Agenda of Local Planning Panel Meeting

Item No: 3.1
Title: DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole
Department: Environment and Planning
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: 011.2020.00060262.001 - D14610115

Author: Daniel McNamara, Daniel McNamara Planning Services

Given the potential for perceived conflict of interest, the assessment of the application, including drafting of this report, were undertaken by an independent planning consultant rather than Council officers.

Summary:

An application has been received for installation of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide mast at Terrigal Haven. The mast is proposed to be situated on a sandstone block plinth footing, surrounded by a sandstone retaining wall, garden bed and an access pathway linked to the existing car park. The development application is required to be reported to the Central Coast Local Planning Panel (CCLP) for determination as, Central Coast Council (CCC) is the applicant.

The application has been examined having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and other statutory requirements with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in the report.

The development application was notified from 12 February 2021 until 22 March 2021. A total of six submissions were received.

The application is recommended for Refusal.

Applicant Central Coast Council

Owner Crown Land managed and operated by Central Coast Council

Application No DA 60262/2020

Description of Land 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal

Proposed Development Community Facility-Installation of Mast

Site Area 50.7 sqm (8.450 metres x 6 metres)

Zoning RE1 Public Recreation

Existing Use Public Recreation

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $50,000.00

Recommendation

1 That the Local Planning Panel refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in the schedule attached to the report and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

2 That Council advise those who made written submissions of its decision.

3 That Council advise relevant external authorities of the Panel’s decision.

Key Issues

· Visual Impact

· Bulk and Scale

· Access

· Traffic

· Character

· Safety and Vandalism

· Inconsistent with the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009

· Insufficient information

Precis:

Proposed Development	Installation of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide mast onto a sandstone block plinth footing, surrounded by a sandstone retaining wall, garden bed and an access pathway linked to the existing car park.
Permissibility and Zoning	RE1 Public Recreation under the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014. The proposed development is considered a community facility and permissible with consent. A community facility means a building or place: (a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and (b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.
Relevant Legislation	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – Section 4.15 Local Government Act 1993 - Section 89 Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018
Current Use	Public Recreation
Integrated Development	No
Submissions	Six (6)

The Site

The site known as No. 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal is located within Terrigal Haven (the Haven), which is rocky headland east of the Terrigal central business district.

The Haven is Crown land managed by Council. It is noted that the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 (adopted 2010) permits the installation of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide mast but does not identify a specific site for the development.

The Haven is a distinctive landform in the shape of a bowl with four saddles that form the edges of the bowl. Saddles are depressions at the edges which provide view corridors to the ocean.

The four saddles include Terrigal Beach, the northern base of the Skillion (which is an iconic landform that rises towards the south and is a popular vantage lookout point), the southern base of the Skillion, and, Broken Head, which is a small protected bay, sandy beach and rock platforms.

The Broken Head saddle is the proposed site location of this development application (Site 1). The site is accessed from a number of existing paths from the north eastern and south eastern car park. Currently, a trail road allows vehicular access and limited wheelchair access from the slip rail located on the northern side of the Skillion car parking bays. There is also a footpath encompassing the whole Haven area which allows foot traffic to the site.

The landscape comprises rolling grass slopes with clustering of dense native vegetation and a large number of pine trees along the beach front and across the site.

The Haven is popular for picnics, sporting events, informal recreation, day and evening dining, and water- based activities such including scuba diving.

Figure 1 – Site Plan

Figure 2 – Zoning Plan showing the site and locality

Surrounding Development

The site is located within the Terrigal Haven (the Haven) which is a zoned RE1 Public Recreation which provides a diverse range of public assets such as the newly upgraded boat ramp, a sporting field, a dog exercising area, whale watching platforms, with their associated activities as well as rock fishing and diving.

The area character is typical of a Hawksbury Sandstone Coastal Landscape, and heavily influenced by coastal processes. The site is surrounded by remnant vegetation and planted native species from the Coastal Headland Low Forest, Coastal Headland Grassland and Coastal Headland Shrubland plant communities.

To the west of the site is the seaside suburb of Terrigal and north west is Terrigal Beach with residential dwellings, apartment complexes, and, The Crown Hotel fronting the beach. The beach has a commercial main strip comprising of a variety of restaurant, café, retail and office uses.

Immediately south west of the site is the Terrigal Haven rugby field and clubhouse. This area forms a natural amphitheater landscape with plenty of parking and picnic areas, access to the ocean with from a boat ramp, fish cleaning table, restaurants, and a sports field oval.

The visual catchment of the site extends north along the established walking track to the various viewing platforms on Broken Head, west to the sporting oval, Reef Restaurant, The Haven Beach, residential areas and the viewing platform between Terrigal and The Haven beaches and south to the Skillion.

There is a new boardwalk recently constructed linking Terrigal Beach to the Haven. Upgrades to the existing rockpool and boardwalk should be completed by April 2021, delivering many social, heath and economic benefits for our community.

These projects are jointly funded by Central Coast Council and the NSW Government’s Restart NSW Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund, and, Crown Reserves Improvement Fund. The delivery of these projects has been planned to minimise inconvenience, ensure safety and reduce the construction impact on residents, local businesses and tourists.

The boardwalk significantly improves pedestrian access between Terrigal Beach promenade and The Haven, providing a safe and more accessible route around the headland and new attraction for the Central Coast community and visitors to enjoy.

The 277-metre-long boardwalk has been designed to complement the natural environment and will be composed of materials that can withstand the elements to ensure longevity and ease of maintenance. The design includes a viewing platform, integrated seating, lighting and access to the rock platforms and smooth integration with the existing walkways either end, which creates a continuous link to the town centre.

Restoration works to the rockpool include the replacement of the rockpool foundations and walls, construction of an access ramp to replace the existing stairs and linking this area with the new boardwalk and existing pathways.

The Proposed Development

A development application has been lodged by Central Coast Council (CCC) on behalf of a community group and, as per Council’s resolution, will project manage the installation if required.

The proposal seeks installation of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide mast onto a sandstone block plinth footing, surrounded by a sandstone retaining wall, garden bed and an access pathway linked to the existing car park.

The total height of the memorial will be will approximately 9.5 metres including the Ex–HMAS Adelaide mast which is 7.4 metres in length and 450 mm in diameter and new 2 metre footings.

The project is a memorial dedicated to the crew of Ex-HMAS Adelaide which was sunk/scuttled off the coast in April 2011 to provide an artificial reef and dive site. The memorial will create a formal lookout area which will replicate a ship’s bow. The dive site is an important tourist attraction for the Central Coast. Prior to the scuttling of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide in 2011, the mast from the Ex-HMAS Adelaide was gifted to the former Gosford City Council by the NSW State Government.

The site which has been chosen for the memorial known as Site 1 is a small saddle between two elevated rock outcrops on Broken Head and forms a notable depression in the skyline, void of large trees and vegetation.

The rolling grass slope gives way to an eroding scree slope that then steps down suddenly in blocky sandstone terraces to the flat rock platform below. The grassed area provides one of the only natural viewing areas out to the ocean that has yet to be formalised with a viewing platform or path. Areas of dense vegetation have been established along the initial section of the proposed alignment that then gives way to open grass areas with groups of small trees.

The existing access path to the site begins at the car park overlooking the bolder field between the Skillion and Broken Head, heading in a north east direction towards the memorial site. The mast will have the ability to raise a flag on commemorative days and events. It is noted that after a military vessel or piece of infrastructure is decommissioned flags, illumination and the like are not permitted without consent from maritime forces or RSL, other than on commemoration days such as Anzac Day and between sunrise and sunset only.

The project is funded by the NSW Stronger Communities Fund, NSW Government Minister’s Discretionary Fund, the community, in kind contributions from Thales and associates and CCC. Initial funding grants have now expired and require further grant applications to be endorsed.

Figure 3 – The Ex-HMAS Mast from the HMAS Adelaide, Source: CCC

Figure 4 – Photomontage of proposed development prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 5 – Site Plan prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 6 – Base and Ground Plan prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 7 – Sections prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 8 – North West and South East Elevations prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 9 – North East and Western Elevations prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

Figure 10 – External Views and Impression prepared by Leslie Howard Associates, dated 6 November 2020

History of the HMAS Adelaide

In November 1980, the HMAS Adelaide was commissioned and built in the United States of America as one of the first of six Adelaide-class guided missile frigates delivered to the Royal Australian Navy. The naval vessel participated in the Gulf War between 1990 - 1991 Gulf War, peacekeeping operations in East Timor in 1999 and 2006, and, was deployed to the Arabian Gulf in 2001 and 2004.

In 2008, the vessel was decommissioned and HMAS Adelaide was demilitarised by the Department of Defence before being handed over to the NSW Government in 2009. A mast from the Ex-HMAS Adelaide was gifted to the former Gosford City Council by the NSW State Government and Council undertook formal consultation regarding a suitable pathway for its use as part of the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 (adopted 2010). The mast has been in Council storage since 2011.

On 13 April 2011, the Ex-HMAS Adelaide was scuttled to the ocean floor 1.8km off the coast between Terrigal Beach and Avoca Beach to establish an artificial reef and dive site, which has since attracted military historians and recreational divers to the area. The sunken wreck joined four other former naval vessels that have been transformed into dive sites in waters off Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Victoria since 1997.

Community interest in establishing a use for the mast as a memorial commenced in 2016. The mast was assessed by the Navy and deemed to be in poor condition. The Navy recommended specialist treatment, including a sandblast and painting to ensure the mast was structurally sound. The mast is now intended to be used as part of a memorial monument in honour of the many who have sailed on the HMAS Adelaide, in recognition of the Royal Australian Navy and as a visual marker for the ship’s position on the ocean floor.

Development Application History

In 2012 Gosford Council resolved that:

a. Council consider the allocation of funding in future capital works programs for engineering investigations and the required assessments into a Memorial for the ex-HMAS Adelaide within the Terrigal Haven reserve.

b. Subsequent to the confirmation of an appropriate site, Council Officers source grant opportunities and funding for the construction of a memorial for the ex-HMAS Adelaide.

Council again undertook consultation to determine community sentiment on this project and will be responsible for project management and ongoing maintenance.

In 2015, the former Gosford Council agreed to project manage the installation of the mast on behalf of a community group led by Matthew Wales which identified a site and submitted a Development Application (DA) which received nine (9) submissions. A key issue raised related to the identification of an alternate site to that proposed.

A visual impact assessment and access assessment accompanying this DA did not support the application and considered the development inconsistent with the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009. The DA was subsequently withdrawn. However, various community groups continued to lobby for the development and raised $4796.00. A request was made to Council to manage the project including installation of the mast, which was agreed to by the former Gosford Council.

On 14 May 2018, Council considered a report prepared by the Assets, Infrastructure and Business Department (Item 3.3) to determine a potential preference for a site within The Haven at Terrigal for placement of the mast. The report details site options for a bipartisan project with the community raising money for the restoration and support from the Australian Royal Navy, Returned Services League, and the State Government.

This project had support from the Returned Services League (RSL) Sub-Branches, the retired Navy services and the Australian Royal Navy and Crown Lands provided advice and consent for the project. Further private consultation was undertaken before Council was engaged to manage the construction of the development. Information provided to Council states that consultation was with the following groups:

• Local community groups;

• Terrigal Wamberal RSL Sub-Branch;

• Australian Royal Navy;

• Crown Lands;

• Council staff in relation to the impact of placement in the areas identified in Figure 10 below; and

• A letter of support was provided by Adam Crouch MP, Member for Terrigal.

Council had estimated the cost of installation of the mast to be $35,000.00. Grant funding from the NSW State Government has been provided in the sum of $3,000.00 and community funds totalled $4,796.00. Substantial in-kind support was provided. The community group intended to raise the balance of funds required to complete the project through grants.

Council nominated a location for the proposed known as Site 1, the community proposed an alternative location known as Site 2 (see Council Item 3.3 - Attachment 1 at Figure 10 below).

Visual impact and risk management remained major issues associated with the development, such as the risk of a person climbing the mast and falling. In response to this issue, stepping points up to 4 metres previously proposed been deleted from the design.

Council Minutes state:

Mayor Smith declared a significant non-pecuniary interest in the matter due to her involvement with the Marine Discovery Centre and a number of the dive clubs that have been involved in the matter. Mayor Smith advised that she would leave the Chamber during consideration of this item and not participate in discussion and voting. This item was resolved by the exception method.

Councillor Greenaway left the Chamber at 10.52pm, did not return and was absent for the vote.

Moved: Councillor Gale Collins

Seconded: Councillor Sundstrom

At this meeting Council resolved:

“That Council request the Acting Chief Executive Officer install the mast from the HMAS Adelaide II at Site 1 identified in the attached photograph.”

(See Figures 10 and 11 below).

For: Unanimous

Figure 10 – Council Meeting dated 14 May 2008 – Item 3.3 Attachment 1 - Proposed Sites for Placement of the Mast from HMAS Adelaide II

Figure 11 – Aerial view of Site 1 shown circled in red

History (Current Development Application)

This Development Application DA 60262/2020 has been lodged by Central Coast Council (CCC) on behalf of a community group.

The development application is presented to the Central Coast Local Planning Panel.

Prior to lodgement formal community engagement was held between 9 November 2020 and 7 December 2020 through Council’s web page. Hyperlink to community engagement: https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/HMASadelaide

Community Engagement Summary

Consultation was undertaken to determine community sentiment on the monument and its location to inform the application.

Positive and negative feedback received:

• Support for this longstanding promise moving forward;

• Importance of leaving the headland in its natural state

• Concern about ongoing cost and Council’s financial position;

• Concern about the identified location for the monument limiting access for people with impaired mobility;

• Concern about the obstruction of view and the need to keep the natural environment in mind when implementing anything at The Haven; and

• Ex-HMAS Adelaide Monument was the preferred name of the location should the installation of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide Monument move forward.

The development application was exhibited between 12 February 2021 and 26 February 2021. Six (6) submissions were received including a letter from the Terrigal Area Residents Association Inc. (TARA)

On 17 February 2021, a request for further information was made to the applicant which has not been satisfied. It was recommended that either the development application be withdrawn to prepare the additional information, or alternatively, a recommendation will be made for refusal.

The requested additional information was required in order to undertake a more comprehensive assessment addressing the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979.

Assessment:

Having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements, Council’s policies and Section 10.7 Certificate details, the assessment has identified the following key issues, which are elaborated upon for the Panel’s information. Any tables relating to plans or policies are provided as an attachment.

Provisions of Relevant Instruments/Plans/Policies:

Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

The site is subject to the draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018.

1.2 Aims of Plan

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in the Central Coast local government area in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(a) to foster economic, environmental and social wellbeing so that the Central Coast continues to develop as a sustainable and prosperous place to live, work and visit,

(b) to encourage a range of housing, employment, recreation and services to meet the needs of existing and future residents of the Central Coast,

(c) to promote the efficient and equitable provision of public services, infrastructure and amenities,

(d) to provide for a range of local and regional community facilities for recreation, culture, health and education purposes,

(e) to conserve, protect and enhance the natural environment of the Central Coast, incorporating ecologically sustainable development,

(f) to conserve, protect and enhance the environmental and cultural heritage of the Central Coast,

(g) to minimise risk to the community in areas subject to environmental hazards, including flooding, climate change and bush fires,

(h) to promote a high standard of urban design that responds appropriately to the existing or desired future character of areas,

(i) to promote design principles in all development to improve the safety, accessibility, health and wellbeing of residents and visitors,

(j) to concentrate intensive land uses and trip-generating activities in locations that are most accessible to transport and centres,

(k) to encourage the development of sustainable tourism that is compatible with the surrounding environment.

The proposal is inconsistent with the draft 2.1 (2) (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) aims of the CCLEP 2018.

Zoning and Permissibility

The draft plan retains the RE1 Public Recreation zoning of the land.

Zone Objectives

• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• To identify areas suitable for development for recreational and cultural purposes.

• To provide space for integrated stormwater treatment devices for flow and water quality management.

2 Permitted without consent Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works

3 Permitted with consent Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Building identification sign; Business identification sign; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Centre based child care facilities; Community facilities; Eco-tourist facilities; Emergency services facilities; Entertainment facilities; Flood mitigation works; Food and drink premises; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Jetty; Kiosks; Marina; Market; Mooring pen; Mooring; Recreation areas; Recreation facility (indoor); Recreation facility (major); Recreation facility (outdoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Roads; Sewerage systems; Water recreation structures; Water supply system 4 Prohibited Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

The proposed development is considered a community facility and permissible with consent.

In this instance, it is considered the proposed development is inconsistent with the stated draft objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Zone and incompatible with the desired future character of the locality.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPPI) was gazetted on 21 December 2007, providing a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services across NSW, along with providing for consultation with relevant public authorities during the assessment process.

Council did not refer the application to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) under Clause 101.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal management) 2018

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 require Council consider the aims and objectives of the SEPP when determining an application within the Coastal Management Areas.

The Coastal Management Areas are areas defined on maps issued by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and the site falls within the mapped coastal management areas.

Division 3 Coastal environment area

13 Development on land within the coastal environment area

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,

(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

(c) the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,

(e) existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(g) the use of the surf zone

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or

(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

(3) This clause does not apply to land within the Foreshores and Waterways Area within the meaning of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.’.

The relevant matters have been considered in the assessment of this development application.

Assessment: The application is inconsistent with the stated aims and objectives of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018.

The proposed development will cause an adverse impact on the matters required to be considered under Clause 13 (1) (a) – (g), Clause 13 (2) (a) – (c) of SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018.

· Without further specialist analysis, the proposed development may have adverse impact on the integrity or resilience of the biophysical, hydrological or ecological environment, coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes;

· It is unknown as to whether the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate;

· Flora recorded at the Haven includes Coastal Headland Shrubland (E51b). There are no anticipated impacts on this vegetation as all construction works will be contained within the exposed grassed area of the site. The proposed development may have an adverse impact on marine vegetation; native vegetation/fauna and their habitats; undeveloped headlands; or rock platforms;

· The proposed development has adverse impact on the public amenity of the existing public open space and public access to the coastal foreshore with regards to the chosen location and limitations placed upon access;

· The proposed development may have an adverse impact on any known Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices or places;

· The proposed development is far removed from the “surf zone‟ therefore will not adversely impact its use by the public; and

· Drainage, nutrient and erosion control measures would be required to be installed to protect the any reserve and water way.

14 Development on land within the coastal use area

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority—

(a) has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following—

(i) existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

(ii) overshadowing, wind funneling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,

(iii) the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,

(iv) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(v) cultural and built environment heritage, and

(b) is satisfied that—

(i) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a),

(ii) or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to

(iii) minimise that impact, or if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and

(c) has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

(2) This clause does not apply to land within the Foreshores and Waterways Area within the meaning of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.’

Assessment: The application is inconsistent with the stated aims and objectives of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018. The proposed development will cause an adverse impact on the matters required to be considered under Clause 14 (1) (a) – (b) and Clause 2 of SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018.

• The proposed development will cause an adverse impact to access along the foreshore and public reserve;

• The proposed development will cause overshadowing, wind funnelling or loss of view from a public place as it will not have adverse impacts on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast and headlands;

• The proposal has not been designed and located to minimize visual amenity and scenic qualities to the most maximum extent possible; and

• The proposal may cause an adverse impact to and known Aboriginal cultural heritage or cultural and built environment heritage.

(ii) Division 5 – General.

The following provisions of Division 5 of SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 apply to the consent authority’s consideration of a development application on the subject land:

15 Development in coastal zone generally - development not to increase risk of coastal hazards

Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land.

16 Development in coastal zone generally - coastal management programs to be considered

Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of any certified coastal management program that applies to the land.’

Assessment: Due to its location and proximity to the coastal foreshore, the subject land may be considered subject to increased risk of coastal hazards.

The Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 has not addressed the proposed location for any likely impacts in terms of any certified coastal management program and will require revision to incorporate any future project location, construction, management and maintenance.

The proposed development could cause increased risk of coastal erosion.

Suitable long term safety has not been adequately addressed in the design i.e.. No fencing is proposed along the lookout to the Pacific Ocean, and, the geotechnical investigation / dilapidation report prepared by Douglas Partners, dated July 2010 states "the scope for work for this investigation/report did not include the assessment of surface or sub-surface materials, or ground water for contaminants within or adjacent to the site" is outdated.

The relevant matters have been considered in the assessment of this application. The application is considered inconsistent with the stated aims and objectives.

Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014

The site is subject to the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP 2014).

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in that part of the Central Coast local government area to which this Plan applies (in this Plan referred to as Gosford) in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 3.20 of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows—

(aa) to protect and promote the use and development of land for arts and cultural activity, including music and other performance arts,

(a) to encourage a range of housing, employment, recreation and services to meet the needs of existing and future residents of Gosford,

(b) to foster economic, environmental and social well being so that Gosford continues to develop as a sustainable and prosperous place to live, work and visit,

(c) to provide community and recreation facilities, maintain suitable amenities and offer a variety of quality lifestyle opportunities to a diverse population,

(d) (Repealed)

(e) to concentrate intensive land uses and trip-generating activities in locations that are most accessible to transport and centres,

(f) to promote the efficient and equitable provision of public services, infrastructure and amenities,

(g) to conserve, protect and enhance the environmental and cultural heritage of Gosford,

(h) to protect and enhance the natural environment in Gosford, incorporating ecologically sustainable development,

(i) to minimise risk to the community in areas subject to environmental hazards, particularly flooding and bush fires,

(j) to promote a high standard of urban design that responds appropriately to the existing or desired future character of areas,

(k) to promote design principles in all development to improve the safety, accessibility, health and well being of residents and visitors,

(l) to encourage the development of sustainable tourism that is compatible with the surrounding environment.

The current development application proposal is inconsistent with the Clause 2.1 (2)(c), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) aims of the GLEP 2014.

Zoning and Permissibility

The site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation Zone.

Zone Objectives

• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• To identify areas suitable for development for recreation, leisure and cultural purposes.

• To ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works

3 Permitted with consent

Aquaculture; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Kiosks; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Water recreation structures

4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

The proposed development is considered a community facility and permissible with consent.

A community facility means a building or place:

(a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

In this instance, it is considered the proposed development is inconsistent with the stated objectives of the RE1 Zone being incompatible with the desired future character of the locality.

Clause 7.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

Acid Sulphate Soils are not present within the construction footprint. The site comprises of very stiff grading to hard residual clay soils. An updated Geotechnical Investigation is recommended as the report provided as part of the development application is dated July 2010. Environmental conditions can change as discussed within this report.

The matters contained in Clause 7.1 of Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 have been considered.

Clause 7.4 Flood Planning

This land has not been classified as being under a "flood planning level".

Gosford Development Control Plan 2013

This plan is known as the Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 and supports the objectives identified by the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, the Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance or Interim Development Order No 122.

Part 2 Scenic Quality and Character

The proposal does not acknowledge the desire to maintain the Coastal Open Space System (COSS). Although the COSS does not cover all visually significant ridge lands and upper slopes such as the Haven, the broad controls relate to the proposed development which should have regard to the character of the area both built and natural nature of the landscape characteristics of it’s surroundings.

The structure is deemed unsuitable for Site 1, reconsideration of an alternative location with consideration of the issues addressed in this report would be preferable in order to respect the scenic character of an area.

Any Planning Agreement

There are no planning agreements applicable to the application.

Relevant Regulations

There are no specific matters under the Regulation that require further discussion.

Likely Impacts of the Development (built environment, natural environment, economic and social impacts)

A thorough assessment of the aspects of the proposed development on the built, natural environments and social and economic impacts has been undertaken in terms of the relevant planning controls.

Built Environment

The subject site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under GLEP 2014 and is surrounded by public park and sports and recreation facilities with ocean front views.

The proposed development is considered to have adverse impact upon the amenity of adjoining public land, and private development by way of view obstruction, and inequitable accessibility.

A thorough assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the built environment has been undertaken. The potential impacts are considered unreasonable.

Built Form – Height, Bulk and Scale

The development of the Ex-HMAS mast and surrounding sandstone structure is articulated by virtues of it’s maritime design and is proposed to be made of a subtle material which may appear as an unsuitable bulk and scale when viewed from a distance.

The development application did not include a survey, and amendments requested to architectural drawing package to show correct dimensions of the structure and surrounding area has not been provided. It is further noted that the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) states the structure is 7.4 metres, and that the base of the mast will be 2 metres above ground level.

The architectural drawings show the mast height at approximately 9 metres and the Independent Review of the Green Light Visual Impact Assessment states the proposal will be approximately 9.5 metres. Therefore, proper comprehension of the scale of the development is unable to be achieved,

From inspection of the site and surrounds, it is apparent there is no existing fencing along this part of the cliff coastline and none proposed. Given there may be interest in groups gathering at the memorial on commemorative days such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, Council should take into consideration establishing future safety fencing similar to the transparent lightweight fencing along the cliff line gap at the Skillion.

The architectural drawings show landscaping immediately to the north and east of the proposed development which does not appear to be consistent with that in situ. Inadequate information has been submitted regarding the protection of, or proposed removal and rectification of existing landscaping.

The character of the area is typical of a Hawkesbury Sandstone Coastal Landscape, heavily influenced by coastal processes. The site chosen is a small saddle between two elevated rock outcrops on Broken Head and forms a notable depression in the skyline, void of large trees and vegetation.

The rolling grass slope gives way to an eroding scree slope that then steps down suddenly in blocky sandstone terraces to the flat rock platform below. The grass area provides one of the only natural viewing areas out to the Pacific Ocean that has yet to be formalised with a viewing platform or path.

The aesthetics are generally acceptable as the structure is articulated by virtues of it’s maritime design and is made of a subtle material, however from a distance its purpose may not be discernible and the structure may be confused for a pole with no meaning and therefore will appear as an inappropriate and bulky structure within the landscaped setting impacting upon views.

The proposal is not compatible with, and will adversely impact on, the character and amenity of the locality, public recreation area and streetscape. This is predominantly as a result of the visual impact applicable to the height of the development that would result in an outcome that is uncharacteristic and unplanned in this location. As a result, the proposed development is unsatisfactory in terms of impacts on the built environment.

A thorough assessment of the proposed development’s impact on the built environment has been undertaken having regard for SEPP Coastal Management along with the provisions of GLEP 2014 and GDCP 2013 and it is considered the potential built environment impacts are unreasonable.

Visual Impact

Visual impacts are considered unreasonable. The development will cause adverse visual impact upon view corridors from private and public places. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Independent Review prepared by The Design Partnership supports the recommendations identified in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Green Light Design Group dated 1 October 2019. In particular:

“... it will have significant impact upon Terrigal Haven and neighbouring residential dwellings. We are also of the opinion that the memorial will have a greater impact on Terrigal CBD than identified in the Visual Impact Assessment report. This is due to the possibility it to be perceived as a functional element such as a ventilation shaft.”

The visual impact assessments do not support the project and consider the development inconsistent with the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009.

Concern is raised regarding obstruction of views and the need to keep the natural environment in mind when implementing anything at The Haven. Height poles would have assisted with understanding the accuracy of view loss.

The study area for the visual impact assessment has been selected to cover the main geographic extent of potential visual impacts of the development. The Design Partnership assessed the proposed development from the same view corridors as Green

Light.

The independent review concludes that the development is unacceptable in terms of the impact of the proposed works when assessed against the scenic values identified in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009, in particular to determine if the changes in the landscape are consistent with the desired character of the reserve.

The following scenic values extract from the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 have formed the basis of Ms Ryan’s (The Design Partnership) independent assessment:

• Retain natural landscape quality;

• Preservation of Views to the Pacific Ocean;

• Embellish Natural Vantage Points; and

• Effective maintenance.

The review found that the proposal will have a moderate to high visual impact overall in its proposed location, noting the natural setting and that the mast would introduce a built element in a prominent location which is visible from key locations.

Several key viewpoints were selected for further analysis representative only of the spread and type of receivers that may be affected by the proposed works, they are not exhaustive, nor do they reflect the exact view shared by all receivers in a similar area.

The impact rating for any given viewpoint within the study area was based on an evaluation of the sensitivity and magnitude, the methodology of the proposed change:

• Sensitivity: Each viewpoint has an inherent sensitivity to change in the visual scene of the landscape based on the context of the viewer. This will have a direct influence on the perceived visual impact experienced by the receiver; and

• Magnitude: A series of factors are taken into account when assessing the magnitude of visual effect from any one viewpoint. These factors include the distance from the proposed works, extent of view, the amount of time the works are within view, and the scale of change to the landscape setting.

Photo 1 – Photo 4 below shows a sample of the key viewpoint locations and the potential visual impact. The proposed development is shown in red:

Photo 1: View south in the Haven of the proposed development

Source: Green Light VIA

Photo 2: View from the west in the public car park

Source: Green Light VIA

Photo 3: View south east from the Scenic Highway

Source: Green Light VIA

Photo 4: View east from the Scenic Highway

Source: Green Light VIA

In summary, both Visual Impact Assessments accompany this development application do not support the project in the location chosen (Site 1).

Views that pedestrians will have when approaching the memorial site along the concrete pathway on Broken Head will be affected. The existing view takes in the vegetated headlands and outlook over the rock platform and Pacific Ocean. The existing viewscape is scenic and dominated by soft landscape elements, in particular a rolling grass slope that drops down to the sandstone cliff edge. This viewpoint is considered of high sensitivity.

The proposed memorial will dominate the overall view and become the focal point of the natural depression in the landform. Access to the grass slope would also be impacted. The new structure would change the overall appearance of the landscape and change the way the space is used leading to a high magnitude of change.

The assessment states that for private residences on the high side of the Scenic Highway, the proposal will change the overall appearance of the skyline slightly as the existing trees and light poles from the sports oval already extend above this line. Subsequently, the development will impact upon the existing privacy and amenity of the Public Recreation area in terms of view loss, cause obstruction of views for local residences and visual impact is not considered negligible.

It is noted that the installation of temporary height poles to identify the exact location and height of the proposed development and structure was not undertaken in order to further understand the extent of visual impact.

The following extract from the Green Light assessment summarises the overall visual impact:

The visual impact of the proposed works would be greatest for those viewers in close proximity to the site. Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 are representative of the catchment of viewers who will perceive a high impact to the visual amenity of the reserve. In general, the memorial structure will change the overall appearance of the skyline and would become the dominant hard landscape element in the reserve. Viewers that will see the change from a greater distance will likely perceive a reduced visual impact from the proposed works however the change to the skyline may still impact the views to the Pacific Ocean.

Assessment: The proposed site for the memorial has been considered from the same view corridors, and, with consideration of the above exert from the Green Light assessment.

The proposal is considered unacceptable in terms of the impact of the proposed works as assessed against the scenic values identified in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 to determine if the changes in the landscape are consistent with the desired character of the reserve.

The following scenic values (extract from the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management) were used to form the basis of this assessment and reiterated within the VIA:

Retain natural landscape quality

Large sections of Broken Head and the Skillion are covered with native vegetation remnant of the plant communities that inhabited the headlands over a long period. These sections of vegetation contribute significantly to the natural landscape qualities that the community value.

The proposed memorial will not complement this part of the public recreation area and does not provide a visually interesting cultural, scenic and heritage element into an otherwise harsh windswept environment.

An improved landscape setting could be achieved by integrating a memorial garden with native species of flora to attract local fauna and soften the appearance of the gap at the focal point in the skyline between the vegetated headlands on Broken Head. The design of the proposed memorial will not provide an improvement to the natural landscape qualities of the area as viewed from a number of important viewpoints.

The proposed access pathway will require the removal of a section of native vegetation which will have an impact on the natural landscape qualities. Replacement landscaping has not been proposed.

Preservation of Views to the Pacific Ocean

The proposed memorial will impact on views to the ocean from a number of key viewpoints and it is expected that a number of residents in private dwellings as well as users of The Haven will be affected. The extent of the impact varies depending on the distance the viewer is from the proposed memorial. Typically the closer the viewer is located to the memorial the greater the magnitude of impact to their view of the ocean.

Embellish Natural Vantage Points

The proposed memorial is a new hard structure that will be placed in an otherwise informal grass slope overlooking the rock platform and ocean. The proposed development in its current form are not considered a visually interesting addition to the landscape and will not embellish an existing important historical naval viewing platform.

Effective maintenance

The review of the Green Light Visual Impact Assessment has found that the proposal will have a moderate to high visual impact overall in its proposed location, noting the natural setting and that the mast would introduce a built element in a prominent location which is visible from several key locations. The proposed development has not been included in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 in terms of maintenance.

In summary, the project has the ability to provide enormous cultural, social, educational, and community benefits that will result from the memorial however not at the expense of impacting upon scenic view corridors from private and public land. A key concern raised has been that the purpose of the structure will not be identifiable and from a distance will appear as a ventilation shaft. Consideration should be given to ameliorating this issue by raising and flying the appropriate flags with consent.

The proposal is not reasonable in this circumstance and inconsistent with the planning principle established in Tenacity Consulting Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140. The development does not respect the principle of view sharing.

Access and Transport

Equitable access is not addressed which may limit access to the memorial site for people with impaired mobility. Given the site is proposed as a commemorative place this is of paramount importance on national days of significance such as ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day.

The proposed access does not comply with AS 1428.1, 1428.4.1, NCC (BCA 2016 Volume 1), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards, and Central Coast Council Disability Inclusion Plan.

The identified location for the monument limits access for people with impaired mobility.

Presently, the site is accessed from a number of existing paths from the north eastern and south eastern car park. Currently, a trail road allows vehicular access and limited wheelchair access from the slip rail located on the northern side of the Skillion car parking bays. There is also a footpath encompassing the whole Haven area which allows foot traffic to the site.

A new accessible pathway should provide compliant access for all abilities.

Recommendations made in an access report prepared by Access Solutions Consultants dated 7 March 2019 should be updated to assess the proposed situation and how the accessible pathway will be resolved and installed by Council to meet access requirements. Access Solutions do not support Site 1 due to cost, accessibility, lack of access to sanitary facilities and the steep slope.

It is further recommended that any future development application associated with a memorial include a resting place or bench type structure given the site location is atop a steep climb of The Haven.

A Traffic Impact Assessment is also recommended for any future application to address the potential impact management of traffic and parking overflow on national days of recognition and commemoration such as ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day.

Overall built environment impacts

Natural Environment

There will be significant impact upon the natural environment as a result of the proposal. Although, the development of the site would result in a public structure and memorial consistent with the existing use of the Haven as a place of public recognition of the sunken Adelaide, insufficient information has been provided addressing the impact upon the existing landscaping and vegetation surrounding the site with regard to removal or protection.

Context and Setting

The site is located on the Haven. The memorial is proposed to be located within a gap (saddle) of the vegetation line which is situated within a landscaped setting and fronts the ocean.

The vegetation in this area is classified as Coastal Headland Shrubland (E51b) with species identified consistent with those found in surrounding coastal environments (e.g. She-oak, Coastal Banksia and Coastal Tea-tree). This site was selected as it has direct view of the buoys over the site of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide, is close to the Marine Rescue Centre, and is clear of vegetation.

The structure is 450mm in diameter and up to 9m in height. It is considered that the development will obstruct significant or iconic views or vistas from public and private land.

In this circumstance, the location chosen at Site 1 is not considered suitable given that the application was accompanied by insufficient information.

The intention of the development is to establish a mast above the sunken naval vessel to form part of a memorial at The Haven. Whilst this application is not considered acceptable, the project to establish a memorial does have value. The Haven is part of the RE1 Public Recreation area and an important area of significant scenic quality and a special place for both locals and tourists. It is considered that a future memorial could enhance this experience.

The Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 which was adopted by the former Gosford City Council in 2010 has not been updated to include the subject development application and ‘Lifecycle Plan’ has not been prepared.

In this circumstance, the development is considered unacceptable in terms of the impact of the proposed works as assessed against the scenic values identified in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 to determine if the changes in the landscape are consistent with the desired character of the reserve.

Heritage interpretation has not addressed the actions of the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management. The concept plan must be consistent with appropriate management of any culturally significant sites within the vicinity.

Geotechnical

The proposed structure is on a small saddle between two elevated rock outcrops, on stable, slightly sloped land which is currently prone to erosion from storms and associated coastal processes. The site however is well protected from the south where severe storms can cause wider-spread erosion and damage.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) carried out a geotechnical investigation. The work was carried out for Wales & Associates Pty Ltd. The geotechnical investigation was carried out to assess the subsurface conditions in order to provide geotechnical design parameters for a footing to support the mast.

The investigation comprised the drilling of a single borehole at the location of the proposed monument. The borehole was drilled using a 4WD-mounted push tube rig with 60 millimetre diameter sampling tubes and was taken to a depth of 3.2 metres.

Conditions encountered in the borehole broadly comprised very stiff grading to hard residual clay soils, with drilling terminating at 3.2 metre depth due to refusal on weathered sandstone. No free groundwater was observed in the borehole which was backfilled shortly after drilling for health and safety reasons.

It is noted that groundwater levels are affected by factors including rainfall and will therefore vary over time.

The report dated July 2010 investigations found that:

· Based on the conditions encountered in the borehole, it is considered that the mast could be supported either by a pad footing or by concrete bored pier(s), depending on the applied loads.

· Pad footings being at least 0.5 m below ground level on at least very stiff residual clay could be proportioned for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 200 kPa.

· Concrete bored piers could be designed based on a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 600 kPa and maximum allowable shaft adhesion 50 kPa within the weathered rock profile. Shaft adhesion could also be included for the section of the piles within the residual clay and a maximum allowable adhesion of 15 kPa would be appropriate. Lateral loads (e.g, wind loading) could be resisted by the portion of the bored pile embedded into the ground and could be based on an ultimate passive earth pressure of 150 kPa within at least very stiff clay and 300 kPa within the weathered sandstone. The upper 1 m should be ignored in this loading case.

· Settlements associated with footings designed based on the aforementioned parameters would be expected to be less than about 1% of the footing width.

· Footing excavations or pier holes should be free of water and loose debris prior to pouring concrete. It is also recommended that all footing excavations be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to check that the founding conditions are consistent with the design requirements.

It is recommended that any future development application provide an updated geotechnical investigation / dilapidation report as the report dated July 2010 states that the "the scope for work for this investigation/report did not include the assessment of surface or sub-surface materials, or ground water for contaminants within or adjacent to the site".

There has been reported cliff dilapidation in 2020. Structural stability remains an issue for investigation.

Flora and Fauna

Flora recorded at the Haven includes Coastal Headland Shrubland (E51b). There are no anticipated impacts on this vegetation as all construction works would be required to be contained within the exposed grassed area of the site.

Bushfire

The site is not bushfire affected.

Flooding

The site is not flood affected.

Acid Sulfate Soils

The site does not affect acid sulfate soils.

Economic Impacts

An Economic Impact Assessment has not been submitted with this development application. The proposed development could have beneficial economic impacts bringing tourism to the memorial and local economy. It is noted that the proposal is not considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the Central Coast Structure Plan 2036 (CCSP 2036).

Social Impacts

A Social Impact Assessment has not been submitted with the development application outlining the net community benefits.

The proposed development could have beneficial social, cultural, historical and educational impacts as it will provide a memorial in the Terrigal Haven (as approved within the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009) to the sunken naval vessel to which it relates and sits sunken and decommissioned off the coast providing a diving reef adjacent north of this part of the coastal headland.

The proposal for a memorial in principle is reasonable, however the built form will be incongruous within the location within The Haven (Site 1) and will adversely impact on the planned character and amenity of the locality.

Safety and Vandalism

Memorials and public artwork on the Central Coast have not been consistently maintained. The construction of this memorial would require a maintenance program, maintenance funding and a ‘Lifecycle Plan’. A Lifecycle Plan determines the lifespan of the memorial, and determines ongoing maintenance costs and a program for inspection and maintenance.

The memorial is likely to experience vandalism, which will require removal as soon as possible as tags left in place become a reward to the vandal. Vandalised memorials also become more prominent in the landscape and send a signal that encourages anti social behaviour. How climbable the memorial should also be considered. Vandalised memorials also become more prominent in the landscape and send a signal that encourages anti social behaviour.

Safety measures have not been sufficiently addressed. Safety, vandalism and maintenance regarding the construction and maintenance of the memorial requires a maintenance program, maintenance funding and a ‘Lifecycle Plan’ determining the lifespan of the memorial, ongoing maintenance costs and a program for inspections, and, how this part of the cliff coastline will be ensured for public safety with fencing and the like.

Suitable safety measures such as way fining signage have not been provided to ensure mourners and visitors to the site are aware of the structures close proximity to the cliff drop off. It is recommended future consideration be given to providing low lying safety fencing along the cliff line gap similar to that at the Skillion.

Where relevant The Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 which was adopted by the former Gosford City Council in 2010 should be updated to include the development, safety and maintenance program.

Heritage Interpretation – European and Aboriginal

There is significant Aboriginal heritage known to be within the surrounding area specifically along the northern foreshore and adjacent to the Skillion on the eastern side. Indigenous and non-indigenous heritage Indigenous heritage sites have been identified within the Terrigal Haven area however due to the sensitive nature of the information, specific details cannot be provided.

It is recognised that the actions in this Terrigal Haven Plan of Management and the concept plan must be consistent with appropriate management of these culturally significant sites.

Any future application should include a heritage interpretation strategy and plaque will provide public awareness of the mast ex-naval history and importance of service, identifying and respecting the memorial as it comprises the original mast from the Ex-HMAS Adelaide which will be placed within a sandstone block plinth.

Suitability of the Site for the Development

The site is considered to be unsuitable for the proposed development as follows:

• The site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under GLEP 2014. The proposal is a permissible use under the RE1 Public Recreation zone, however the scale of the proposed development by virtue of it’s chosen location is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

• There may be environmental hazards which would prevent development of the site.

• Utility services may be required which may not be available at the site.

• The site is not located on and near public transport facilities however, is located within a public recreation space providing community facilities.

• The development application is in not accordance with desired character/scenic quality for the area.

• There is no character statement for this precinct that specifically addresses the land, however it is conserved in this circumstance the aesthetics are generally unacceptable and given the environmental impact, the application is not supported.

• The HMAS Adelaide monument could in future present as a visually interesting historical monument structure if it were of a suitable bulk and scale and sited within an equitable location.

Any Submission made in Accordance with this Act or Regulations

The development application was notified between 12 February 2021 to 22 March 2021 in accordance with DCP 2013 – Chapter 1.2 Notification of Development Proposals with 6 submissions received. The general issues raised in relation to the proposal are included below:

• Concern about ongoing cost and Council’s financial position.

Comment: Funding is already established (although may require renewal) for the development. The NSW Government has committed funding of the installation with a $66,000 grant from the Stronger Communities Fund (round 2), with an additional $3,000 provided by the Minister’s Discretionary fund (FY2015-16). Council is submitting the development application and will be responsible for project management and ongoing maintenance. Council will seek funding for the installation of the access path as part of future project work.

• Concern about the identified location for the monument limiting access for people with impaired mobility.

Comment: An Access Report prepared by Accessible Solutions dated 7 March 2019 accompanies this development application which does not support Site 1 due to cost, accessibility, lack of access to sanitary facilities and the steep slope. Equitable accessibility should be resolved and remains an ongoing issue at the Haven.

• Concern about the obstruction of view and the need to keep the natural environment in mind when implementing anything at The Haven.

Comment: Two Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) reports accompany this DA including a June 2020 Independent Review by The Design Partnership (TDP) of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) by the Green Light Design Group (GLDG). Neither VIA support the DA, however it is considered that the issues raised could be mitigated in order to achieve a more negligible outcome particularly given the enormous cultural, social, educational, and community benefits that will result from the Ex-HMAS Adelaide memorial.

• Access

Comment: Equitable access is not addressed which may limit access to the memorial site for people with impaired mobility. Given the site is proposed as a commemorative place this is of paramount importance on national days of significance such as ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day.

The proposed access does not comply with AS 1428.1, 1428.4.1, NCC (BCA 2016 Volume 1), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards, and Central Coast Council Disability Inclusion Plan.

Access Solutions do not support Site 1 identified by Council for the development due to cost, accessibility, lack of access to sanitary facilities and the steep slope.

It is recommended that any future development application associated with a memorial include a resting place or bench type structure given the site location is atop a steep climb of the Haven.

• Consultation

Comment: Prior to lodgement fformal community engagement was held between 9 November 2020 and 7 December 2020 through Council’s web page. Hyperlink to community engagement: https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/HMASadelaide

Consultation was undertaken to determine community sentiment on the monument and its location to inform the application.

The development application has been formerly exhibited between 12 February 2021 and 26 February 2021. Six (6) submissions were received including a letter from the Terrigal Area Residents Association Inc. (TARA). The issues raised have been considered in the assessment.

• Would Staff and Councillors consider a Site inspection at which time two marker poles could be erected?

Comments: Although recommended in correspondence to the applicant dated 17 February 2021, height poles were not placed on the site to determine the height and visual impact.

• Maintenance

Comment: The installation of the mast was included in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 which states ‘Investigate appropriate location for a memorial in honour of the ex-HMAS Adelaide II and her crew. Construct environmentally sensitive viewing platform incorporating interpretive / educational signage and relevant relics from the vessel.’

Any future application will require the plan to be updated to include a maintenance program, maintenance funding and a ‘Lifecycle Plan’. A Lifecycle Plan determines the lifespan of the memorial and determines ongoing maintenance costs and a program for inspection and maintenance.

• The ‘cluttering up’ of one of nature’s quiet, simple and open landscapes would be a disaster when viewed close up or from a distance.

Comment: The proposed structure is not considered suitable for this location in this circumstance. Visual impact has been thoroughly considered in this assessment.

• Support - In view of the long period of gestation, corresponding increases in cost over 9 years the option for site 2 proposal is strongly supported based on the current documentation supporting this Development Application. The caveat being that Central Coast Council rate payers are not requested to financially support this proposal particularly given the cost overrun of the Terrigal Boardwalk.

Comment: Noted.

Submissions from Public Authorities

Roads and Maritime Services (TfNSW)

Council did not refer the development application to TfNSW for comments.

Internal Consultation

The application has been referred to and reviewed by the following experts in council:

Building Surveyor	Supported subject to conditions.
Development Engineer	Supported subject to conditions. Refer comments below.
Environmental Health	Supported without conditions.
Ecology	Supported without conditions.
Urban Design	See comments below

Development Engineer

Accessible footpath

The development will require the construction of accessible footpath from the Skillion car park to the perimeter footpath adjoining the proposed location of the memorial structure. The design and construction of this is to be in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and Council’s Civil Works Specification.

Fencing

Planner to consider whether the provision of safety fencing between the memorial structure and the cliff is warranted.

Urban Design Comments

In terms of Urban Design, the proposed location appears to be satisfactory but the dimensions of the monument are problematic and some of the issues still need to be worked through.

A Landscape Plan from a suitably qualified professional is required to provide revised drawings with a more generous allocation to allow for circulation, and confirmation that the appearance of the mast does not include the 3 horizontal projections that are up to 4 metres long.

There is also opportunity to modify the design to remove trip hazards in both the walls and the plaque and incorporate interpretative signage in more appropriate locations.

The application is unable to be supported for the reasons outlined in the recommended reasons for Refusal.

The Public Interest

The development will have an adverse impact on the public amenity of the existing public open space and does not provide equitable access. Visual impact must be resolved in order to mitigate environmental impact by way of view obstruction from neighbouring properties and surrounding public land.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles

The proposal has been assessed having regard to ecologically sustainable development principles and is considered to be not inconsistent with the principles.

Further analysis is required to determine whether the proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of stormwater, drainage and erosion control. A detailed landscape plan and arborist report has not been submitted outlining the protection, retention and replacement of vegetation where possible.

Suitable information has not been submitted with the application demonstrating that the development is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment which could in turn decrease environmental quality for future generations.

Flora recorded at the Haven includes Coastal Headland Shrubland (E51b). There are no anticipated impacts on this vegetation as all construction works will be contained within the exposed grassed area of the site.

Climate Change

The potential impacts of climate change on the proposed development have been considered by Council as part of its assessment of the development application. This assessment has included consideration of such matters as potential rise in sea level; potential for more intense and/or frequent extreme weather conditions including storm events, bushfires, drought, flood and coastal erosion; as well as how the proposed development may cope, combat, withstand these potential impacts.

Other Matters for Consideration

The Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009

The installation of the mast was included in the Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 adopted by the former Gosford City Council in 2010 which states ‘Investigate appropriate location for a memorial in honour of the ex-HMAS Adelaide II and her crew. Construct environmentally sensitive viewing platform incorporating interpretive/educational signage and relevant relics from the vessel.’

Clauses 5.1 to 5.4 of the plan are relevant to the proposed development and were addressed in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Greenlight as independently reviewed by The Design Partnership.

Illumination

No illumination of the development of surrounding public land is proposed. This is not permissible without consent of Australian Navy or RSL.

Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been prepared in line with the requirements of the Gosford Development Control Plan.

Construction Management Plan/Project Delivery

The proposal would most likely not produce excessive dust or noise during the construction affecting neighbours as there are no nearby sensitive noise receivers such as residential dwellings, schools or hospitals. However, the use of the public recreation area would be restricted during construction.

The delivery of this project has been planned to minimise inconvenience, ensure safety and reduce the construction impact on residents, local businesses and tourists.

The proposed works are anticipated to last for approximately 2 weeks with the initial installation of the mast the priority. A plinth footing is required to a depth of a minimum 4.4 metres deep by a 750 millimetres width to ensure enough strength is obtained to secure the mast.

The base of the mast itself is 2 metres above ground and held by a pre- welded stainless steel cage that is concreted into the plinth and tightened with GR316 stainless steel bolts.

During the construction period, access to the area around the footprint of the structure and upgrade to access pathways would be restricted, plus a small section of the Terrigal Haven carpark may be closed to cater to construction vehicles etc.

Users of the Haven, Main Oval and Skillion as well as foreshore areas and car park areas are advised to adhere to onsite signage and not to enter the construction area. However, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) was not submitted.

Planning Agreements

The proposed development is not subject to a planning agreement / draft planning agreement.

Development Contributions

Development Contribution Plan under Section 7.12 may be applicable if the proposal was supported.

Water and Sewer Contributions

There are no water and sewer contributions applicable to the proposed development.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed against the heads of consideration of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies. The potential constraints of the site have been assessed and it is considered that the site is unsuitable for the proposed development.

The proposed development is expected to have an adverse impact on the built and natural environment as well as visual impacts.

It is considered that the proposed development will not complement the locality and meet the desired future character of the area. Accordingly, the application is recommended for Refusal pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The development application is not supported, for the reasons below.

Reasons for the Decision

The reasons for the decision as recommended under the assessment of this application

are as follows:

1 The proposal is unsatisfactory having regard for the relevant environmental planning instruments, plans and policies.

2 The proposal has been considered against the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management), Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 and Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 and has been found to be unsatisfactory.

3 There are significant issues or impacts identified with the proposal under s.4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4 Additional information requested in order to undertake a more comprehensive assessment addressing the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 has not been provided:

a A survey has not been provided clearly identifying the location of the proposed structure and proximity of vegetation that may be affected.

b Amendments are required on the architectural drawings to show correct dimensions of the structure and surrounding area. It is noted that the SEE states the structure is 7.4m, and that the base of the mast will be 2m above ground level. The architectural drawings show the mast height at approximately 9m and the Independent Review of the Greenlight VIA states the proposal will be approximately 9.5m.

5 The application is inconsistent with the stated aims and objectives of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018. The proposed development will cause an adverse impact on the matters required to be considered under Clause 13 (1) (a) – (g), Clause 13 (2) (a) – (c), Clause 14 (1) (a) – (b) and Clause 2 of SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018.

6 Equitable access will not be achieved, and does not comply with AS 1428.1, 1428.4.1, NCC (BCA 2016 Volume 1), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards, and Central Coast Council Disability Inclusion Plan.

7 The development will cause adverse visual impact upon view corridors from private and public places.

8 The development is considered unacceptable in terms of the impact of the proposed works as assessed against the scenic values identified in The Terrigal Haven Plan of Management 2009 to determine if the changes in the landscape are consistent with the desired character of the reserve.

9 Safety measures have not been sufficiently addressed.

10 A traffic impact assessment (TIA) has not assessed the additional traffic overflow may be managed on commemorative days of the year.

11 An ecology, biodiversity and landscape or arborist assessment has not been submitted to assess the impact of the development on the natural environment, fauna and flora.

12 A social impact assessment and economic impact assessment has not been submitted to assess the net community and economic benefits of the development.

13 The geotechnical investigation / dilapidation report dated July 2010 prepared by Douglas Partners is considered outdated and does not specifically address the proposed location of the mast and plinth footing.

14 A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has not been submitted.

15 The development is not presently considered in the public interest. The development will have an adverse impact on the public amenity of the existing public open space and does not provide equitable access. Visual impact must be resolved in order to mitigate environmental impact by way of view obstruction from neighbouring properties and surrounding public land.

Attachments

1 ⇩	Architectural Plans 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327718
2 ⇩	Statement of Environmental Effects Revised Nov 2020 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14468432
3 ⇩	Engineering Plan & Carpark & Pathway Plan 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327723
4 ⇩	Access Report 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327733
5 ⇩	Geotechnical Report 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327735
6 ⇩	Visual Impact Assessment 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327729
7 ⇩	Independent Review 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1	D14327736

Item No: 3.2
Title: Section 8.2 Review of Determination - DA/57698/2019 - Staged Caravan Park (165 sites) at 255, 255A, 255B Avoca Drive, Kincumber and 19 Picketts Valley Road, Picketts Valley
Department: Environment and Planning
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: 021.2019.00057698.002 - D14549569

Author: Erin Murphy, Senior Development Planner

Manager: Emily Goodworth, Section Manager, Development Assessment

Approver: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager, Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received under Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act) for the consent authority to review its decision on the refusal of Development Application DA/57698/2019 for a staged ‘Residential Land Lease Community’ (Caravan Park) comprising 202 sites, community facilities, roads and infrastructure, landscaping, and demolition of existing structures at 255, 255A, 255B Avoca Drive, Kincumber and 19 Picketts Valley Road, Picketts Valley.

This report re-examines the issues associated with Development Application DA/57698/2019 with particular regard to supporting documentation and amended plans submitted with the Section 8.2 Review.

The application was refused by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 6 August 2020. In accordance with the provisions of Clause 8.3(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Review of Determination must also be determined by the Local Planning Panel. In addition, the Local Planning Panels Operational Direction (endorsed by the Minister on 30 June 2020) states that: ‘the determination of a review application from a panel decision shall be determined by different members of the panel to those who made the original determination.’ (Section 2.1).

The reasons for refusal are summarised below:

· The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone.

· The proposed development would result in additional stormwater run-off and increased downstream flooding.

· The proposed development would result in significant cut and fill, earthworks and removal of vegetation on the site which would impact the ecological values, visual and scenic quality of the area.

· The site is not suitable for the proposed development due to its landscape, scenic and ecological qualities which should be preserved.

· Insufficient information has been provided on potential contamination, road works within the site, ecology impacts, heritage impacts, waste impacts, soil and water management, emergency and construction access, bush fire hazard, and tree retention.

· The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the locality. Approval is not in the public interest.

· Pursuant to Draft Central Coast LEP (2018), the proposed development is prohibited within E4 Environmental Living zone.

The application has been examined having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 and Section 8.3 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements, with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in the report.

The application proposes the following amendments to the development originally considered by the consent authority:

· A reduction in sites from 202 to 165 sites

· Minor relocation of internal Road 1 in the south west corner

· Minor alterations to internal Road 6

· Reduction of tree removal from 491 to 327 trees

· Retention of existing farmhouse and incorporated into future community facilities

· Removal of Welcome Centre

The proposal, as amended, fails to provide adequate justification or additional information to address the reasons for refusal.

Applicant Choice Living Avoca Development Pty Ltd c/ADW Johnson

Owner Choice Living Avoca Development Pty Ltd

Application No DA/57698/2019

Description of Land Lot A DP449600, Lots 2, 3 and 9 DP976799, Nos 255,

255A, 255B Avoca Drive Kincumber, and 19 Picketts Valley

Road Picketts Valley.

Proposed Development Staged Caravan Park comprising 165 sites, community facilities, retained farmhouse, demolition of structures, removal of dams, roads and infrastructure and landscaping

Site Area 24.12ha

Zoning E4 Environmental Living

Existing Use Dwelling houses, agriculture

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $19,739,800

Recommendation

1 That the Local Planning Panel refuse the application Section 8.2(a) review of determination of Development Application Ref DA/57698/2019 for the integrated and Staged ‘Residential Land Lease Community’ (Caravan Park) comprising 165 sites, community facilities, retained farmhouse, demolition of structures, removal of dams, roads and infrastructure and landscaping at Nos 255, 255A, 255B Avoca Drive Kincumber, and 19 Picketts Valley Road Picketts Valley, subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in the schedule attached to the report and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

2 That Council advise those who made written submissions of the Panel’s decision.

3 That Council advise relevant external authorities of the Panel’s decision.

Key Issues

· Permissibility and characterisation of use as a caravan park

· Inconsistency with the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone

· Ecological impacts

· Insufficient information has been provided on stormwater run-off and increased downstream flooding impacts, ecology impacts, waste impacts, soil and water management, emergency and construction access and tree retention.

· Overdevelopment and inconsistency with the current and future desired character of the locality

· Inconsistency with Draft Central Coast LEP (2018)

· Ability to comply with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005

Precis:

Proposed Development	Staged ‘Residential Land Lease Community’ (Caravan Park) comprising 165 sites, community facilities, retained farmhouse, demolition of structures, removal of dams, roads and infrastructure and landscaping.
Permissibility and Zoning	E4 Environmental Living (Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014) Caravan parks are permissible within the E4 Environmental Living. The characterisation of the site as a caravan park is detailed further below.
Relevant Legislation	· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – · Section 4.15 · Local Government Act 1993 – Section 68 and 89 · Fisheries Management Act 1994 · Heritage Act 1977 · Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 · Roads Act 1997 · Rural Fires Act 1997 · Water Management Act 2000 · State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 · Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 · Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 · State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 · State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 · State Environmental Planning Policy No 21-Caravan Parks · State Environmental Planning Policy No 36- Manufactured Home Estates. · State Environmental Planning Policy No55- Remediation of Land · Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018 (CCLEP) · Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.
Current Use	Dwelling houses and agriculture
Integrated Development	· Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) · NSW Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries) · NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS)
Submissions	137 submissions

The Site and Surrounds

The site is an irregular shape and consists of four (4) existing allotments, 255, 255A & 255B Avoca Drive Kincumber, and 19 Picketts Valley Road Picketts Valley, legally identified as:

· Lot A DP449600

· Lots 2, 3 and 9 DP976799

The site is located on the northern side of Avoca Drive between Picketts Valley Road and

Melville Street, Kincumber, having a 154m frontage to Avoca Drive, and an 82m

frontage to Picketts Valley Road.

The land is undulating with varying slopes to 20% and is dissected by two watercourses

which traverse the property in a generally east-west direction. There is also existing

dam/water storage on site. The levels vary from about RL 40m at the southern side boundary

with Avoca Drive, falling away to the north to about RL 6m at the first watercourse.
The elevation rises again to about RL 40m near the centre of the site then falls away (to about RL 6m) at the second watercourse, rising again to (about RL 30m) at the northern side/ rear of the site.

Past use of the land has been generally agricultural with dwelling houses. The site contains 3

existing dwelling houses, sheds, stables, and an access driveway from Avoca Drive. One dwelling house and the dam are located at the southern end of the site, with the remaining dwelling houses, sheds, and stables located approximately in the centre of the site between the two watercourses.

The rear of the site and frontage to Picketts Valley Road is heavily vegetated, with the

remainder of the site having scattered stands of vegetation.

The site is identified as "bushfire prone land". A Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by

Peterson Bushfire (Reference 17033 dated 11 March 2021) was submitted with the

application recommending the proposal comply with varying BAL levels with the highest

being BAL-19 for 7% of the dwelling sites.

The site is located about 2.5km east of the Kincumber shopping centre and about 3.8km west

of Avoca Beach.

Adjoining development to the north, east and west comprises small rural holdings, associated

dwelling houses and agricultural uses. Land to the south and south-west (opposite side of

Avoca Drive) includes residential areas of Kincumber incorporating senior living developments.

Figure 1-Locality Plan

Background

Development application DA/57698/2019 was considered by the Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 6 August 2020. This application was for a Staged ‘Residential Land Lease Community’ (Caravan Park) comprising 202 long term sites, 2 short term ‘caravan’ sites, community facilities, roads and infrastructure, landscaping, and demolition of existing structures. DA/57698/2019 was refused development consent by the Local Planning Panel.

The reasons for refusal at that meeting are summarised below:

· The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone

· The proposed development would result in additional stormwater run-off and increased downstream flooding.

· The proposed development would result in significant cut and fill, earthworks and removal of vegetation on the site which would impact the ecological values, visual and scenic quality of the area.

· The site is not suitable for the proposed development due to its landscape, scenic and ecological qualities which should be preserved.

· Insufficient information has been provided on potential contamination, road works within the site, ecology impacts, waste impacts, soil and water management, emergency and construction access, bush fire hazard, and tree retention.

· The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the locality and approval is not in the public interest.

· Pursuant to Draft Central Coast LEP (2018) the proposed development is prohibited within E4 Environmental Living zone.

The reasons for refusal and applicant’s response to these reasons are included under the ‘Applicant’s Response to Reasons for Refusal’ heading below.

The Proposed Development

The s8.2 application includes amended engineering and landscape plans. It is noted there have been no revised design plans submitted. The amended proposal maintains the overall design approach and general configuration of the originally considered development with the following amendments made as part of the review of determination:

· A reduction in sites from 202 sites to 165 sites

· Minor relocation of internal Road 1 in south west corner

· Minor alterations to internal Road 6

· Reduction of tree removal from 491 to 327 trees

· Retention of existing farmhouse and incorporation into future community facilities

· Removal of Welcome Centre at the southern end of the site near the entrance

It is considered that both qualitatively and quantitatively, the amended proposal remains substantially the same as the original proposal as per the provisions of Clause 8.3(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

The Section 8.2 application proposes the following:

· Demolition of existing structures on the site

· Retention of existing farmhouse

· De-watering and filling in of the existing farm dam

· De-watering and reshaping of dam on southern watercourse to revert to a watercourse

· Bulk earthworks. Preliminary plans submitted indicate cut up to 6.2m and fill up to 5.5m. The applicant has estimated the total cut volume of 92,970m3, fill of 98,692m3, and a shortfall of 5,722m3 to be imported into the site

· Construction of three water quality basins

· 165 long term dwelling sites

· 2 short term ‘caravan’ sites (15m x 6m)

· Construction of community facilities including a club house (including caretakers’ residence), indoor swimming pool, tennis court, bowling green, putting green, village green, community garden and yoga deck

· Construction of intersection of access driveway with Avoca drive and internal driveways

· Realignment of southern existing watercourse crossing and upgrade of road and culvert

· Services, including the provision of sewer

· Removal of 327 trees

· Landscaping

The development is proposed to be staged, with the three stages shown in Figure 2.

The 165 long-term dwelling sites are proposed to contain future manufactured homes. The application shows an indicative mix of 1 and 2 storey, 3-bedroom homes.

The applicant also advises the application for the operation of the caravan park and moveable dwellings will be lodged separately under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

When requested to provide updated design plans, the applicant provided the original design plans as lodged with the original submission and stated that: Certain parts of this document have been amended by the additional information submitted in December 2020 as part of the Review of Determination request. In particular, the original site layout showing 202 sites and been reduced to 165 sites as documented in the specific reports accompanying the request for Review.

A note “SUPERSEDED LAYOUT - Refer to amended 165 site layout and supporting information lodged with Council December 2020 as part of the Request for Review of determination” was on the Context Plan, Site Plan, Site Sections, Shadow Diagrams, Staging Plan and Entry Recreational and Sales Facilities plan (which has been deleted as part of the amended scheme). Accordingly, assessment staff have relied upon the amended landscape and engineering plans to undertake the review (refer figures 2, 3 and 4).

Figure 2- Engineering Site Layout and Staging Plan

Figure 3- Original Site Plan (left) and Section 8.2 review Site Plan (right)

Figure 4- Current landscape plan submitted with Section 8.2 application

Planning History

Council’s records show that the following applications were previously lodged on this site.

DA16548/1992 - 6 lot community title subdivision was approved on 9 November 1993; this consent has lapsed.

Two Pre-DA meetings 2018 & 2019

On 10 May 2018 a pre-DA meeting was held with Council for a senior living development on the site. The meeting identified that a retirement village/senior living development was a prohibited use under the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Senior Living).

A further pre-DA meeting was held on 5 September 2019 for a caravan park on the site

consisting of about 210 sites in the form of manufactured homes with community facilities

and associated infrastructure. The applicant was advised at that time that;

The proposed caravan park is a prohibited use under the draft Central Coast Local

Environmental Plan 2018. It is likely that Council will not support the proposal due to the draft plan being imminent, the density proposed, impact on scenic values of the site, and inconsistency with the objectives of the E4 zone. A caravan park should not be a quasi-retirement village, particularly due to the site constraints of this site. The proposal will also have to comply with the definition of ’caravan park.

DA60468/2020 – an application for a Caravan Park (31 Long Term Sites and 39 Short Term Sites) was lodged on 14 December 2020 and is still under assessment. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 4. This application has been made by the same applicant and given the number of submissions will also be required to be determined by the Local Planning Panel.

Figure 5- Site layout plan for DA60468/2020

Applicant’s Response to Reasons for Refusal

The applicant has provided a response to each of the reasons for refusal which have been summarised below, with Council’s comment, as follows:

Reason for Refusal

a) The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone under the provisions of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014.

Applicant’s Response

The objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone are:

· To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

· To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· To promote ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development and the need for, and value of, biodiversity in Gosford.

· To provide land for low-impact tourist-related development that is of a scale that is compatible with the special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values of the area.

· To ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone.

Section 4.1.2, Table 2 of the original Statement of Environmental Effects provided initial

responses as to how the development was consistent with the objectives of the zones. The comments in this submission should be read in conjunction with and supplementary to those earlier comments.

It should be noted that zone E4 Objectives provide for low-impact residential development.

The term “low impact” should be differentiated with the terminology used in, for example,

objectives for zone R2 which reference low density residential environment.

This submission highlights how the submitted proposal can occur with low impact to the

local setting and landscape in which it sits.

Objective 1 - Key attributes of land zoned E4

The following comments are provided in respect to the three key attributes - being special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

Special ecological

It is noted that the whole of the site is zoned E4. The site does not contain any land zoned

E2 Environmental Conservation, which is typically applied to areas of high ecological,

scientific, cultural or aesthetic values. It is noted that the site retains its current E4 zoning in

Council’s draft consolidated LEP, with no E2 zoned land proposed.

Council’s online mapping provides a layer for known Endangered Ecological Communities,

and distinguishes between Critically Endangered Ecological Communities, Endangered

Ecological Communities and Regionally Significant Vegetation. Figure 1 below is extract

from Councils website.

The subject land does not have any mapped Endangered Ecological Communities but does contain some Regionally Significant Vegetation (marked as yellow hatching on the above map).

‘The amended application not only avoids any clearing of the Regionally Significant Vegetation, but will also enhance this vegetation through proposed landscaping works. Extract from the Development Landscape Plans is provided in Figure 2.

It should be noted that local biodiversity is further improved by the retention and rehabilitation of approximately 5.5ha of vegetation at the northern end of the site where the tree count is estimated at more than 1,200 trees, retention of over 605 trees in the works area and works to the historic farm dam and drainage channel to be reconstructed and rehabilitated to mimic a natural riparian corridor. When complete, the local landscape will benefit by at least 208 additional trees.

Further, an amended Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) accompanies this application. Prepared by a specialist and accredited Ecologist, this report further assesses local biodiversity and within the BDAR addresses avoid and minimise principles, provides further recommendations on minimising and mitigating impacts and identifies ecocredit obligations of approximately $790,000 to be retired if this development proceeds.

New buildings and associated infrastructure have been sited to take advantage of a landscape previously cleared for agriculture and timber getting operations. Figure 3 following is from a 1971 aerial photo.

Scientific

There are no scientific values recorded against the site, with no listings in any Local, State or other register for European heritage value. A search of records for any registered Aboriginal sites resulted in nil findings.

Notwithstanding the absence of any search results, specific site investigations were undertaken as part of this development application process for both European and Aboriginal heritage values.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, submitted with the original proposal, has revealed a potential archaeological deposit (PAD) adjacent to the southern bank of the northern dam. This area has been marked on plans and is retained within riparian setbacks. No works are intended within close proximity. In accordance with standard protocols should nearby excavations reveal any matters of significance, appropriate procedures will be implemented.

In Council’ assessment report dated 6 August 2020, Council’s Heritage Officer has raised a

number of comments to the submitted European heritage assessment and site, particularly

in respect to existing structures upon the land and potentially the holding itself.

The amended application proposes to retain the original farm cottage and will be repurposed as a community facility within the development. There is opportunity within community infrastructure and buildings within the development to capture key elements of the sites history.

Aesthetic

The site has a relatively short frontage to Avoca Drive, with the site falling away from the road to the first of two watercourses, the second which is hidden behind a low central ridge. Other than the Avoca Drive frontage there are a few public vantage points from where the site is visible.

Buildings are set back from front and side boundaries and are at levels below adjacent land

to reduce visual prominence. Areas between buildings and front side setbacks will be landscaped to defuse form.

Trees within the riparian corridor will be retained and supplemented, providing canopy

screening to future houses.

The project team has considered those comments raised by Council Offices in their report dated 6 August 2020, with the amended proposal modified and reduced accordingly.

Key changes to maintain the aesthetics’ of the locality include;

· Retention and enhancement of the Regionally Significant Vegetation adjacent to the southern Boundary;

· Relocation of the primary lead-in road approximately 5m further in from the western Boundary to allow for greater retention of and minimise impacts to trees along the western boundary;

· Removal of sites and retention of trees along the central ridge line.

· Works to the historic farm dam and drainage channel to be reconstructed and rehabilitated to mimic a natural riparian corridor.

· Retention and rehabilitation of approximately 5.5ha of vegetation at the northern end of the site, where the tree count is estimated at more than 1,200 trees

· The net increase trees on site by at least 208 as outlined in Table 1.

The above measures provide for enhanced screening and are appropriate and significant measures to minimise the impacts on aesthetics, as demonstrated in the following figures.

Annexure 3 provides a response from the Team’s consulting Landscape Architect/ Arborist,

with a photomontage showing the proposed development when viewed from Avoca Dr

(south western corner) as Annexure 4.

Objective 2 – no adverse impact on values

The above responses to [zone] Objective 1 demonstrate that key values have been considered

and appropriately responded to in the amended and reduced proposal so that no adverse

impacts occur on those values.

Objective 3 - To promote ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development

and the need for, and value of, biodiversity in Gosford

Approval of this residential land lease community is likely to be the greatest opportunity to achieve ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development which respects and values the biodiversity of the region. Once developed, it will remove any opportunity for further development as the Region continues to experience a continued growth in population for the years ahead.

The submitted Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) has considered local biodiversity conditions and has provided measures to mitigate any impacts of the development. The development is largely proposed upon land previously cleared for agricultural pursuits – making good of previous clearing works so as to minimise impacts on the natural environment.

The community once constructed will provide a sense of place and security for a section of the ageing population sharing similar values. The growth in popularity of such communities, occupancy rates and waiting list is testament to their desirability for a lifestyle living choice. This is expanded on in the Social Impact Assessment report submitted with the application,

with additional comments in response to the Local Planning Panel report now provided as

Annexure 5.

The development once complete will be the management responsibility of one single entity. All internal roads community facilities, landscaped gardens and retain bushland will be maintained by the operator, at no cost to Council. Buildings and community facilities within the community will be maintained to documented standards, to ensure values are preserved. Landscaping, including rehabilitated riparian corridors and retained conservation land to the north will be maintained for the life of the development.

A fenced dog exercise park has been provided where residents can meet where dogs can be safely off leash with minimal impact to local fauna.

The retention of over 5.5 ha of native forests and further lands in the riparian corridor (Approximate 8ha in total) – land not currently Identified in Councils Coastal Open Space

Strategy, will be preserved and maintain for the life of the development, in keeping with

COSS principles.

Objective 4 - To provide land for low-impact tourist-related development.

Comments stated in the original proposal remain relevant for the amended proposal;

The proposal does not specifically target the tourist market, but provides for 2 sites for caravan/motorhomes. It is expected that future residents of the community may wish to entertain family and friends, who might be travelling on extended holidays around this Nation. The selected sites will not impact on the surrounding natural or built environment.

Objective 5 To ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone

Comments stated in the original proposal remain relevant for the amended proposal;

The proposal is based on a systematic assessment of the site and allowing natural features to give shape to a development and integrate with its surrounds. The emphasis has been on conserving and enhancing the site’s features such as open watercourses, retaining trees and avoiding large-scale levelling.

The amended proposal has taken into account comments raised by Council Officers in their report dated 6 August 2020, with the amended proposal modified and reduced accordingly. Amendments include;

· A reduction in the area of site works;

· Reduction in site yield, allowing for greater retention of existing vegetation;

· Removal of “Welcome Centre” and community facility near Avoca Dr;

· Relocation of internal infrastructure (roads) away from side boundaries to assist with vegetation retention and screening opportunities from neighbouring properties;

· Retention of mapped Regionally Significant Vegetation adjacent to southern boundary and side boundaries;

· Retention of trees on the central ridgeline;

· Retention of approx. 5.5ha of vegetation land as set-aside conservation land consistent with COSS principles;

· Reduction in trees to be remove and increase in trees to be planted, resulting in a net increase in trees onsite

These above amendments, and other design changes as detailed in the comprehensive plan sets and specialist reports annexed to this submission demonstrate how the reduction in scale of this project seeks to differentiate development of this site to urban development (including a recently approved 3 storey aged care facility) upon the adjacent R2 Low Density residential zoning.

Comment

In relation to the zone objectives, the “special ecological values” of the land include:

· The wetland provided for by the large dams and waterway, including the largest dam which meets the definition of a locally important wetland (BDAR p8);

· The wildlife corridor, which benefits a range of threatened species including the Yellow Bellied Glider;

· Potential Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat, including a vegetated link to Avoca Lagoon where there is a known population of the species;

· The BDAR details that the presence of 35 threatened “ecosystem” credit species has been assumed. This indicates that habitat for these species is either present or assumed to be present based on surveys undertaken;

· The BDAR details that purchase of species credits for six threatened species would be required to offset the residual impacts of the development. This indicates that important habitat for these species, including breeding habitat, is either present or assumed to be present;

· Presence of the Critically Endangered plant species Rhodamnia rubescens;

· Presence of mapped Regionally Significant Vegetation Narrabeen Coastal Blackbutt Forest (Bell), which is equivalent to Plant Community Type (PCT) Smooth-barked Apple - Turpentine - Blackbutt open forest on ranges of the Central Coast in the BDAR.

Vegetation and Habitat Removal

The BDAR (20 November 2020) for the revised proposal subject to the 8.2 review states that “A large portion of the native vegetation in the subject land requires complete clearing (4.93 ha, or approximately 72.1%).” (pp51). The BDAR (Table 6.1) gives the total area of clearing as covering 6.92 ha. This comprises 3.02ha of total clearing, 3.56ha of APZ (including areas of total and incomplete clearing) and 0.34ha of clearing along the access from Pickett’s Valley Rd.

Figure 1.2 in the BDAR shows the areas assumed to require complete clearing and those areas assumed to be IPA and Outer Protection Area (OPA). Site disturbance, including bulk earthworks, is still stated as covering over 50% of the site (SEE, pg 4). This will modify the existing landform and involve total removal of trees and vegetation in these areas.

The vegetation to be retained still only includes 11 of the 46 hollow bearing trees identified in the subject land, approximately 24% (pg 51 of BDAR).

The development will result in the reduction of an existing wildlife corridor that benefits the Yellow-bellied Glider, amongst other threatened species.

The development will result in the reduction of aquatic habitat due to the modifications to the waterways, including dewatering of the larger dam which is recognised in the BDAR as a local wetland and assumed habitat for the Endangered Green and Golden Bell Frog.

Statements are made in the SEE about the proposal providing a net increase in numbers of trees on the site. However, this would involve removing well established mature trees in favour of tree planting. A proportion of replanted plants are usually anticipated to fail to reach maturity, and those remaining would take many years to reach maturity. Of significance are the 35 hollow bearing trees proposed to be removed.

The proposed tree removal has not been sufficiently minimised and is still excessive with regards to the environmental and planning constraints of the site.

The reduction of impacts to visually prominent trees adjacent to the southern boundary that are mapped as Regionally Significant appears to have occurred but could be much better. Councils Tree Assessment Officer noted the following:

· Civil works for the battering of the road and catchment drains along the road and western boundary will still have an unaddressed impact on the trees they think they are avoiding.

· The secondary access track to Pickets Valley Drive will likely need to be wider and require more cut and fill. This is likely to have a greater unquantified impact on native trees.

· Such bushfire requirements may further fragment the existing tree canopy and inhibit the success or suitability of re-planted trees, resulting in even greater tree removal than presented by the applicant.

· The proposal still does not go far enough to better utilise existing cleared area, conserve mature trees that provide scenically prominent backdrops visible from roads and nearby properties and does not prevent further fragmentation of the tree canopy. The concept hasn’t adequately minimised impacts on mature native trees, nor concentrated enough new buildings and pavements in existing clearings.

Given the above factors, the development proposal as outlined in the 82A review could still not be reasonably described as “low impact”. The proposal is not compatible with the special ecological values of the site. The proposal has not made sufficient use of existing cleared areas and avoided important habitats.

European Heritage

Councils Strategic Planner and qualified Architect has reviewed the amended plans and information and concludes that heritage impacts have not been adequately addressed, noting the following:

· The site is occupied by an original farmhouse. The applicant sought to have the building listed as an item of heritage significance though it is not currently on the list of heritage items in Schedule 5 of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 , it is considered an item of local significance and worthy of listing.

· The existing curtilage makes an important contribution to the original farmhouse. The curtilage allows views of the original farmhouse from all sides and provides a relatively open treed backdrop to the farmhouse.

· The application proposes locating dwelling sites to the north and east approximately 8m from the original farmhouse which will obscure view to the farmhouse and result in a cluttered visual background to the item when viewing it from the south and west

· The total number of sites and their impact on the curtilage of the item results in detrimental impacts. The impact on the original farmhouse is considered to be unacceptable.

· It is considered an unobstructed curtilage of 60m on all sides of the item is the minimum necessary to maintain the significance of the item and allow the retention of existing trees and landscaping that also contribute to the significance

However, as the site is not currently a heritage listed property or subject to a draft listing, it is noted that weight of the heritage significance of the farmhouse is limited.

The farmhouse does contribute to the aesthetic values of the site, as such further consideration could be given to the preservation of the farmhouse and its setting and curtilage. Irrespective of this, the proposal remains inconsistent with the zone objectives for the E4 zone for the other reasons detailed in this report.

Coastal Open Space System (COSS) Land

The site does not adjoin land identified or owned by Council for the Coastal Open Space

System (COSS). The northern part of the site north of the second creek is proposed to be

excluded from the proposed development to retain existing vegetation and a link between

Kincumber Mountain to the west and Avoca Lagoon to the east. The preservation of the

northern part of the site is supported but will be impacted by the proposed construction access and fire trail. To provide such a link between Kincumber Mountain and Avoca Lagoon would require additional private land to be added to the COSS.

Summary

The proposed development as amended remains non complaint with the objectives of the E2 zone. The proposal as amended is not a low impact residential development. It still involves:

· Significant cut and fill, up to 6.2m and 5.5m respectively

· Significant land disturbance of 131,165m², which is over half of the site

· Significant tree removal, with 327 trees proposed to be removed (noting proposed 535 tree plantings)

The proposal impacts the unreasonably impacts the trees and ecological and biodiversity values of the site and locality. The proposal is not compatible with the desired future character of the zone and area due to the urban nature of the development and impacts on the natural and built environment.

Reason for Refusal

b) The proposed development would result in additional stormwater run-off and increased downstream flooding.

Applicant’s Response

Response: Stormwater

A Water Cycle Management Plan was included as Appendix 13 of the SEE submitted with the original DA. It is noted that during Council’s assessment time no contact was made by relevant Council staff in relation to stormwater matters, nor was this matter addressed in Council Offices LPP report dated 6 August 2020, yet appears as a reason for refusal (1f).

An updated Water Cycle Management Plan has been prepared for the revised 165 site proposal and is provided as Annexure 6. This report concludes;

The proposed stormwater system has been designed to safely convey the minor and

major flows from within the development to the receiving waters without adversely

impacting downstream properties and infrastructure.

The stormwater detention provided by the proposed basins will allow the limiting of

the post development critical peak discharges leaving the site to less than that of

pre-development for all storm events up to the 1% AEP, thereby not increasing the

risk of flood inundation to existing downstream development and not increasing the

demand on the downstream stormwater infrastructure.

A treatment train process of rainwater tanks, GPTs and biofiltration basins have been

designed to effectively reduce the nutrients and gross pollutants from stormwater

runoff from the proposed development.

MUSIC modelling has demonstrated that the treatment train for runoff from the

proposed development complies with the performance target objectives of CCC

prior to discharge into the downstream waterways.

Total water management has been considered during the design and modelling of

the proposed development so as to incorporate water retention or reuse measures

to reduce the demand on potable water.

An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be implemented to minimise the risk

of erosion to disturbed areas and limit the transport of sediments from the

development site to the receiving waters during construction.

Response: Flooding

A Flood Impact Assessment was included as Appendix 14 of the SEE submitted with the

original DA.

It is noted that during Council’s assessment time no contact was made by relevant Council staff in relation to flooding matters, yet Council Officers LPP report dated 6 August 2020, included four (4) recommendations the original report should have addressed. The subsequent lack of additional information then appears as a reason for refusal.

An updated Flood Impact Assessment has been prepared for the revised 165 site proposal

and is provided as Annexure 7. This report addresses earlier criticisms and now concludes;

Two flow paths, Saltwater Creek and an unnamed tributary, flow through the Site into

Avoca Lagoon. The ‘Coastal Lagoon Catchments, Overland Flood Study’ (the Flood

Study) TUFLOW hydraulic model was used as the basis of this assessment. The Council

TUFLOW model was modified to incorporate pertinent aspects of the development.

Post Development conditions were assessed in the flood model for the 1% AEP and

PMF events with the results presented as flood depths, levels and hazard. The results

indicate that all proposed lots are above the level of the PMF and the FPL, and that

the creek crossing is above the level of the 1% AEP event. Hazardous flows overtopping the crossing are noted during extreme events and warning signage should be implemented to manage the risk to motorists.

A flood impact assessment indicates that the development does not result in off-site

flood impacts and consideration of the potential cumulative impacts indicates that

multiple similar developments would not result in increased flood impacts as per the

Floodplain Development Manual (FDM, 2005) requirements. Local drainage design

will manage site runoff and ensure that it does not affected neighbouring properties.

Comment

The applicant’s repeated assertions that there were no requests for information to address certain issues are noted. It should be noted that there is no legislative requirement for council to issue a request for information.

The application was refused on a number of matters, including fundamental inconsistencies with the zone objectives, as such, it would not have been prudent to ask the applicant to undertake further detailed technical studies at that time, as it would not have addressed the fundamental issues with the nature of proposed development.

This reason for refusal is still valid for the following reasons:

· There is no way to assess the appropriateness of any of the input parameters as very few are presented. The following information has not been provided:

o Intensity–Frequency–Duration (IFD) data used in Analysis

o Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Parameters and rainfall determination used in analysis

o Pre and Post Developed WBNM files (with all parameters and ARR HUB & IFD files used)

o TUFLOW run files

· It is proposed to create new blocks of land that will contain residential dwellings and incur a level of hazard of H3 (without the inclusion of the impact of structures (Dwellings) in a PMF event, which if accounted for, would likely raise the hazard level further.

· The construction access requires a creek crossing approximately 15m from Picketts Valley Road. The culvert and associated fill have not been accounted for in the flood modelling. There is insufficient information to ascertain if this will increase flood levels upstream of the creek crossing.

· The construction access passes by an existing dam. It is unclear whether any parts of this access are located below the 1% AEP flood.

· The use of the TrueGrid permeable paving system has not been demonstrated as being adequate for the expected construction traffic loadings.

· A concept stormwater plan for the proposed intersection and upgrade of Avoca Drive have not been provided.

The proposed development as amended has not adequately addressed flooding and stormwater impacts.

Reason for Refusal

c) The proposed development would result in significant cut and fill, earthworks and removal of vegetation on the site which would impact the ecological values, visual and scenic quality of the area.

Applicants Response

The extent of cut and fill across the site has been reduced for the amended design as a result of a reduction in overall yield and relocation and redesign of internal roads. This has resulted in reduction in cut by 36%, reduction in fill by 40%, with an overall total balance improvement by 68% as summaries in Table 1. This is likely improve further through detailed design plans to be submitted at the Construction Certificate stage, with the objective to achieve a nil cut/fill balance.

The area disturbed has been reduced by approximately 15%.

Once a site (any site) is disturbed by cut and fill and other site or building works, the level of cut/ fill and disturbance, to some degree, becomes a constant in terms of impacts on ecological values – that is, vegetation is either removed or it’s not. The depth of cut/fill, to some degree, becomes immaterial.

In this instance, the level of cut and fill within the development footprint has the effect of lowering overall development, by filling natural depressions, and designing internal roads and access for improved manoeuvrability for residents throughout. The lowering of site levels, reduction in the number of sites, increased side setbacks, greater retention of mature trees providing increased vegetation screening, and proposed plantings which results in a net increase of trees by not less than 208, will not result in the deterioration of visual and scenic quality of the area to the extent that warrants refusal of the proposal.

The impacts of site disturbance on local ecological values has been addressed in the revised BDAR Assessment, which concludes that the development can be approved subject to appropriate mitigation measures, ongoing management plans and the retirement of eco-credits. This is detailed in full at Annexure 8.

The extent of cut and fill results in development upon the subject land being lower than the surrounding landscape, including Avoca Dr to the south and adjacent rural- residential development to the west.

The siting of future development, together with the retention and enhancement of Regionally Significant Vegetation adjacent to the southern boundary, increased setbacks and vegetated buffer opportunity along the western boundary, the loss of sites and retention of mature trees central to the site, significantly reduces any impacts the visual and scenic quality of the area to the extent that it justifies refusal on this reason.

The extent of design changes is detailed in the amended concept engineering plans, landscape development application and photomontage as annexed to this submission. A separate Tree Impact Assessment for the upgraded construction access track is provided as Annexure 9.

Comment

The proposed development still results in significant cut and fill, earthworks and removal of vegetation on the site which would impact the ecological values, visual and scenic quality of the area.

While the applicant notes a reduction in cut by 36% and a reduction in fill by 40%, the argument that is made is that “Once a site (any site) is disturbed by cut and fill and other site or building works, the level of cut/ fill and disturbance, to some degree, becomes a constant in terms of impacts on ecological values – that is, vegetation is either removed or it’s not. The depth of cut/fill, to some degree, becomes immaterial.”

While the area to be area disturbed has been reduced by approximately 15%, significant land disturbance of 131,165m² remains, which is over half of the site (54%).

The significant cut and fill, up to 6.2m and 5.5m respectively, will completely change the nature of the landscape, from natural undulating hills to retaining walls and flat pads, to support the proposed 165 one and two storey manufactured home sites.

While the significant tree planting of 535 trees is noted, 327 trees are still proposed to be removed. Whilst tree removal is acknowledged as being required to enable development to occur on land, the extent of tree removal proposed in this location within the E4 zone, which seeks to retain the ecological values and visual and scenic quality of the area, is not considered appropriate or warranted in this instance.

Accordingly, the proposed development is still considered to be unacceptable with regard to cut and fill, earthworks and removal of vegetation and is considered to result in a development that is not in harmony with the objectives of the E4 zone and one which will negatively impact on the ecological values, and visual and scenic quality of the area.

Reason for Refusal

d) The site is not suitable for the proposed development due to its landscape, scenic and ecological qualities which should be preserved.

Applicant’s Response

The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that it sits within the local landscape, sympathetic to surrounding development. Landscape design principles are provided on page L101 of the Landscape Development Assessment, provided as Annexure 2.

The amended design, both layout and home designs, continue to take into account natural topography, with internal roads, the location of sites, and future home designs taking advantage of slopes by accommodating retaining walls between sites, with a mix of 2 storey designs to suit. Importantly, sites have been removed from key locations to increase landscape buffers between the development footprint and adjacent land, and to retain mature trees that not only preserve ecological values but also provide additional vegetation screening across the site, particularly when viewed from Avoca Dr.

The siting of future development, together with the retention and enhancement of Regionally Significant Vegetation adjacent to the southern boundary, increased setbacks and vegetated buffer opportunity along the western boundary, the loss of sites and retention of mature trees central to the site, significantly reduces any impacts the visual and scenic quality of the area to the extent that it justifies refusal on this reason.

The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report has assessed impacts of site disturbance on local ecological values. This report concludes that the development can be approved subject to appropriate mitigation measures, ongoing management plans and the retirement of eco-credits. This is detailed in full at Annexure 8, with a response letter from the consulting ecologist provided as Annexure 10.

The retention of over 5.5 ha of native forests and further lands in the riparian corridor

(Approximate 8ha in total) – land not currently Identified in Councils Coastal Open Space Strategy, will be preserved and maintain for the life of the development, in keeping with COSS principles.

The locality and immediate landscape is under continual ‘transition’ as the Region experiences sustained and forecast population grow. Two immediate examples of nearby growth are summarised in the following table;

It is put that the proposed development, which has been designed to site development generally upon land previously cleared for agriculture and forestry, maximise perimeter vegetated buffers, retain significant canopy trees, retained conservation land, re-establish riparian corridors etc will provide for at least equal, if not superior outcomes, in respect to landscape, scenic and ecological qualities than is otherwise provided by existing development further along Picketts Valley Rd. An aerial image of nearby development (also zoned E4) is provided below in figure 6.

Comment

The site is not considered suitable for the proposed development due to the urban nature of the development, extent of earthworks required, tree clearing and impacts on ecology.

The applicant states that the development has been “carefully designed to ensure that it sits within the local landscape”, but this is not the case as the proposal involves large-scale site regrading, to provide for what are akin to benched lots for future one and two storey dwellings. The site regrade plan at Figure 5 demonstrates this. The design has not sought to utilise existing roads or cleared areas within the site.

Figure 5- Site regrade plans extract

The scale and nature of the proposed ‘caravan park’, with the intention of 165 dwelling sites that will cater for substantially sized one and two storey manufactured homes, is essentially an urban development. The land is zoned for low-impact residential and tourist-related development that will not have an adverse impact on the ecological or aesthetic values and is of a scale that is compatible with those values of the area.

In regard to the applicant’s reference to the consent at 263 Avoca Drive, deferred commencement development consent was granted for 9 x 2 bedroom Tourist Units and Shed, car parking and provision of sewer to the site under DA/40779/2011 on 13 July 2012.

This development was approved almost 10 years ago, under different planning controls, being the Gosford Interim Development Order No 122. However, it is noted there were similar issues and controls at that time. The assessment report for DA/40779/2011 included the following comments:

“The proposed development consists of nine (9) low-impact single storey units and minimal cut/fill. The proposal will minimise environmental and tree management issues in relation to the subject land. However, the provision of sewer to the subject land includes a proposal to connect to the Gosford Coastal Carrier System Augmentation Stage 2 works through private land to the west of the site. The proposed sewer line as shown on the Plan titled: “Concept Pressure Main and Gravity Sewers within Lot 3 DP 421607 and Lot A DP 449600 Avoca Drive Kincumber”, prepared by Treers Rose & Associates, is located within an established tree line which runs along the front and western boundaries of this property.

Removal or further fragmentation of the tree canopy along the property boundary of Lot A DP 449600 to accommodate connection to Council’s Sewer system has potential to impact on natural scenic qualities and amenity of surrounding properties in the locality and detract from the character of the locality. Accordingly, a deferred commencement condition has been imposed requiring the sewer line to be positioned to minimise impact on established trees.”

It is noted that a Section 96(1A) amendment to Deferred Development Consent DA/40779/2011 involved the deletion of the deferred commencement conditions, and allowed for the issue of an operative consent, but also added 3 stages, and included the requirements of the deferred commencement conditions within Stage 2, with the stages constructed as follows:

· Stage 1 shall comprise construction of a shed. The shed shall not be used for habitable purposes. Stage 1 works shall not include tree removal as indicated in red on the consent plans.

· Stage 2 shall comprise provision and connection of reticulated sewer to the site, submission of Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Nest-box Replacement Strategy

· Stage 3 shall comprise the following works:

· Construction of Nine (9) x two (2) bedroom tourist units; including required car parking - 9 spaces.

· Redesign of the existing parking arrangements and provision of a total of fifty-seven (57) car parking spaces for use by the existing restaurant/art gallery; and

· Reconstruction of access and construction of an access road through the site to provide access to the proposed units and shed.

· Provision of sewer to the development.

· Tree removal.

Council records show that only Stage 1 (the shed) of this development consent has been progressed. The required Arboricultural Impact Assessment, which is required to be submitted to and approved by Council, has not been undertaken.

Given this approval has not progressed, this does not represent an ‘example of nearby growth’ as stated by the applicant.

The 108-bed aged care facility referenced by the applicant at 88 Scaysbrook Drive (formerly 290 Avoca Drive), was approved by the Regional Planning Panel on 16 June 2020 under DA/56271/2019. It is noted that all works on this site are confined to within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It is also noted that the R2 portion of the site is already developed and cleared and forms part of the larger aged care facility known as 'Brentwood Village retirement precinct'.

Again, given this approval relates to residentially zoned land, and previously developed land, this does not reasonably justify a similar form of growth or development on the subject site which is zoned E4 Environmental Living.

The existing rural residential land to the north along Picketts Valley Road and Country View Road as refenced by the applicant, is zoned 7(c2) Conservation and Scenic Protection (Scenic Protection - Rural Small Holdings) under the Gosford Interim Development Order No.122, and is not Zoned E4 as stated by the applicant. The relevance of this subdivision arrangement, which from records appears to be from the 80’s and 90’s, 30-40 years ago, is not apparent.

The applicant has not provided adequate justification to demonstrate that the site is suitable for proposed development.

Reason for Refusal

f) Insufficient information has been provided on potential contamination, road works within the site, ecology impacts, heritage impacts, waste impacts, soil and water management, emergency and construction access, bush fire hazard, and tree retention.

Applicants Response

It is noted that during Council’s assessment time of the original development application no contact was made by relevant Council staff in relation to a number of matters raised in this reason for refusal.

Contamination

A Phase 1 Site Contamination Assessment and Phase 2 Detailed Assessment were submitted during assessment of the original application. These initial reports recommended further actions to improve site conditions but concluded that this site can be made suitable for the proposed development provided the stated recommendations are implemented.

It is noted that no further requests for information were made by Council.

In Council Officers Assessment report to LPP dated 6 August 2020, identified further concerns and the need for additional reporting requirements, including a;

Required

Response

1. Stage 3 Remediation Action Plan (RAP) –

Now provided as Annexure 11

2. Hazardous Substances Audit (HSA)

Now provided Annexure 12

3. Dewatering Management Plan

Now provided as Annexure 13

4. Soil and Water Management Plan

Now provided as Annexure 14

A Contaminated Land Management Plan has also been prepared and provided as Annexure 15.

Council had also requested remediation and validation prior to DA approval, however, the

Project’s Senior Environmental Scientist has advised that such a request is highly unusual and

onerous at this stage of the project. Further comments in reply are provided as Annexure

16.

Road works

A complete set of Concept Civil Engineering Drawings reflecting the revised 165 site layout

are provided as Annexure 1. This set includes staging plans, site constraints and demolition,

dewatering, Avoca Drive intersection plan, various detail plans, road section plans including fire trail and construction access, concept stormwater layout, site regrading, pad regrading,

erosion and sediment controls, concept water and sewer layout.

Ecology impacts

As noted earlier in the submission a revised Biodiversity Development Assessment Report has

been prepared in support of the revised 165 site proposal. This report, like the original,

considers avoid and minimise measures, other measures to minimise and mitigate any

impacts, and the quantum of environmental credits required to be retired in order for the

development to proceed.

The revised BDAR Is provided as Annexure 8.

Heritage

This revised proposal has considered the comments from Councils Heritage Officer provided

in the LPP report dated 6 August 2020.

A significant change in this amended application is the retention of the original dwelling

which will be adaptively used and incorporated into the proposed community buildings as

recommended by Council’s Heritage Officer.

Page L302 of the Landscape Development Plans provides an overview of the “village

green” which will contain the existing dwelling and curtilage. Further examples of

landscaping treatments and materials, such as the use of timber post and rail fencing, use

of oversized and weathered timber in constructed landscape structures (pergolas etc) and

other landscaping features will be incorporated throughout the development as measures

to reflect the site’s cultural history as agricultural land.

It is noted that the site does not contain any registered items of Aboriginal cultural or

European heritage significance. A Potential Archaeological Deposit was previously

recorded in the submitted Cultural Heritage Assessment as part of the original

documentation package. This PAD area is contained within the riparian buffer of the

northern watercourse and is not impacted by the proposed development.

Waste

A revised Waste Management Plan, reflecting the amended 165 site layout, consistent with

Council’s DCP Chapter 7.2 is provided as Annexure 17.

Soil and water management

A Soil and Water Management Plan, reflecting the amended 165 site layout is provided as

Annexure 14.

It is noted that the civil contractor will be required to produce their own Soil and Water Management Plan prior to construction.

Emergency and construction access

The amended proposal seeks to retain the emergency and construction access, leading from the northern part of the development area, connecting through to Pickett’s Valley Rd.

Details of the upgraded access track are provided in the Concept Civil Drawings, provided as Annexure 1.

A separate Tree Assessment for the construction access has been prepared and provided as Annexure 9. This report identifies 5 trees along the existing access track to be removed, with a further 4 trees at risk due to minor upgrade and maintenance works.

Prior to design work, further ecological investigation were undertaken in this location

targeting Rhodamnia rubescens, with 12 Additional plants located. The alignment of the

access track has been adjusted slightly, where required, to avoid any impacts upon the threatened plants. This is further commented on in the BDAR (Annexure 8).

Bush fire hazard

The NSW Rural Fire Service issued its General Terms of Approval (GTA’s) to the original proposal. A number of conditions appear to have been applied in error, or as oversight, as they do not reflect current conditions or comments made in the original Bushfire Assessment and Design Plans.

A key issue was that the issued GTA is required the entire property to be treated as an “inner protection zone” (IPA). This condition is in conflict with intention to preserve existing bushland at the northern end of the site.

The inconsistencies have been discussed with NSW RFS and a summary of those discussions and specific request to revise relevant conditions is provided in the letter prepared by Peterson Bushfire, provided as Annexure 18.

Tree retention.

As outlined in Table 1 and as discussed elsewhere in the submission, the revised proposal for 165 sites has resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of trees required to be removed, and in fact with proposed plantings, results in a net increase in trees by approximately 208.

The amended design also retains the mapped Regionally Significant Vegetation, located

along the Avoca Drive frontage.

The amended design continues to retain approximately 5.5ha of existing bushland, which will be preserved and maintained consistent with COSS principles.

Comment

Contamination

The preliminary and detailed contamination assessment identify lead and asbestos contamination in surface soils around the vicinity of the residential dwelling, microbial contamination associated with the septic tank and buried asbestos pipework.

The Remediation Action Plan (‘RAP’) has been prepared generally in accordance with the NSW EPAs Guidelines. The demolition plan indicates that one dwelling is to be retained with all other buildings to be demolished. The Hazardous Substances Audit, which forms part of the RAP indicates that asbestos, synthetic mineral fibre and lead paint is present in several structures.

The RAP identifies the preferred methods of remediation, which include offsite disposal of lead and asbestos impacted soils, asbestos pipes and asbestos from the buildings to a licensed waste facility. Excavation and exposure to UV radiation of the microbial contamination is the preferred option, with offsite disposal to a licensed waste facility as a contingency plan, however this could be conditioned should consent be granted. An asbestos removal plan, environmental management plan and unexpected finds protocol forms part of the RAP. A construction environmental management plan for the remediation and validation works has also been provided.

A Stage 4 Validation that all site contamination has been removed and the site is suitable for the proposed land uses would be required to be provided to Council following demolition and remediation works, should consent be granted.

The application as amened has now adequately addressed contamination.

Road works

As previously discussed under the comment for reason for refusal b), outstanding engineering information relating to road works remains which does not allow the consent authority to be satisfied of the impacts in relation to the following:

· The construction access passes by an existing dam. It is unclear whether and parts of this access are located below the 1% AEP flood.

· Additional information from a geotechnical engineer certifying the use the TrueGrid permeable paving system will be adequate for the expected construction traffic loadings has not been provided.

· Concept stormwater plan for the proposed intersection and upgrade of Avoca Drive has not been provided.

Ecology impacts

There is still insufficient information submitted in relation to ecological impacts associated with the development. Having regard for the updated Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR), the amended plans and report submitted with the Section 8.2 Review of Determination the following matters have been identified.

Vegetation and Habitat Removal

The SEE incorrectly states that any clearing of the Regionally Significant Vegetation (Narrabeen Coastal Blackbutt Forest) will be avoided. There is in fact clearing of this community within the extent mapped by Bell for the access of Avoca Drive and as shown in Figure 1 of the SEE. The BDAR also outlines that 5.54 ha of Plant Community Type (PCT) Smooth-barked Apple - Turpentine - Blackbutt open forest would be cleared. This PCT is equivalent to the regionally significant vegetation community mapped by Bell and referred to in the SEE.

The proposed bushfire Asset Protection Zone (IPA) appears to still encroach into the required 20m Vegetated Riparian Zone of the southern bank of the northern watercourse at certain locations, see Figure 1.2 and Figure 2.1 in the BDAR and Figure 4 in the Bushfire Assessment (March 2021).

Tree Removal and Retention

Tree removal is stated in the SEE to be 327 trees, reduced from 491 (previous proposals). There is no tree plan or Arborist report that details the size, species, health or significance of those trees to be removed compared to those being retained. Statements are made in the SEE about the proposal providing a net increase in numbers of trees on the site. However, this would involve removing well established mature trees in favour of tree planting. A proportion of replanted plants are usually anticipated to fail to reach maturity, and those remaining would take many years to reach maturity. Of significance are the 35 hollow bearing trees proposed to be removed.

The impact on existing trees is underestimated, particularly with reference to the extent of earthworks required for the accesses. There is a lack of detail that allows full assessment including tree plans, schedules and tagging to trees to allow cross referencing. The proposed tree removal has not been sufficiently minimised and is still considered excessive with regards to the environmental and planning constraints of the site.

Access from Picketts Valley Road

There remains a lack of clarity and conflicting information in relation to the upgrade of the secondary access from Pickets Valley Rd, including the scale of tree and vegetation removal required in this area. The BDAR states that a “A temporary construction access route will enter the northern portion of the subject land off Picketts Lane and will use a partially pre-existing track” and that “The temporary construction access track would not require widening or the removal of any canopy species”. The BDAR, including the credit calculations, have assumed no canopy removal along the access track. This not consistent with the Tree Assessment Report for the access track and engineering plans which show that tree removal would in fact be required along the access. The credit calculations in the BDAR are incorrect if there is going to be an upgrade of this access, as outlined in the Arborist report and as required by the RFS GTAs.

BDAR information

A number of technical issues have been identified with the amended Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR):

· The BDAR needs to state which version of the BAM has been used, BAM 2017 or BAM 2020. It is assumed BAM 2017 has been used.

· The “BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Like for like)” needs to be provided. Only the “payment summary report” has been provided with the BDAR, which does not show the full set of required credit information.

· Council’s Ecologists again detected additional Rhodamnia rubescens plants along the access from Pickets Valley Rd that are likely to be impacted and not covered by the revised BDAR.

· One of the BAM plots was located along an access track (Figure 3.6 in BDAR). This is not compliant with the acceptable methods to locate plots outlined in Section 4.3.4 of the BAM.

· Tree removal along the access road have not been included in the calculations but is required based on the Tree Assessment Report and RFS requirements.

· Any proposed species polygon assigned to the GGBF is to be consistent with the ‘NSW Guide to Surveying Threatened Frogs’ (September 2020).

· Additional on-site mitigation measures would be required for removal of Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat.

· The BDAR would need to be updated to include all the RFS requirements for clearing.

· Overall, the BDAR contains insufficient measures to avoid and minimise the biodiversity impacts of the proposal.

Heritage

As the site is not currently a heritage listed property or subject to a draft listing, it is noted that weight of the heritage significance of the farmhouse is limited.

The farmhouse does contribute to the aesthetic values of the site, as such further consideration could be given to the preservation of the farmhouse and its setting and curtilage. However, given he above, the application does not require further information in regard to heritage.

Waste

Councils Waste Management Assessment Officer has reviewed the Waste Management Plan and Traffic Report submitted with the review of determination application and notes the following outstanding issues:

· The submitted document provides limited, overly brief demolition advice. Construction waste disposal advice refers to mixes of waste types where separation of all waste types for each waste stream is required.

· Commentary regarding travel paths for resident transfer of mixed and recyclables waste bins to the common waste servicing locations is required. As indicated in Table C.2: Bin-carting design standards of the Better practice guide for resource recovery in residential developments dated April 2019 by NSW EPA, a maximum surface gradient of 1 :14 over a maximum 30m distance is required.

· Swept turning path details to AS 2890.2 are required to demonstrate waste vehicle movements over the internal road network. The Traffic Report by McLaren provides comment only that the road design will generally be able to accommodate a 12.5m Heavy Rigid Vehicle, subject to detailed design with no swept turning paths for waste vehicle use detailed.

· A detailed Waste Management Strategy as referred to in the submitted Waste Management Plan to support sustainable ongoing operation of the proposed development has not been provided.

Soil and water management

Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer notes that works will require approximately 131,165m²of soil disturbance, therefore a Soil and Water Management Plan should be approved prior to consent being granted as per Section 6.3 of the Gosford DCP.

The site contains two watercourses, tributaries of Saltwater Creek and Avoca Lagoon. Avoca Lagoon is a regionally significant water body, with high recreational, ecological and aesthetic values.

Works involve dewatering and filling a small farm dam, reshaping the southern dam into a flowing watercourse with riparian vegetation and keeping the northern watercourse in its current state (with additional riparian planting). Three permanent detention/biofiltration basins (to be used as sediment basins during construction works) are proposed upstream of the existing watercourses to allow for treatment prior to dewatering. A further three sediment basins will be constructed to capture and treat sediment laden water during construction works.

Works are required on ‘waterfront land’, therefore a soil loss class 6 applies automatically and works are identified as a high erosion hazard, therefore timing constraints apply to when excavation and construction works can be undertaken.

The submitted Soil and Water Management Plans are not satisfactory for the following reasons:

· Construction drawings and notes for wet sediment basins have not been provided.

· Water quality parameters set for dewatering sediment basins and dewatering existing dams have not been provided.

· Hay bales are not supported in watercourses due to the risk of weeds spreading downstream. Also, construction notes and detail for hay bales have not been provided.

· Special sediment and erosion control measures have not been listed and identified.

· Sediment basins have been sized on 50% settling zone capacity however as soil loss is identified as Class 6, they must be sized on 2-month soil loss.

· Mulch mounds are not depicted on Area 1 and Area 4 catchments and are used to make up storage zones for sediment basins, however no technical construction details or notes are provided, nor is this method endorsed by the ‘Blue book’.

Soil and water management has not been adequately addressed.

Emergency and construction access

Councils Tree Assessment Officer notes that the secondary emergency and construction access track to Pickets Valley Drive essentially follows the alignment of an existing track. The Tree Assessment Report - Access Track (Dec 20) proposes removal of five (5) trees, however a site inspection has revealed that the track will likely need to be wider and require cut and fill. This is likely to have a greater unquantified impact on native trees. T

No tagging of trees has been undertaken nor has any corresponding tree plan been prepared.

It is noted that the applicant offered via mail dated 16 March 2021 the following:

As we review public submissions, one clear issue is the proposed temporary construction access to/from Picketts Valley Rd.

In response to this public concern (traffic volumes, safety, environmental impacts etc), we can amend the construction process so that all construction will occur via the main entrance from Avoca Dr. Amended concept engineering plans, including staging plans etc and an amended CMP are currently being prepared and will be ready by early next week, and will be submitted via the Portal.

This issue was raised in the original assessment report and submissions and the information submitted for the Review of Determination still proposed access from Picketts Valley Road. The above offer to move amend the construction process has been received more than two months post lodgement of the review of determination application.

Having regard for the fact that the application would require renotification and another referral to both internal and external officers, and there were other concerns in relation to the proposed development, the applicant was requested not to submit further amended plans.

It is also noted that the applicant made an offer to tag trees, however this offer came in after the application was lodged and Council Officers (including Planning, Engineering, Ecology, and Tree Officers) had already visited the site. This should have been carried out prior to lodgement of the Review of Determination application and an updated Arborist report prepared.

Bush fire hazard and tree retention

The applicant has submitted a bushfire assessment which has been reviewed by the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS). The RFS has issued a bushfire safety authority which includes a condition requiring the whole site to be managed as an inner protection zone, with the exception of the native vegetation located in the northern part of the site, the riparian corridor that is proposed to be retained and conserved, and the existing stand of managed trees located along Avoca Drive.

The Inner Protection Area requires a tree canopy less than 15%, canopies separated by 2 to 5m and large gaps in vegetation. Such bushfire requirements may further fragment the existing tree canopy and inhibit the success or suitability of re-planted trees.

Tree removal along the access road shown has not been included in the BDAR calculations but is required based on the Tree Assessment Report for the Access Track. The BDAR would need to be updated to include all required clearing.

Reason for Refusal

g) The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the locality and approval is not in the public interest.

Applicant’s Response

Overdevelopment of the site

In forming an opinion as to whether the proposal is an overdeveloped of the site consideration should be given to whether the proposal is consistent with zone objectives. In this instance, the first design objective states;

To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological,

scientific or aesthetic values.

It should be noted that zone E4 Objective provide for low-impact residential development.

The term “low impact” should be differentiated with the terminology used in, for example,

objectives for zone R2 which reference low density residential environment.

Earlier in this submission, comment has been provided as to how the amended proposal

can occur with low impact to the local setting and landscape in which it sits. It is stressed

that low density and low impact are not the same.

As noted earlier in this submission, the project team has worked hard to ensure the proposal

has low impact upon the site and surrounds. The lowering of site levels, reduction in the

number of sites, increased side setbacks, greater retention of mature trees providing

increased vegetation screening, and proposed plantings which results in a net increase of

trees by not less than 208 and reestablishment and enhancement of riparian zones.

An updated Traffic Impact Assessment is provided as Annexure 19.

The assertion that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site is not supported by the

Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, or expert reports addressing Traffic, Flooding,

or Stormwater Management.

The original proposal was supported by;

· Council’s Water & Sewer Section – subject to conditions;

· Council’s Social Planner – subject to conditions;

· NSW Rural Fire Service – subject to conditions;

· TfNSW (formerly RMS) – subject to conditions;

· Natural Resources Access Regulator – subject to conditions;

· NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) - subject to conditions;

It is anticipated that the amended and reduced proposal will again be supported by the above Departments.

Inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the locality

Section 4.12 of the original Statement, stated the following in respect to desired future

character;

The proposal is based on a systematic assessment of the site and allowing natural

features to give shape to a development and integrate with its surrounds. The

emphasis has been on conserving and enhancing the site’s features such as open

watercourses, retaining trees and avoiding large-scale levelling.

Further comments were provided under Cl 4.7.1, in respect to Council’s DCP Ch. 2.1

Character, and stated the following;

The site has a relatively short frontage to Avoca Drive, with the site falling away from

the road to the first of two watercourses, the second which is hidden behind a low

central ridge. Other than the Avoca Drive frontage there are a few public vantage

points from where the site is visible.

Buildings are set back from front and side boundaries and are at levels below

adjacent land to reduce visual prominence. Areas between buildings and front side

setbacks will be landscaped to defuse form.

Trees within the riparian corridor will be retained and supplemented, providing

canopy screening to future houses.

A detailed landscaping master plan provided as Appendix 1c and provides full detail

on the landscaping measures including tree planning schedule to minimise visual

impacts and to complement the surrounding landscape.

Not only do these comments remain relevant for the amened proposal, but the changes made to the amended proposal (including the lowering of site levels, reduction in the number of sites, increased side setbacks, greater retention of mature trees providing increased vegetation screening, and proposed plantings which results in a net increase of trees by not less than 208 and reestablishment and enhancement of riparian zones) further demonstrate the proponents willingness wot work with both Council & the community to ensure the modified development is consistent with the current and future desired character of the locality.

It should be noted that the current Gosford LEP 2014, allows for a variety of uses upon land

zoned E4 Environmental Living including: -

Animal boarding or training establishments; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Dwelling

houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Homebased child care; Home industries; Oyster aquaculture; Pond-based aquaculture; Pubs; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Secondary dwellings; Signage; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Veterinary hospitals; Water storage facilities

The highlighted uses above represent some examples where potential impacts could equal

or exceed those impacts anticipated by this current amended proposal.

It should also be noted that the Gosford LEP 2014 currently permits strata subdivision of the

land which allows creation of allotments having a lot size less than the prescribed minimum

by virtue of Cl. 4.1A of Gosford LEP 2014. This Clause states;

4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in certain rural, residential, recreation and environment protection zones

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that land to which this clause applies is not

fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements.

(2) This clause applies to land in the following zones that is used, or proposed to be

used, for residential accommodation or tourist and visitor accommodation—

(a) Zone RU1 Primary Production,

(b) Zone RU2 Rural Landscape,

(c) Zone RU5 Rural Village,

(d) Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

(e) Zone RE1 Public Recreation,

(f) Zone E2 Environmental Conservation,

(g) Zone E3 Environmental Management.

(h) (Repealed)

(3) The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies

for a strata plan scheme (other than any lot comprising common property within the

meaning of the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 or Strata Schemes

(Leasehold Development) Act 1986) is not to be less than the minimum size shown on

the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

The important exception to this Clause is that Zone E4 Environmental Living was repealed

when an amendment was gazetted on 27 March 2015. The consequence of this repeal is

that no minimum lot sizes applies for an approved development e.g. tourist accommodation, under the Gosford LEP 2014.

There are a number of examples of where this has occurred, with one example adjacent to the site at 263 Avoca Dr Kincumber, where a 9 lot strata subdivision has been approved, created lots with an average size of 840m2 (equates to 12 dwellings/Ha – comparable to low density residential development) upon land zoned E4. We are aware of other similar examples within 2km of the site upon land also zoned E4. This provides an indication that Council is flexible on its own views on the current and future desired character of the locality.

It should be noted that the original and amended proposal do not propose subdivision, with the development intended to be managed by a single entity, with individual sites subject to a lease arrangement.

Consistent with recognised Planning Principles, the visual dominance of the amended

development is reduced by;

· The retention and enhancement of the Regionally Significant Vegetation adjacent to the southern boundary;

· Increased setbacks from both southern and western boundaries;

· Retention of trees along the western boundary providing for improved vegetation screening;

· Revised cut/fill and benching work which has the effect of reducing the overall levels of future housing and also taking advantage of level changes and designing houses accordingly;

· Ensuring a maximum height of any building will be two story, consistent with surrounding existing development (with the exception of the recent approval for 3-4 storey Aged care facility opposite upon 290 Avoca Dr).

It should also be noted and as previously mentioned earlier in this submission, the locality and immediate landscape is also under continual ‘transition’ as the Region experiences sustained and forecast population grow.

Having regard for the above matters, the design responses and detail provided in the specialist reports annexed, it is our considered view that the amended proposal is not inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the locality.

Public interest

Section 5.4 of the original submission put forward reasons why approval of the original application was in the public interest. These reasons remain relevant to the amended 165

site proposal.

The amended proposal has gone to great lengths to reduce potential localised impacts by reducing site yield, realigning roads to increase separation distances to adjacent developments and to improve vegetation screening opportunities between developments, retaining mature trees central to the site to enhance vegetated screening, retaining mapped Regionally Significant Vegetation, retention of the original dwelling to be repurposed into future community facilities, identifying and avoiding a listed threatened plant, and other measures.

The original proposal was supported by;

· Council’s Water & Sewer Section – subject to conditions;

· Council’s Social Planner – subject to conditions;

· NSW Rural Fire Service – subject to conditions;

· TfNSW (formerly RMS) – subject to conditions;

· Natural Resources Access Regulator – subject to conditions;

· NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) - subject to conditions;

It is anticipated that the amended and reduced proposal will again be supported by the above Departments.

Comment

The proposal as amended is still considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. As discussed above the significant site regrading, cut and fill and site disturbance of over half of the site cannot reasonably be considered ‘low impact’. There are significant impacts on trees, ecology, flooding, soil and water quality, and the visual and aesthetic values of the site.

The applicant’s comments on the difference between low impacts and low density are noted. Setting aside density, the nature and character of the development is that of an urban development, which is not in line with the current and future desired character of the locality or environmental living zone which applies to the site now, and is intended to apply to the site upon the commencement of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan.

The other permitted uses within the zone are noted. The statement that the uses “represent some examples where potential impacts could equal or exceed those impacts anticipated by this current amended proposal” is a general assumption as any future development would have regard for the merits of a proposal and its potential impacts.

The relevance of the strata subdivision controls as cited by the applicant are not clear. Strata subdivision allows for different ownership arrangements but still may be considered “low impact” in the context of the assessment and may result in little physical or environmental impacts on land in isolation.

The applicant notes the strata subdivision of the nine tourist cabins at the adjacent 263 Avoca Drive, Kincumber (approved under DA 47581/2015 on 18 March 2016), and includes the resultant density “lots with an average size of 840m2 (equates to 12 dwellings/Ha – comparable to low density residential development) upon land zoned E4.”. However, it is not the density, but the impacts that are of relevance. It is noted that the Assessment Report for the strata subdivision states that “The proposal is a Strata Subdivision of an approved tourist development and has no additional impact on the site or the locality. The proposal will not detract from the character or scenic qualities of the area or have unreasonable impacts on the environment.”

For the above reasons and those discussed further in this report the proposal is not in the public interest.

Reason for Refusal

h) Pursuant to Draft Central Coast LEP (2018) the proposed development is prohibited within E4 Environmental Living zone.

Applicant’s Response

Council’s attention is drawn to Cl.1.8A of the exhibited draft consolidating LEP 2018, which

states;

1.8A Savings provision relating to development applications

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.

The original development application was lodged on 14 January 2020. The Draft Central

Coast LEP (2018) was in draft form at the time of lodgement (and still remains in draft form).

It is the proponents considered view that Cl.1.8A preserves the provisions of the Gosford LEP

2014, and that the proposed land use is Permitted with Consent.

The relevance of Draft LEP’s, including the weight to be applied, has been examined many

times before the Courts. In general, the weight to be given to a draft LEP depends on

whether the draft LEP is “certain and imminent”. Certainty refers to the content of the LEP.

If the terms of the draft LEP are still being debated then the draft LEP is not certain. If the

terms have been finalised then the draft LEP is certain. Being imminent refers to how close

the LEP is to be made, that is signed off by the Minister.

A brief history on the Draft Central Coast LEP (2018) is provided below;

· In November 2016 Council resolved to refer the draft Planning Proposal to the Dept of Planning seeking Gateway Determination;

· The Dept of Planning issued Gateway Determination on 26 October 2017. Dot Point 1, sub point 6 of the Gateway states;

· Provide justification for reducing the potential areas where caravan parks are permissible

· The Gateway Determination was extended on 29th November 2018;

· The draft consolidated LEP was exhibited 6 December 2018 to 28 February 2019;

· Amongst the exhibition material included the Planning Proposal, dated December 2018;

· Assessment of Sec 117 Directions, in particular 3.2 Caravan Parks & MHE’s, wherein Council acknowledges inconsistency with the Direction, but considered to be of minor significance.

· It is unclear whether Council has provided sufficient justification in response to Gateway Point 1, sub-point 6

· On 9 March 2020, a report was put to Council seeking that the Draft LEP be adopted and that the Planning Proposal be referred to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment to be finalised. However, on the night, Councillors resolved to make not less than 17 amendments to tabled report. Questions were raised as to whether the extent of changes warranted re-exhibition. this issue remains unresolved.

Council also resolved on the 9 March 2020;

That Council

a) defer finalisation of the draft Consolidated LEP and Consolidated DCP until after the LSPS has been finalised

b) consider a further report to Council that aligns the draft Consolidated LEP / DCP with the adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement including;

i) any proposed changes to the CCLEP / CCDCP

ii) any further work necessary, if applicable

iii) outlining how the draft CCLEP / DCP aligns with each Action in Council’s Community Strategic Plan

The Draft Central Coast LEP (2018) has not been reported back to Council since 9 March

2020, and is therefore put not to be certain or imminent.

It is noted that there has been a gradual erosion of landowner entitlements as each version

of the principle planning document (IDO or LEP) has been introduced – from zone

7(c3) under the former IDO, to the proposed E4 under the Draft LEP as it applies to the subject land. This is despite each conversion LEP promoted as generally a “like for like” zone

conversion intending to carry over similar permissible used from one document to another.

It is accepted that it is not always possible to transiting exact entitlements, but the point is

made that the landowner has suffered a downgrade of entitlements on each conversion,

which are not minor or insignificant (to the landowner) as Council has previously stated in

the relevant Planning Proposal(s). It is put that such significant changes to the landowner’s

entitlements should occur as part of the future comprehensive review of the LEP, and

supported by the various studies including rural lands, housing, the yet to be complete

urban edge review etc, rather than incremental “downzoning” as has currently occurred.

A summary of the loss of entitlements is highlighted in the Table? below;

Comment

The Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan (Draft CCLEP) is a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Under the provisions of the Draft CCLEP, the land is proposed to retain the E4 Environmental Living zoning, however ‘caravan parks’ are not permissible in the E4 zone under the provisions of the Draft CCLEP.

The Planning Proposal exhibited in support of the draft LEP included a section titled “CCLEP Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development”, which compared the provisions of Wyong LEP 2013 and Gosford LEP 2014 and contained the following relevant information:

In some circumstances, Principle 5 – Permissibility Retention has not been able to be applied. This is because, in some instances, the application of zones between the two former LGAs has been different. For example, the E4 Environmental Living zone in the former Wyong LGA was generally applied for the purposes of larger lot residential development in environmentally sensitive locations. While in the former Gosford LGA, the E4 Environmental Living zone was applied to enable tourist development in environmentally sensitive locations. Therefore, some land uses have been found to not always align, and may be inappropriate for application over the entire Central Coast LGA

The Draft CCLEP includes a savings provisions that provide for an application lodged before the making of the draft Plan, that the application must be determined as if the draft Plan had not been made.

The Draft CCLEP is a matter for consideration under s4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. How much weight should be given to a draft LEP depends on whether the draft Plan is imminent, and the public interest in approving a development which is proposed to be prohibited. In this regard the following points should be considered:

· The weight to be given to each head of consideration in s4.15(1) of the EPA Act is a matter for the consent authority.

· The case law is to the effect that the weight to be given to a draft instrument will be greater, the more ‘certain and imminent’ it’s making (Terrace Tower Holdings v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289 (Terrace Towers)).

· A draft instrument is generally considered to be ‘imminent and certain’ where it has been approved by the planning authority and sent to the Minister to be made.

· By contrast, a draft instrument which has not been the subject of public consultation will generally be given less weight than one that has been the subject of public consultation.

The Draft CCLEP has been publicly exhibited and adopted by Council on 14 December 2020, however, has not yet been sent to the Minister to be made. The Draft CCLEP is considered both reasonably imminent and certain and can be afforded significant weight.

The following site-specific circumstances are considered in terms of the public interest being served in approving the development:

· The objectives of the E4 zone under the Draft CCLEP are:

o To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

o To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

o to allow additional land uses that will not have an adverse impact on those values.

· As discussed throughout this report the proposed development is not consistent with these objectives as the proposal cannot be considered to be ‘low impact’ and results in adverse impacts on the ecological and aesthetic values of the site.

· There is no historic or future expectation for this nature of development on the site. The site is located within the Kincumber Character Area 13: Scenic Buffer under the GDCP 2013. The desired character for this area includes “very-low density residential developments” and requires the retention of natural slopes, prevention of further fragmentation of tree canopy, low impact construction methods and avoidance of retaining walls. The proposed development is in direct conflict with desired character future for the area.

In Terrace Tower holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289, the Court

held that:

‘…The purpose of a draft instrument is entitled to be given significant weight in deciding whether to reject an application brought under a pre-existing planning instrument that would undermine the draft instrument’s purpose in a substantial way.’

The draft CCLEP will prohibit caravan parks on E4 zoned land. The applicant was aware of this during the exhibition of the draft plan and prior to the lodgement of the application and Section 8.2 Review. No public submissions were received objecting to the proposed E4 zoning of the land and or that caravan parks should be retained as a permissible use with consent in the zone during the exhibition of the Draft CCLEP.

It is not in the public interest to approve a development which is inconsistent with both the current and draft zone objectives. This would prejudice the making of the draft Plan and future planning objectives for the area. It is considered the draft plan must be given significant weight and remains a recommended reason for refusal insofar as it is inconsistent with the zone objectives is therefore does not result in the public interest being served.

Assessment:

Having regard for Sections 8.2 and 8.3 and the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements, Council’s policies and Section 10.7 Certificate details, the assessment has identified the following key issues, which are elaborated upon for the Local Planning Panel’s information. Any tables relating to plans or policies are provided as an attachment.

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 8.2 (1) (a) of the EP&A Act 1979 allows for the determination of an application by a local planning panel to be subject to a review under this Division.

Section 8.3 (3) allows for the applicant to amend the proposed development and the “consent authority may review the matter having regard to the amended development, but only if it is satisfied that it is substantially the same development”. The amended plans retain the general configuration of the original proposal and it is considered that the proposal remains substantially the same as that for which was refused on 6 August 2020.

Section 8.3(5) states that “the review of a determination or decision made by a local planning panel is also to be conducted by the panel”

Moreover, the Local Planning Panel best practice notes recommend the local planning panel reviewing the decision is comprised of different Panel members to those who made the original decision. This panel is to be called the “Decision Review Panel of the Central Coast Council local planning panel."

Section 4.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 -Integrated Development

Water Management Act 2000

The proposed development includes the carrying of work within 40m of waterfront land and is classified as Integrated Development. In accordance with section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000 a controlled activity approval from the Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR) is required.

The Section 8.2 Review of Determination application was referred to NRAR. In an email dated 28 April 2021, NRAR advised that the General terms of Approval issued for the original application would remain the same and no further information was required.

Rural Fires Act 1997 & Planning for Bushfire Protection

The subject site is located within a designated bushfire prone area and the proposed development is nominated as a Special Fire Protection Purpose under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. General terms of approval were sought from the NSW RFS in accordance with Section 4.47 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

On 23 February 2021 the RFS requested that:

· An updated Bush Fire assessment report should be provided, prepared by a Bushfire Consultant and reflect the current revised scheme, illustrating its compliance with Appendix 2 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection (PBP) 2019.

· It should illustrate the extent to which the proposed development conforms with, or deviates from, the specifications set out in PBP 2019, and address all requirements in clause 44 of the Rural Fires Regulation 2013; and,

· Include any of the discussions undertaken with the NSW RFS, as well as the issues and compliance with PBP 2019, as outlined in their request for a review dated 24 November 2020.

An updated Bushfire Report was provided by the applicant on 15 March 2021.

Pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 NSW RFS issued a Bushfire Safety Authority on 4 May 2020.

It is noted that the Bushfire Safety Authority included the requirement for the entire property to be managed as an IPA (refer extract below) which is considered problematic with regard to tree retention and in maintaining the ecological and aesthetic values of the area.

That the entire property must be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 with the exception of the native vegetation located in the northern part of the site, the riparian corridor that is proposed to be retained and conserved and the existing stand of managed trees located along Avoca Drive.

Fisheries Management Act 1994

The proposed development includes dewatering and filling a small farm dam and reshaping the southern dam into a flowing watercourse. These works involve dredging or reclamation work, and therefore require a s201 permit under the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

The Review of Determination application was referred to Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) and on 2 February 2021 a letter from the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) advised the following:

The proposal constitutes a controlled activity under the Water Management Act 2000. As such, an Integrated Development Application should be submitted to NRAR for assessment and determination. If NRAR determines that the works do not require a Controlled Activity Approval, then the integrated development must be referred to DPI Fisheries and will require a s201 permit for dredging and reclamation under the Fisheries Management Act in order to proceed.

The proponent has indicated that NRAR have been consulted and a Controlled Activity Approval is being sought.

DPI Fisheries recommends that some deeper pools be provided along the realigned creek (perhaps in the location of the existing farm dam) to provide refuge points for fish during drought periods.

NRAR have confirmed a controlled activity approval is required therefore no further action was required in relation to referral to Fisheries.

Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP 2014)

Zoning and Permissibility

The subject site is zoned E4 Environmental Living under Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014. A caravan park is permissible in the zone with development consent.

Figure 6 – Zoning Map extract

Caravan park means land (including a camping ground) on which caravans (or caravans and other moveable dwellings) are, or are to be, installed or placed.

A caravan park is a permissible use in the E4 zone. The proposed development involves the provision of 165 long-term and two short-term dwelling sites and an associated community building and facilities.

The definition of ‘caravan park’ requires that caravans are to be installed or placed on the land; ‘other moveable dwellings’ may be placed or installed on the land in conjunction with caravans, but are not required in order for the development to meet the definition of a ‘caravan park’.

The definition of “moveable dwellings” includes manufactured homes under the GELP2014:

“moveable dwelling means:

(a) any tent, or any caravan or other van or other portable device (whether on wheels or not), used for human habitation, or

(b) a manufactured home, or …”

The parentheses “(or caravans and other moveable dwelling)” contained in the definition of “caravan park” states that manufactured homes in conjunction with caravan sites qualifies, and forms part of the definition for, a caravan park.

The definition of ‘caravan park’ does not specify a minimum number or proportion of caravan sites beyond requiring that there must be ‘caravans’ (i.e. more than one). The application proposes two short-term sites for caravans. The location of the two short-term sites are shown in Figure 7.

Legal advice received by Council for a caravan park at 1 Bowtells Drive, Avoca Beach (DA 51538/2017) recently confirmed that there is no minimum number or proportion of caravan sites and that there is no authority from the Land and Environment Court which requires that a certain proportion or percentage of sites within a caravan park (as that term is defined by the standard template) are required to contain caravans.

However, the inclusion of two short-term dwelling sites for caravans, in conjunction with 165 long-term dwelling sites must be proposed for a proper purpose to satisfy the requirements of the definition for a caravan park, having particular regard for the decision made in TMT Devco Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1161 (‘TMT Devco’).

In TMT Devco Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1161 (‘TMT Devco’), the Court determined that development for manufactured homes with associated “caravan parking and RV storage” did not qualify as a “caravan park” as it was considered ancillary to the use of the site as a manufactured home estate.

For this application, the applicant states that “only 2 short term sites are provided, essentially to provide suitable parking for visitors of residents”.

In addition to this, the sites are not provided with servicing as required by the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005, such as appropriately located shower, toilet and laundry facilities (discussed further under the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 heading below). The applicant states that the two short term sites are provided for “guests of residents of the long-term sites and will therefore utilise their facilities when visiting”.

The facts and proposed uses in the TMT Devco case are not fundamentally different to those proposed by this application. The applicant states that that two short term sites are ‘essentially parking spaces’ for visitors of the long-term dwelling sites. As such the two short-term sites appear to be ancillary to the long-term sites in a similar way to that of TMT Devco.

The characterisation of the site as a caravan park is considered to be erroneous as the short-term caravan sites are ancillary to the use of the long-term manufactured home sites and it is evident that they will not be utilised for the placement of caravans. Accordingly, the consent authority cannot be satisfied the proposed development complies with the definition.

Figure 7 – Engineering Plans extract - location of two short term caravan sites

Caravan Park Use and Approval to Operate a Caravan Park

Despite the discussion regarding permissibility and definition of a caravan park above, it is important to note that this application is for the use of the site for a caravan park, as well as the required infrastructure works and construction of the community building and facilities. A separate approval from Council under s.68 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) is required to operate a caravan park and is subject to the provisions of Subdivisions 1-8 of Division 3 of the Local Government (Manufactured Homes Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

An applicant can make a development application, in which they apply for both development consent under the EP&A Act and approval under the LG Act to operate a caravan park, or they can make two separate applications. This application relates to the use and infrastructure works and building work only and does not included the Section 68 application for the operation of the caravan park.

Objectives of the zone

The objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zone are:

· To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

· To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· To promote ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development and the need for, and value of, biodiversity in Gosford.

· To provide land for low-impact tourist-related development that is of a scale that is compatible with the special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values of the area.

· To ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone.

The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the zone for the

following reasons:

· The proposal is not a low-impact residential or tourist related development and is of an urban nature.

· The proposal is not low impact given it proposes:

o significant cut and fill, up to 6.2m and 5.5m respectively;

o significant land disturbance of 131,165m², which is over half of the site; and

o significant tree removal, with 327 trees proposed to be removed (noting proposed 535 tree plantings)

· The proposal impacts the ecological and biodiversity values of the site and locality.

· The proposal is not compatible with the desired future character of the zone and area due to the urban nature of the development and impacts on the environment.

Clause 7.1 - Acid Sulfate Soils

The site contains Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils and the site is not located within 500m of class 1-4

land. In this instance, the proposed works are not considered to impact on Acid Sulfate Soils.

Clause 7.2 - Flood Planning

The land has been classified as being under a “flood planning level” and subject to the

imposition of a minimum floor level.

Two watercourses flow through the site and into Avoca Lagoon, being Saltwater Creek and an unnamed watercourse. The applicant has submitted a Flood Impact Assessment and the conclusions of this assessment are not accepted for the following reasons:

· There is no way to assess the appropriateness of any of the input parameters as very few are presented. The following information has not been provided:

o Intensity–Frequency–Duration (IFD) data used in Analysis

o Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Parameters and rainfall determination used in analysis

o Pre and Post Developed WBNM files (with all parameters and ARR HUB & IFD files used)

o TUFLOW run files

· It is proposed to create new blocks of residential land that incur a level of hazard of H3 (without the inclusion of the impact of structures (Dwellings) in a PMF event), which if accounted for, would likely raise the hazard level further

7.3 Floodplain risk management

The objectives of this clause are:

· In relation to development with particular evacuation or emergency response issues, to enable evacuation of land subject to flooding in events exceeding the flood planning level,

· To protect the operational capacity of emergency response facilities and critical infrastructure during extreme flood events.

Clause 7.3(3) states that development consent must not be granted for caravan parks unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development will not, in flood events exceeding the flood planning level, affect the safe occupation of, and evacuation from, the land.

Insufficient information has been provided to satisfy assessment staff that the above objectives regarding floodplain risk management can be achieved. Accordingly, it is considered the consent authority is unable to grant development consent without the above information.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 21-Caravan Parks

The proposal has been assessed having regard for the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 21 - Caravan Parks which state:

(1) The aim of this Policy is to encourage—

(a) the orderly and economic use and development of land used or intended to be used as a caravan park catering exclusively or predominantly for short-term residents (such as tourists) or for long-term residents, or catering for both, and

(b) the proper management and development of land so used, for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community, and

(c) the provision of community facilities for land so used, and

(d) the protection of the environment of, and in the vicinity of, land so used.

(2) The strategies by which that aim is to be achieved are—

…

(b) by requiring that development consent be obtained from the local Council for development for the purposes of caravan parks, and

(c) by providing that development consent may be granted that will authorise the use of sites for short-term stays (whether or not by tourists) or for long-term residential purposes, or for both, and

(d) by requiring that development consent be obtained from the local Council for the subdivision of land for lease purposes under section 289K of the Local Government Act 1919.

The proposed development is not considered to result in the orderly and economic use of the land as the development is of a nature and scale that is not appropriate for the character of the area and will result in unacceptable environmental impacts.

Clause 8 requires consideration of the number of sites suitable for long and short-term sites and requires any development consent to include a condition specifying the maximum number of sites (if any) within that land that may be used for long-term residence.

The definition of long-term and short-term sites, from the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 are:

long-term site means a dwelling site that is specified in the approval for a caravan park as being a long-term site.

short-term site means a dwelling site on which a moveable dwelling that is ordinarily used for holiday purposes may be installed and that is specified in the approval for a caravan park as being a short-term site.

Development consent is being sought for 165 long -term sites and 2 short-term dwelling sites. The 165 long-term dwelling sites are not considered suitable for long-term residences as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Clause 10 of this SEPP includes the matters to be considered by the consent authority including:

(a) whether, because of its location or character, the land concerned is particularly suitable for use as a caravan park for tourists or for long-term residence,

(b) whether there is adequate provision for tourist accommodation in the locality of that land, and whether existing or potential tourist accommodation will be displaced by the use of sites for long-term residence,

(c) whether there is adequate low-cost housing, or land available for low-cost housing, in that locality,

(d) whether necessary community facilities and services are available within the caravan park to which the development application relates or in the locality (or both), and whether those facilities and services are reasonably accessible to the occupants of the caravan park,

(e) any relevant guidelines issued by the Director, and

(f) the provisions of the Local Government (Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds) Transitional Regulation 1993.

The topography of the site is steep with two watercourses traversing the site and covered in a large number of trees. The site is not considered suitable for the type of development that is proposed as evident by the significant site regrading required, extent of cut and fill required and resultant impacts on trees, ecology, soil and water and visual qualities.

The proposal will neither provide, nor displace any tourist or low-cost accommodation. The proposal is a “residential land lease community for over 50s, in the form of manufactured homes” (as per the applicants original Statement of Environmental Effects).

The proposed development includes on-site facilities and is located approximately 3km from shopping and services at Kincumber.

An assessment against the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Movable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 is included further below.

It is considered that the site is not suitable for the long-term and shot-term sites proposed. The proposal will have unacceptable environmental impacts and is not of a scale or nature that is consistent with the existing or desired future character of the surrounding locality. The application is inconsistent with the stated aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy 21 - Caravan Parks.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55-Remediation of Land

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated when determining a development application. The proposed development involves significant disturbance through site regrading and the provision of infrastructure on the site.

As previously noted, the applicant has provided the following information in relation to contamination:

· Preliminary Stage 1 Contamination Assessment

· Detailed Stage 2 Contamination Assessment

· Contamination Assessment Report

· Stage 3 Remediation Action Plan

· Construction Contamination Management Plan

· Dam Dewatering Management Plan

The submission of the above information is considered to satisfy the provisions of clause 7(1)(c) as it is considered that the land will be suitable for the purposes of a caravan park upon remediation of the land prior to its use.

Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018

As discussed under Reason for Refusal (h) above, the land is proposed to retain the E4 Environmental Living zoning, however ‘caravan parks’ are not permissible in the E4 zone under the provisions of the Draft CCLEP.

The Draft CCLEP is a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and has been considered in detail under the Reason for Refusal (h) above.

The objectives of the E4 zone under the Draft CCLEP are similar to the current objectives, being:

o To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

o To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

o to allow additional land uses that will not have an adverse impact on those values.

As discussed throughout this report the proposed development is not consistent with these objectives as the proposal cannot be considered to be ‘low impact’ and results in adverse impacts on the ecological and aesthetic values of the site. Even if caravan parks remained a permissible use, the proposal remains inconsistent with the draft zone objectives and could not be supported in its current form.

Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 (GDCP 2013)

Chapter 2.1 Character

The site is identified as being located within Unit 13-Scenic Buffer of the Kincumber Precinct. The desired character for this area, as set out in the DCP is (with emphasis added):

‘These should remain rural-residential buffers where the scenically-distinctive semirural

and natural qualities of prominent backdrops to Gosford City’s major roads and tourist routes are preserved by appropriate very-low density residential developments associated with low-impact rural activities, and by small-scale businesses or community and educational facilities that have a modest impact.

Retain natural slopes and prevent further fragmentation of the tree canopy in order to maintain habitat values and informal scenic characters of hillside or valley

properties, plus meandering roads with unformed verges. Along creeks, ridges, slopes or road frontages, conserve all mature bushland remnants that provide scenically-prominent backdrops visible from any road or nearby property. Limit intrusion of structures upon their landscape setting by concentrating new buildings and pavements in existing clearings. Use low-impact construction such as suspended floors and decks rather than extensive cut-and-fill, particularly on elevated slopes or near bushland.

In areas that are defined as bushfire prone, hazard must not be increased by inappropriate new plantings or structures. Minimise the extent of cleared asset protection zones by fire-resistant siting, design and construction for all new structures plus effective management of gardens. The ideal compromise between desired scenic quality and hazard-reduction would limit clearing to the understorey plus thinning of the canopy to establish breaks between existing trees.

Maintain the informal character of existing semi-rural hillsides by avoiding tall retaining walls, extensive terraces or broad driveways that would be visible from any road or nearby property, and provide boundary fences that are see-through such as traditional post-and-rail designs. Surround all buildings with extensive garden setbacks, planted with new trees and shrubs that are predominantly indigenous to complement the established canopy. Noxious or environmental weeds must not be planted, and existing infestations should be controlled.

The proposed development remains inconsistent with the desired character for this area due to the extent of clearing, earthworks, and urban nature of development. The proposed development does not maintain a rural-residential buffer and is essentially an urban residential development situated within a semi-rural/urban buffer location.

Chapter 2.2- Scenic Quality

The site is located within Kincumber land unit of the East Brisbane Water Geographic Unit. The development objectives are:

1 Maintain broad patterns of land use within area to ensure protection of landscape diversity and in particular Environmental/Conservation and Scenic Protection zoned areas.

2 Retain current subdivision standards in Environmental/Conservation and Scenic Protection zoned areas to ensure continuing dominance of landscape features over built environment.

3 Opportunities for increases in densities and scale are available in urban areas, not subject to visibility constraints or other physical constraints. Visually constrained land includes land viewed from main roads, waterfront areas and land on higher slopes.

4 Uses of a retail and commercial nature and associated signage permitted in scenic protection zoned areas to be, where achievable, of a style and scale which reflects the rural nature of the area in which it is located.

5 Restrict zoning density of development to current levels on higher visible slopes in urban areas, particularly in steep land zoned areas.

6 Continue to attempt to secure lands identified for inclusion in the Coastal Open Space System as part of the visual landscape.

7 Proposals for residential and retail/commercial rezonings be preferred where the result will be the consolidation of existing residential and retail/commercial areas rather than the extension of these areas as ribbon development or as incremental extensions into adjoining areas.

8 Recognise importance of privately owned Environmental/Conservation zoned land in providing a complimentary land system to and a buffer area for COSS lands.

The proposed development is by nature and character an urban, seniors living, residential development, with over half of the site being disturbed by cut and fill and with 165 tightly packed dwelling sites proposed. This pattern of land use is commensurate with a more typical urban residential development and similar to the residential and seniors housing development located to the south, which is on residential zoned land. This pattern of land use is not appropriate on environmental conservation land and does not ensure protection of landscape diversity or ensure the continuing dominance of landscape features over built environment.

The built forms will be visible from adjoining properties and from public spaces (including

Avoca Drive) and will impact the scenic quality of this area due to the extent of clearing, earthworks, and the nature of development.

Chapter 3.10-Environmental Controls for Development in Zone E4.

The objectives of this clause are:

· to provide further detail to guide assessment relating to tourist-related development to that provided in Council’s planning instrument.

· to encourage tourist-related development which is sympathetic with the ecological characteristics of the land on which it is located and in the catchment of the land.

· to encourage tourist-related development where the layout of the development ensures that the natural/rural characteristics are the dominant feature of the land.

· to encourage tourist-related development where the design of buildings blends with the natural/rural setting.

The specific requirements of this section of the GDCP 2013 are to:

· Restrict the amount of development on land on slopes greater than 20% - Where this is not possible, due to the extensive areas of the land having slopes over 20%, development can occur on the steeper land as long as building methods are adopted which rely on minimal disturbance to the land surface such as pole or similar type construction.

· Maximise retention of existing native vegetation - All development including all building works, access, bushfire asset protection zones should be confined to existing cleared areas

· Restrict the amount of cut and fill - The extent of cut and fill for buildings is to be limited to a maximum of 1m and in other cases is to be minimised.

· Ensure provision of utility services protects ecological and landscape values of land and catchment.

· Encourage a design of tourist development which is compatible with the natural/rural character of Environmental land in the City.

The site has some areas with slopes in excess of 20% which results in extensive cut and fill across the site for the provision of roads and benching of sites. Building methods, such as pole foundations, have not been proposed to minimise impacts.

While the reduction in tree removal from the originally proposed 491 to 327 trees is noted, it remains a significant number, and the works are not confined to the existing cleared areas on site. It is considered that the type of development proposed, including the number of dwelling sites, is not conducive to the retention of existing native vegetation and for minimising the extent of cut and fill on the site where site disturbance equates to approximately 131,165m², which is over half of the site (54%).

While utility services can be provided to the site with underground connections, this will form part of the overall excessive disturbance of the site.

The proposal is not a tourist development and is not compatible with the natural/rural character of environmental land and is inconsistent with this section of GDCP 2013.

Chapter 6.1- Acid Sulfate Soils.

The site is identified as containing acid sulfate soils Class 5 and is not located within 500m of sites containing acid sulfate soils Classes 1-4. An acid sulfate soil management plan therefore is not required.

Chapter 6.3-Erosion and Sedimentation Control

The proposed development results in extensive cut/fill and earthworks to create roads and

building sites. The slope of the land along with the extent of earthworks proposed, in proximity to the watercourses, have the potential for erosion to impact on the watercourses and downstream properties. The submitted Soil and Water Management Plans are not satisfactory as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Chapter 6.6-Tree and Vegetation Management.

327 trees are proposed to be removed. While proposed tree plantings are noted, there remains a significant removal of trees on E4 zoned land which is a result of the intensification of development proposed on the land that is not in harmony with the objectives of the zone. Development of E4 land is required to consist of low-impact development that does not affect the ecological and aesthetic values of the land and will result in sustainable development of the site. The caravan park in its current form does not achieve these objectives.

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer and Ecologist have also raised concerns in relation to the extent of tree removal on site.

Chapter 7.1 - Car Parking

The dwelling sites can accommodate a manufactured home that can provide the required number of car parking spaces for each dwelling along with visitor parking spaces.

Chapter 7.2 - Waste Management

An amended waste management plan was submitted with the application. Council’s Waste Assessment Officer advises the plan is not satisfactory as it fails to adequately address waste generated during construction and operational waste collection and servicing.

Any planning agreement

There are no planning agreements applicable to the application.

Relevant Regulations

Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 (LG Regulation 2005).

Part 3 ‘Caravan parks, camping grounds and moveable dwellings’ applies to the operation of caravan parks and camping grounds, and to the installation of moveable dwellings (including manufactured homes) in caravan parks and camping grounds.

Clause 71 requires that council must not grant an approval to operate a caravan park or camping ground unless it is satisfied that it will be designed, constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with the relevant requirements of Subdivisions 1–8 of Division 3. Table 1 below includes an assessment of the requirements of Subdivisions 1-8. Where text in the comment column is bold, this indicates an identified non-compliance or lack of information to demonstrate compliance.

Part 3, Division 3 – Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds
Requirement	Comment
Subdivision 1 Land and site requirements
83 Minimum size of caravan park or camping ground – 1 ha	Complies - the site has an area of approximately 24 hectares.
84 Community amenities – 10% of land area for recreation or other communal activities	Over 10% of the site can be used for recreational purposes including the proposed community centre building and swimming pool, bowling green, tennis court, putting green, dog park, walking tracks and passive outdoor recreation.
85 Size of dwelling sites and camp sites – 80sqm site size for long term sites 65sqm for short term sites	Complies – 204m² minimum for long term and 90m² minimum for short term sites.
86 Site identification	Capable of compliance.
Subdivision 2 Setbacks
87 Dwelling sites to have road frontage	All dwelling sites will have vehicular access to internal access road.
88 Setbacks of community buildings – 10m to property boundary and the boundary of a dwelling site. This can be reduced to 3m and 5m respectively in accordance with cl 88(3).	Complies - The community building is setback more than 10m from site boundaries and other dwelling sites.
89 Setbacks of dwelling sites and camp sites from road frontages – 10m from a public road and 3m from any other boundary.	All dwelling sites are setback greater than 10m form any public road or property boundary.
90 Use of buffer zones – setback area can be used for amenities, roads, parking and landscaping	N/A
91 Separation distances - 3m required between moveable dwellings on long- term sites, with the exception of semi- detached	The applicant states that this is “To be addressed when future manufactured homes (moveable dwellings) are installed.” However, the indicative plans show the dwellings with separation of less than 3m and concern is raised with the future ability or intention to comply with this control.
Subdivision 3 Roads
92 Entrance and exit roads – 7m 5m width of sealed portion if divided	The Engineering plans show a divided entrance road, with a road width of 4m and 5m, the 4m section is not compliant. The remainder of Road 1, where not divided has a carriageway of 6.5m, which is not complaint.
93 Forecourt – 4m by 20m, to accommodate incoming vehicles	The applicant states that this control is not applicable, stating that “This is not considered relevant given that the majority of the site is proposed for long term sites for manufactured homes. With this in mind, the caravan park will not have constant incoming/outgoing campervans and caravans. A s82 objection will be lodged with s68 application to operate following approval of the proposed DA.”
94 Width of roads – 6m for 2 way roads	Complies – roads are 6m wide
95 Speed limits – 15km per hour and must be sign posted	Capable of compliance.
96 Resident parking - one resident parking space for each dwelling site or camp site.	Complies - The sites provide ample space for the parking of a caravan and a car. Each manufactured home will have a car parking space.
97 Visitor parking - one visitor parking space for each 10 long-term sites, one visitor parking space for each 20 short-term sites	Complies - 18 visitor spaces are required; 21 spaces are provided
98 Visitor parking for people with disabilities - at least one for every 100 sites	Complies – 2 spaces are provided
99 Road surfaces – all weather sealed, with adequate drainage	The internal driveways are proposed and capable of being all weather sealed, however the proposal has not adequately addressed the stormwater drainage and flooding impacts as a whole.
100 Lighting - All access roads must be adequately lit between sunset and sunrise.	Capable of compliance providing there is minimal impact on fauna.
Subdivision 4 Utility services
101 Water supply	Complies - the site is capable of being connected to mains water supply
102 Sewerage A long-term site must be provided with a connection to the sewage disposal system Any short-term sites must be provided with at least one common soil waste dump point for the disposal of closet waste from caravan holding tanks and the like.	The long-term sites and the community building is capable of being connected to sewer. No common soil waste dump point is provided for the short-term sites. It is noted that the applicant states “only 2 short term sites are provided, essentially to provide suitable parking for visitors of residents. Appropriate connect points to reticulated sewer will be provided.”
103 Drainage	The proposal has not adequately addressed the stormwater drainage and flooding impacts as a whole.
104 Electricity supply	Dwelling sites are capable of having an electricity supply
105 Common trenches – may be used for services	Noted
Subdivision 5 Shower and toilet facilities
106 Modification of calculations under this Subdivision - dwelling sites reserved for use by self-contained moveable dwellings, and dwelling sites provided with ensuite facilities, are to be disregarded.	Noted - Each of the 165 long-term sites will have self-contained bathroom facilities and are disregarded from the calculations. The applicant states that this section is “not applicable as all long-term sites will be self- contained.” However, does not address the requirements for the two short-term caravan sites (which are required and integral to the site characterisation as a permissible use, being a caravan park).
107 Number of showers and toilets to be provided – 4 showers, 4 toilets + urinal and 5 basins required	A compliant number of toilets are provided within the community/leisure centre building.
Clause 108 Facilities for people with disabilities – one of each facility for each sex	Two accessible toilets/shower rooms are provided
109 Other facilities – hot and cold water, mirrors, sanitary napkin disposal	Capable of compliance
110 Construction of shower blocks and toilet blocks – materials and finishes	Capable of compliance with required materials
111 Proximity of dwelling sites to shower blocks and toilet blocks – short term site must be located within 100m	Does not comply, the two short-term sites are located over 250m from the community building. It is noted that the applicant says this clause is not applicable, but servicing of the two short- term sites is required and the two-short term sites are required for compliance with the definition of a caravan park and to satisfy permissibility.
Subdivision 6 Laundry facilities
112 Modification of calculations under this Subdivision - camp sites are taken as equivalent of one short-term site	NA
113 Washing machines – 2 washing machines required	Does not comply – none provided. The applicant states that “Only 2 short term sites are proposed, whom will be guests of residents of the long-term sites and will therefore utilise their facilities when visiting. *A Section 82 Objection to this requirement accompanies this documentation.”* It is noted that no Section 82 Objection has been provided.
114 Laundry tubs – 1 laundry tub required	Does not comply – none provided
115 Clothes dryers – 1 clothes dryer is required	Does not comply – none provided
Clause 116 Drying areas – 50m required	Does not comply – none provided
117 Water supply – hot and cold water required	Does not comply – none provided
118 Ironing facilities – 1 ironing board and iron with electricity supply required	Does not comply – none provided
119 Construction of laundry blocks -materials and finishes	Does not comply – none provided
120 Maintenance	Does not comply – none provided
Subdivision 7 Management
121 Maximum number of persons per dwelling site or camp site – maximum of 12 people	Capable of compliance
122 Register of occupiers	Capable of compliance
123 Information to be given to prospective occupiers	Capable of compliance
124 Use of caravan parks and camping grounds – caravan park must not be used for commercial purposes, for the manufacture, construction or reconstruction of movable dwellings	The applicant states that the site will not be used for the manufacture, construction or reconstruction of moveable dwellings, however the applicant also notes that the manufactured homes will be constructed on site.
125 Community map	Capable of compliance
126 Access to approval and community map	Capable of compliance
127 Garbage removal – arrangements specified must be instituted and maintained	Capable of compliance
128 Fire hydrants - No site situated more than 90m from a fire hydrant.	Capable of compliance
129 Fire hose reels	Capable of compliance
130 Car washing bay	Capable of compliance
131 Buildings – require approval	Noted. Consent is sought for the community building.

Table 1 - Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 Assessment

As indicated in the bold text in Table 1 above, there are several non-compliances with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005, including:

· Clause 91 – separation distance between movable dwellings; indicative plans show consistently less than the 3m requirement between the manufactured homes.

· Clause 92 – entrance and exit road are less than the required 5m width required.

· Clause 93 – the requirement for a caravan forecourt is disregarded as irrelevant by the applicant and not indicated on the plans.

· Clause 111 – there is no separate showers and toilet blocks, while there are adequate shower and bathroom facilities provided with the community building, this clause requires these facilities to be within 100m of the short-term sites, with the distance being well over 250m.

· Clauses 113-119 – relate to laundry facilities – none are provided, with the applicant stating that the short-term sites will only be used by guests of the long-term sites and will rely upon the facilities within the manufactured homes.

· Clause 124 states that the caravan park must not be used for the construction of movable dwellings – the applicant advises that the manufactured homes will be constructed on site.

A number of these non-compliances demonstrate that inadequate services will be provided to the short-term caravan sites. The justification provided by the applicant suggest that these short-term sites are ancillary to the long-term sites only, with statements such as the two short-terms sites are “essentially to provide suitable parking for visitors of residents” and are provided for “guests of residents of the long term sites, and will therefore utilise their facilities when visiting”. This raises the question of the nature and characterisation of the use of the site as a caravan park, which has been discussed previously in the report.

Clause 75 relates to the installation of moveable dwellings on flood liable land and requires Council to have regard to the principles contained in the Floodplain Development Manual. In this regard, consideration needs to be given to the location of the long-term dwelling sites and whether any future erection of a manufactured home/moveable dwelling will be in an appropriate location having regard for flooding impacts. Insufficient information has been received to determine if the dwelling sites, access etc. are in an appropriate location having regard for flooding.

Any variations would require an objection from the applicant in accordance with Section 82(1) and 82(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 that compliance with the above provisions are unreasonable or unnecessary in the particular circumstances of the case and specify the ground of the objection. A subsequent concurrence from the Departmental Chief Executive would be required in accordance with Section 82(3) of the Local Government Act 1993.

The applicant has indicated that a Section 82 objection will be lodged with the Section 68 application to operate the caravan park in the event approval is granted for the proposed development.

It is noted that this application is for the use of the land as a caravan park and associated infrastructure works, as well as the construction of the community building. Even though the s.82 objection is deferred until consideration of the s.68 application to operate the caravan park, concern is raised in relation to the proposal’s future ability to comply with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

The applicant’s justification for the variations, that being that the two short terms sites are “essentially to provide suitable parking for visitors of residents” and are provided for “guests of residents of the long term sites, and will therefore utilise their facilities when visiting” are not considered acceptable or well founded as they dismiss the ability of the short-term sites to be used as genuine short-term caravan sites and the issue of permissibility remains an issue.

Clause 135(1) of the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 states that “A relocatable home must not be installed on a dwelling site unless each major section of the home has been constructed and assembled at, and transported to the caravan park from, a place of manufacture outside the caravan park.The applicant has advised that the moveable dwellings will be constructed in major sections, however, has advised that the moveable dwellings will be constructed on site. The legislation clearly refers to the “installation” of a relocatable dwelling that has been constructed and assembled outside the caravan park. This is not supported.

It is also unclear whether consent is being sought under this application for the construction of the manufactured homes on site. Insufficient information has been provided in this regard.

Likely Impacts of the Development (built environment, natural environment, economic

and social impacts)

Built Environment

The site is located within the E4 Environmental Living zone, which permits caravan parks. However, as discussed elsewhere in the report, it is considered the proposal cannot be properly characterised as a caravan park and is more akin to a seniors housing development and a manufactured home estate, both of which are prohibited in the E4 Environmental Living zone.

The site is located within the Kincumber Character Area 13: Scenic Buffer under the GDCP 2013. The desired character for this area includes “very-low density residential developments” and requires the retention of natural slopes, prevention of further fragmentation of tree canopy, low impact construction methods and avoidance of retaining walls.

The proposed removal of vegetation, cut and fill and benching, does not retain the natural slope of the land and the extent of development proposed on the land (165 dwelling sites) will not result in a low impact, very low density residential development that is consistent with the desired character of the area.

The proposal is not considered acceptable in the context of the site and surrounds.

Natural Environment

The proposed development includes the removal of over 300 trees. However, it there is likely to be more trees to be removed in several areas, including around the main entrance road and the around the fire access road through the rear of the site to Pickets Valley Road. This tree removal will have unacceptable visual and ecological impacts, despite any proposed replanting/landscaping.

The site contains two watercourses which are tributaries of Saltwater Creek and Avoca Lagoon. Avoca Lagoon is a regionally significant water body, with high recreational, ecological and aesthetic values. Works will require a significant degree of soil disturbance (approximately 131,165m²). The applicant has been unable to demonstrate how the requirements of Section 6.3 of the Gosford DCP have been met or how soil and water will be managed appropriately on site.

The proposal has significant and unacceptable ecological impacts, as discussed in this report.

The proposal has not adequately addressed the stormwater and flooding impacts, as discussed throughout this report.

There will be a significant and unacceptable impact on the natural environment as a result of the proposed development.

Trees

A Tree Impact Assessment relating to the upgraded construction access track was provided, however no revised Arborist Report or acceptable plans showing the reduction in tree removal relating to the rest of the site has been provided. Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has provided the following comments:

· The reduction of impacts to visually prominent trees adjacent to the southern boundary that are mapped as Regionally Significant appears to have occurred but could be much better. Instead of running mostly through the mapped area, greater reductions of impacts could be achieved by redesigning the entry access and then setting back the east-west running portion beyond 40m of the southern boundary (Avoca Drive). This could reduce tree removal from approximately 60 trees down to less than 20 trees.

· The primary lead road has been moved 5m further in from the western boundary, however civil works for the battering of the road and catchment drains along the road and western boundary will still have an unaddressed impact on the trees that are nominated as being avoided. Consideration could be given to modifying the existing central access track, so that its location impacts mostly on smaller natives or undesirable exotic species (Camphor laurel).

· Retention of native trees along the central ridge to improve the vegetated buffer has been somewhat achieved, with many of the mature native trees in this area now being retained. Although the proposed tree removal in this area has been reduced, a mixture of planted ornamentals and groups of natives set within the managed grounds of the existing dwelling and stables will still be removed.

· An area that appears to have been overlooked and would reduce impacts on existing trees is the grove along the watercourse on the eastern side of the access. Retention of trees by redesigning to utilise the mostly cleared area upslope could greatly contribute to screening from adjoining properties.

· The secondary access track to Pickets Valley Drive essentially follows the alignment of an existing track. The Tree Assessment Report - Access Track (Dec 20) proposes removal of just five trees, however a site inspection found that the track will likely need to be wider and subject to further cut and fill. This is likely to have a greater unquantified impact on native trees.

· The RFS response states that the entire property must be managed as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) (with the exception of the native vegetation located in the northern part of the site, the riparian corridor that is proposed to be retained and conserved and the existing stand of managed trees located along Avoca Drive). The IPA requires a tree canopy less than 15%, canopies separated by 2 -5m and large gaps in vegetation. Such bushfire requirements may further fragment the existing tree canopy and inhibit the success or suitability of re-planted trees, resulting in even greater tree removal than presented by the applicant.

· The proposal doesn’t satisfy an expectation to better utilise the existing cleared area nor demonstrates minimising impacts on native trees by greater tree retention.

Ecology

Councils Senior Ecologist reviewed the updated Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) as well as the amended plans and report submitted with the Section 8.2 Review of Determination and has raised concern in relation to the proposed development.

As discussed previously in the report, the information contained in the revised BDAR does not adequately address the extent of tree removal and vegetation across the site, particularly having regard for APZ requirements. There has been a limited number of hollow bearing trees retained on site (11 of 46) and the development will result in the reduction of an existing wildlife corridor that benefits the Yellow-bellied Glider, and other threatened species and a reduction of aquatic habitat due to the modifications to the waterways, including dewatering of the larger dam which is recognised in the BDAR as a local wetland and assumed habitat for the Endangered Green and Golden Bell Frog. The proposed tree removal has not been sufficiently minimised and is still considered excessive.

It is considered the proposed development cannot be reasonably described as “low impact”. The proposal is not compatible with the special ecological values of the site and has not made enough use of existing cleared areas and avoided important habitats.

Economic & Social Impacts

The proposed development would create employment during construction and additional

population to support local services.

The proposal has not been lodged as a seniors housing development and is therefore not subject to the Senior Living SEPP but is effectively will operate as one as the target market for residents of the caravan park is 55 and over. As the proposal is not permitted under the Senior Living SEPP and does not rely on the Senior Living SEPP, the appropriateness of the sites in terms of accessibility, slope, flooding, bushfire and availability and impacts on medical and other services has not been addressed.

It is recognized that there is a need to cater for increasing ageing of the population and to provide for affordable housing, however, this site is not appropriate for this type of development and would not provide affordable housing as it is presented as an ‘upmarket’ seniors housing estate.

Suitability of the Site for the Development:

The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living under Gosford LEP 2014. Caravan parks are a

permissible use with consent under the current E4 zone.

Caravan parks are a prohibited use on E4 zoned land under the draft CCLEP 2018.

The site is considered not suitable for the proposed development due to extent of

earthworks required, tree clearing, impact on ecology, and the fact that in its current form, the proposal is not compatible with the desired character of the area.

The proposed development does not fit in the locality and is essentially an urban development on land that is nominated for low-impact residential and tourist-related development and as an area of special ecological and aesthetic values where sustainable development is to be promoted.

Any Submission made in Accordance with this Act or Regulations

The application was publicly exhibited for the following periods:

· 22 January 2021 to 1 March 2021

· 26 March 2021 to 4 May 2021

It is noted that the application was renotified as additional information was received from the applicant, however this information did not propose any further changes but provided further detail of the proposed development. The additional information included:

· Modified Design Principle Plans, marked-up accordingly as relevant for the reduced layout of 165 sites.

· Additional landscape plans, which includes additional section detail and photomontages.

· Updated Bushfire report.

A total of 137 submission were received. The submissions are summarised in the table below:

Summary of Submissions	Response
Amended plans represent only minor reduction from refused plans - It does not address the overall issues	Agreed. These concerns are shared and discussed in detail in this assessment repot.
Contrary to E4 zone objectives is not ‘low impact’, is not compatible with the semi-rural character of the area, tree, ecology, water and scenic impacts, excessive regrading	Agreed. These concerns are shared and discussed in detail in this assessment repot.
Traffic and safety concerns, traffic report is inadequate	Avoca Drive is a main road which carries a high volume of local and through traffic. The traffic generated by the proposed development can be catered for by the existing road system. Both Council’s traffic engineer and TfNSW require construction of an intersection onto Avoca Drive for the proposed development. It should also be noted that TfNSW propose to carry out future upgrading roads along Avoca Drive in this locality in the future. The traffic study has been reviewed by TfNSW and Council’s traffic engineer who consider the study adequately addresses the impact on the road system and have recommended works if approved.
Significant tree removal	The removal of trees will impact the visual quality, scenic value and character of the area, as well as impact on the biodiversity values of the site.
Site is not suitable for elderly residents who will be socially isolated, particularly those with mobility problems.	These concerns are noted.
Flooding impacts	The impact of flooding from the watercourses through the site will determine the minimum floor level for dwellings erected on the site. The proposed development will result in a significant increase in impervious and paved areas which will increase stormwater runoff. The impact of this must not increase flooding impacts on other sites in the catchment area. The flood report submitted does not satisfactorily address flooding.
Caravan parks are prohibited in the E4 zone under the draft CCLEP 2018 which has been exhibited.	This is correct. The issue of permissibility is discussed in the report.
Oversupply of retirement living in the Kincumber area.	The proposal has been lodged as a caravan park not housing for seniors or people with a disability and is being assessed accordingly.
Impacts the water quality of the lagoon.	Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate impacts on water quality and that appropriate stormwater controls will be implemented on site.
Bushfire prone, safety issue with new residents	The applicant has submitted a bushfire assessment which has been reviewed by the RFS. The RFS has issued a bushfire safety authority approval.
Impact on local infrastructure and the environment during construction.	Construction impacts can be mitigated by the preparation of a construction management plan.
The site is an aboriginal transit site with endangered and protected species.	The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, submitted with the original proposal, has revealed a potential archaeological deposit (PAD) adjacent to the southern bank of the northern dam. This area has been marked on plans and is retained within riparian setbacks. No work are intended within close proximity. In accordance with standard protocols should nearby excavations reveal any matters of significance, appropriate procedures will be implemented. As the application is recommended for refusal, no further action has been undertaken on this matter.
The existing power line to the site is an agreement between owners and power would not be able to be provided to the site.	The developer would be required to provide power and services to the development in accordance with the various service authority requirements.
Kincumber shopping centre is at capacity and will be overloaded by this development.	There are a number of other shopping centres that could cater for the increase in population created by this development, including Erina Fair. The increase in population is minor in the wider context of the Central Coast and this is not a reason to refusal.
It is a blatant misuse of the definition of a caravan park	The issue of the definition as a caravan park has been discussed in the report.
Concern with close proximity of proposed houses to existing houses on adjoining sites.	Sufficient setbacks from site boundaries are provided in terms of amenity for neighboring residents. However the visual impacts from the proposed site regrading, tree removal and proposed dwelling sites are not acceptable
Local hospitals are under immense pressure due to our aging population	This concern is noted however this issue is to be dealt with at a state level and is not a reason to refuse the application
Picketts Valley Road should not be used as an entry and exit to the site for construction purposes. The intersection of Picketts Valley Road and Avoca Drive is steep and hazardous.	The proposed access to Picketts Valley from the rear is for construction access as well as for emergency access in the event of bushfire, and if approved would be constructed to meet these heavy vehicle requirements.
Manufactured homes are not permitted on E4 zoned land. The proposal is inconsistent with SEPP 21 Caravan Parks as the site has many environmental constraints.	Manufactured homes are permitted in the E4 zone as part of a caravan park development, however for the reasons outlined in this assessment report the proposal is not considered to be properly characterized as a caravan park and the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development.
Subdivision of the site into large lots would be more appropriate.	The minimum lot size in subdivision is 4 ha. The site would have the potential to subdivide from 4 lots into 6 lots. Council officers must assess the development application before them, which is not for subdivision in this case.
Impact on property values	Individual property values are not a valid reason to refuse the proposal and no evidence has been submitted to substantiate changes in land values which are affected by several criteria and variables.
No security fencing around the perimeter of the site	Security fencing is not a requirement and there is existing fencing between properties.
Water restrictions	This is not a reason to refuse the application. The increase in population is minor and water supply has been planned for the increase across the region.
Since Living Choice have owned the property there has been no maintenance carried out such as to fencing, removing fallen tree branches which land on adjoining land.	This is not a relevant matter in determination of the application. It is a matter to be resolved between neighbours.
There are koalas in the area and this will further destroy their habitat.	The site or area has not been identified as containing koalas or koala habitat.
The developer has stated in public meetings that the housing is permanent dwellings and houses will never be moved. The mobile housing classification is to avoid stamp duty on transactions and planning restrictions.	The proposed development will involve a lease arrangement of the land. The definition allows for the provision of long-term dwellings.

Submissions from Public Authorities

The application has been referred to NSW Rural Fire Service, the Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR) and the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) as detailed under the Integrated Development heading of this report.

General Terms of Approval have been provided by NSW Rural Fire Service, the Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR) and were not required by Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries).

The application was also referred to Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW), who made no further comments on the proposal, to those comments made in relation to the original development application.

Internal Consultation

The Section 8.2 Review of determination was referred to and reviewed by the following assessment staff:

· Environmental Health – not supported

· Environment - Ecology – not supported

· Tree Assessment – not supported

· Engineering – not supported

· Engineering - Flooding /Hydrology – not supported

· Waste Services – not supported

· Engineering - Traffic and Transport – no objection, however, notes a deficiency in the traffic report as no SIDRA analysis of the increase in U-turns at Avoca Drive / Scenic Highway roundabout has been undertaken

Any comments provided by the officers have been considered in the assessment of the application and discussed within this report.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles:

The proposal has been assessed having regard to ecologically sustainable development

principles and is considered to be inconsistent with the principles.

The proposed development is not considered to incorporate satisfactory stormwater, drainage and erosion control and the retention of vegetation where possible and is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment and will decrease environmental quality for future generations. The proposal does result in the disturbance of any endangered flora or fauna habitats and is likely to significantly affect fluvial environments.

Climate Change

The potential impacts on climate change of the proposed development have been considered by Council as part of its assessment of the application.

The assessment has included consideration of such matters as potential sea level rise; potential for more intense and/or frequent weather conditions including storm events, bushfires, drought, flood and coastal erosion; as well as how the proposed development may cope, combat, withstand these potential impacts.

The proposed development is not considered to be compatible with the likely increases in flooding and risk of bushfires particularly having regard to the likely age of occupants, and intensity of development.

Other Matters for Consideration:

Development Contribution Plan

The site is not subject to the provisions of any section 7.11 development contribution plan.

The site is subject to the provisions of the Central Coast Regional Section 7.12 Development Contribution Plan 2019. A contribution levy of 1% of the proposed cost of works would be applicable.

Water and Sewer Contributions

Water and sewer contributions are applicable to the development and Section 306 requirements would be issued under the Water Management Act 2000 if the proposal was supported.

Central Coast Regional Plan 2036

The plan identifies the need for an increase in population and housing by the year 2036, including the need for aged housing. The Central Coast has a higher proportion of aged people over 55 than the state average. There is also a need for affordable housing such as that provided in caravan parks or other residential accommodation. The proposed development would provide additional housing in the local government area however, this site is not considered appropriate for the type of development proposed.

The Public Interest

For the reasons identified in the assessment and contained within Council’s reasons for refusal, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

Conclusion

This application has been assessed having regard for the matters for consideration under Sections 8.3 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments, plans and policies.

It is considered that the development is not properly characterised as a caravan park. Based on the applicant’s own assertions, the short-term caravan park sites are ‘essentially parking spaces’ for visitors of the long-term dwelling sites and are therefore ancillary to the long-term sites.

As previously discussed, the definition of "caravan park" is conjunctive, such that it requires the installation or placement of both caravans and moveable dwellings on the site, despite the fact there are no set requirements for the proportion or mix of caravans and moveable dwellings in order to satisfy the definition of a caravan park. There is no evidence that caravans will be placed on the short-term sites and therefore the consent authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development meets the definition of a caravan park.

The Draft CCLEP was adopted by Council on 14 December 2020. The CCLEP will come into force when notified on the NSW Legislation website and is now considered both imminent and certain. Under the provisions of the Draft CCLEP, the land is proposed to retain the E4 Environmental Living zoning, however ‘caravan parks’ are not permissible in the E4 zone. It is considered the draft plan must be given significant weight. The proposal is not consistent with the Draft CCLEP, and in particular does not meet the draft objectives of the E4 zone.

Irrespective of the characterisation of use and permissibility, the constraints of the site and impacts of the development have been assessed and it is considered that the site remains unsuitable for the proposed development. The proposal fails to meet the E4 zones objectives (both current and draft) and cannot be ‘low impact’ given the significant site disturbance, tree removal and the impact on ecological, environmental and visual impacts. The proposal remains inconsistent with the current and future desired character of the area.

The proposal also fails to demonstrate how compliance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 will be achieved.

Given the above the proposal is not in the public interest.

Accordingly, it is recommended the previous decision of the Panel be reaffirmed and the application be refused pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Attachments

1 ⇩	Reasons for Refusal		D14622499
2 ⇩	Section 8.2A Concept Engineering Plans		D14398832
3 ⇩	Section 8.2A Landscape Plan		D14398882
4 ⇩	Original Development Assessment Report	Provided Under Separate Cover	D14622508

Clause	Requirement	Proposed	Compliance
3.1.2.1 - Building height	8.5m by virtue of LEP mapping Maximum 2 storeys	7.6m Two storeys	Yes Yes
3.1.2.2 – Site coverage	Maximum 50%	39%	Yes
3.1.3.1a – Front setback (carport)	1m behind Average setback of adjoining dwellings being – 9.2m	4.5m (51% variation)	No
3.3.3.1b – Rear setback	0.9m	1.150m	Yes
3.1.3.1c – Side setback	1.075m given building height	1.340m minimum	Yes
3.1.3.3.2 – Garage door articulation	Maximum 60% of building width – 7.5m	5.5m	Yes
3.1.4.3 - Private open space areas	Minimum 24m2 Minimum dimension 3m Maximum gradient 1:50	Well In excess of 24m2 Well in excess of 3m Level	Yes Yes Yes
3.1.5 – Car parking and access	2 spaces if 4 or more bedrooms Parking to be located behind the primary road setback Maximum driveway width 4m at the street crossover	3 included 5.5m	Yes Yes No *See internal referral comments below
3.1.6.1 - Earthworks	Maximum 1m fill Maximum 3m Excavation >1m from boundary No retaining wall for fill is to be less than 1m from boundary Fill not associated with dwelling to be max 1m and setback 1m from boundary	0.88m Max excavation is 770mm and setback >1m from boundary 1m from boundary Max fill is 880mm and is set back >1m from the boundary	Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.1.6.2 – Retaining walls	To be designed by a structural engineer	Structural plans submitted	Yes
3.1.6.3 - Drainage	To be disposed of to street	To street	Yes
3.1.7.2 - Outbuildings	Maximum area of 75m2	23m2	Yes
3.1.7.4 – Swimming pools	Be located behind the primary road setback or rear yard Comply with side and rear setbacks Pump located to minimise noise	In rear yard area In excess of 0.9m Appropriately located	Yes Yes Yes

Item No: 4.2
Title: DA/58543/2020 - 60 Terrigal Esplanade, Terrigal - Alterations & Additions to Shop Top Housing
Department: Environment and Planning
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: 011.2020.00058543.001 - D14737021

Author: Susana Machuca, Senior Development Planner

Manager: Ailsa Prendergast, Section Manager, Development Assessment South

Approver: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager, Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received for a Shop Top Housing development (one commercial premises and one unit) and partial demolition of existing rear retail structure on Lot: 1 DP: 214139 and Lot: B in DP: 374520, No. 60 Terrigal Esplanade, Terrigal.

The development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) as a result in a variation to the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) in excess of 10%, in this instance 44.11m2 or 32.9%. A delegate of Council may not assume the concurrence of the Secretary when considering exceptions to development standards under cl.4.6 of GLEP 2014 if the development contravenes a development standard by greater than 10%. As such the application is required to be reported to the LPP for determination.

The application has been examined having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and other statutory requirements with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in the report. No submissions have been received. The application is recommended for approval.

Applicant Howard Leslie & Associates

Owner Helen Felitsch

Application No DA58543/2020

Description of Land Lot: 1 DP: 214139 and Lot: B in DP: 374520

Proposed Development Alterations and Additions to Shop Top Housing development (one commercial premises and one residential unit) and partial demolition of existing structures.

Site Area 121.9m2

Zoning B2 – Local Centre

Existing Use Shop Top Housing

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $310,000.00

Recommendation

1 That the Local Planning Panel assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning to permit the non-compliance with the development standard under Clause 4.6 of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

2 That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA58543/2020 for a Shop Top Housing development on Lot: 1 DP: 214139 and Lot: B in DP: 374520, No. 60 Terrigal Esplanade, TERRIGAL, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule attached to the report and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Key Issues

· Floor Space Ratio of the proposal

· Height Form – Maximum External Wall height

Precis:

Proposed Development	Alterations and Additions to Shop Top Housing development and partial demolition of existing rear retail structure.
Permissibility and Zoning	The land is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014. The development is considered Shop Top Housing which is permissible in the zone with consent of Council. “shop top housing” means: one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises. Note. Shop top housing is a type of residential accommodation.
Relevant Legislation	· Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – Section 4.15 · Local Government Act 1993 – Section 89 · State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 · Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018 · Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 Gosford Development Control Plan 2013
Current Use	Shop Top Housing
Integrated Development	No – not integrated development in accordance with Clause 4.46 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
Submissions	Nil

Variations to Policies

Clause	4.4 Floor Space Ratio
Standard	1.1:1
LEP/DCP	Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014
Departure basis	32.9% - (44.11m2)

Clause	4.3.6 Max. External Wall height
Standard	10m
LEP/DCP	Gosford Development Control 2013
Departure basis	11.4% - (1.14m) along 18.3% of the total length of east and west side boundaries

The Site

The subject site is legally identified as Lot: 1 DP: 214139 and Lot: B in DP: 374520, No. 60 Terrigal Esplanade, Terrigal, has a site area of approximately 121.9m2. The site is located on the southern side of Terrigal Esplanade between Campbell Crescent and Kurrawyba Avenue and has a frontage of 3.175m to Terrigal Esplanade, a rear boundary of 3.17m to Hudson Lane and side boundaries of approximately 38.41m. The site runs on an approximately east to west axis, is rectangular in shape and falls to the rear of the site approximately 1.59m from Terrigal Esplanade (RL4.29AHD) to Hudson Lane (RL2.70AHD). Refer to Figures 1 and 2.

The site is currently occupied by an existing two (2) storey brick commercial building where a café occupies the ground floor level and residence above on the first-floor level (shop top housing) with a metal roof and with off street parking access from Hudson Lane. The site does not contain any vegetation. Refer to Figures 3 and 4.

The subject site is not identified as being “Bushfire prone land” on Council’s mapping system.

The subject site is however, identified to be located within Council’s Terrigal CBD Flood Study area and subject to flooding. Restrictions to development on the land may apply, including adherence to a Flood Planning Level for building improvements. Council's Engineer is supportive of the application subject to conditions.

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the provisions of Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP 2014). The site is proposed to retain the same zoning under Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018 (CCLEP 2018).

Surrounding Development

The site is located on Terrigal Esplanade facing Terrigal beachfront. Surrounding development comprises a mixture of established one (1), two (2) and three (3) level retail/commercial (most older style shop top housing) allotments to the east, south and west. To the north is Terrigal Beach and reserve including Terrigal Surf Life Saving Club and memorial. On the eastern and western adjoining properties, No. 58 and 62 Terrigal Esplanade comprise shop top housing developments with Ice cream Parlour and Chinese Restaurant tenancies respectively. Refer to Figures 5 and 6.

The Proposed Development

An application has been received for the proposed partial demolition and proposed alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing with on-grade parking, an overall maximum height of RL 13.96 (HOB 11.136m) and floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.46:1, an equivalent to a total Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 178.2m2. Refer to Figures 7, 8 and 9.

Overall, the proposal comprises:

1. Retail shop (approximately 74.03m2 + 21.6m2 combined circulation space):

a) Partial demolition at the rear of the existing retail premises (refer to demolition plan drawing No. DA21 Rev. F);

b) Alterations and additions to retail floor levels:

o Construction of new awning at Terrigal Esplanade;

o construction new lift shaft, stairs and circulation space;

o relocation of exhaust shaft to roof level;

o construction new retail sanitary facilities /balcony /storage and cool-room area; and

o construction of residential entry.

2. Residential two (2) bedroom Unit - (approximately 83.37m2 level 1 + 20.8m2 level 2 + 17.9m2 POS):

c) Alterations and additions to residential first floor levels:

o construction new Lift shaft, stairs and circulation space;

o rearrangement of living /kitchen /bedroom areas to existing front residential unit to accommodate new living/dining /kitchen area and tv lounge /bathroom areas; and

o construction at rear of new bathroom, bedroom and balcony;

d) Construction of new second floor level to residential unit:

o construction new Lift shaft, stairs and circulation space; and

o construction new toilet /wet bar /dining and private open space (POS) areas.

3. Parking and Waste storage facilities with direct access to Hudson Lane.

4. Hours of Operation: The proposed residential component of the development will be accessible 24 hours a day. The retail component currently Esplanade Café is open 6:00am top 4:00 seven days a week.

The application has been amended twice during the assessment process (amended architectural plans, WMP and SoEE were submitted on 3 March 2021) in response to issues raised through initial assessment by Council officers including but not limited to building, engineering, planning and solid waste requirements. Final amended architectural plans, WMP and SoEE submitted 26 April 2021, 17 May 2021 and 8 July 2021 respectively to include final updated information.

History

Council’s records show that the following applications were previously lodged on this site:

CC3622/1999
Construction Certificate - AWNING
Lodged: 11/05/1999 (MATRIX COMPLIANT APPROVAL: 29/06/1999)

BA4353/1997

Building Application: SHOP FITOUT

Lodged:21/04/1997(Approved :29/05/1997)

Address: 60 Terrigal Esplanade TERRIGAL NSW 2260

No other applications of relevance are contained in Council records.

Assessment

Having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements, Council’s policies and Section 10.7 Certificate details, the assessment has identified the following key issues, which are elaborated upon for Council’s information. Any tables relating to plans or policies are provided as an attachment.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

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

The proposed shop top housing constitutes ‘Basix affected development’ as defined within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. As such, the application is supported by a BASIX certificate Number A344115_03 prepared by Howard Leslie & Associates dated 18 February 2020 which confirms the proposal will meet the NSW government's requirements for sustainability, if built in accordance with the commitments in the certificate.

Conditions have been imposed on the consent to ensure that these requirements are adhered to. (Refer to Conditions 1.1 and 1.3).

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The provisions of SEPP Coastal Management require Council to consider the aims and objectives of the SEPP when determining a development application within the Coastal Management Areas. The Coastal Management Areas are areas defined on maps issued by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment. The subject property is mapped coastal environment area and a coastal use area under the SEPP.

The relevant matters have been considered in the assessment of this application. The application is considered consistent with the stated aims and objectives.

The development is located within the Terrigal Town Centre west of Terrigal Esplanade. The proposed expansion (44.11m2) is considered to not result in any impact on the coastal environment or coastal processes.

Council has considered the proposed development and it is concluded the proposal is consistent with cl. 14 of SEPP Coastal Management 2018 and no further objection is made in this regard.

Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014

The site is subject to the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP 2014).

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows—

(aa) to protect and promote the use and development of land for arts and cultural activity, including music and other performance arts,

(a) to encourage a range of housing, employment, recreation and services to meet the needs of existing and future residents of Gosford,

(b) to foster economic, environmental and social well-being so that Gosford continues to develop as a sustainable and prosperous place to live, work and visit,

(c) to provide community and recreation facilities, maintain suitable amenities and offer a variety of quality lifestyle opportunities to a diverse population,

(d) (Repealed)

(e) to concentrate intensive land uses and trip-generating activities in locations that are most accessible to transport and centres,

(f) to promote the efficient and equitable provision of public services, infrastructure and amenities,

(g) to conserve, protect and enhance the environmental and cultural heritage of Gosford,

(h) to protect and enhance the natural environment in Gosford, incorporating ecologically sustainable development,

(i) to minimise risk to the community in areas subject to environmental hazards, particularly flooding and bush fires,

(j) to promote a high standard of urban design that responds appropriately to the existing or desired future character of areas,

(k) to promote design principles in all development to improve the safety, accessibility, health and well-being of residents and visitors,

(l) to encourage the development of sustainable tourism that is compatible with the surrounding environment.

The development application overall meets the objectives of the zone by supporting the ongoing renewal of the centres in fostering economic, environmental and social well-being as such, it is considered to be consistent with Clause 1.2 (2)(a), (b), (c), (e), (h), (j) and (k) aims of the GLEP 2014.

Zoning and Permissibility

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP) 2014.

1 Objectives of Zone:

· To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To provide for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed-use development.

· To ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone.

· To promote ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development.

· To ensure that the town centres of Erina and Woy Woy are recognised as providing a higher level, and greater diversity, of services and facilities to serve a wide population catchment from numerous localities and as key public transport nodes, secondary to Gosford City Centre.

· To ensure that village centres such as Avoca, East Gosford, Ettalong Beach, Kincumber, Lisarow, Niagara Park, Terrigal, Umina Beach, West Gosford and Wyoming are recognised as providing a broad range of services and facilities to serve the population of the locality.

· To ensure that villages are recognised as providing local level services and facilities and are developed at a scale that reflects their population catchment and as a focus for public transport routes.

· To ensure that the different roles of villages are recognised with some villages being key tourist destinations with boutique activities in addition to serving the needs of local residents, while other villages are purpose-built centres to serve the needs of the local population.

· To encourage the residential population of villages and town centres to contribute to the vitality of those locations.

The proposed development would provide for small scale business use similar to those currently located on the main street commercial strip and of which will continue to service the needs of both residents and visitors to the area. Additionally, the proposed residential unit will undergo a needed building upgrade to be in line with current modern architectural design and amenity of development in the proximate surrounding area. It is noted that the proposed shop top housing development will continue to offer commercial premises that would be ultimately be available to local businesses, and a diversified residential offering that increases the housing supply in the area.

As such, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the zone, insomuch the built form would maintain the bulk and scale of Terrigal Esplanade as well as supporting the ongoing renewal of the local centre by concentrating employment and housing opportunities in accessible and well serviced centres.

2. Permitted without consent:

Recreation areas

3. Permitted with consent

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4. Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Animal boarding or training establishments; Biosolids treatment facilities; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Flood mitigation works; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Highway service centres; Home-based child care; Home businesses; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industries; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research stations; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Sewage treatment plants; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Transport depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures; Water recycling facilities; Water supply systems; Wholesale supplies

The proposed development is classified as Shop top housing and is permissible in the zone with consent.

4.3 Height of Buildings

The objectives of clause 4.3 are:

(a) to establish maximum height limits for buildings,

(b) to permit building heights that encourage high quality urban form,

(c) to ensure that buildings and public areas continue to receive satisfactory exposure to sky and sunlight,

(d) to nominate heights that will provide an appropriate transition in built form and land use intensity,

(e) to ensure that taller buildings are located appropriately in relation to view corridors and view impacts and in a manner that is complementary to the natural topography of the area,

(f) to protect public open space from excessive overshadowing and to allow views to identify natural topographical features.

Clause 4.3(2) of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 states that the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height indicated on the Height of Buildings Map. Council’s LEP as per the Height of Buildings Map prescribes a maximum

height of 18.5m for the subject land. The proposed shop top housing has a maximum height of building (HOB) of 11.136m which is approximately 7.36m less than the requirement. As such, the proposed height of building satisfies the objectives of this clause.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

The provisions of cl. 4.4.A(4) within the GLEP 2014 establishes the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for buildings. The applicable FSR control is 1.1:1, which permits a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 134.09m2. The proposed development would result in a GFA of 178.2m2, equating to a variation of 44.11m2, a FSR of 1.46:1 or 32.9%, non-compliant with the development standard.

This variation has been assessed in accordance with cl 4.4 of GLEP 2014.

4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of GLEP 2014 provides the ability to grant consent to a development application where the variation to a development standard can be adequately justified and where the objectives of clause 4.6 are satisfied, being:

(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.

In accordance with cl. 4.6(4) of GLEP 2014, development consent must not be granted for a development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated in subclause (3). Subclause 3 provides:

‘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.’

A cl. 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) variation for the non-compliance associated with FSR (cl. 4.4A (4) of GLEP 2014) was provided. The cl. 4.6 of GLEP 2014 request submitted by the applicant states how strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary (having regard to the decision in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW 827) and how there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention, is summarised below:

· The proposed development recognises the standards for the maximum development density and intensity of land use in the precinct but anticipates the future needs of the Terrigal town centre through high quality building design that offsets and improves on the current built form;

· The proposal recognises the need to control building density and bulk in relation to site area in order to achieve the desired future character for different locations. The proposed building design maintains a similar building envelope as seen at street level to that which would be achieved by meeting the current standard whilst seeking to lift the design standards of the main street and setting new standards for future buildings;

· The proposed design minimises any adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain through good building design that meets the desired character outcomes and setts the third level back from the street frontage to minimise visual impact;

· The proposal provides an appropriate correlation between the size of a site and the extent of any development on that site through good urban design and building articulation; and

· The proposal facilitates design excellence by ensuring the extent of the proposed floor space in the building envelope leaves generous space for the articulation and modulation of design.

The cl.4.6 of GLEP 2014 variation request submitted by the applicant also provides assessment of the proposal against the relevant development standard and zone objectives, and Council is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated consistency with these objectives such that the proposal is in the public interest.

In order to demonstrate if the proposal has merit, consideration of the proposed floor space ratio - has been provided with regard to the objectives of the control contained within cl. 4.4 of GLEP 2014:

a) to establish standards for the maximum development density and intensity of land use;

In this instance, the proposal continues to provide a range of retail and business uses on the ground floor (street level) that will serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the Terrigal area. The proposed development provides for residential uses as part of a mixed-use development through the provision of improved and expanded residential accommodation above the existing ground level retail space;

b) to control building density and bulk in relation to site area in order to achieve the desired future character for different locations;

The proposal does not result in excessive building bulk and scale. The proposal maintains a similar building envelope when seen at street level due to the third storey being setback from The Terrigal Esplanade frontage. Whilst the proposal is seeking to upscale the design standards of the main street and setting new standards for future shop top buildings, it continues to ensure that the different roles of villages are recognised with centres such as Terrigal being key tourist destinations with boutique activities in addition to serving the needs of local residents;

c) to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain;

The proposal does not impact on adjoining properties it does not affect overshadowing nor views from properties facing the beach front views or from the rear lane;

d) to maintain an appropriate visual relationship between new development and the existing character of areas or locations that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation;

The proposal is consistent with zone objectives as the proposed building design maintains a similar building envelope when seen at street level and encourages the residential population of villages and town centres to continue to providing local level services and facilities and is developed at a scale that reflects their population catchment; and

e) to provide an appropriate correlation between the size of a site and the extent of any development on that site;

The maximum GFA permitted on the site is 134.09m2. The proposed development has a maximum GFA of 178.20m2, an exceedance of 44.11m2 reflecting a FSR of 1.46:1 representing a 32.9% variation. The proposed exceedance of the maximum permissible floor space area is associated with the width and proportions of subject site. However, despite the variation and proportionality of the site, the proposed building provides an appropriate correlation between the size of the site and the extent of any development on that site through good use of floor space in relation to site levels and building articulation without causing unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

Based on the consideration of this objective, Council is advised that compliance with the development standard is unnecessary, as the proposed additional FSR does not hinder the objective being realised.

f) to facilitate design excellence by ensuring the extent of floor space in building envelopes leaves generous space for the articulation and modulation of design;

The 3D renderings reviewed of the proposal demonstrates that the scale and intensity of the shop top housing development would not result in a development outcome that is inappropriate for the established evolving character of the immediate area and raised no objection.

In accordance with cl. 4.6(4)(b) of GLEP 2014 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

Planning Circular PS 18-003, issued 21 February 2018, states that a delegate of Council may not assume the concurrence of the Secretary when considering exceptions to development standards under cl.4.6 of GLEP 2014 if the development contravenes a development standard by greater than 10%. In this instance, the proposed variations exceed 10%, and the concurrence of the secretary cannot be assumed. As such the application is required to be reported to the LPP for determination.

This assessment has been carried out having regard to the relevant principles identified in the following case law:

1 Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827

2 Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009

3 Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90

4 Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248

The cl. 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of GLEP 2014 request submitted by the applicant appropriately addresses the relevant principles and exhibits consistency with the relevant objectives under GLEP 2014.

This assessment concludes that the cl. 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of GLEP 2014 variation provided having regard to cl.4.4 Floor Space Ratio development standard of GLEP 2014 is appropriately founded and worthy of support.

7.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

This land has been identified as being affected by the Acid Sulfate Soils Map and the matters contained in clause 7.1 of Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 have been considered. The site contains Class 3 Acid Sulfate Soils. In this instance, the proposed works are not considered to impact on Acid Sulfate Soils. (Condition 4.14)

7.2 Flood Planning

The subject site is located in an area subject to flooding as identified in Councils Terrigal CBD Flood Study and subject to the imposition of a minimum floor level. The 1 % AEP flood level adjacent the site within Hudson Lane is 3.3m AHD and the Flood Planning level applied to all habitable floor levels is 3.8m AHD. The proposed car parking space and bin storage floor level is graded at 5 % above from the Hudson lane 2.8 m AHD pavement level. It is noted that flood waters will potentially inundate the floor to a depth of 400mm. As such, it is recommended that a Flood Protection Barrier is provided at the garage shutter to ensure the flood protection to the parked vehicle and reduce any safety risk to the occupants. Notwithstanding, Council’s Engineer is supportive of the proposal subject to conditions (Conditions 1.1, 2.7, 2.8 and 5.20 and 6.11).

The development is considered satisfactory in respect to Clause 7.2 of GLEP.

s. 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the EP& A Act: Draft Environmental Planning Instruments:

Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan

The application has been assessed under the provisions of the draft Central Coast Local

Environmental Plan (draft CCLEP) with respect to zoning, development standards and special provisions.

Under the draft CCLEP the subject land will remain to be zoned as B2 Local Centre. Permissibility for shop top housing development within this zone is to remain as per the current applicable Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 which permits the proposal with consent of Council.

Gosford Development Control Plan 2013

This plan is known as the Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 (GDCP) and supports the objectives identified by the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014.

Part 2 Scenic Quality and Character

The proposal is subject to the provisions of Gosford Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 Chapter 2 Scenic Quality and Character as such, the subject site is located within the Terrigal 8: Mainstreet Centre character area. The desired character statement for this locality (summarized) recommends that:

· This should remain a mixed-use centre that provides a range of services and accommodation for local residents as well as visitors, where the scenic potential of a prominent backdrop to Gosford City’s ocean beaches is enhanced by new developments that encourage high levels of street activity and also achieve improved standards of amenity plus urban-and-civic design quality.

· Protect and enhance existing levels of “main-street” activity with building forms that maintain both the pedestrian-friendly scale of existing one and two storey shop-front developments, and also the current level of midday sunlight along all footpaths and laneway frontages. Promote high levels of on-street activity by maximising the number of retailers or businesses and the continuity of shop-windows along all street and laneway frontages. Avoid indoor arcades that would draw people away from the street. Incorporate awnings, colonnades or balconies in all buildings to provide sheltered pedestrian settings that encourage pavement dining. Contribute to high levels of visible activity along all streets by surrounding upper storeys with balconies that accommodate restaurant dining or residents’ outdoor recreation.

· Reflect the form of development that is typical of traditional coastal centres where a wide variety of retailers are accommodated by separate buildings upon narrow-fronted allotments. Along any street or waterfront, avoid the appearance of a continuous wall of development or uniform building heights. Vary the shape and height of all visible facades. Top-most storeys should be setback behind wide roof terraces, and roofs plus parapet heights should step from one building to the next. Street corners should be emphasised by taller forms. Neighbouring buildings should be separated by landscaped courtyards and alleyways that provide view corridors, access to apartment lobbies, and daylight plus an outlook for above-ground dwellings.

· Disguise the scale and bulk of new buildings. All visible facades should employ extensive windows that are shaded by lightly-framed balconies, verandahs or exterior sunshades, plus painted finishes and some board or sheet cladding rather than expanses of plain masonry. Roofs should be gently-pitched to minimise the height of ridges, flanked by wide eaves that shade terraces and also disguise the scale of exterior walls. Side and rear facades should match the design quality of the street frontage.

· Conceal off-street parking behind street-front shops or apartments, and provide unobtrusive vehicle entrances from laneways or secondary streets to minimise disruption of shopfronts and their associated pedestrian activity. Contribute to co-ordinated street improvements that include dedicated pedestrian crossings, footpath paving, landscaping and lighting to provide safe and secure settings for informal social interaction. Building colour schemes and commercial signs should be co-ordinated and limited in size and number to promote the identity of this coastal centre, rather than emphasising corporate sponsorship.

· Overall, it is noted that the proposed alterations and additions retains the mix-use character and density of the existing shop top developments found within the immediate surrounding area. The building design improves the standards of amenity and contributes to the urban-and-civic design quality of the main street centre. The height and form of the building preserves a bulk and scale that ensures to maintain panoramic views and coastal views for surrounding development as well as participation at street level of the prime ocean scenic backdrop for the locals and visitors alike.

· The proposal ensures to maintain ‘main street’ activity by upgrading building floor areas, planimetric design, distribution and connectivity, facades, shop awning and building materials that are to scale, modern, compatible and protective to outdoor pedestrian-friendly settings and open space recreation areas of the immediate surrounding neighbourhood.

· As such, the proposed development meets the objectives of the zone by providing and supporting the ongoing renewal of the Terrigal Town Centre with quality-built spaces that contribute and concentrate social economic opportunities in accessible and well serviced centres.

An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant chapters of Gosford Development Control Plan (GDCP) 2013 is provided in a Compliance Table under
Attachment 3. The proposed works are consistent with the relevant chapters of GDCP 2013.

Likely Impacts of the Development:

Built Environment

The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under GLEP 2014 and is surrounded by a mix of one (1), two (2) and three storey commercial and retail development of evolving contemporary design amongst original mid twentieth shop top housing. The site is on a prominent stretch of Terrigal Esplanade facing Terrigal Beach that is central to all the public activities of the village centre.

The proposals-built form is considered acceptable in the context of the site. The proposed works are consistent with the uses envisaged for the B2 local Centre zone, and if approved the building would offer both an improved standard of housing supply and commercial opportunities with urban design quality and amenity within the Terrigal Village Centre. While the design is not reflective of the original mid-twentieth century bungalows, it is consistent with the emerging and desired character of the locality as single shop top housing nearing the end of their economic life are being up-graded to development of contemporary design and use of materials.

It is noted that the proposal will not increase in density nor detract highly from the original scale and bulk present in the immediate vicinity and neighbourhood. Nor is not considered to have adverse amenity impacts to adjoining development from overshadowing, privacy, noise generating activities and views.

A comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the built environment has been undertaken in terms of the GDCP 2013 compliance. The potential impacts are considered reasonable.

Natural Environment

The proposal is satisfactory in relation to impacts on the natural environment as identified throughout this report. It is noted that the building envelope does not exceed the HOB, there is no exiting vegetation and/or tree to be removed to accommodate the proposed built form, and any existing view corridors will not be affected.

As such it is considered that there will be no significant impact upon the natural environment as a result of the proposal.

Economic Impacts

It is anticipated that he proposed development will provide further urban design quality and amenity for the Terrigal Town Centre where there is constant and strong need for upgraded commercial /retail tenancy floor space as well as apartment style residential accommodation.

The proposed development will continue to contribute to the supply of services and employment opportunities within the local area and introduce upgraded and quality residential housing to Terrigal Town Centre which is in close proximity to a wide variety of existing services, transport, hospitality and tourism activities.

Social Impacts

It is anticipated that proposed development will have beneficial social impacts in that it will provide constant small scale but active employment and services for the hospitality and tourism activities of Terrigal Beach and the town centre which is of regional importance.

Suitability of the Site for the Development

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development as follows:

· The site is zoned B2 Local Centre zoning under GLEP 2014. The proposal is a permissible use under the B2 Local Centre zone and the scale of the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone;

· There are no environmental hazards which would prevent development of the site;

· Utility services are available to the site; and

· The site is located on and near public transport facilities as well as public services, recreation and community facilities.

Any Submission made in Accordance with this Act or Regulations

The development application was notified between 26 July 2020 to 24 July 2020 in accordance with Gosford Development Control Plan (GDCP) 2013, Chapter 7.3 Notification of Development Proposals. No submissions received.

Submissions from Public Authorities

There have been no submissions from any Public Authorities.

Internal Consultation

The application has been referred to and reviewed by the following experts in council:

Development Engineer Officer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 2.7, 2.8 and 5.20.
Building Officer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 2.6, 2.9, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.16, and 6.24.
Food Surveillance Officer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 2.6, 2.10, 4.21, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 6.23.
Liquid Trade Officer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 2.4, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 and 6.22.
Solid Waste Officer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 4.20, 6.12, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20 and 6.21.
Water and Sewer		Supported subject to conditions 1.1, 2.4 and 2.5.

The Public Interest:

The public interest is best served by the orderly and economic use of land for which it is zoned. The proposed shop top housing development is permissible with consent and complies in general with the provisions of the relevant Council policies and controls. As such, the approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest as follows:

· The development would introduce and generate social and economic benefits for the community and urban space by providing a high-level amenity housing choice to the area and offer updated commercial tenancies that would enable local businesses to establish within the neighbourhood centre;

· The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the applicable environmental planning framework, including the GLEP 2014 and GDCP 2018; and

· The proposal does not result in any unreasonable environmental impacts and will not unreasonably impact the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles:

The proposal has been assessed having regard to ecologically sustainable development principles and is considered to be consistent with the principles.

The proposed development is considered to incorporate satisfactory stormwater, drainage and erosion control and introduces landscaping and POS as a roof top feature where possible and is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment and will not decrease environmental quality for future generations. The proposal does not result in the disturbance of any endangered flora or fauna habitats and is unlikely to significantly affect fluvial environments.

Climate Change

The potential impacts of climate change on the proposed development have been considered by Council as part of the assessment of the application.

This assessment has included consideration of such matters as potential rise in sea level; potential for more intense and/or frequent extreme weather conditions including storm events, bushfires, drought, flood and coastal erosion; as well as how the proposed development may cope, combat, withstand these potential impacts.

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to climate change.

Other Matters for Consideration:

Any Planning Agreement

There are no planning agreements applicable to the application.

Relevant Regulations

There are no specific matters under the Regulation that require further discussion.

Vehicle Access

The amended plans detail a single car space located between the building masonry walls which are aligned along the boundary of the site. It is noted that the proposed car space will comply with the AS 2890.1:2004 for car parking dimensions however the required additional 300mm offset to the walls cannot be accommodated to each side. The property width is basically 260mm to narrow to provide full compliance with AS 2890.1:2004.

To ensure egress from the car space is undertaken with safety the maneuvering into the car space from Hudson Lane should be in a reverse movement. This will ensure all egress vehicle movements are in a forward direction reducing potential conflicts with traffic movements with Hudson Lane and risks to pedestrian safety.

Council Development Engineer has assessed the application and is supportive subject to conditions.

Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was submitted with the application and found to be deficient and not accordance with the Development Application Guide and Chapter 7.2 – Waste Management of Gosford DCP 2013 for all site preparation, demolition, construction and use Ongoing Operation. Councils Waste Officer noted that the demolition and construction waste estimates appear underestimated and/or not provided. The applicant has reviewed and amended the WMP twice in line with the requirements of the Gosford Development Control Plan 2013. Council Waste Officer’s final review still noted some deficiencies but is supportive of the application subject to conditions. (Conditions 1.1, 4.20, 6.12, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20 and 6.21).

Section 94A Contributions

The site is located within section 7.11 development contribution plan 47A Terrigal. The applicable contribution amount was calculated and imposed as a standard condition of consent requiring the contribution to be paid prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

It is noted that the overall GFA of the proposal has increased by 44.11m2 and as such the above calculations reflect the difference between the proposed GFA of 178.2m2 minus existing GFA of 134.09m2. Refer to Development Contributions Calculations Sheets on CM D14736314 and D1476314.

As such and Pursuant to Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, pay to Council a total contribution amount of $3,463.00, that may require adjustment at the time of payment, in accordance with the relevant Council Contribution Plans No. 47A - Terrigal. (Condition 2.2)

Open Space -Embellishment	A	(Key No 804)	57.00
Footpaths - Capital	A	(Key No 805)	147.00
Town Centre / Foreshore Improvements	A	(Key No 835)	1,948.00
Stormwater & Flood Mitigation	A	(Key No 836)	1,311.00
TOTAL AMOUNT			$3,463.00

Water and Sewer Contributions

There are no water and sewer contributions applicable to the proposed development.

Conclusion:

This application has been assessed under the heads of consideration of section 4.15 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant instruments and policies and on balance, the proposed development is considered reasonable and therefore is recommended that the Local Planning Panel grant development consent approval to DA58543/2020 subject to conditions set out in Attachment 1.

Reasons for the Decision:

The reasons for the decision as recommended under the assessment of this application are as follows:

1 The proposal is satisfactory having regard for the relevant environmental planning instruments, plans and policies.

2 The proposal has been considered against the provisions of Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 and has been found to be satisfactory.

3 There are no significant issues or impacts identified with the proposal under s.4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Attachments

1 ⇩	Draft Conditions of Consent - 60 Terrigal Esplanade TERRIGAL		D14735942
2	Amended Architectural Drawings Rev F - 60 Terrigal Esp. TERRIGAL	Provided Under Separate Cover	D14633636
3 ⇩	GDCP 1 Table - 60 Terrigal Esplanade TERRIGAL		D14735943
4	Amended Statement of Enviromental Effects - 60 Terrigal Esplanade TERRIGAL	Provided Under Separate Cover	D14735940
5	Redacted Amended Architectural Drawings Rev F - 60 Terrigal Esp. TERRIGAL	Provided Under Separate Cover	D14739507

*4.2*	*DA/58543/2020 - Alterations & Additions to Shop Top Housing - 60 Terrigal Esplanade, Terrigal*
*Attachment 1*	*Draft Conditions of Consent - 60 Terrigal Esplanade TERRIGAL*

1. PARAMETERS OF THIS CONSENT

1.1. Approved Plans and Supporting Documents

Implement the development substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documents listed below as submitted by the applicant and to which is affixed a Council stamp "Development Consent" unless modified by any following condition.

Architectural Plans by Howard Leslie & Associates

Drawing	Description	Sheets	Issue	Date
DA-00	DRAWING LISTS & SYMBOLS	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-01	GENERAL NOTES 1	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-10	SITE ANALYSIS PLAN	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-11	SHADOW DIAGRAMS	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-12	LANDSCAPE PLAN	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-21	DEMOLTION PLANS	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-22	PLANS	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-30	BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-40	SCHEDULES	1	F	26/04/2021
DA-50	3D VIEWS	1	F	26/04/2021

Supporting Documentation

Title	Document No.	Prepared by	Date
Amended Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE)	D14735940	Wales & Associates Pty Ltd	8 July 2021
Basix Certificate	D14023875	Howard Leslie & Associates	18 February 2020
Amended Waste Management Plan	D14534525	Howard Leslie & Associates	18 June 2021

1.2. Carry out all building works in accordance with the National Construction Code Series, Building Code of Australia, Volume 1 and 2 as appropriate.

1.3. Comply with all commitments listed in the BASIX Certificate for the development as required under clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

2. PRIOR TO ISSUE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

2.1. All conditions under this section must be met prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

2.2. Pursuant to Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, pay to Council a total contribution amount of $3,463.00, that may require adjustment at the time of payment, in accordance with the relevant Council Contribution Plans No. 47A - Terrigal.

Open Space -Embellishment	A	(Key No 804)	57.00
Footpaths - Capital	A	(Key No 805)	147.00
Town Centre / Foreshore Improvements	A	(Key No 835)	1,948.00
Stormwater & Flood Mitigation	A	(Key No 836)	1,311.00
TOTAL AMOUNT			$3,463.00

The total amount must be indexed each quarter in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (All Groups Index) for Sydney issued by the Australian Statistician as outlined in the contributions plan.

Contact Council’s Contributions Planner on Tel 1300 463 954 for an up-to-date contribution payment amount.

Any Construction Certificate must not be issued until the developer has provided the Certifier with a copy of a receipt issued by Council that verifies that the contributions have been paid. A copy of this receipt must accompany the documents submitted by the Certifier to Council under Clause 104 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

A copy of the Contribution Plan may be inspected at the office of Central Coast Council, 49 Mann Street Gosford or on Council's website:

Development Contributions - former Gosford LGA

2.3. No activity is to be carried out on site until any Construction Certificate has been issued, other than:

a. Site investigation for the preparation of the construction, and / or

b. Implementation of environmental protection measures, such as erosion control etc that are required by this consent.

c. Demolition

2.4. Submit a trade waste application for approval to Council as the Water and Sewer Authority in order to discharge liquid trade waste into the sewerage system. This form can be found on Council’s website: www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au

2.5. Submit an application to Council under section 305 of the Water Management Act 2000 to obtain a section 307 Certificate of Compliance. The Application for a 307 Certificate under section 305 Water Management Act 2000 form can be found on Council's website www.centralcoast.nsw.gov. Early application is recommended.

A section 307 Certificate must be obtained prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate

2.6. Submit details to the Principal Certifier of any proposed mechanical ventilation systems. The design of the mechanical ventilation is to comply with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the National Construction Code Series, Building Code of Australia, Volume 1 and 2 as appropriate, Australian Standard AS 1668.1:2015 The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings – Fire and smoke control in buildings and Australian Standard 1668.2:2012 The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings – Mechanical ventilation in buildings (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points). These details are to be included in the Construction Certificate.

2.7. Flooding Design

Submit to the Accredited Building Certifier an engineering design including specifications for the installation of a Flood protection Barrier to be located within the property fronting Hudson Lane. The Flood Barrier shall be designed to protect the garage and internal floor level of the garage from flood water inundation during the 1 % AEP Flood Event. The top of the Flood Barrier shall extend to the Flood Planning Level of 3.8metres AHD. Note: The Flood Barrier shall be installed and certified by the designing engineer as being fully operational prior to the occupation of the development.

2.8. Driveway Design

The engineering design of the driveway, car parking space and garage floor by a practising Structural Engineer to accommodate the installation, operation and on-going maintenance of the designed Flood Protection Barrier.

2.9. The architectural details are to demonstrate access to and within the shop and access from the shop level to the sanitary facilities on level 1 to fully comply with Section D of the Building Code of Australia Volume 1 of the NCC (version in force at the making of an application for a construction certificate) and the Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010.

2.10. The existing commercial kitchen is to be upgraded to comply with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Australian Standard AS 4674-2004: Design, Construction and Fit-out of Food Premises and Clause G1.2 of the National Construction Code Series, Building Code of Australia, Volume 1 and 2 as appropriate. Details of compliance are to be included in the plans and specifications for the Construction Certificate.

3. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

3.1. All conditions under this section must be met prior to the commencement of any works.

3.2. Appoint a Principal Certifying Authority after the construction certificate for the building work has been issued.

a. The Principal Certifying Authority (if not Council) is to notify Council of their appointment and notify the person having the benefit of the development consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work no later than two (2) days before the building work commences.

b. Submit to Council a Notice of Commencement of Building Works form giving at least two (2) days notice of the intention to commence building or subdivision work. The forms can be found on Council’s website www.gosford.nsw.gov.au

3.3. Do not commence site works until the sediment control measures have been installed in accordance with the approved plans / Gosford DCP 2013 Chapter 6.3 - Erosion Sedimentation and Control.

3.4. Erect a sign in a prominent position on any work site on which building, subdivision or demolition work is being carried out. The sign must indicate:

a. The name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work; and

b. The name of the principal contractor and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside of working hours; and

c. That unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited;

d. Remove the sign when the work has been completed.

3.5. Submit both a Plumbing and Drainage Inspection Application, with the relevant fee, and a Plumbing and Drainage Notice of Work in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 (to be provided by licensed plumber). These documents can be found on Council’s website at: www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au

Contact Council prior to submitting these forms to confirm the relevant fees.

This condition only applies if installation / alteration of plumbing and / or drainage works proposed (excludes stormwater drainage). This condition does not apply to swimming pool plumbing that does not physically connect / break into the sewer system.

3.6. Provide and maintain a garbage receptacle at the work site until the works are completed. The garbage receptacle must have a tight-fitting lid and be suitable for food scraps and papers.

3.7 Install run-off and erosion controls to prevent soil erosion, water pollution or the discharge of loose sediment on the surrounding land by:

a. erecting a silt fence and providing any other necessary sediment control measures that will prevent debris escaping into drainage systems, waterways or adjoining properties, and

b. diverting uncontaminated run-off around cleared or disturbed areas, and

c. preventing the tracking of sediment by vehicles onto roads, and

d. stockpiling topsoil, excavated materials, construction and landscaping supplies and debris within the lot.

3.8. Notify the intention to commence works by giving written notice to the owner of the adjoining property affected by the proposed excavation and/or structural protective works. The required notice must be accompanied by details of the proposed work at least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of proposed excavation and/or structural protection works.

3.9. Submit a dilapidation report to Council, the Registered Certifier and relevant adjoining property owners. The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person detailing the structural characteristics of all buildings located on properties immediately adjoining the site boundaries and any council asset in the vicinity of the development. The report must document and provide photographs that clearly depict any existing damage to the improvements erected upon allotments immediately adjoining the development site and to the road, kerb, footpath, driveways, water supply and sewer infrastructure, street trees and street signs or any other Council asset in the vicinity of the development.

In the event that access to an adjoining property(s) for the purpose of undertaking the dilapidation report is denied, submit evidence in writing demonstrating that all steps were taken to obtain access to the adjoining property(s).

3.10. Prepare a Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan (CTPMP) for all activities related to works within the site. The plan must be prepared and implemented only by persons with Roads and Maritime Service accreditation for preparing and implementing traffic management plans at work sites.

The CTPMP must describe the proposed construction works, the traffic impacts on the local area and how these impacts will be addressed.

The CTPMP must address, but not be limited to, the following matters:

• Ingress and egress of construction related vehicles to the development site.

• Details of the various vehicle lengths that will be used during construction and the frequency of these movement.

• Use of swept path diagrams to demonstrate how heavy vehicles enter, circulate and exit the site or Works Zone in a forward direction.

• Deliveries to the site, including loading / unloading materials and requirements for work zones along the road frontage to the development site. A Plan is to be included that shows where vehicles stand to load and unload, where construction plant will stand, location of storage areas for equipment, materials and waste, locations of Work Zones (if required) and location of cranes (if required).

• Works Zones if heavy vehicles cannot enter or exit the site in a forward direction.

• Control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic where pre-construction routes are affected.

• Temporary Road Closures.

Where the plan identifies that the travel paths of pedestrians and vehicular traffic are proposed to be interrupted or diverted for any construction activity related to works inside the development site an application must be made to Council for a Road Occupancy Licence. Implementation of traffic management plans that address interruption or diversion of pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic must only take place following receipt of a Road Occupancy Licence from Council or the Roads and Maritime Service where on a classified road.

Where a dedicated delivery vehicle loading and unloading zone is required along the road frontage of the development site a Works Zone Application must be lodged and approved by Council. A minimum of 3 months is required to allow Traffic Committee endorsement and Council approval.

The Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan must be reviewed and updated during construction of the development to address any changing site conditions.

A copy of the Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan must be held on site at all times and be made available to Council upon request.

3.11. Ensure that all parties / trades working on the site are fully aware of their responsibilities with respect to tree protection conditions.

3.12. Disconnect, seal and make safe all existing site services prior to the commencement of any demolition on the site. Sewer and water services must be disconnected by a licensed plumber and drainer with a Start Work Docket submitted to Council's Plumbing and Drainage Inspector as the Water and Sewer Authority.

3.13. Erect a temporary hoarding or temporary construction site fence between the work site and adjoining lands before the works begin and must be kept in place until after the completion of the works, if the works:

a. could cause a danger, obstruction or inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or

b. could cause damage to adjoining lands by falling objects, or

c. involve the enclosure of a public place or part of a public place

Note 1: A structure on public land or on or over a public road requires the prior approval of the relevant authority under the Local Government Act 1993 or the Roads Act 1993, respectively.

Note 2: The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 contain provisions relating to scaffolds, hoardings and other temporary structures.

3.14. Undertake any demolition involving asbestos in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

The person having the benefit of this consent must ensure that the removal of:

a. more than 10m2 of non-friable asbestos or asbestos containing material is carried out by a licensed non-friable (Class B) or a friable (Class A) asbestos removalist, and

b. friable asbestos of any quantity is removed by a licensed removalist with a friable (Class A) asbestos removal licence

The licensed asbestos removalist must give notice to the regulator before work commences in accordance with Clause 466 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

3.15. Submit a Hoarding Application to Council for approval under the Roads Act where it is proposed to erect construction fencing, a hoarding, site sheds or utilise the road reserve for any construction activity related to the development works within the site.

Fees, in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges, will be invoiced to the applicant following lodgement of the application and will be required to be paid prior to Council releasing any approval.

3.16. Provide or make available toilet facilities at the work site before works begin and maintain the facilities until the works are completed at a ratio of one toilet plus one additional toilet for every twenty (20) persons employed at the site.

Each toilet must:

a. be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or

b. have an on-site effluent disposal system approved under the Local Government Act 1993, or

c. be a temporary chemical closet approved under the Local Government Act 1993

4. DURING WORKS

4.1. All conditions under this section must be met during works.

4.2. Carry out construction or demolition works during the construction phase of the development only between the hours as follows:

• 7.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Saturday

No construction or demolition works associated with the development are permitted to be carried out at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday.

4.3. During the construction phase of the development, if any Aboriginal object (including evidence of habitation or remains), is discovered during the course of the work:

a. All excavation or disturbance of the area must stop immediately in that area, and

b. The Office of Environment and Heritage must be advised of the discovery in accordance with section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Note: If an Aboriginal object is discovered, an Aboriginal heritage impact permit may be required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

4.4. Implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures at or above design capacity for the duration of the construction works and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment. The controls must comply with Gosford DCP 2013 Chapter 6.3 - Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

4.5. Keep a copy of the stamped approved plans on site for the duration of site works and make the plans available upon request to either the Principal Certifying Authority or an officer of Council.

4.6. Notify Council when plumbing and drainage work will be ready for inspection(s) and make the work accessible for inspection in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011.

This condition only applies if installation / alteration of plumbing and / or drainage works proposed (excludes stormwater drainage).

4.7. Place all building materials, plant and equipment on the site of the development during the construction phase of the development so as to ensure that pedestrian and vehicular access within adjoining public roads, footpaths and reserve areas, is not restricted and to prevent damage to public infrastructure. Further, no construction work is permitted to be carried out within the road reserve unless the works are associated with a separate approval issued under the provisions of the Roads Act 1993.

4.8. Submit a report prepared by a registered Surveyor to the Principal Certifier at each floor level of construction of the building (prior to the pouring of concrete) indicating that the finished floor level is in accordance with the approved plans. A compilation of these reports is to be provided to Council at completion of the Occupation Certificate.

4.9. Cease work immediately in that area if any relics are uncovered during excavation on-site. Contact the Heritage Office in accordance with section 146 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

Work must not recommence until any necessary Excavation Permit has been obtained from the Heritage Council under section 140 of the NSW Heritage Act, 1977.

4.10. Demolish all buildings and / or building components in a safe and systematic manner in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-2001: The demolition of structures. Waste materials must be disposed of at a waste management facility.4.11 Undertake the removal of trees as shown on the approved Tree Retention Plan by Urbis 9/2/21 in a manner so as to prevent damage to those trees that are to be retained.

4.12. Implement erosion and sediment control measures and undertake works in accordance with the ‘Blue Book’ (Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, Landcom, 2004).

4.13. Implement dust suppression measures on-site during bulk earthworks to suppress dust generated by vehicles and equipment. Dust must also be suppressed at all other stages of construction in order to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

4.14. Cease all excavation works if acid sulfate soils are identified until such time as details of mitigation and treatment measures are submitted to, and approved by, the Principal Certifier.

4.15. Arrange with the relevant service provider / Authority (eg. Ausgrid, Jemena, NBN or other communications provider) for the supply of services concurrently with the engineering works required by this consent. Arrangements must include, where required, any relocation of existing mains and services, and dedication of easements for mains and services.

4.16. Collect stormwater in appropriate tanks or pits and direct overflows to Council’s stormwater system.

4.17. Submit to Council a Clearance Certificate issued by a suitably qualified independent Occupational Hygienist or Licensed Asbestos Assessor certifying that the site has been made free of asbestos material following completion of demolition works.

4.18. Immediately notify the Council of any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination and remediation.

4.19. Implement dust suppression measures on-site during bulk earthworks to suppress dust generated by vehicles and equipment. Dust must also be suppressed at all other stages of construction in order to comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

4.20. Reuse, recycle or dispose of all waste building materials capable of reuse or recycling during the demolition and construction phase to a suitable, licensed facility as broadly indicated in the Waste Management Plan dated 18 June 2021 signed by D. Rowe

4.21. A floor waste drain is to be provided outside the new cool room door.

4.22. Classify all excavated material removed from the site in accordance with NSW EPA (November 2014) Waste Classification Guidelines and/or the Resource Recovery Orders under Part 9, Clause 93 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014.

4.23. Removal of greater than 10m2 of non-friable asbestos and the removal of all friable asbestos must be undertaken by a licensed asbestos removal and in compliance with the NSW Government Workcover How to Safely Remove Asbestos Code of Practice 2019.

2.24. Install run-off and erosion controls to prevent soil erosion, water pollution or the discharge of loose sediment on the surrounding land by:

(a) diverting uncontaminated run-off around cleared or disturbed areas, and

(b) erecting a silt fence and providing any other necessary sediment control measures that will prevent debris escaping into drainage systems, waterways or adjoining properties, and

(d) stockpiling top-soil, excavated materials, construction and landscaping supplies and debris within the lot.

2.25. Maintain all erosion and sediment control measures within their operating capacity until the completion of the works and stabilisation of the site, to prevent debris escaping from the site into drainage systems, waterways, adjoining properties and roads.

5. PRIOR TO ISSUE OF ANY OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

5.1. All conditions under this section must be met prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

5.2. Submit a Certificate of Compliance for all plumbing and drainage work and a Sewer Service Diagram showing sanitary drainage work (to be provided by licensed plumber) in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011.

This condition only applies if installation / alteration of plumbing and / or drainage works proposed (excludes stormwater drainage).

5.3. Prior to the occupation or use of the building/structure, an application for an Occupation Certificate for the development must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifier. The Occupation Certificate application is to satisfy all of the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

5.4. Complete landscaping works in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

5.5. Revegetate and stabilise all areas disturbed by construction activities associated with the development so as to prevent erosion and dust nuisance occurring.

5.6. Provide the Principal Certifier with written certification from a qualified landscape designer certifying that landscaping has been implemented in accordance with the approved landscape plan as amended by any conditions of this consent.

5.7. Install lighting to car parking and back of house area in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 1158: Lighting for roads and public spaces and Australian Standard 2890.1.

5.8. Complete the building in accordance with the relevant provisions and requirements of the National Construction Code Series.

5.9. Implement the following Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and strategies to minimise the opportunity for crime:

a. provide adequate lighting to common areas as required under Australian Standard AS 1158: Lighting for roads and public spaces

b. paint the ceiling of the car park white

c. design of landscaping, adjacent to mailboxes and footpaths, must not provide concealment opportunities for criminal activity

d. design the development to avoid foot holes or natural ladders so as to minimise unlawful access to the premises

e. provide signage within the development to identify all facilities, entry / exit pointsand direct movement within the development

f. install a system of Closed Circuit Television of a type and in locations on the site that will record high-quality images of all public areas within the site.

5.10. Provide fold-away clothes lines for clothes drying purposes that must not extend above courtyard fencing.

5.11. Complete the building in accordance with the relevant provisions and requirements of the National Construction Code Series.

5.12. Repair any damage to Council’s infrastructure and road reserve as agreed with Council. Damage not shown in the dilapidation report submitted to Council before the development works had commenced will be assumed to have been caused by the development works unless the Developer can prove otherwise.

5.13. Install floor waste bucket traps in food preparation and handling areas.

5.14. Install in-sink strainers within the kitchen sink waste outlet(s).

5.15. Install an approved commercial grease arrestor in association with the food premises, suitably sized for influent flow rates (minimum capacity 1000 litres).

5.16. Provide certification to the Principal Certifier to confirm the final fit-out of the premises complies with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Australian Standard AS 4674-2004: Design, Construction and Fit-out of Food Premises and Clause G1.2 of the National Construction Code Series, Building Code of Australia, Volume 1 and 2 as appropriate.

5.17. No food handling, as defined by the NSW Food Act 2003, is permitted in the food premises prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

5.18. Provide certification from a mechanical engineer to the Principal Certifier that the construction, installation and operation of the exhaust hood ventilation system meet the requirements of:

• Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 1-2015: The use of ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings - Fire and smoke control in buildings

• Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 2-2012: The use of ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings - Mechanical ventilation in buildings

5.19. Structural Engineers Certification of the Flood Protection Barrier by the designing engineer as being fully operational prior to the occupation of the development.

5.20. The preparation of a Management Plan for the Flood Protection Barrier to ensure the on-going future operation and routine maintenance of the designed Flood Protection Barrier.

6. ONGOING OPERATION

6.1. Ensure the garbage / recycling bins do not encroach on the car parking or vehicle manoeuvring areas.

6.2. Maintain the site landscaping for the life of the development.

6.3. Operate and maintain all external lighting so as not to impact on any adjoining property.

6.4. Maintain all security fencing for the life of the development in the approved location.

6.5. Restrict the hours of operation of the retail use to those times listed below:

• Weekdays 06:00am to 04:00pm

• Saturdays 06:00am to 04:00pm

• Sundays and Public Holidays 06:00am to 04:00pm

Any variation to these hours is subject to the prior consent of Council.

6.6. Do not store materials, waste matter or products outside the building or the approved storage area at any time.

6.7. Operate and maintain all external lighting so as not to impact on any adjoining property.

6.8. Maintain the external finishes of the building(s), structures, walls and fences for the life of the development and remove any graffiti within seven (7) days.

6.9. Do not give to offensive noise as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

6.10. Do not give rise to offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

6.11. Ensure all egress vehicle movements from the site are in a forward direction onto Hudson Lane.

6.12. Store all waste generated on the premises in a manner so that it does not pollute the environment.

6.13. Service Waste Management in accordance with Gosford Development Control Plan 2013, Part 7: Chapter 7.2 - Waste Management, Appendix H.

6.14. Transport all waste generated on the premises to a facility which is licensed to receive that material.

6.15. No obstructions to the wheel out of the waste bins are permitted including grills, speed humps, barrier kerbs, etc.

6.16. Comply with all commitments as detailed in the Waste Management Plan signed by David Rowe, dated 18 June 2021.

6.17. Locate the approved waste storage enclosure / area as indicated on Project / Drawing Number 18651-DA10, Revision F, dated 26 April 2021, prepared by Howard Leslie & Associates.

6.18. Do not place or store waste material, waste product or waste packaging outside the approved waste storage enclosure.

6.19. Place the residential mobile garbage/recycling/green waste containers at a suitable location at the kerbside in Hudson Lane no earlier than the evening prior to collection day and return to the approved, screened storage location as soon as possible after service, no later than the evening on collection day. The waste containers are not to encroach beyond side boundaries. The residents, caretaker, owner etc are responsible for placement and return of the mobile waste containers.

6.20. Mixed and recyclables Commercial waste containers to be wheeled out on the arrival of the commercial waste contractor and immediately returned to the approved, screened commercial waste storage enclosure after servicing. Commercial waste servicing to be undertaken at such times to minimise disruption to other vehicles/pedestrians etc within Hudson Lane.

6.21. Residential and Commercial mixed and recyclables waste containers to be stored within the approved, screened waste storage enclosures at all times.

6.22. Lodge a new Liquid Trade Waste application when there is a change of ownership / occupancy or change to the activities licenced under this approval. As part of this process, Council will re-assess the Liquid Trade Waste requirements for the site and update the Liquid Trade Waste approval document as appropriate. This form can be found on Council’s website: www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au

6.23. This approval does not extend to include any alterations or additions to those buildings upon the adjoining properties. Any proposals for the adjoining properties are to be subject of separate development applications submitted to Council. (FO001)(FO002).

6.24. Insulate and / or isolate the motor, filter, pump and all sound producing equipment so as not to create an offensive noise to the occupants of the adjoining premises as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

6.25. Do not let, adapt or use the dwelling for separate occupation in two or more parts.

7. PENALTIES

Failure to comply with this development consent and any condition of this consent may be a criminal offence. Failure to comply with other environmental laws may also be a criminal offence.

Where there is any breach Council may without any further warning:

· Issue Penalty Infringement Notices (On-the-spot fines);

· Issue notices and orders;

· Prosecute any person breaching this consent, and/or

· Seek injunctions/orders before the courts to retain and remedy any breach.

Warnings as to Potential Maximum Penalties

Maximum Penalties under NSW Environmental Laws include fines up to $1.1 Million and/or custodial sentences for serious offences.

ADVISORY NOTES

• It is an offence under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to disturb an Aboriginal artefact without a Permit.

• Discharge of sediment from a site may be determined to be a pollution event under provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Enforcement action may commence where sediment movement produces a pollution event.

• The following public authorities who may have separate requirements in the following aspects:

a. Australia Post for the positioning and dimensions of mailboxes in new commercial and residential developments;

b. Jemena Asset Management for any change or alteration to the gas line infrastructure;

c. Ausgrid for any change or alteration to electricity infrastructure or encroachment within transmission line easements;

d. Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their telecommunications infrastructure.

e. Central Coast Council in respect to the location of water, sewerage and drainage services.

• The Carry out all work under this Consent in accordance with SafeWork NSW requirements including the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10 and subordinate regulations, codes of practice and guidelines that control and regulate the development industry.

• Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth)

Telstra (and its authorised contractors) are the only companies that are permitted to conduct works on Telstra's network and assets. Any person interfering with a facility or installation owned by Telstra is committing an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and is liable for prosecution. Furthermore, damage to Telstra's infrastructure may result in interruption to the provision of essential services and significant costs. If you are aware of any works or proposed works which may affect or impact on Telstra's assets in any way, you are required to contact: Telstra's Network Integrity Team on phone number 1800 810 443.

• Install and maintain backflow prevention device(s) in accordance with Council’s WS4.0 Backflow Prevention Containment Policy. This policy can be found on Council's website: www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au

• Dial Before You Dig

Underground assets may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial Before You Dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures. (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial Before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual's responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial Before You Dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

• The operation of all mechanical plant equipment and machinery must not give rise to offensive noise as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997.

Item No: 1.1
Title: Disclosures of Interest
Department: Governance
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Item No: 2.1
Title: Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Department: Corporate Affairs
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

1 ⇩	MINUTES - Local Planning Panel - 24 June 2021		D14695334
2 ⇩	MINUTES - Local Planning Panel - Supplementary Meeting - 28 June 2021		D14714326

*2.1*	*Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting*
*Attachment 1*	*MINUTES - Local Planning Panel - 24 June 2021*

Chairperson	Donna Rygate
Panel Experts	Grant Christmas Linda McClure
Community Representative/s	David Kitson

*2.1*	*Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting*
*Attachment 2*	*MINUTES - Local Planning Panel - Supplementary Meeting - 28 June 2021*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 1*	*Architectural Plans 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 3*	*Engineering Plan & Carpark & Pathway Plan 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 4*	*Access Report 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 5*	*Geotechnical Report 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 6*	*Visual Impact Assessment 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.1*	*DA/60262/2020 - 2 Scenic Highway, Terrigal - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Mast at the Terrigal Haven on to a plinth footing with landscaping and provision for a flagpole*
*Attachment 7*	*Independent Review 2 Scenic Highway TERRIGAL DA60262 Part 1*

*3.2*	*Section 8.2 Review of Determination - DA/57698/2019 - Staged Caravan Park (165 sites) at 255, 255A, 255B Avoca Drive, Kincumber and 19 Picketts Valley Road, Picketts Valley*
*Attachment 1*	*Reasons for Refusal*

Item No: 4.1
Title: DA/58327/2020/2 - 15 Lynnette Crescent, East Gosford - Alterations & Additions to the Existing Dwelling, Carport, Cabana, Inground Swimming Pool & Retaining Structures
Department: Environment and Planning
22 July 2021 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Proposed Development Subject of the Sec 4.55 application	Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, carport, cabana, inground swimming pool and retaining structures. a. Garage extended 1 m further forward b. Retaining wall in middle of rear yard has been removed with the cut and fill modified by lowering pool area level by 70 mm and increasing grassed area fill 880mm. The retaining wall on the boundary remains and identified as max 600mm. c. Deletion of skylight d. Reduction in some window sizes e. Errors in description and wording of consent f. Laundry window added g. Minor internal layout changes h. Changes to driveway width (not supported)
Permissibility and Zoning	The subject site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Gosford LEP 2014). The proposed development is defined as a ‘dwelling house’ which is defined under the Gosford LEP 2014 as; *‘dwelling house’* means – a building containing only one dwelling. The use is permissible with consent of Council within the zone.
Relevant Legislation	The following planning policies and control documents are relevant to the development and were considered as part of the assessment. · Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - section 4.15 (EP&A Act) · Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 (GLEP 2014) · Draft Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2018 (Draft CCLEP 2018) · Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 Chapter 2.1 Character · Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 Chapter 3.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development (Gosford DCP 2013) · Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 Chapter 7.1 Carparking (Gosford DCP 2013)
Current Use	Dwelling house
Integrated Development	No
Submissions	The development application was notified in accordance with the provisions of the Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 Chapter 7.3 - Notification of Development Proposals from 24 February 2021 until 17 March 2021. No submission was received.

Clause	Clause 3.1.3.1a
Standard	The proposed Garage is required to be located a minimum of 1.0m behind the average primary road setback displayed by the nearest two dwelling houses located within 40m of the site.
LEP/DCP	Chapter 3.1 “Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development”
Departure basis	The development seeks a reduced primary road setback of 4.5 m for the proposed garage in lieu of the required average primary road setback of approximately 9.2m (being 1.0 m behind the required average setback of 8.2m). This represents a variation of 4.6 m or 51%.

Class of land	Works
5	Works within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5m Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1m Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land.

1 ⇩	Draft Conditions of Consent		D14692118
2	Development Plans	Provided Under Separate Cover	D14496870
3 ⇩	Redacted Development Plans		D14740880

*4.1*	*DA/58327/2020/2 - 15 Lynnette Crescent, East Gosford - Alterations & Additions to the Existing Dwelling, Carport, Cabana, Inground Swimming Pool & Retaining Structures*
*Attachment 1*	*Draft Conditions of Consent*

~~Drawing~~	~~Description~~	~~Sheets~~	~~Issue~~	~~Date~~
~~19054~~	~~Cover Sheet~~	00	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Site and Site Analysis~~	1	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Existing Floor Plan~~	2	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Proposed Ground Floor Plan~~	3	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Proposed First Floor Plan~~	4	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Roof Plan~~	5	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Window Schedule~~	6	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Elevation Plan~~	7	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Elevation and Section Plan~~	8	1	~~06/05/2020~~
~~19054~~	~~Notes~~	9	1	~~06/05/2020~~

Drawing	Description	Sheets	Issue	Date
19054	Cover Sheet	01	02	23/11/2020
19054	Site and Site Analysis Plan	02	02	23/11/2020
19054	Existing Floor Plan	03	02	23/11/2020
19054	Proposed Ground Floor Plan	04	02	23/11/2020
19054	Proposed First Floor Plan	05	02	23/11/2020
19054	Roof Plan	06	02	23/11/2020
19054	Window Schedule	07	02	23/11/2020
19054	Elevation Plan	08	02	23/11/2020
19054	Elevation and Section Plan	09	02	23/11/2020
19054	Notes	10	02	23/11/2020

Development Control	Required	Proposed	Compliance
4.3.4 Desired Character and Scenic Quality	The desired character of Terrigal Village Centre	The subject site is within the Terrigal Village Centre, wherein the specific zoning recommendations and desired character for the area are quoted and captured in part as follows: · Establish contemporary urban design-based controls and guidelines for mixed-use development - Having regard for the scenic quality and environmental capability of the Terrigal Village Centre; and - Addressing the character and amenity that are displayed by the surrounding neighbourhoods. · Define fundamental features of the desired design character and design quality for both public places and buildings; · Recognise the importance of relationships between land use, the levels of pedestrian and business activity, the size and the design of buildings; · Encourage modestly-scaled buildings that would not dominate the scenic qualities of a foreshore setting; and · Promote architectural identity for this village centre that is regionally-distinctive or high levels of residential amenity in surrounding residential areas as well as within the Terrigal Village Centre, and The proposed development is consistent with the desired character of Terrigal Village Centre for the following reasons: · The proposed development continues to promote efficient land use by encouraging mixed use redevelopment of a higher architectural design quality that will benefit local residents as well as visitors to the area and Gosford City; · The overall bulk and scale (which is below the maximum HOB requirements) of the building ensures that the alterations and additions neither dominate the coastal setting nor intrude unreasonably onto the coastal foreshore setting and ocean views available from surrounding residential hillsides and immediate adjoining neighbouring properties.	Yes
4.3.5 Street Frontage	Near Continuous shopfronts and incorporate best-practice architectural design for narrow frontages to accommodate efficient use between amenity /services /access /parking etc.	· The proposed development will continue to contribute and encourage intensive pedestrian activity along Terrigal Esplanade and to some extent on Hudson Lane. It will also provide higher amenity and quality housing stock with a clear formalised and protected residential entry from the laneway in a well serviced neighbourhood area. The site is in situated in and within walking distance to all Terrigal Village amenities and attractions, commercial, financial, tourism and hospitality, modern residential, local transport, galleries and parklands/reserves and beaches of regional importance. It is noted that the subject site is located within key public open spaces, with direct view lines or vistas of Terrigal beach foreshore. · In regard to best-practice architectural design the proposal incorporates various elements privy to wider frontages sites with bonus space such as, ramp access, lift lobbies and stairs, concealed parking facilities and building services shaft /waste cupboards etc. As such and given the inherent site width restrictions, it is considered that the building form responds naturally to the desired continuous shop front as a building “base” with a solid first storey above facing the main street. To Hudson lane the building form responds with a combination horizontal layering of setbacks and use of materials emphasising in discreet form the upper level balconies of both the added retail staff amenities and residential unit.	Yes
4.3.6 Height Form + Scale of building	LEP Height Control Clause 4.3A Site Frontage: Less than 20m Site Area: Less than 2000m2 Max. Height in Storeys: 3 Max. External Wall height: 10m Max. Street Storeys/ Lane Wall Height: 2 / 8.75m	Max. Height in Storeys: 3 Max. External Wall height: 11.14m (Variation 1.14m or 11.4%) Max. Street Storeys/ Lane Wall Height: 2 / 8.73m · Overall, given the site proportions and half level split contours to the rear of the site, it is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the height form and scale of building objectives for shop top housing developments in Terrigal Village Centre. Although the building façade from Hudson Lane could read as a 4 storey building (because of site contours and use of split level floors), given the setback distances and position of the roof top level towards the centre of the site it is anticipated this is a design volume that will not be visible at street eye level. Refer to 3D renderings. · The proposed development building bulk and scale is modest and provides a building form and building height which formalises and enhances the surrounding space and site boundaries with a solid edge in line with current development trends characteristic to Hudson Lane. The building form is articulated to create a stepped /terraced architectural volume reminiscent of an “urban village” style of development with modern use of materials. · The planimetric residential floor plan design responds to the Australian Coastal style way of living by promoting varied types and use of open space living areas including an outdoor entertainment on the third level to Terrigal Esplanade. The retail/shop component incorporates a new awning in line with the specified Terrigal Foreshore improvement amenities at street level and remains as the primary retail frontage as a publicly accessible area.	Yes No, however variations supported Yes/Yes Yes
4.3.7 Setbacks Sitting + Scale of Building	Street Setbacks: None Hudson Lane Setback: 3m	Street Setbacks: None Hudson Lane Setback: 3m It is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives for shop top housing developments for the following reasons: · Provides an improved amenity and urban design quality to both street and lane frontages by providing an appropriate interface with building components and use versus pedestrian activity and access. · Maintains and encourages mixed use variety of retail shops with improved housing choice in line with current local market demand. · Complements the desired character of the neighbouring area and does not impact on the natural scenic qualities.	Yes
4.3.10 Residential Amenity	Minimum Floor to Floor Dimensions: 2.7m	The proposal’s ceiling heights for habitable rooms have a minimum of 2.7m.	Yes
	Views	Given the inherent site proportions and building sitting and form, it is anticipated the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on views.	Yes
	Private Open Space	The residential units floor plans indicate that the first floor has a balcony (6.8m2) to the main bedroom facing Hudson Lane and a top roof terrace with pergola (20m2) on the second level facing Terrigal beach.	Yes
	Outlook + Daylight	The floor plans indicate that the level of the building have expansive windows and bifold doors to provide an attractive outlook towards Hudson Lane and Terrigal Esplanade activities and natural backdrops located beyond the site. Additionally, the architectural roof design has incorporated a skylight in a way to contribute additional sun light access to the middle section of the building.	Yes
4.3.11Natural Hazards + Environmental Planning	Flood prone properties	The subject site is located within an area subject to flooding at the rear on Hudson Lane. As such the proposed building design has incorporated a car space and bin storage area floor level graded at 5% above Hudson Lane pavement level. Additionally, Council’s development engineers have recommended that a Flood Protection Barrier form part of the garage shutter to ensure flood protection to the parked vehicle and reduce safety risks to future occupants. Council Engineers are supportive of the application subject to conditions of consent.	Yes
4.3.11Natural Hazards + Environmental Planning	Energy Efficiency	The proposal is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate which confirms the proposal will meet the NSW government's requirements for sustainability, if built in accordance with the commitments in the certificate. Notwithstanding, the proposals windows and bi-fold doors facing north are well set in with an awning or pergola in-front as the case may be.	Yes
	Stormwater Management	The proposal will continue to use exiting infrastructure where all roof water and surface runoff is collected by gutters, pipelines and pits and discharged to Council’s reticulated stormwater system located on Hudson Lane.	Yes
7.1 Car Parking	Shop top Housing: 1 car space per dwelling	The proposal provides one (1) on-site parking space, however it is noted that the proposal does not result in an overall increase in required parking spaces from the existing situation and is acceptable.	Yes