibration impacts exist. However, the imposition of proposed conditions relating to construction methods will mitigate the potential for such impacts. (see previous discussion) The eastern portion of the site is very steep and has been subject to landslip in the past. The potential for this hazard has been mitigated by the imposition of a condition requiring a geotechnical engineers report to be submitted which details the suitability of the land for development and any special building practices that may be required. There are no technological hazards of note. Construction issues will be dealt with as part of the construction certificate process.

- 43 -

There are no cumulative issues of note given that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the desired character of the locality. The development is consistent with the existing character of the locality.

c. the suitability of the site for the development, The proposed development is compatible with the context of the site and the intention for the desired future character of the area as guided by the Medium to High Density Housing DCP. The development responds to the growing need for high-density dwellings in proximity to transport, infrastructure and services. There are no major constraints to the proposed development with adequate access and services being available to the site. The development will not result in any effects on any threatened species, populations, and/or their habitats or endangered ecological communities.

d. any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

The application has been reviewed by the following sections within and external to Council and recommended conditions / actions have been incorporated into the evaluation process and consent conditions:

- Environmental Services (waste, noise) - Land Use Management (building) - City Services (development and landscaping) - Corporate Business (developer contributions) - Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Notification DCP (9 submissions from 7 properties).

Following the erection of height profiles affected properties were invited to make further submission or engage in further consultation with Council.

The site has been inspected by staff from relevant locations on a number of occasions.

A summary of issues raised following the notifications includes: - View Loss - Solar Access - Car parking - Height of the development in relation to natural ground level - Access to work shed

These issues are considered in the report to Council.

e. the public interest,

The development is not contrary to the public interest. The multi unit housing proposal is compatible with the Jetty precinct, the development will contribute towards urban consolidation and more efficiently utilise existing infrastructure that is afforded to this site. All issues raised by the public have been addressed in the report to Council.

- 44 -

Appendix B

Proposed Conditions of Consent

- 45 -

- 46 -

- 47 -

- 48 -

- 49 -

- 50 -

- 51 -

coffs harbour city council ordinary meeting (land … · l24 development application 311/09 - dual...

Documents