Agenda of Local Planning Panel Meeting - Thursday, 17 October 2024

Item No: 3.1
Title: DA/2106/2023 - 120A Ocean Parade Blue Bay - Alterations & Additions to Existing Dwelling and Plunge Pool
Department: Environment and Planning
17 October 2024 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: DA/2106/2023 - D16281623

Author: Gary Evans, Principal Health and Building Surveyor

Section Manager: Wayne Herd, Section Manager Building Assessment and Certification

Unit Manager: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager. Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and pool at 120A Ocean Parade Blue Bay. The application has been examined having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in the report.

This development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel due to

the number of submissions received exceeding ten (10) submissions. A total of 16 submissions were received across 2 notification periods.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Applicant Mr Paul Salter

Owner Ms RL Salter

Application No 2106/2023

Description of Land Lot 2 DP734643 – 120A Ocean Parade Blue Bay

Proposed Development Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling & Plunge Pool

Site Area 644m2

Zoning R1 General Residential

Existing Use Residential

Employment Generation N/A

Estimated Value $787,761.55

Recommendation

1 That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA/2106/2023 – 120A Ocean Parade Blue Bay – Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling and Pool 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.

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

Key Issues

· The application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel for determination as in excess of ten (10) submissions have been received in relation to the development proposal.

· The development proposes variations to the rear and side boundary setback provisions as contained within Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (Chapter 2.1 “Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Structures), to permit the development.

· The application also proposes variation to the rear (coastal) setback as required by Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Northern area), to permit the development.

Precis:

Proposed Development

Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling and Plunge Pool

Permissibility and Zoning

The subject site is zoned R1 - General Residential

under the provisions of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022).

The land contains an existing ‘dwelling house’ which is

defined under the Central Coast LEP 2022 as;

‘dwelling house’ means – a building containing only one

dwelling.

The proposed development is best defined as alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and plunge pool and is permissible with consent in the current zone.

Current Use

Dwelling House

Integrated Development

Submissions

The development application was notified (in accordance

with the provisions of the Central Coast Development

Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP 2022)) on two separate occasions as follows:

• Originally proposed development - from 10 November 2023 until 24 November 2023.

During the first notification period, a total of seven (7) submissions were received in relation to the development proposal. Further, at the request of objectors, the date for the receipt of submissions was extended for a further seven (7) day period till 1 December 2023.

• Amended development proposal – from 1 March 2024 until 15 March 2024.

During the second notification period, a total of nine (9)

submissions were received in relation to the amended development proposal.

Variations to Policies

The development proposal seeks variations to Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (Chapter 2.1. Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Structures) as follows.

Variation 1

Clause	2.1.3.1(c)(i)
Standard	The required Side boundary setback for lots greater than 12.5 metres at the building line is required to be a minimum 0.9 metres for any part of the building up to 4.5 metres height.
Departure basis	The proposal seeks a zero-side boundary setback in relation to the proposed northern access stairs from the mid-level balcony. This represents a 100% variation.

Variation 2

Clause

2.1.3.1(e)

Standard

The required rear boundary setback for dwellings, secondary dwellings, and ancillary development to land zoned public recreation which adjoins a waterway is to be:

· 6.0 metres for the ground storey; and

· 10.0 metres for any storey above the ground storey.

Departure basis

The proposal reduced setbacks to the rear land zoned public recreation which adjoins a waterway as follows:

· Minimum 2.471 metres to the swimming pool edge within the lower level; and

· Minimum 2.471 metres to the upper-level balcony and roof covering.

These reduced setbacks represent variations as follows: -

· Maximum 3.529 metres or 59% to the lower storey;

· Maximum 7.529 metres or 75% to the upper-level balcony and roof covering.

The development proposal seeks variation Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Northern Area)

Clause	3.2.2.2.1(a)
Standard	Generally, no new freestanding or other development will be considered seaward of the existing dwelling within the Immediate Risk Coastal Planning Zone (red line).
Departure basis	The proposal seeks the erection of dwelling additions and a plunge pool forward of the existing dwelling which are wholly forward of the Immediate (red) 2011 adopted coastal hazard line. This effectively represents a 100% variation.

The Site

The site (Figures 1-6) is a single lot identified as Lot 2 DP 734643 (120A Ocean Pde Blue Bay). The site is a battle-axe shaped allotment located on the eastern side of Ocean Parade with the site having direct waterfront access to the ocean foreshore to the rear of the allotment. The site displays minimal slope within the battle-axe handle within which the site access driveway is located. The site then slopes sharply across the existing building envelope before levelling in the area where the rear additions and plunge pool are proposed.

The site has a total area of 644m2 and contains an older multi-level dwelling with some areas of the existing dwelling located with minimal setback to the site boundaries. The site also has a history of use as a medical facility (consulting rooms).

Figure 1: Detailing the aerial view of the locality with the site etched in blue.

Figure 2: Deposited Plan extract detailing Lot 2.

Figure 3: Detailing the Site Entry as viewed from Ocean Parade noting the adjoining residential flat buildings.

Figure 4: Detailing the existing dwelling as viewed from the sites battle-axe handle.

Figure 5: Detailing the existing dwelling as viewed from the rear foreshore area.

Figure 6: Detailing the area of the site where additions are proposed looking south.

Surrounding Development

The subject site is surrounded by residential lots also retaining an R1 General Residential zoning, containing a mixture of older style single storey cottages interspersed with newer substantial ocean facing dwellings and higher density residential flat buildings of predominantly three to four storey construction.

The Proposed Development

The development application seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and a plunge pool as depicted within Figures 7-11 below.

Figure 7: Detailing the proposed site plan.

Figure 8: Detailing the proposed northern elevation.

Figure 9: Detailing the proposed southern elevation.

Figure 10: Detailing the proposed eastern elevation.

Figure 11: Detailing the proposed western elevation.

History

· DA/487/1999 – Storeroom Addition/Alteration – Approved under Delegation 13 May 1999.

Further to the above development approval, there appears to be some historic use of the site as a medical facility (consulting rooms). No evidence of a formal approval for this use can be found within historic records.

Figure 12: Detailing the approved development plan relating to the above approval, noting the reduced boundary setbacks for the approved storeroom addition.

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.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (Demolition)

With regard to demolition of works as part of a Development Application, clause 61 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 provides additional matters that the

consent authority must consider:

(1) In determining a development application for the demolition of a building, the consent authority must consider the Australian Standard AS 2601—2001: The Demolition of Structures.

Comment: The works will be covered by the Australian Standard As 2601-2001 and is

conditioned for compliance as per draft condition 5.7.

A waste management plan has been submitted and accepted. Council is satisfied the

necessary demolition works required to facilitate dwelling alterations and additions and the plunge pool construction will occur in accordance with AS2601-2001.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

The relevant provisions of the SEPP are addressed as follows:

Chapter 2 Coastal Management

The aims of Chapter 2 are to be considered when determining an application within the

Coastal Management Areas. The Coastal Management Areas are defined on maps issued by

the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

The site is located within the Coastal Environment Area as identified on these maps and

subject to the provisions of Section 2.10 of the SEPP.

The development is not likely to have an adverse impact on the matters referred to in clause 2.10. The development is not considered likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the site or other land and the site is not subject to the coastal management program for the purposes of Division.5. A summary of considerations is included below.

Section 2.10 - Development on land within the coastal environment area

In accordance with clause 2.10(1) development consent must not be granted unless the

consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an

adverse impact (see table on following page for considerations).

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment	The proposal is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological, or ecological environment.
(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes	The proposal will not impact on the geological and geomorphological 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	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate and does not drain to a sensitive lake contained in Schedule 1.
(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on native vegetation or fauna, 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,	The proposal has frontage to a foreshore. The development will not impede safe access to the foreshore area for members of the public including persons with a disability.
(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places	There are no identified aboriginal cultural heritage items on the site.
(g) the use of the surf zone.	The proposal is not considered to impact upon any beach/surf zone.

There have been no adverse impacts identified in the consideration of Section 2.10(1) that would engage the further considerations under Section 2.10(2).

Chapter 4 – Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP (Resilience & Hazards), Chapter 4 (Remediation of Land) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Section 4.6 of the SEPP requires consent authorities to consider whether the land is contaminated, and if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its

contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the

development is proposed to be carried out.

A review of the land use history, aerial photographs and an inspection of the site has not

revealed any evidence of potentially contaminating land uses being carried out on the site.

The development and the land is not otherwise mentioned in Subsection 4.6(4) and accordingly the provisions of Subsection 4.6(2) are not engaged by the proposal and consent may be granted.

The proposal is considered consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the SEPP. The Panel can be satisfied that proposed development under DA/2106/2023 complies with the provisions of Chapter 2 Coastal Management and Chapter 4 Remediation of Land of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022) – Permissibility

The subject site is zoned R1 General Residential under the provisions of CCLEP 2022.

The proposed development is best defined as a ‘dwelling house’ which is defined under CCLEP 2022 as:

‘dwelling house’ means – a building containing only one dwelling.

The proposed development, inclusive of the proposed ancillary plunge pool, is permissible in the zone, with development consent.

Figure 13: Detailing the area zone map with the site etched in blue.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022) - Objectives of Zone

The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· To promote best practice in the design of multi dwelling housing and other similar types of development.

· To ensure that non-residential uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place unreasonable demands on services.

Following a detailed assessment of the development proposal it is considered that the

proposal is consistent with the stated objectives of the zone, providing housing consistent with the emerging character of the area, with the proposal not having adverse impacts on the

locality.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022) - Principal Development

Standards

It is to be noted that the site is mapped for both building height and Floor Space Ratio

under the provisions of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022.

Building Height

The site is subject to a maximum 9.5 metre height limit with the existing dwelling on the site being below the mapped building height limit. Further, all proposed additions are located well below the mapped 9.5 metre building height limit.

Floor Space Ratio

The site is subject to a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.6:1. In this regard, the proposal seeks a maximum FSR of 0.54:1 noting that the sites battle-axe handle is not excluded from site area. Accordingly, the proposal is compliant with the sites mapped FSR limit.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 – Clause 7.6 Essential Services

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that all of the following services that are essential for the development are available,

or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

a) the supply of water

b) the supply of electricity

c) the disposal and management of sewage

d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

e) suitable vehicular access

f) the collection and management of waste

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of

clause 7.6 and adequate servicing arrangements have been made for the proposed development.

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

Chapter 2.1 – Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development

Development Standard		Description	Required		Proposed		Compliance with Control		Compliance with Objective
2.1.2.1		Building Height	Maximum 9.5 metres by virtue of LEP mapping		8.6 metres (existing to be maintained)		Yes		Yes
2.1.2.1(c)		Building Height	2 storeys/3 storey maximum where site is steeply sloping		3 Storeys (existing to be maintained		Yes		Yes
2.1.2.2		Site Coverage	450m2 – 900m2 0.5:1		<0.5:1		Yes		Yes
2.1.2.3		Floor space ratio	Maximum 0.6:1		<0.6:1		Yes		Yes
2.1.3.1 SETBACKS
2.1.3.1(c)		Side setback greater than 12.5m	Minimum 0.9 metres up to 4.5 metres height		Minimum 917mm		Yes for southern addition No for northern access stair		Yes – See comments below
2.1.3.1(e)(a) and (b)		Rear setback to an area zoned recreation facing a water body	6.0 metres lower storey 10.0 metres upper storey		Minimum 2.471 metres		No – See comments below		Yes – See comments below
2.1.4.4 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
2.1.4.1		Views	The proposal is considered with the objectives of the clause and established view loss principles – refer to view loss analysis within the body of the report below.				Yes		Yes
2.1.4.2		Visual privacy	Minimal impact on privacy considering the location, size and setbacks of the proposed habitable spaces and windows from allotment boundaries.				Yes		Yes
2.1.4.3		Private Open Space Areas	Lots greater than 10m wide: 24m2 of open space		>24m2		Yes		Yes
			Minimum dimension of 3m.		>3m		Yes		Yes
			the principal private open space area should be sited behind the front building line		Behind the front building line		Yes		Yes
			should be generally level and may be in the form of a deck, terrace or paved area.		Generally level/ 1:50		Yes		Yes
2.1.4.4		Sunlight Access	Principal open space of dwelling to receive 3.0 hours of sunlight Principal Open space of adjoining dwellings to 3.0 hours of sunlight		>3.0 hours >3.0 hours		Yes		Yes
2.1.5		Car Parking and Access	Minimum 2.0 spaces for a dwelling containing 4 bedrooms		2 spaces		Yes		Yes
2.1.6 EARTHWORKS, STRUCTURAL SUPPORT AND DRAINAGE
2.1.6.1		Earthworks	Excavation must not be greater than 1.0 metre depth where within 1.0 metre of the allotment boundary		1.0 metre maximum		Yes		Yes
2.1.6.2		Retaining Walls	To be designed by a structural where engineer where in excess of 600mm in height		1.0 metre maximum		To be conditioned for compliance – refer draft condition 2.3		Yes
2.1.6.3		Drainage	To be directed to street system or an appropriate on side disposal system		To be directed to the street via existing disposal system noting minimal additional roof area		Yes		Yes
2..1.7 ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT
2.1.7.3	Swimming Pools			Located behind building setback Comply with required rear and side boundary setbacks Filter equipment to be sound insulated		No		Yes – refer to variation discussion in terms of rear boundary setback variation

Variations

DCP Chapter 2.1 Clause 2.1.3.1(e) - Rear Boundary Setback; and

DCP Chapter 2.1 Clause 2.1.3.1(c)(i) – Side Boundary Setback

In reviewing the development proposal in its entirety, it is considered necessary to consider the required boundary setbacks in unison.

In assessing these variations therefore, consideration of the objectives of Chapter 2.1 is

required. Relevant objectives of Chapter 2.1 relating to setbacks are as follows:

▪ To ensure that setbacks are compatible with adjacent development and complements

the character, streetscape, public reserve, or coastal foreshore.

▪ To ensure the visual focus of a development is the dwelling, not the garage.

▪ To protect the views, privacy, and solar access of adjacent properties; To maintain the scenic and environmental qualities of natural waterbodies and their foreshores and respond to site attributes such as topography.

▪ To provide deep soil areas sufficient to conserve existing trees or accommodate new

Landscaping.

▪ To provide appropriate articulation of facades and horizontal elements reduce the

appearance of bulk and provides visual interest to the building and subsequent

streetscape where they face a street frontage/s.

· To maintain view corridors to coastal foreshores and other desirable outlooks.

In reviewing the proposal against these objectives, the following commentary is provided in

support of the development proposal:

· The adjoining substantial residential flat buildings to the immediate north and south of the site, are aligned in close proximity to the rear foreshore reserve boundary. Further, the proposed additions will be located significantly behind the rear setback displayed by the adjoining buildings.

· Whilst an impact upon some view corridors afforded to various units within the residential flat building located at No. 122 Ocean Parade occurs, the assessed view loss is considered acceptable when considering established view loss principles and the overall views obtained from the impacted units.

· The proposal is not considered to cause adverse privacy or overshadowing impact to individual units within the adjoining residential flat building being No. 122 Ocean Parade.

· The reduced side boundary setback in terms of the northern access stair is considered reasonable as the proposed stair replaces an existing dilapidated access stair in the same location. Further the location of this stair will not cause amenity impact to the adjoining building to the north, with the reduced National Construction Code setback clearance to be the subject of an alternate performance based solution.

· The reduced rear boundary setback is considered consistent with the relevant objectives of the Coast Hazard Chapter, noting the discussion around this issue within the body of the report below.

· The proposed additions are reasonably designed, with the completed building significantly improving the appearance of the existing aged dwelling on the site.

Accordingly, in the circumstance, the required rear foreshore reserve and side boundary setbacks are considered acceptable in the location and therefore supported in this instance.

Figure 14: Detailing the average rear boundary setback line noting the proposed additions will be sited significantly behind the rear boundary setback of the adjoining buildings.

DCP Chapter 2.1 Clause 2.1.4.1 – Views

Clause 2.1.4.1 of requires the design of new buildings to have regard to existing views enjoyed by surrounding properties. Existing views should not be substantially affected where it is possible to design for the sharing of views. The primary view lines of adjacent properties

should be maintained where possible. Notwithstanding this, view sharing should be encouraged whilst not restricting the reasonable development of the site.

Various neighbours at 122 Ocean Pde, being a residential flat building, have lodged objection relating to potential view loss. The loss of view occurs from various locations within individual units within the building.

For the purpose of this assessment, the planning principles established by the Land and

Environment Court have been utilised. In Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC

140, the Court adopted a four-step assessment process for determining potential impacts on

existing views and is detailed as follows:

Step 1: Determining the type of view to be affected.

The first step is to consider the type of view to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg. a water

view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in

which it is obscured.

The proposal will result in the partial loss of views to individual units within the residential flat building located at No. 122 Ocean Parade as indicated below:

Unit 3

· Partial loss of existing rock platform, water interface and distant beach views in a north/north easterly aspect.

Figure 15: Detailing the existing view corridor to the northeast from unit 3 Dining area (standing).

Figure 16: Detailing the existing view corridor to the east from the side (secondary) balcony of unit 3 (standing).

Unit 4

· Partial loss of existing rock platform and water interface views in a north/north easterly aspect.

Figure 17: Detailing the existing view corridor to the north from the dining area of unit 4 (standing).

Unit 6

· Partial loss of ocean views in an easterly and north easterly aspect.

Figure 18: Detailing the Existing view corridor afforded in an easterly direct from Unit 6 external Terrace.

Figure 19: Detailing the Existing view corridor afforded to the northeast from Unit 6 external Terrace

The views afforded to each of the above units are considered as scenic (no iconic views available).

Step 2: Determining the position of where views are obtained.

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. In

addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant.

Unit 3

· The views in a northward direction are currently obtained from sitting and standing positions within the units dining area; and

· The views in an easterly direction are obtained from sitting and standing positions upon a secondary side balcony area and internally from a side bedroom.

Unit 4

· The views in a northward direction are currently obtained from sitting and standing positions within the unit’s kitchen and dining areas.

Unit 6

· The views in an easterly and north easterly direction are obtained from sitting and standing positions from the main bedroom and external terrace area.

Figure 20: Detailing areas where view loss occurs from impacted units within No. 122 Ocean Pde.

Step 3: Assessing the extent of impact.

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the

property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

In reviewing the view impacts to the affected units within 122 Ocean Parade, it is considered that the impact upon existing view corridors would be considered as being minor. Particularly when considering the extent of available view corridors afforded to other areas within units 3 and 4, which are largely directly east facing. Further it is noted that the views obtained from these units are across the northern allotment boundary being a side boundary.

Step 4: Assessing whether the extent of impact is reasonable.

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A

development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance

with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable.

With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view

impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

While most of the view loss can be categorised as minor, Roseth S.C. argues that where an

impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable.

Views across side boundaries are more difficult to protect than views from front and rear boundaries, and the expectation to retain side views is often unrealistic. As shown above (Figure 20), the objector's property is located south of the subject allotment and principal view impacts (from units 3 and 4) occur to the north (across a side boundary).

In considering the view impacts it is noted that the proposed development has been designed with a parallel rear foreshore reserve setback immediately adjoining the building at No. 118 Ocean Pde, of 8.698 metres to the proposed addition. Whilst this is acknowledged as being non-compliant with required rear foreshore boundary setback controls, as indicated within the body of this report, the provision of a compliant 10.0 metre setback would do little to provide improved view sharing opportunities.

Additionally, the proposal has been the subject of some re-design by the applicant to provide for some lessening of the impact of the proposal in terms of the limited views affected. Namely via the provision of a compliant southern side boundary setback and additionally, the lowering of the roof pitch of the southern side addition by some 0.508 metres.

Given this, the building design is considered to have addressed the principals of view sharing. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to have minor impact upon existing views, particularly when considering the overall views obtained from the impacted units. As such, the proposal is considered consistent with established view loss principals and is therefore supported in this instance.

DCP Chapter 2.14 Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted in support of the proposed development.

The proposal has demonstrated compliance with this chapter of the CCDCP 2022 and

associated Waste Control Guidelines. An appropriate condition is included in the development consent requiring compliance with the submitted waste management plan (condition 5.4).

DCP Chapter 2.17 – Character and Scenic Quality

The site is subject to character provisions of Chapter 2.17. In this regard, the development

proposal is considered consistent with the development pattern evident within the

Blue Bay suburb. In this regard, there are numerous examples of similarly designed dwellings of a two and three storey appearance, located upon allotments having direct ocean front access in proximity to the allotment. Additionally, adjoining oceanfront allotments in proximity to and adjoining the site contain significant residential flat buildings.

Given the relative minor alterations and additions sought by the proposal, it is considered therefore that the completed development will be consistent with character provisions of Chapter 2.17, with the proposal therefore considered appropriate in the location.

DCP Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Northern Area

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of CCDCP 2022 Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management - Northern Area (Former Wyong LGA).

The adopted Coastal Hazards Mapping (2011) as identified in Figure 21 below, indicate the following:

· Immediate Risk Coastal Hazard Planning Line - red line.

· High Risk Coastal Hazard Planning Line – amber line.

· Low Risk Coastal Hazard Planning Line – yellow line.

Figure 21: Detailing the Coastal Hazard lines impacting the site.

There is some discrepancy between the alignment of the aerial photography and the plan in relation to the property boundary. The hazard lines are rectified against the aerial photography. Regardless, when aligned with the property boundary, the outline of the proposed addition is located wholly forward of the adopted 2011 Immediate Coastal Hazard Area (seaward of the red line).

Given the sites coastal erosion constraint, application has been referred internally to Council’s Coastal Planning Officer. Initial referral advice indicated that the proposal could not be supported from a coastal erosion perspective, as the development did not comply with the prescriptive requirements of Clause 3.2.2.2 Table 1 “Additions and alterations within or landward of the pre-existing dwelling footprint” of Chapter 3.2.

Additionally, the internal comments indicated that the proposal was not suitable to process within the confines of Chapter 3.2 given other planning considerations, namely being the reduced setback sought by the development, to the rear foreshore area.

Figure 22: Detailing Table 1 of Chapter 3.2 indicating “non exhaustive” development types which may be considered forward of the immediate (red) coastal hazard line.

Subsequent to the initial internal comments provided by Council’s Coastal Planning Officer, the applicant, in response to both the coastal erosion concerns and other issues relevant to the proposal as raised by the assessing officer, provided amended development plans.

These plans included the removal and relocation of a proposed access stair increasing the rear foreshore boundary setback and additionally, the provision of a plunge type swimming pool. Additionally, an addendum to the originally submitted coastal engineering report was provided.

Upon receipt of the additional information, the amended development proposal was again referred internally to Council’s Coastal Planning Officer. Further comments were received with respect to this additional information indicating the proposal was again not supported as Council’s current coastal assessments are undertaken against the adopted 2011 coastal hazard lines, not the so called “potential extent of coastal recession lines” as offered by the submitted geotechnical report and referred to within the submitted coastal engineering report. Accordingly, the amended proposal remained non-compliant with the prescriptive requirements of Table 1 of Chapter 3.2.

In an attempt to better understand the concerns with the development as raised by internal coastal referral comments outside of strict compliance with Table 1 of Chapter 3.2, a request was made that further commentary be provided giving indication as to why the development proposal did not meet the relevant objectives of Chapter 3.2.

In response, further internal coastal comments were provided indicating the originally submitted geotechnical report did not meet the standard as required by Clause 3.2.2.3 of Chapter 3.2 and was considered inadequate. This being based upon comments that bore hole logs within the submitted report were not located within the building addition footprint, did not provide an adequate description of site sub-strata and further, did not adequately identify present geological formations and bedrock location. It is to be noted that despite the proposal being referred to the Coastal Planning Officer on two prior occasions, the provision of this advice relating to the submitted geotechnical report, had never been indicated previously.

Accordingly, based upon these further internal referral comments, the applicant was provided with further opportunity to provide additional commentary with respect to the originally submitted geotechnical report. In response, a further updated geotechnical report was provided by the applicant within which additional borehole logs were undertaken with the updated report considered to address the deficiencies as raised by the internal referral comments.

Upon its submission, the updated geotechnical report was again referred internally to the Coastal Planning Officer. In response, further comments were provided indicating again that the proposal did not comply with the prescriptive requirements of Table 1 of Chapter 3.2. Further, advice was provided that despite the site specific geotechnical and coastal engineering reports, based upon an objective that development be restricted within the coastal hazard zone, applying precautionary principles, there was no basis to consider ignoring the adopted 2.11 coastal hazard lines. This being despite the relative minor nature of the proposed additions relative to the rear boundary (foreshore) setback displayed by the substantial adjoining residential flat buildings.

In reviewing Clause 3.2.2.2 of Chapter 3.2 it is noted that the Clause gives indication that development forward of the immediate hazard line (red line) is unsuitable. However, the clause, also indicates the development types to be “non-exhaustive” and allows for some structures, as indicated within Table 1 (figure 22 above), to be permitted, if supported by appropriate coastal and geotechnical assessment reports, relevant to the scale of the development proposal.

Further, the coastal hazard lines used for assessment purposes and as indicated as applying to the site, are based on an historic assessment undertaken and adopted by Council in 2011. Subsequent to this, an updated coastal assessment undertaken in 2016 has been undertaken, with the recommendations of this assessment never having been adopted by Council. In this regard, if the draft 2016 coastal hazard lines were used to define permitted development on the site, the proposed additions would be located wholly landward of the immediate (red) coastal hazard line.

In considering the submitted coastal engineering report, it indicates that within the adopted 2011 Coastal Management Plan, the subject site and adjoining area was designated as a geotechnical area of advice. That is, geotechnical hazards were considered to govern over traditional sandy beach coastline hazards as the site is underlain by bedrock, with a traditional beach subject to coastal hazards, underlain by sand.

Additionally, the coastal engineering report gives an estimation of wave run-up levels. At present, maximum wave run-up levels are at about 6.5m AHD. Allowing for a 1.0m sea level rise (considered as conservative by the coastal engineer), a design wave run-up level of 7.5m AHD can be adopted. The lowest floor level at the site is 11.37m AHD, well above the design wave run-up and potential inundation level.

Further to the above information it is relevant to consider the proposal in terms of the stated objectives of Chapter 3.2. Objectives of Chapter 3.2 are as follows:

· To complement and reinforce the objectives and requirements of the Coastal Management Act 2016;

· To reduce the impact of coastal hazards on individual owners and occupiers of land within the Coastal Vulnerability Area;

· To manage development along the coastline through a risk-based, adaptive management approach;

· To protect beach amenity and public safety;

· To avoid impacts on adjoining land, resources or assets; and

· To consider practical opportunities for minor ancillary development.

In considering the proposal against these objectives, it is worthwhile considering the following relevant points;

· The proposal, as indicated within the body of this report, is considered to address the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021;

· The site is located upon a coastal bluff well above wave run-up and potential inundation levels. Further, the proposed additions and plunge pool are to be located upon foundations socketed into bedrock, noting the rear of the existing dwelling and side additions (to be demolished) are supported by single timber posts supported on conventional shallow footings;

· The development proposal is supported by a compliant site-specific geotechnical investigation reporting that the adopted 2011 coastal hazard lines are considered conservative for the site, with the proposal also supported by an appropriate coastal engineer’s assessment report prepared by a Land and Environment Court acknowledged expert. It is considered therefore that the proposal achieves the objective of the Chapter related to the adoption of a risk-based approach;

· The proposal in the context of the site and adjoining development, is considered a minor addition to the existing dwelling a maximum 2.220m further seaward than the existing dwelling on the allotment; and

· The proposal has been assessed as being satisfactory in terms of impacts on adjoining lands, with particular emphasis on view loss, with adequate separation provided to existing sewer infrastructure located within the rear portion of the site.

Accordingly, in the circumstance it is considered that in applying precautionary principles to the development proposal, strict compliance with Chapter 3.2 provisions is unwarranted in the location, with the proposal therefore supported in relation to the site’s coastal erosion constraint.

Further, upon final review of the full suite of information, Council’s Coastal Planning Officer agrees with the merit based assessment of the development proposal.

DCP Chapter 6.3 Erosion Sedimentation Control

The implementation of appropriate siltation controls will be conditioned within the issued development consent.

Likely Impacts of the Development:

Built Environment

A thorough assessment of the proposed development’s impact on the built environment has

been undertaken in terms of the CCLEP 2022 and CCDCP 2022 compliance. It is considered on balance that the potential impacts are considered reasonable.

Natural Environment

The proposal involves some minor site excavation for dwelling and swimming pool construction. Whilst there is some impact upon the natural environment, with particular reference to coastal erosion hazard, this is considered reasonable given the sites General Residential zoning and the extent of the proposal in relation to adjoining development. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to impacts on the natural environment.

Context and Setting

The proposal is located within the R1 General Residential zone under CCLEP 2022 and subject to character provisions of Chapter 2.17 of the CCDCP 2022. The proposal provides an improved dwelling outcome, noting the aged and dilapidated nature of the existing site improvements, within the residential zone, with the proposal considered consistent with the objectives of the R1 land use. In addition, the proposal is considered consistent with the emerging character of the area.

Economic and Social Impacts

The proposal will provide minor economic benefit through the provision of temporary employment during demolition and construction works. Socially, the proposal does not give rise to any adverse environmental impacts in respect to overshadowing or view impacts within either the public or private domain.

Suitability of the Site for the Development:

Coastal Erosion Considerations

As indicated, the proposed additions are wholly located forward of the current adopted 2011 immediate coastal hazard line. As indicated within the body of the report above however, assessment of the proposal against the relevant objectives of the Coastal Erosion Chapter indicates that the proposal is satisfactory in terms of the coastal erosion.

The Panel can therefore be satisfied that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of

the sites coastal erosion constraint.

Submissions

As indicated, the development application was notified in accordance with the provisions of

Chapter 1.2 “Notification of Development Proposals” of Central Coast Development Control

Plan 2022 on two separate occasions as follows: -

• First round of notification - from 10 November 2023 until 24 November 2023.

During this period, a total of seven (7) submissions were received.

As a result of concerns with the proposed development raised by the assessing officer, the

applicant in response provided amended development plans. These amended development

plans significantly altered the proposed development and included the following amendments:

• Increase to the southern side boundary setback for the proposed addition, to comply with Chapter 2.1 and NCC provisions:

• Reduction in roof pitch and overall height by 0.508 metres to the proposed side addition to address view loss/sharing concerns;

• Provision of the proposed lower level plunge pool;

• Removal of the rear access stairs forward of the proposed balcony addition;

• Increase in setback to the balcony to the northern allotment boundary; and

• Other minor changes to window and boundary setbacks.

Upon receipt of the amended development plans, re-notification of the development was undertaken during the following period:

• Second round of notification – 1 March 2024 until 15 March 2024.

Upon completion of this re-notification, a total of nine (9) submissions were received.

A summary of submission items with respect to the amended development proposal is as

follows:

• Concerns regarding view loss.

Comment: As indicated within the view loss analysis within the body of the report above, view loss impacts to various locations within individual apartments within the adjoining residential flat building, are considered acceptable and in line with established view loss principles. Further, the proposal has been amended via the reduction in roof pitch and overall lowering of the southern side addition to provide for further view sharing.

• Concerns regarding unauthorised nature of prior development on the site.

Comment: Reduced southern side boundary setbacks displayed by the existing dwelling on the site, have been authorised via a prior development approval being DA/487/1999 – refer to Figure 12 within the body of the report above.

• Concerns regarding reduced southern side boundary setback for the proposed addition

Comment: Amended development plans have been received indicating a compliant minimum 900mm southern side boundary setback for the proposed addition.

• Concerns regarding adequate clearance/identification of sewer infrastructure.

Comment: Sewer infrastructure within the site has been identified via survey, with the proposed addition clear of the sewer existing manhole. Further, the development is supported by water and sewer staff subject to conditions.

· Concerns that the proposal has not been supported by a Coastal engineering assessment report.

Comment: The proposal has been supported by a coastal erosion hazard assessment report and additionally an addendum to this report. Further, the application has been supported by a geotechnical assessment and additionally, a further detailed geotechnical report as requested by Council’s Coastal Officer.

· Concerns regarding roofing material colour and potential for glare and reflectivity.

Comment: The submitted BASIX certificate and external finishes schedule indicate the use of a darker “Colorbond Windspray” roof tone. This is considered acceptable in terms of potential glare and reflectivity impacts.

· Concerns regarding privacy impacts

Comment: The additional windows proposed within the southern addition are located within infrequently occupied areas of the dwelling and bathrooms. The provision of these windows is therefore considered to create minimal if any additional privacy impacts.

· Concerns completed development is to be used for separate occupancy.

Comment: Internal stair access is provided between all levels of the completed dwelling. Further, review of the internal floor plans, indicates the completed development to be a single dwelling only.

· Concerns regarding extent of demolition works not being evident.

Comment: Demolition works are largely confined within the existing dwelling and the existing southern side addition. Further, appropriate conditions are to be applied with respect to demolition works complying with AS2601-2001.

· Concerns regarding vehicle traffic movements.

Comment: The existing site condition is not altered in terms of the sites existing garage and site vehicular access.

· Concerns Regarding site coverage.

Comment: As indicated within the body of the report above, permitted site coverage and Floor Space Ratio development controls have been complied with. In this regard, it is to be noted that the sites battle-axe handle is not excluded from either site coverage or Floor Space Ratio calculations. Further, unenclosed balcony and deck areas and additionally eaves, are also excluded from site coverage calculations.

Submissions from Public Authorities

The development proposal was not required to be referred to any external authority.

Internal Consultation

Coastal Engineering		Supported. See commentary previously in report
Water and Sewer		Supported subject to conditions 2.2 and 6.2.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles:

The proposal has been assessed having regard to ecologically sustainable development principles and is considered consistent with the principles.

The proposed development is considered to incorporate satisfactory stormwater, drainage and erosion control and the retention of vegetation 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 proposal have been considered by Council as

part of the assessment of the application.

The 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 and withstand any resultant impacts. The proposed

development is considered satisfactory in relation to climate change.

The Public Interest

The proposed development is seen to be in the public interest by providing assurance that the subject land can be developed in proportion to its site characteristics.

Conclusion

The development application has been assessed having regard for the matters for

consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and

all relevant instruments, plans and policies. Following a thorough assessment of the relevant

planning controls and the key issues identified in this report it is considered that the

application can be supported because:

1. The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development is considered satisfactory having regard to the matters for consideration provided in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. The application has been assessed against the requirements of clause 61 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 in respect of demolition.

3. The Panel can be satisfied that the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Chapter 2 Coastal Management, sections 2.10, 2.11 and 2.15 have been considered and satisfied.

4. The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives as set out in the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022.

5. The Panel can be satisfied that the relevant provisions of the environmental planning instruments, plans and policies that apply to the development have been considered in the assessment of the application.

6. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed development is not expected to have any adverse environmental, social, or economic impact.

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions included in Attachment 1.

Attachments

1 ⇩	Draft conditions/reasons - 120A Ocean Parade, BLUE BAY NSW 2261 - DA/2106/2023 - Central Coast Council		D16304948
2 ⇩	Revised Plans - 120A Ocean Pde Blue Bay - DA/2106/2023	Provided Under Separate Cover	D16089002
3	Redacted - Revised Plans - 120A Ocean Pde Blue Bay - DA/2106/2023		D16451168

Item No: 3.2
Title: DA/1955/2023 - New Dwelling House & Swimming Pool - 67 Ocean View Drive WAMBERAL NSW 2261
Department: Environment and Planning
17 October 2024 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: DA/1955/2023 - D16314508

Author: Karen Hanratty, Senior Development Planner Residential Assessments

Section Manager: Ailsa Prendergast, Section Manager. Residential Assessments

Unit Manager: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager. Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received for New Dwelling House & Swimming Pool. The application has been examined having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in this report.

This development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel as the application proposes a variation greater than 10% to the Height of Building development standard in clause 4.3(2) of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022. The application proposes a maximum height of 11.287m (on the north-western elevation). This represents a height variation of 2.787m or 32.79%.

The application has been notified and no submissions received.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Applicant Doug Sneddon Planning Pty Ltd

Owner A O Biber and M Biber and A Biber

Application No DA/1955/2023

Description of Land Lot 12 DP 12022, 67 Ocean View Drive Wamberal NSW 2261

Proposed Development New Dwelling House & Swimming Pool

Site Area 779.5sqm

Zoning R2 Low Density Residential

Existing Use Vacant

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $2,685,720

Recommendation

1 The Panel agrees that the applicant’s clause 4.6 written request demonstrates that compliance with clause 4.3(2) Height of Building development standard of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening that development standard.

Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

2 That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA/1955/2023 on Lot 12 DP 12022, 67 Ocean View Drive Wamberal NSW 2261 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

· Compliance with Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022).

o Variation greater than 10% to clause 4.3(2) Height of Building development standard.

· Compliance with the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

o Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Structures – building height and side boundary setback.

o Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern area - development located within Coastal Hazard Area.

Precis

Proposed Development	New Dwelling House & Swimming Pool
Permissibility and Zoning	The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022). The proposed development is defined in the CCLEP 2022 as ‘dwelling house’ and is permissible in the zone with consent.
Current Use	Vacant land
Integrated Development	No
Submissions	Nil

Variations to Policies - Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022

Clause	4.3(2) Height of Building
Standard	The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map of 8.5m.
Departure basis	Maximum height of 11.287m is proposed on the north-western elevation. This represents a variation of 2.787m or 32.79%.

Variations to Policies - Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development

Clause	2.1.2.1(a) Building Height
Standard	Height of building is not to exceed the maximum building height on the Central Coast LEP 2022 Height of Building Map of 8.5m.
Departure basis	Maximum height of 11.287m is proposed on the north-western elevation. This represents a variation of 2.787m or 32.79%.

Clause	2.1.2.1(c) Building Height
Standard	The building height shall not generally exceed two storeys.
Departure basis	Part two storey, part three storey (western elevation) dwelling house is proposed. This represents a 50% variation for that part of the building containing three storeys.

Clause	2.1.3.1(c)(i) Side Setbacks
Standard	Northern Elevation Setback required for the proposed Height of Building (HOB) at Grid 2 on the Architectural Plans is 2.596m.
Departure basis	The setback for the HOB at Grid 2 is 1.9m. This represents a variation at the first floor of 0.696m or 26.8%.

Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management

Clause	Clause 3.2.3.3.2a All Development
Standard	Council will not permit new buildings or any built structures to be constructed on, over or below the land which has been identified seaward of the coastal building line (except where provided by s.3.2.3.4).
Departure basis	Part of the dwelling house is located seaward of the Coastal Building Line.

The Site

The site is described as Lot 12 DP 12022, 67 Ocean View Drive Wamberal and has an area of 779.5sqm. The site is a trapezoid shaped allotment located on the eastern side of Ocean View Drive and adjoins Wamberal beach to the east and Ocean View Drive to the west.

The site is currently vacant with the previous dwelling on the site demolished due to damage sustained during coastal event in July 2020. A history of the site prior to and after the July 2020 storm event is provided within the Coastal Engineering Report submitted with the application and is provided as an Attachment to this report.

The topography of the site varies from approximately RL8.3m AHD at the dune embankment, around 12m landward of the seaward boundary, at this point the site slopes down to the site frontage to approximately RL 3.6m AHD and 3.0m AHD at Ocean View Drive. Seaward from the dune embankment the land slopes to the beach to approximately RL 3.0m AHD.

The subsurface conditions are described by the Coastal Engineer (Horton 2023) in accordance with the geotechnical investigation (JK Geotechnics 2023) at the site. Boreholes drilled on the landward and seaward side of the site disclosed a generalised profile comprising fill overlying marine sands with residual clay encountered at depth below the marine sands. At the landward borehole, the residual clay had not been reached at a level of -4.2m AHD. At the seaward borehole, the interface between sand and residual clay was found to be at a level of -2.2m AHD.

The site is not identified as bushfire prone land. The site is not affected by the 1 in 100-year flood event however is affected by flooding for the PMF and contains Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. The site does not contain any native vegetation or fauna habitat.

The site is located within the coastal hazard area and subject to a Coastal Building Line under Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern Area of Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP 2022).

Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the site prior to the existing dwelling being demolished July 2021 and Figure 2 indicates the vacant site in 2024.

Figure 1 – Site and Locality Plan (subject site blue outline) -

prior to demolition of existing dwelling – Nearmap 4 July 2021

Figure 2 – Site and Locality Plan (subject site blue outline)

Post demolition – Nearmap 22 May 2024

Figures 3 & 4 show the state of the site (photographs taken 22 July 2024) from the street and from the beach, respectively.

Figure 3 – Subject Site from Ocean View Drive

Figure 4 – Subject Site from Wamberal Beach

Wamberal Beach Terminal Protection and Sand Nourishment Project

Council has developed design requirements for a long-term solution for Wamberal Beach erosion. The Gosford Beaches Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) contained an action to progress a long-term solution for Wamberal Beach erosion. The CZMP outlined a preferred protection solution (terminal protection structure) and the technical studies needed to inform further decision making, but it does not provide for the delivery of a seawall and sand nourishment.

· The CZMP lapsed on 31 December 2023.

· Council is currently developing a revised Coastal Management Plan.

The design requirements were developed in conjunction with NSW Government and Manly Hydraulics Laboratory and after the July 2020 storm event the NSW Government Wamberal Seawall Advisory Taskforce was set up to provide technical advice and assistance to Council in progressing a long-term solution for Wamberal. The design requirements/guidelines will enable Wamberal foreshore property owners to undertake approved development to protect their assets whilst the beach public amenity and environment is protected appropriately.

The Engineering Design Requirements Report MHL2872 dated 21 September 2022 was placed on public exhibition from 29 June 2022 to 27 July 2022 and adopted by Council 11 October 2022. Development applications for coastal protection works at Wamberal Beach should demonstrate the use of these requirements in detailed design drawings, technical specifications and construction management.

On 15 July 2024, a separate development application (DA/947/2024) was lodged with Council for Coastal Protection Works along Wamberal Beach, including the subject site.

The location of the proposed seawall alignment adopted by the MHL design is indicated on the submitted Architectural Plans for the proposed new dwelling house and swimming pool.

Surrounding Development

Surrounding and nearby land contains detached dwelling houses, with a variety of dwelling types including larger new dwellings and older cottages that are yet to be redeveloped.

Directly to the north of the site are two parcels of vacant land at 69 Ocean View Drive, owned by the Department of Planning and Environment - Sydney, identified on Council’s Land Register as Crown Land and zoned RE1 Public Recreation, refer Figures 5 & 6.

The dwelling house at 73 Ocean View Drive adjoins the vacant land to the north. The front and rear elevations of this residence is visible in Figure 6.

Figure 5 – Properties to the north of Subject Site viewed from Ocean View Drive

Figure 6 – Properties to the north of Subject Site viewed from Wamberal Beach

To the south of the site is a public walkway beach access reserve (approximately 15m wide) and further south a dwelling house at 65 Ocean View Drive, refer Figures 7 & 8.

Figure 7 – Properties to the south of Subject Site viewed from Wamberal Beach (redacted)

Figure 8 – Properties to the south of Subject Site – 65, 63, 61, 57 Ocean View Drive

In the broader surrounding area along Ocean View Drive there are a number of newer and larger developments with three storey presentations to the street and two storey presentations at the rear towards the beach interspersed with three and four-storey residential flat buildings, new construction and existing dwellings which is evident in Figure 8 above and Figures 9-13 below.

Figure 9 – 29–37 Ocean View Drive

Figure 10 – further to the south – 25, 23, 21 Ocean View Drive

Figure 11 – further to the north - 89 Ocean View Drive in the foreground and

Partially visible 91 and 93 Ocean View Drive

Figure 12 – further to the north - 85-87 Ocean View Drive – approved/not yet constructed

Figure 13 – further to the north - 81 Ocean View Drive – approved/not yet constructed

The Proposed Development

The proposal involves the construction of a two and three storey six (6) bedroom dwelling house comprising:

· Basement Level – RL 4.8m AHD

o Lower entry / 4-car garage / plant rooms / laundry / storage room and wine cellar / lift and stairs.

· Ground Floor - RL 8.9m AHD

o Main entry / kitchen / dining / living rooms / outdoor terrace and swimming pool / lift and stairs.

· First Floor - RL 12.5m AHD

o Six (6) bedroom / bathrooms / storage and ocean view balcony / lift and stairs.

The applicant states:

In recent months, the dune at the site has lowered in elevation due to the effects of unauthorised pedestrian access and aeolian processes related to the lack of vegetation on the site. As part of the proposed works, the dune face would be shaped to its former levels by scraping sand up from the adjacent beach (on private property, if sand is available) and/or utilising sand excavated to construct the basement at the site, and revegetated with Spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and/or other suitable species in accordance with the Coastal Dune Management Manual (Department of Land and Water Conservation, 2001).

The owner also intends to reinstate dune levels after storms in the future by scraping sand up from the adjacent beach (on private property, if sand is available), and to continue revegetating the dune as required, where practical.

A site plan is provided in Figure 14, building elevations in Figures 15 &16 and a landscape Plan in Figure 17.

Figure 14 – Site Plan

Figure 15 – North and South Elevations

Figure 16 – East and West Elevations

Figure 17 – Landscape Plan

ASSESSMENT

Provisions of Relevant Instruments/Plans/Policies

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

No draft Environmental Planning Instruments apply to this application.

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

The application is supported 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.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings (2022)

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings (2022) (Sustainable Buildings SEPP) commenced on 1 October 2023 and provides savings and transitional provisions in clause 4.2(1)(a) which states:

4.2 (1) This policy does not apply to the following—

(a) a development application submitted on the NSW planning portal but not finally determined before 1 October 2023,

The application was submitted to the NSW planning portal on 28 September 2023. The applicant has submitted a valid BASIX Certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Chapter 2 Coastal Management

The aims of Chapter 2 are to be considered when determining an application within the Coastal Management Areas. The Coastal Management Areas are defined on maps issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

The site is located within the Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area as identified on these maps and subject to the provisions of section 2.10 and section 2.11 of the SEPP.

The development is not likely to have an adverse impact on the matters referred to in section 2.10 and section 2.11. The development is not considered likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the site or other land. A summary of considerations is included below.

Section 2.10 - Development on land within the coastal environment area

In accordance with section 2.10(1) development consent must not be granted in the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment.	The proposal is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological, or ecological environment. The proposal will be connected to reticulated sewer and stormwater will be managed on-site in accordance with the submitted stormwater plans with a 10kL rainwater tank under the driveway. Erosion and sediment controls will be in place during demolition and construction, and the proposal will not impact on the environment.
(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes.	The proposal is subject to a coastal building line under CCDCP 2022. The Coastal Engineering Report prepared by Horton Coastal Engineering dated 26 September 2023 addresses the impacts of the proposal on coastal processes as follows: The proposed development would not be expected to adversely affect coastal environmental values or natural coastal processes over its design life, as it would not be damaged by erosion/recession and inundation for an acceptably rare storm and over an acceptably long design life (being piled) and would be suspended above typical coastal processes. The development allows natural erosion/recession and wave runup coastal processes to continue unhindered, while being supported on piles. The proposal will not impact on the geological and geomorphological 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.	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate and does not drain to a sensitive lake contained in Schedule 1. The proposal will be connected to reticulated sewer and stormwater will be managed on-site in accordance with the submitted stormwater plans. Erosion and sediment controls will be in place during demolition and construction, to minimise impacts on water quality, and the proposal will not impact on any sensitive coastal lakes.
(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms.	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on native vegetation or fauna, undeveloped headlands, and rock platforms. There are no undeveloped headlands or rock platforms in proximity to the proposed development, no marine vegetation in the area to be developed, and no known native vegetation of significance that would be affected at the property. The proposal will not have significant impacts on marine fauna and flora as the development would not interact with subaqueous areas for an acceptably rare storm and acceptably long life.
(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.	The proposal will not impact on public access to the foreshore being entirely within the subject site.
(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places.	As stated in the Coastal Engineering Report, an AHIMS search was undertaken on 19 June 2023, and the subject land has not been identified as containing or being within 200m of any Aboriginal sites or places.
(g) the use of the surf zone.	The proposal is located entirely on the subject site and will not interact with the surf zone or impact on use of the surf zone.

In accordance with section 2.10(2) development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subsection (1), or	The proposed dwelling house is appropriately designed and sited and will be managed to avoid any adverse impacts referred to in clause 2.10(1) having regard to LEP and DCP requirements, the location and characteristics of the site and existing development on the site and surrounding properties. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation. Historical mapping (Nearmap 5 October 2021) indicates that the site was cleared of structures and vegetation when the previous dwelling was demolished. The current state of the site with minimal vegetation regrowth is shown in Figures 3 and 4. No additional structures or coastal protection works shall be erected on the dune seaward of the new dwelling house unless separately approved by Council.
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or	N/A – no adverse impacts
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact,	N/A – no adverse impacts

Section 2.11 - Development on land within the coastal use area

In accordance with section 2.11(1) development consent must not be granted in the coastal use area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) 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 funnelling 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.	The site has a direct frontage to the foreshore of Wamberal Beach. There will be some impact from overshadowing of the upper dune areas of the beach in the afternoons mid-winter which is similar to the shadows cast by other development along the beachfront. However, the proposal will not cause an adverse impact on overshadowing, access, wind funneling or view loss from public places to any foreshore. The dwelling house will be visible from the beach and coastal areas and will maintain an appropriate presentation that is consistent with other more recent development along the beachfront. The proposal complies with the required building height on the rear façade facing the beach and is not likely to have any adverse visual amenity from coastal erosion in a significant storm event. There are no known objects, areas, or items of heritage significance on the land, and no potentially adverse impacts on cultural or environmental heritage have been identified.
(b) is satisfied that i. the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or ii. if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or iii. if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact,	If designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the coastal engineering report, geotechnical engineering report and structural engineering report prepared for the site, the proposal will not result in adverse impacts referred to in clause 2.11(a) having regard to LEP and DCP requirements, the location and characteristics of the site and existing development on the site and surrounding properties.
(c) has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development	The bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the scale and appearance of other development along the Wamberal beachfront and is considered satisfactory for the site and location.

Section 2.12 - Development in coastal zone generally - development not to increase risk of coastal hazards

In accordance with section 2.12 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.

Comment:

The proposal will be located within the Coastal Hazard Area under CCDCP 2022. Section 8.2 of the Coastal Engineering Report prepared by Horton Coastal Engineering dated 26 September 2023 addresses the impacts of the proposal on coastal processes and risks of coastal hazards on the land and adjoining land in relation to the requirements of Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management of CCDCP 2022.

The Coastal Engineering Advice states:

· The entire development shall be founded on piles designed to support the loads of the structure and other conventional structural actions, plus should have an allowance for wave impact loading and loading from a collapsing sand dune during or following storm erosion as per Nielsen et al (1992) (Dune Stability Considerations for Building Foundations, Australia civil Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers Australia, Volume CE34, No. 2, June, pp. 167-173). The wave impact and sand slumping forces should be provided by a coastal engineer as part of detailed design. A scour level of -1m AHD should be adopted for the design of these piles, i.e. assuming that all soil is eroded above -1m AHD in the design storm.

· The proposed development would not be expected to adversely affect coastal environmental values or natural coastal processes over its design life, as it is at an acceptably low risk of damage from erosion/recession and inundation for an acceptably rare storm and over an acceptably long design life and would be well landward and above typical coastal processes.

· The proposed dwelling is at an acceptably low risk of inundation if natural ground levels are contoured to direct any wave overtopping away from the garage door. The proposed development is to be suspended above most wave action and increased erosion of the beach or adjacent land would not be expected.

The proposed development is being supported on piles whereas the previous dwelling house and deck was not.

The visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast will also be addressed by revegetation and management of the dune area. The site has been subject to dune erosion following the demolition of the previous dwelling, unauthorised public access and aeolian processes due to the lack of vegetation on the site. The proposed works include the reshaping of the dune face to to its former levels by scraping sand up from the adjacent beach (on private property, if sand is available) and/or utilising sand excavated to construct the basement at the site, and revegetated with Spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and/or other suitable species in accordance with the Coastal Dune Management Manual (Department of Land and Water Conservation, 2001) refer Conditions 6.12 & 6.13.

Ongoing management of the site will require reinstatement of dune levels after storms to provide adequate cover over all anthropogenic structures and appropriate fill materials over the unbuilt portion of the site to the seaward property boundary refer Conditions 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6.

In summary, if designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the coastal engineering report, geotechnical engineering report and structural engineering report prepared for the site, including the revegetation and management of the dune area, the proposal is not likely to have adverse impact on coastal hazards, coastal environmental values and visual amenity. The proposal is satisfactory in relation to section 2.12 of the SEPP.

Section 2.13 - Development in coastal zone generally - coastal management programs to be considered

In accordance with section 2.13 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.

Comment:

The Gosford Beaches Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP), in place at the time of lodgement of the proposal, applies as a certified coastal management program at the subject property, essentially allows for piled beachfront development to manage the risk to public safety and built assests, envisions residential development being maintained and protection works being undertaken at Wamberal Beach in the future.

The Gosford Beaches Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) lapsed on 31 December 2023.

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Section 4.6 of Chapter 4 requires that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated. and if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that historically waste material, including asbestos, has been imported as fill material for houses along Wamberal Beach. Council continues to collect asbestos fragments and other wastes from the beach following storm events. Conditions are applied for an asbestos clearance certificate prior to commencement of any works, refer Condition 4.9.

It is proposed to excavate below the natural ground level for the basement. A waste classification condition has been applied for any soils removed from the site. An additional condition has been applied to ensure that waste material present on the land (i.e., the concrete driveway) and any buried waste is not used as fill material to stabilise the beach foredune, refer Conditions 5.10 & 5.13.

The site has been used for residential purposes and subject to conditions and attention to the above, is considered suitable for the proposed use.

The development and the land are not otherwise mentioned in Section 4.6(4) and accordingly the provisions of Section 4.6(2) are not engaged by the proposal and consent may be granted. The proposal is considered consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the SEPP.

Council can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of Chapter 2 Coastal Management and Chapter 4 Remediation of Land of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022)

Zoning and Permissibility

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under CCLEP 2022, refer Figure 18. The proposed development is defined as dwelling house which is permissible in the zone with consent of Council.

The CCLEP 2022 defines the following:

dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling.

dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

In accordance with clause 2.3(2) the consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in respect of land within the zone. The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

· To encourage best practice in the design of low density residential development.

· To ensure that non-residential land uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services.

· To maintain the enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.

Properties along Wamberal Beach and to the west of Ocean View Drive are zoned R2 Low Density Residential (identified by the pink shaded area in Figure 8). East of the site, part of Wamberal Beach is known as Remembrance Drive and zoned RE1 Public Recreation (identified by the green shaded area in Figure 8).

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as follows:

· The proposal will provide a renewal of housing on the site, and the nature of the use is consistent with development in the surrounding area and considered compatible with the desired future character of the area.

· The design of the proposal responds to the beachfront location of the site and is compatible with the scale and nature of more recent development on Wamberal beachfront. Properties along Ocean View Drive on the beachfront comprise a variety of dwelling types including larger new dwellings and older cottages that are yet to be redeveloped. There are a number of newer and larger developments with three storey presentations to the street and two storey presentations at the rear towards the beach interspersed with new construction and existing dwellings.

· The proposal demonstrates architectural quality and uses different setbacks and design features to break up the massing of the dwelling house.

· The proposal does not unreasonably obstruct any significant views from private property or the public domain.

· The proposal maintains appropriate solar access to adjoining properties.

· The proposed development is ecologically, socially and economically sustainable in the sensitive coastal location and will not give rise to any increased coastal hazards on adjacent land.

Figure 18 – Zoning Map CCLEP 2022

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3(2) of CCLEP 2022 provides that the height of a building on any land will not exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum height shown on the relevant map is 8.5m. The CCLEP 2022 defines this as the height above existing ground level.

The eastern portion of the proposed development complies with the maximum building height except at the western elevation the dwelling has a maximum height from existing ground level of 11.287m at the northwest corner. This represents a variation of 2.787m or 32.79% to the development standard.

The non-compliance with the building height is shown in Figure 19 with the area of exceedance in yellow. The non-compliance does not discernibly impact on bulk and scale, streetscape character or adverse impact on views to surrounding properties.

A written request under clause 4.6 of CCLEP 2022 to vary the development standard has been submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant's submission demonstrates the proposed development is of a satisfactory height, bulk and scale and does not have adverse impact on adjoining development. The Applicant’s objection is considered to be well founded as the proposal is considered to achieve the objectives of the standard and the development is recommended for support.

Figure 19 – Building Height Exceedance Diagram

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4(2) Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of CCLEP 2022 provides the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land. There is no floor space ratio applying to the site under the CCLEP 2022.

Notwithstanding this, the proposed development has satisfactory density, bulk and scale which integrates with the streetscape and character of the area and is comparable to contemporary buildings along Ocean View Drive.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

A clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards variation for the non-compliance associated with floor space ratio development standard in Clause 4.3(2) of CCLEP 2022 was provided by the applicant.

Clause 4.6 of CCLEP 2022 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 clause 4.6(3) the Applicant has submitted a written request seeking variation the building height development standards of 8.5m in clause 4.3(2) of CCLEP 2022. A copy of the clause 4.6 variation is included in the Statement of Environmental Effects as Appendix H. The Statement of Environmental Effects is provided as Attachment 13 to this report.

The development proposes a maximum building height of 11.287m at the western elevation, northwest corner of the dwelling house. This represents is a variation of 2.787m or 32.79% to the development standard. The non-compliance with the building height is shown in Figure 19. The eastern portion of the proposed development complies with the maximum building.

The applicant’s written request refers to the first of the five tests established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 to demonstrate that compliance with the numerical standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. The test seeks to demonstrate that the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the numerical standard, Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the CCLEP 2022.

The Applicant’s written request to vary the height of building development standard demonstrates the following (summarised):

· the objectives of the building height development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are achieved by the proposed development, notwithstanding its partial non-compliance with the development standard.

· approval of the proposed development would not raise any matter of significance for State or regional planning.

· there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the proposed development contravening the building height development standard.

· the proposed development is in the public interest as it is intended to facilitate the economically viable redevelopment of the subject land in a manner consistent with strategic planning objectives for the locality.

· there is no public benefit to be derived, or planning purpose to be served, in requiring the proposed development to strictly comply with the 8.5m maximum building height development standard in view of the relatively small area of the proposed structure exceeding the 8.5m maximum building height development standard.

· the proposed dwelling appears presents as a three-storey building from Ocean View Drive and has a compliant two storey presentation to the beach, consistent with other contemporary developments along the Wamberal beachfront.

· Diagram A (North & South Elevation Exceedance Diagrams) presents a proportional analysis of the north & south elevations, showing the area of exceedance in yellow. The elevation proportional analysis of the 8.5m development standard exceedance is:

o North Elevation: Compliant – 89.7% (177.83m2). Non-compliant – 10.3% (20.32m2).

o South Elevation: Compliant – 94.4% (176.51m2). Non-compliant – 5.56% (10.39m2).

· the proposed development has a roof parapet height of RL 16.450m. This is consistent with the roof RL height of approved dwellings in the near vicinity, some examples of which are:

o Nos. 85-89 Ocean View Drive (recently approved) – RL 16.65m

o No. 89 Ocean View Drive – RL 16.80m

o No. 93 Ocean View Drive – RL 17.9m

o No. 95 Ocean View Drive – RL 17.00m.

· the bulk and scale of the proposed development provides for view sharing and does not result in a building which is visually prominent or have any significant adverse scenic/visual impacts or amenity (privacy/overshadowing) impacts on either the public domain or any nearby dwelling, in comparison to a fully complying development.

· as demonstrated in the accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects, the bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible (and not out of scale) with existing and recently approved multi-storey dwellings in the near vicinity, including the closest neighbour at No. 65 Ocean View Drive.

· the bulk, scale and built form of the proposed development is of high-quality architectural design and is appropriate to its function and urban context. The architectural articulation/stepping of the western elevation of the proposed dwelling provides for a suitable transition of built form through the site.

· the proposed building’s massing does not reduce the opportunity for either the proposed development or public areas to receive satisfactory exposure to sunlight. The accompanying shadow diagrams show that the proposed development does not have adverse shadowing impacts on either the public domain, or any nearby residence; and

· proposed site landscaping (feature trees) at the street frontage mitigates the visual impact of the western building elevation, where exceedance of the 8.5m maximum building height development standard is greatest.

In accordance with clause 4.6(4), development consent must not grant consent for a development that contravenes a development standard unless:

1. The consent authority is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated in clause 4.6(3).

Comment:

The clause 4.6 submitted by the Applicant has addressed how strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary having regard to various relevant decisions in the NSW Land and Environment Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal and how there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

The request for variation has been assessed with consideration of relevant principles set out in various judgements applying to variations to development standards, including:

· Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827;

· Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90;

· Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118;

Council is satisfied that the matters required to be demonstrated in subclause 4.6(3)(a) have been adequately addressed for the variation to the maximum height of building development standard.

2. The consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Comment:

In order to demonstrate if the proposal has merit, consideration of the proposed height of buildings non-compliance regarding the objectives of the control contained within Clause 4.3(1) is as follows:

The objectives of clause 4.3 Height of Buildings:

(a) to establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density,

(b) to ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality.

The proposal is consistent with objectives in CCLEP 2022 as follows:

· The variation will not be readily perceptible externally and is considered minor. The proposal will be in keeping with other development in the surrounding area along the beachfront, including other part three storey and elevated two storey dwellings and is compatible with the character of the locality for beachfront developments.

· The extent of the non-compliance does not contribute to the bulk and scale of the building and is not considered to have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining residents by overshadowing or overlooking. The height of the building is minimised by the design of the development by the stepping and articulation of the building form and extensive use of glazing and provides natural ventilation, acoustic and visual privacy to neighbours that generally comply with the DCP requirements.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives for the R2 Low Density Residential zone as follows:

· The proposal demonstrates architectural quality and uses different setbacks and design features to break up the massing of the dwelling house.

· The proposal does not unreasonably obstruct any significant views from private property or the public domain.

· The proposal maintains appropriate solar access to adjoining properties.

· The proposed development is ecologically, socially and economically sustainable in the sensitive coastal location and will not give rise to any increased coastal hazards on adjacent land.

The Panel can be satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with the objectives of the development standard and the zone objectives such that the proposal is in the public interest. The contravention of the building height control does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning given the nature of the development proposal. Strict compliance with the prescriptive building height control is unreasonable or unnecessary in the context of the proposal in the circumstances of this case. The proposed development meets the underlying intent of the control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts. This assessment concludes that the clause 4.6 variation of CCLEP 2022 having regard to clause 4.3(2) of CCLEP 2022 is well founded and worthy of support.

Clause 5.21 Flood Planning

Council’s records do not indicate that the site is affected by flooding in the 1% AEP flood event. However, the site is identified as marginally impacted at the western end of the site by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).

In accordance with clause 5.21(2) development consent must not be granted to development on land the consent authority considers to be within the flood planning area unless the consent authority is satisfied the development:

(a) is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land, and

(b) will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood, and

(d) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood, and

(e) will not adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses.

In accordance with clause 5.21(3) in deciding whether to grant development consent on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider the following matters—

(a) the impact of the development on projected changes to flood behaviour as a result of climate change,

(b) the intended design and scale of buildings resulting from the development,

(c) whether the development incorporates measures to minimise the risk to life and ensure the safe evacuation of people in the event of a flood,

(d) the potential to modify, relocate or remove buildings resulting from development if the surrounding area is impacted by flooding or coastal erosion.

The following comments are provided in relation to clause 5.21(2) land 5.21(3) as follows:

· There are no flooding requirements for this development application in respect to the 1% AEP flood event.

· The PMF has minimal impact to the site at the street frontage and the dwelling is not impacted by the PMF.

· Consideration has been given to the requirements of clause 5.21(3)(d) in relation to potential impact to the surrounding area that is impacted by coastal erosion as follows:

o The Coastal Engineering Report has considered the proposed floor levels of the buildings for impact from coastal inundation relative to sea level rise projections. Wave runup levels in 2050 and 2100 can be estimated as up to about RL 8.2m AHD and RL 8.7m AHD respectively for these benchmarks.

o The finished floor level of the ground floor of RL 8.9m AHD is above the 2100 wave runup level of RL 8.7m AHD. The garage and basement floor level of 4.8m AHD is acceptable as long as natural ground levels are contoured to direct any wave overtopping away from the garage door and adjacent dwelling door, which should not be difficult to achieve given the driveway falls from RL 4.8m AHD at the garage to RL 3.5m AHD at the landward property boundary. The garage and basement have no other areas that would allow water overtopping to enter in the design event, comprising solid concrete walls. The proposal will have minimal impact on development and residents from flooding and coastal erosion.

The proposal is consistent with the requirements and objectives of clause 5.21 in that:

· There is no flood affectation in the 1% AEP flood event that would cause risk to life and property associated with the proposed development or the surrounding area.

· The proposed development enables safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people in the event of a PMF flood.

· The proposal would be at an acceptable risk of coastal hazard, provided that the proposed structures are founded on suitable footing system, designed to support all the loads and structural actions and recommended conditions.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of clause 5.21 Flood Planning.

Clause 5.22 Special flood considerations

State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Flood Planning) 2023 commenced on 10 November 2023 and provides savings provisions in clause 1.8A(.2) which states:

1.8A (2) A development application made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Flood Planning) 2023 must be determined as if that policy had not commenced.

The development application was lodged on 10 October 2023 and consideration of clause 5.22 of CCLEP 2022 is not required.

Clause 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 CCLEP 2022 have been considered. The site contains Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) which are likely to occur where:

· Works within 500 metres of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land.

The land is mapped as Class 5, no known occurrence ASS and is located approximately 200 metres from adjacent Class 2 ASS (Terrigal Lagoon). Works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 metre in the adjacent Class 2 land; therefore, an ASS Management Plan is not required.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of clause 7.1 Acid Sulfate Soils.

Clause 7.6 Essential Services

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that all of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required—

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable vehicular access,

(f) the collection and management of waste.

The property was previously connected to electricity, reticulated water and sewer and serviced for waste collection and is therefore available to the proposed new dwelling house.

Water and Sewer is available to the land. A Section 307 certificate of compliance under the Water Management Act 2000 is required to be obtained prior to the occupation of the building.

Satisfactory details have been provided in the Waste Management Plan for waste management procedures associated with the construction, and ongoing operation of the proposed development.

Satisfactory stormwater drainage can be obtained in accordance with the Stormwater Plans and there is adequate area for vehicle access.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of clause 7.6 and that adequate essential servicing is available to the development having regard for water, sewer, electricity, stormwater drainage, waste collection and vehicular access.

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

The relevant controls of Central Coast Development Control Plan (CCDCP 2022) are considered below:

Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development.

Development Control	Required	Proposed	Compliance with Control	Compliance with Objective
2.1.2.1 a & c Building Height	a) max height – 8.5m c) max 2 storeys, however 3 storeys allowed in some circumstances	Max 11.287m (32.79% variation) 3 storeys at street / 2 storeys beachfront	No	Yes – refer comments below
2.1.2.2 a (ii) Site Coverage	Max 50% for allotment that has an area of 450sqm to 900sqm	323.6sqm or 41.5%	Yes	Yes
2.1.2.3 Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	No mapped FSR in CCLEP 2022	N/A	N/A	N/A
2.1.3.1a Front Setbacks	Average distance of the front setbacks to the nearest 2 dwelling houses having the same primary road boundary and located within 40m of the lot on which the dwelling house is erected, or if 2 dwelling houses are not located within 40m of the lot – 4.5m. iv. The minimum required setback for garage and carport structures and the like: A minimum 1m behind the front boundary setback.	There are no 2 dwellings located within 40m of the subject land – required setback is 4.5m. Provides a front setback of 6.743m. Garage located >1m behind front boundary setback.	Yes	Yes
2.1.3.1b (iii) Rear Setbacks	Where a property is within the Coastal Hazard Area as per CCDCP 2022, Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management.	Seaward of the Coastal Building Line (CBL) The proposed development is consistent with exemptions to the CBL provided in clause 3.2.3.4.a, as the supporting geotechnical/coastal engineering advice demonstrates reduced recession/future erosion potential on the subject site and the ability to safety construct the proposed dwelling consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern Area.	Yes	Yes – refer comments under Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern Area
2.1.3.1c (i) Side Setbacks	Any part of a dwelling with a height of up to 4.5m – 0.9m; and - for any part of the dwelling with a height of more than 4.5m – 0.9m + one quarter of the height of the building above 4.5m.	Northern Elevation *Setback required: HOB at Grid 2 – 2.596m* HOB at Grid 6 – 1.86m *Setback proposed: 1.9m* Southern Elevation Setback required: HOB at Grid 2 – 2.332m HOB at Grid 6 – 1.337m Setback proposed: Lower Roof – 1.4m First floor - 2.9m	No Yes	Yes – refer comments below
2.1.3.3 Articulation Zones	Articulation zone variations to front setbacks and garage door articulation facing the street (max 6m or 60% of building width, whichever is greater).	No articulation zone proposed. The garage door width is 6m.	Yes	Yes
2.1.4.1 Views	a. Address NSW L&E Court planning principles relating to view sharing. b. Sited and designed to enable view sharing to adjoining / adjacent sites particularly from habitable rooms. c. Development steps down a sloping site. d. Design of the roof form provides for view sharing.	The site adjoins a public reserve to the north and a public walkway beach access reserve to the south. There are no impacts on scenic coastal views from adjacent dwelling houses.	Yes	Yes
2.1.4.2 Visual Privacy	Orientation of windows and terrace areas to not directly overlook private open space areas of adjoining allotments	The site adjoins a public reserve to the north and a public walkway beach access reserve to the south. Extensive glazing is used on all elevations of the building however the siting and design of the development proposal is not considered to impact on visual privacy to the dwelling to the south as it has a separation distance of 17.9m to the first floor to the closest neighbouring dwelling. No privacy screening to windows or terrace areas is required in this instance.	Yes	Yes
2.1.4.3 Private Open Space (POS)	24sqm for allotments with a width greater than 10m wide at the building line Min dimension 3m.	Greater than 24sqm and 3m width achieved by the terrace area on the east elevation directly accessible from living/dining area.	Yes	Yes
2.1.4.4 Sunlight Access	Min 3 hrs/day sunlight mid-winter to 50% of principal private open space POS for new dwellings. Minimum 3 hours/day sunlight mid-winter to 50% of principal POS on adjoining land	Shadow diagrams indicate compliance is achieved to the POS of the subject dwelling. The POS is located at the beachfront. The dwelling house south of the subject site is separated by the public walkway reserve and its east facing POS it not impacted by overshadowing.	Yes	Yes
2.1.5 Car Parking and Access	Provide minimum off street parking facilities – 2 spaces for a dwelling with 4 or more bedrooms. Ensure safe vehicular access to public road. Max driveway width 4m at street crossover.	4 spaces provided within garage. The garage spaces being behind the primary road setback. Driveway width 4m at the street crossover is proposed. The garage/driveway is designed to enable vehicles to provide for safe vehicle entry and pedestrian access and minimise potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflict.	Yes	Yes
2.1.6.1 Earthworks	Cut/fill maximum 1m within 1m of boundaries, or 3m if more than 3m from boundary	Cut within the footprint of the proposed new dwelling and garage is supported by a Geotechnical Report. Earthworks for the proposal is considered satisfactory for the characteristics of the site, complies with the objectives and generally consistent with the controls. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan provided and deemed satisfactory.	Yes – subject to conditions for compliance with the Coastal Engineering reports and plans	Yes
2.1.6.2 Retaining Wall and Structural Support	More than 600mm above or below existing ground level and within 1m of any boundary, or more than 1m above or below existing ground level in any other location, to be designed by a professional engineer.	Structural engineering requirements and details provided.	Yes – subject to compliance with the Coastal Engineering reports and plans	Yes
2.1.6.3 Drainage	All stormwater drainage collecting must be conveyed by a gravity fed or charged system to a public drainage system, or an inter-allotment drainage system, or an on-site disposal system	Stormwater Management Plan provided – no stormwater runoff is directed onto neighbouring properties	Yes	Yes
2.1.7.3 Swimming Pools	i. be located behind the setback area from a primary road or in the rear yard unless it can be justified site constraints exist. ii. Comply with side and rear setbacks for the swimming pool water line and any associated deck. iii. Have associated pump housed in an enclosure that is sound proofed.	The proposed swimming pool complies with the requirements of clause 2.1.7.3.	Yes	Yes
2.1.7.4 Fencing	Fencing 1.2m – local road or 1.8m to a collector road. Fences should not be constructed in areas where front fencing is not part of the overall streetscape.	Fencing is proposed on the front boundary of the site. Properties with beach frontage along Wamberal Beach where proposed have fencing on the front boundary up to 1.8m in height and therefore this type of fencing forms part of the overall streetscape. A condition is provided for the design of the proposed fence to be submitted with the Construction Certificate documentation.	Yes	Yes

The areas of non-compliance including other relevant development controls are detailed as follows:

Clause 2.1.2.1 Building Height

Clause 2.1.2.1 provides maximum height requirements for a building in accordance with clause 4.3.(2) of CCLEP 2022. Clause 2.1.2.1 objectives are outlined as follows:

· To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality.

· To ensure that the height of buildings protects the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, access to sunlight, privacy and views.

· To ensure that building height is compatible with the scenic qualities of hillside and ridgetop locations and respects the sites natural topography.

Furthermore, chapter 2.1.2.1(c) building height requirements stipulates that:

“Building Height shall generally not exceed two storeys. Three storey development will generally only be supported on steeply sloping sites, where the three-storey component extends for only a small section of the dwelling or where the lowest storey is contained predominantly in a basement level below natural ground and the maximum building heights are not exceeded”.

The eastern portion of the proposed development complies with the maximum building height. The western elevation the dwelling does not comply with the required 8.5m building height and has a maximum height from existing ground level of 11.287m at the northwest corner resulting in a variation of 32.79% to the development controls. The non-compliance with the building height is shown in Figure 19 with the area of exceedance in yellow.

As stated previously in the report under Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of CCLEP 2022, the development proposes encroachments and heights above the development standard which are supported by a Clause 4.6 request to vary the development standard. The assessment has considered the variations are satisfactory and supported.

Notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance, the extent of the building height non-compliance is relatively minor:

· The variation will not be readily perceptible externally. The design appears as a three-storey building from the street however has a two-storey presentation to the beach. The bulk and scale of the building is consistent with other contemporary multi-level dwellings along the beachfront and has a basement level generally below existing natural ground line.

· The height of the building is minimised by the design of the development by the stepping and articulation of the building form, extensive use of glazing and provides natural ventilation, acoustic and visual privacy to neighbours that generally comply with the DCP requirements, noting the property to the south at 65 Ocean View Drive has a separation distance of 15m over a vegetated public walkway reserve.

· The proposed dwelling house will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining residents by privacy, overshadowing or views.

As such, the proposed development is considered to meet the objectives and underlying intent of the height control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts on a site within a coastal hazard area.

Clause 2.1.3.1(c) Side Boundary Setbacks

Clause 2.1.3.1(c) provides setbacks for residential zoned land.

It should be noted that clause 2.1.3.1(c)(iv) identifies that if the property is within the Coastal Hazard Planning Areas, Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern Area of CCDCP 2022 applies which provides reduced side setbacks if the land is identified as a Severely Impacted Land Parcel. Severely impacted land parcels apply to the area of land behind the Coastal Building Line (CBL) to a maximum of 250sqm. Land area behind the CBL for the site is greater than 250sqm with a developable land area landward of the CBL of 300sqm. The area of the site landward of the Coastal Building Line is greater than that specified in Chapter 3.2 and therefore cannot be applied to the proposal.

Therefore, clause 2.1.3.1(c) is applicable to the proposal and requires:

Any part of a dwelling with a height of up to 4.5m – 0.9m; and - for any part of the dwelling with a height of more than 4.5m – 0.9m + one quarter of the height of the building above 4.5m.

The required setbacks are provided relevant to the section or Grid lines (refer Figure 15 which indicates the Grid lines on the Architectural Plans) as follows:

· Southern Elevation

o Setback required for the Height of Building (HOB) at Grid 2 on the Architectural Plans is 2.332m and for HOB at Grid 6 is 1.337m.

o Setback proposed for the Lower Roof is 1.4m and for the First floor 2.9m.

o The proposal complies with the required setback provision to the southern side boundary.

· North Elevation

o Setback required for the Height of Building (HOB) at Grid 2 on the Architectural Plans is 2.596m and for HOB at Grid 6 is 1.86m.

o Setback proposed is 1.9m.

o The proposal does not comply with the required setback provision to the northern side boundary; a variation of 26.8% at Grid 2.

The applicant requests variation to the setback provisions. The areas of non-compliance over sections at Grid lines of the northern elevation prepared by Steven Christensen Architecture, Inc. are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20 – Serial Section Diagram

The setback objectives in clause 2.1.3 are outlined as follows:

· To ensure that setbacks are compatible with adjacent development and complements the character, streetscape, public reserve, or coastal foreshore.

· To ensure the visual focus of a development is the dwelling, not the garage.

· To protect the views, privacy and solar access of adjacent properties.

· To maintain view corridors to coastal foreshores and other desirable outlooks.

· To maintain the scenic and environmental qualities of natural waterbodies and their foreshores and respond to site attributes such as topography.

· To provide deep soil areas sufficient to conserve existing trees or accommodate new landscaping.

· To provide appropriate articulation of facades and horizontal elements reduce the appearance of bulk and provides visual interest to the building and subsequent streetscape where they face a street frontage/s.

Notwithstanding the numerical non-compliance the variation is considered minor, and the proposal complies with the stated objectives as follows:

· There are no neighbouring dwellings adjacent the northern site boundary and therefore there are no impacts on views, privacy or solar access that otherwise may arise.

· The proposal provides appropriate articulation and does not have adverse visual impacts on the scenic and environmental qualities of the public domain along Wamberal Beach or the streetscape of Ocean View Drive.

· There are no existing trees on the site to be retained. The Landscape Plan prepared by Foliage Designs dated 14 March 2024 indicates sufficient deep soil areas are provided on site for new landscaping.

· The setbacks proposed are compatible with adjacent development and complement the character, streetscape, public reserve and coastal foreshore.

In summary, the proposal generally complies with the relevant provisions for dwelling houses. The non-compliances addressed above are relatively minor and reflect the site characteristics and topographical profile of the coastal dune as it falls toward Ocean View Drive. The proposal has a satisfactory streetscape and beachfront presentation and is compatible with existing development along Wamberal Beach.

Chapter 2.14 Site Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the proposal. The proposal has demonstrated compliance with this chapter of the CCDCP 2022 and associated Waste Control Guidelines applying at the time the application was lodged. Appropriate conditions are included in the development consent.

Chapter 2.17 Character and Scenic Quality

Character

The site is located within the character area: Wamberal 1: Open Beachfront of CCDCP 2022 Chapter 2.17 Character.

The character statement provides for the desired character as follows:

‘These should remain low-density residential foreshores where future development does not dominate the informal scenic quality of prominent backdrops to Gosford City’s ocean beaches, and new dwellings are surrounded by leafy gardens that provide protection from storm surges and shoreline erosion.

Ensure that new structures do not disrupt development patterns that are evident upon surrounding properties. Avoid disturbing natural slopes plus any existing trees that are visually-prominent foreshore features, and ensure a leafy character for these prominent backdrops to ocean beaches. Plant gardens and street verges with low hedges and salt-tolerant trees that are predominantly indigenous, clustered to maintain existing panoramic views. Facing beachfronts in particular, avoid tall retaining walls or fences, extensive terraces or driveways that would visibly compromise the desired leafy character. Plant low-growing “hedges” of indigenous shrubs and ground covers along boundaries and to stabilise dunes. Also, maintain the informal character of any existing wide street verges that are dotted with shady street trees.

Avoid the appearance of a continuous wall of foreshore development by setting all building works back from exposed fore-dunes, and by surrounding buildings with leafy gardens. Incorporate waterfront and street setbacks that are similar to the surrounding properties, and provide at least one wide side setback or step the shape of front and rear facades.

Minimise the scale and bulk of new buildings or additions to existing dwellings. Use irregular floorplans to create well-articulated forms, such as linked pavilions that are separated by courtyards and capped by individual roofs. All roofs should be gently-pitched to minimise the height of ridges, flanked by wide eaves and verandahs to disguise the scale of exterior walls. Facing the beach, disguise the impact of upper storeys by a combination of extra setbacks from the ground floor plus shady balconies and verandahs.

Reflect elements of traditional coastal architecture and minimise the scale of prominent facades by using extensive windows and lightly-framed verandahs plus a variety of materials and finishes rather than expanses of plain masonry. All dwellings should display a “street address” with verandahs or decks, and living rooms or front doors that are visible from the roadway. Avoid wide garages that would visually-dominate any front façade or block views between the dwelling and the street. Locate and screen all balconies or decks to maintain existing levels of privacy and amenity that are enjoyed by neighbouring dwellings.’

Comment:

The proposal is consistent with the residential use of the site and development on surrounding properties, including larger dwelling houses that are being built on and near to the beachfront.

The existing character of Ocean View Drive and the beachfront area is a mixture of housing types, with an ongoing redevelopment of older housing stock into larger new houses. Surrounding development is primarily detached dwelling houses, with multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings (subject to existing use rights) within the locality. Carparking on the eastern side of Ocean View Drive is characterised by garages and parking spaces built near or on the street boundary, or forward of the building line.

The proposal has been designed to respond to the slope of the site, and its beach frontage at the rear whilst achieving a compliant street setback. The proposed development complies with the building setbacks to the beachfront and also provides a 3m building setback to the alignment of the proposed coastal protection revetment wall and is similar to the coastal building setback of other dwellings in the locality.

Landscape Plans provide both dune stabilisation and streetscape plantings appropriate for the beachfront location. Coastal hazard assessment and structural engineering provide for protection of the proposed dwelling house and pool from storm surges and shoreline erosion. There are no visually prominent trees on the site and no extensive retaining walls or terraces facing the beach.

The dwelling house has a three-storey presentation to the street and a two-storey presentation to Wamberal Beach at the rear with ground level terrace and first floor balcony. The rear elevation of the dwelling house contains extensive glazed areas, taking advantage of the available views, and provides architectural interest in the beachfront presentation of the development.

The swimming pool is located alongside the northern elevation of the dwelling house and partly protrudes further eastward of the eastern elevation. However, results in a consistent boundary setback to that of the south-eastern corner of the dwelling house. Swimming pools on the foredune are not a feature of the beachfront character along Wamberal Beach, and where proposed are generally located alongside or within the building footprint of the dwelling house and suitably piled. This is a preferred design outcome rather than within the setback area between the seaward boundary of the site and the dwelling house to minimise potential visual amenity and scenic quality impacts from coastal erosion of the seaward portion of the site.

The bulk and scale of the dwelling house is consistent with bulk and scale of contemporary multi-level dwellings along the Wamberal beachfront and will provide an appropriate development for the site.

The dwelling house displays a ‘street address’ with a front door and from regularly occupied rooms (dining/living area) on the first floor visible from the street. The basement garage is setback a minimum of 1 metre from the western façade of the dwelling house and does not visually dominate the street front façade or block views between the dwelling and the street.

The site is separated from other dwelling houses by reserve areas and as a result there is no expected impact on the privacy and amenity to adjoining properties.

Overall, the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the area, having regard to the zoning of the land, the nature of development in the surrounding area and the nature of the design, which is articulated, with a complying building height along the beach frontage.

Scenic Quality

The site is located within in the Forresters Beach - Wamberal Land Unit within the North Coastal Geographic Unit.

The principle aim of the Scenic Quality chapter is to provide guidelines for the interpretation and management of the scenic quality of the area in accordance with the development objectives of the landscape unit.

The landscape character is described as follows:

‘The Wamberal landscape Unit is more reflective of the Gosford area and consists of a diversity of characteristics. Urban development in Wamberal is not intrusive as it is contained within the forested ridge formed by COSS lands, Environmental/Conservation zoned areas and Wamberal Lagoon. The shopping centre does though detract from this character. Within the Wamberal urban areas the landform is generally open and limited large scale vegetation results in a moderate to high level of visual exposure. Rural-residential areas of Wamberal consist of a small, enclosed valley stretching between Matcham Road and Reads Road. The western portion of the valley is highly visible from The Entrance Road. This rural-residential area from a significant part of the rural buffer between Erina and Wamberal.’

The Wamberal Unit is of regional scenic value where opportunities for increases in densities and scale are available in areas not subject to visibility constraints or other physical constraints. Visually constrained areas include land along the beachfront.

The above statement does not describe the contribution the Wamberal beachfront makes to the scenic landscape character of the unit.

Notwithstanding this, the dwelling house will be visible from the beach and coastal areas and will maintain an appropriate presentation that is consistent with other more recent development along the beachfront and is located as far landward as possible.

Visual amenity of the dune area has been considered in the redevelopment of the site. Landscape Plans provide both dune stabilisation and streetscape plantings appropriate for the beachfront location. As part of the proposed works, the dune face will be shaped to its former levels by scraping sand up from the adjacent beach (on private property, if sand is available) and revegetated. Maintenance and management of the dune area will be required for reinstatement of the dune following a coastal storm event.

The proposal is not likely to have any adverse visual amenity on the scenic quality of the area and/or from coastal erosion in a significant storm event.

Chapter 3.1 Floodplain Management/Water Cycle Management

Chapter 3.1 seeks to minimise the impact of development on the natural pre-development

water cycle. This will lead to more sustainable outcomes that will protect the environment.

The Stormwater Management Plan submitted with the application is considered satisfactory for this type of development.

Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part C: Southern Area (Former Gosford LGA) of Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management of CCDCP 2022.

The Coastal Hazards Mapping is identified in Figure 21 below and indicates the following:

· Coastal Building Line (CBL) - red line.

· Coastal Hazard Area (where piling foundation is required) is hatched in pink.

· Zone of Slope Adjustment (zSA) 2050 – yellow dashed line.

· Zone of Slope Adjustment (zSA) 2100 – orange dashed line.

· Zone of Reduced Foundation Capacity (zRFC) 2050 – yellow line.

· Zone of Reduced Foundation Capacity (zRFC) 2100 – orange line.

Figure 21 – Coastal Hazards Mapping

A Coastal Building Line (CBL) applies to coastal frontage areas and any application is to address coastal hazard impacts, including erosion, inundation and wave runup, on property and development.

The following documentation has been provided with the development application in accordance with clause 3.2.3.5 and are included as Attachments to this report:

· Coastal Engineers Advice prepared by Horton Coastal Engineering dated 26 September 2023 – refer Attachment 5.

· Structural Engineers Advice prepared by Northrop, Ref NL203634.E02(4) dated 30 April 2024 – refer Attachment 7.

· Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by JK Geotechnics, Ref: 34346R2rpt dated 30 April 2024 – refer Attachment 8.

· Architectural plans showing the location of the coastal building line on the site – refer Attachment 2.

Clause 3.2.3.3 Coastal Building Line

Clause 3.2.3.3 states:

a All new development must be constructed landward of the coastal building line;

b Where new development is to be protected by an existing approved seawall or terminal revetment, then standard setbacks will apply for areas landward of that seawall once the seawall has been constructed.

The proposed location of the CBL and the MHL Wamberal seawall alignment is identified on the Architectural Plans in Figure 22. The proposal is located seaward of the CBL as identified in Figure 22 although is approximately 3m landward of the proposed alignment of Wamberal Beach Terminal Protection structure/seawall (identified by the Council adopted Engineering Design Requirements Report MHL2872 dated 21 September 2022 prepared by Manly Hydraulics Laboratory). The location of the seawall is not fixed in that document. A terminal protection structure is not part of the proposal and is not currently in place.

As stated previously, on 15 July 2024, a separate development application (DA/947/2024) was lodged with Council for Coastal Protection Works along Wamberal Beach, including the subject site.

Figure 22 – Site Plan showing location of the Coastal Building Line

and MHL Wamberal Seawall alignment

Figures 23 & 24 aerial photographs (below) show the coastal hazard lines relative to the footprint of the proposed development (proposed basement - brown line, pool – black line, and ground floor - yellow dashed line on the site and in relation to the closest dwelling house to the south. The Coastal Engineering Advice notes ‘the former dwelling deck was located about 1.5m to 4m seaward of the proposed terrace’.

Figure 23 – Coastal Hazard Lines and proposed dwelling house and swimming pool footprint (Source: Coastal Engineers Advice 26/09/2023)

Figure 24 – Coastal Hazard Lines and previous dwelling house and terrace footprint

(Source: Coastal Engineers Advice 26/09/2023)

Clause 3.2.3.3.2 All Development

Clause 3.2.3.3.2 identifies the requirements for all development within the coastal hazard area and these provisions have been considered in the assessment of the proposal.

The key aspects of the development from the Coastal Engineer (Horton 2023) and Structural Engineer (Northrop 20243) taking into consideration the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer (JK Geotechnics 2024) are provided as follows:

1. The Coastal Engineers Advice (Horton 2023) concludes the following:

· The proposed dwelling and ancillary structures (terrace, pool and spa) at 67 Ocean View Drive Wamberal extend well seaward of the Coastal Building Line. The entire proposed development is landward of the 3m seawall maintenance setback referred to in MHL (2022).

· The entire development shall be founded on piles designed to support the loads of the structure and other conventional structural actions, plus should have an allowance for wave impact loading and loading from a collapsing sand dune during or following storm erosion as per Nielsen et al (1992). The wave impact and sand slumping forces should be provided by a coastal engineer as part of detailed design. A scour level of -1m AHD should be adopted for the design of these piles, i.e. assuming that all soil is eroded above -1m AHD in the design storm.

· Through analysis as described in Section 6.5 (Horton 2023), any additional erosion associated with the proposed piles, basement and pool would be expected to remain within the site and would thus not impact on adjacent properties. The proposed terrace slab is above wave action in the design storm event at the end of the design life, so there is no possible mechanism whereby it could cause additional erosion for this event.

· The proposed dwelling is at an acceptably low risk of inundation if natural ground levels are contoured to direct any wave overtopping away from the garage door and adjacent dwelling door, which should not be difficult to achieve.

· The proposed development satisfies the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 for the matters considered herein, including that the development would not be expected to give rise to increased coastal hazards on adjacent land.

· It is proposed to found the dwelling seaward of the Coastal Building Line, and not to comply with Chapter 3.2.3.3.2(e)(i) of Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (DCP 2022). This is acceptable as taking a flexible merits-based approach, the development complies with 3.2.3.3.2(e)(ii) and Chapter 3.2.3.3.2(b)(i)(iii)(iv)(v) and (vi) of DCP 2022; the proposed development is permissible based on Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022; it is not possible to entirely found the dwelling landward of the Coastal Building Line; a DCP cannot prohibit development that is permissible under SEPP Resilience and that complies with SEPP Resilience; the proposed development would not be expected to increase coastal erosion on adjacent land; and it has been established in Odisho v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1017 (approval granted for construction of a new pool to the beach side of the existing dwelling at 44 Ocean Street, North Avoca) that it is acceptable to pile development seaward of the Coastal Building Line if it does not increase coastal erosion on adjacent land.

· The proposed pool, spa and terrace are ancillary based on Chapter 3.2.3.4(d) of DCP (2022), namely “ancillary structures may be permitted forward [seaward] of the coastal building line where the applicant demonstrates that the ancillary structure will not give rise to coastal erosion or increase the risk to property and life”. Any additional erosion caused by the proposed piling and pool would be expected to remain within the site and would thus not impact on adjacent properties. Therefore, the ancillary structures would not be expected to give rise to coastal erosion of any consequence. It is thus permissible for the proposed pool, spa and terrace to be located seaward of the Coastal Building Line. These structures must be piled to be at an acceptably low risk of damage. It has been established in Odisho v Central Coast Council that it is acceptable to pile ancillary development seaward of the Coastal Building Line if it does not increase coastal erosion on adjacent land, as has been demonstrated.

2. The Structural Engineers Advice (Northrop 2024) proposed design solution is as follows:

· The concept structural design adopts the structural recommendations from the Coastal Engineers Advice prepared by Horton Coastal Engineering and the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by JK Geotechnics.

· Northrop has adopted the 2083 design event and corresponding ZRFC and ZSA as the design coastal process event for the development. This is a conservative approach, adopting a design life larger than the design life typically required for residential developments.

· The structure will be designed as fully suspended. Any support from soils located above the design scour level will be ignored during design and is not required for support during a coastal erosion event.

· All foundations for the main dwelling will be founded in the medium dense sands or stiff to very stiff clays below RL -4.6m. This level is much deeper than the required scour level and the structural concept design is based on the most conservative design option provided by the geotechnical engineer.

· All piles, reinforced concrete beams and slabs are designed to resist vertical loads and will be designed for conventional lateral actions such as wind and earthquake as well as the lateral loads arising from coastal hazards such as dune slumping, loss of support and erosion. This is a conservative approach and means that the structure will be able to withstand coastal processes larger than the design event.

It is considered the submitted reports prepared by suitably qualified / expert engineers adequately demonstrate the proposal will not increase coastal hazards and the proposal achieves the objectives for development in the coastal hazard area stated in clause 3.2.3.3.2 which are as follows:

· To manage development in Coastal Vulnerability Areas using precautionary planning tools to reduce coastal hazard risks.

· To protect against or manage coastal hazards on sites where this is feasible, affordable and without adversely impacting the locality or the broader environment.

· To provide for equity in redevelopment of coastal frontage properties by applying consistent setbacks for new developments in Coastal Vulnerability Areas

· To complement and reinforce the objectives and requirements of Clause 2.9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

· To protect beach amenity and public safety.

In considering the proposal against these objectives on its merits it considered the proposed development is satisfactory in the sensitive coastal area in that:

· The proposal is considered to address the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 as detailed elsewhere this report. There are no Coastal Vulnerability Areas mapped under the SEPP and the provisions of clause 2.9 are not applicable in the assessment of the proposal.

· Adequate information has been provided with the proposal to address clause 3.2.3.3.2(b) (i – vii). The proposal has been designed (foundations) to withstand the effects of coastal processes and is at an acceptably low risk of damage over an acceptably long life if founded in accordance with Section 6.3 of the Coastal Engineers Advice which takes into consideration the coastal forces the structural engineer has to consider in the design of the piles.

· The proposed location of the dwelling house seaward of the of the building line is permissible based on Clause 3.2.3.4(a) Exemptions to the Coastal Building Line of CCDCP 2022:

o Building only landward of the CBL would offer very limited development opportunities at the site. The terrace, swimming pool and spa have been considered as ancillary structures and permitted seaward of the CBL.

o The supporting Coastal Engineers Advice and Structural Engineers Advice has satisfactorily considered the risk to development from coastline hazards as required under clause 3.2.3.3.2 and compliance with the Resilience and Hazards SEPP. The ancillary structures are not expected to give rise to coastal erosion or increase the risk to property and life.

o In accordance with the expert reports as geotechnical engineering advice identifies the land formation and demonstrates significantly reduced erosion/recession potential on the subject site. With appropriate structural engineering input, and the foundation recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, a structure can be constructed at an acceptably low risk of damage at the subject property.

· The development is appropriate for the site having regard to the results of coastal, geotechnical and structural investigations. The proposed development would not be expected to give rise to any increased coastal hazards on the land or other land if founded in accordance with the Coastal Engineers Advice and Structural Engineering Advice as the development is supported on piles above most wave action. Any additional erosion caused by the piles, basement and pool is expected to within the site and not impact on adjacent properties.

· The proposal considers the effects of larger events than the designated hazard. The Coastal Engineer states:

o Larger events than the design event could occur, as could tsunamis. However, the probabilities of these events are so low that the development remains at an acceptably low risk of damage, which is the desired outcome (zero risk is not possible).

o Furthermore, Northrop (2024) noted that the piles would be designed to resist both short-term wind and earthquake actions occurring at the same time as foundation reactions from ultimate wind and seismic actions on the proposed dwelling are the governing load cases and exceed the lateral coastal hazard loads imposed on the piles during a storm event. This means that the structural concept can withstand larger coastal storm events than those specified and designed to. Factors of safety in design also mean that foundations can be expected to withstand larger storm events than the design storm event. However, it is reiterated though that it is acceptable to design for the design event, by definition.

· The proposed development is located seaward of the CBL, however is setback as far landward as practically possible and further landward than the previous dwelling.

o The proposal has a setback of 10m to the seaward boundary with a two- storey presentation to the beachfront and complies with the required front setback for dwelling houses (clause 2.1.3.1 of CCDCP 2022) providing an area for vehicle movements on the site.

o While separated by the walkway reserve to the closest dwelling to the south the proposal generally aligns with the seaward extent of that dwelling (65 Ocean View Drive) and will be consistent with other new and existing development along the beachfront.

o The Coastal Engineer states that it is not practical to found the dwelling landward of the CBL and cantilever it 13m – 15m.

· The building will have an acceptably low risk of damage from runup and inundation (refer Coastal Engineers Advice, Section 7) subject to compliance with the coastal engineering reports and plans. The proposed level of the basement has been considered in the assessment of the application. It should be noted the proposal is consistent in design of basements, parking areas and access to the dwelling house with approvals granted along Ocean View Drive. Section 7 of the Coastal Engineers Advice provides the following:

o In WorleyParsons (2014), present-day design wave runup levels of 6.5m of 9.5m AHD were adopted for Wamberal Beach at the nearest calculations points south and north the subject property. However, this 9.5m value is considered to be particularly conservative, as seemingly recognised by Advisian (2016), who adopted a corresponding wave runup level of 8m AHD at nearby 85 Ocean View Drive.

o Adopting the 8m AHD value and taking projected sea level rise into account (using Council’s adopted sea level rise values of 0.2m at 2050 and 0.74m at 2100), this would simplistically give approximate design wave runup levels of about 8.2m AHD at 2050 and 8.7m AHD at 2100. The approximate design wave runup level at the end of the design life in 2083 is 8.5m AHD.

o The proposed ground finished floor level of 8.9m AHD is above the 2100 wave runup level of 8.7m AHD, such that coastal inundation is not a significant issue for the proposed dwelling. The garage and basement floor level of 4.8m AHD is acceptable as long as natural ground levels are contoured to direct any wave overtopping away from the garage door and adjacent dwelling door and should not be difficult to achieve given the driveway falls from 4.8m ADH at the garage to 3.5m AHD at the landward property boundary. The garage and basement have no areas that would allow water overtopping to enter in the design event.

o Based on Chapter 3.2.3.3.2(f) of DCP 2022, minimum building floor levels shall be 0.5m above the 1% AEP maximum wave inundation level, with no planning period stated and “maximum” assumed to mean “2% exceedance”. This has regularly been noted by Horton Coastal Engineering as a technically flawed requirement, given that it does not consider the likely depth of wave overtopping and given that wave runup calculations assume an infinite height foreshore, but it can be noted that the ground floor of the proposed development meets this requirement, and the lower levels have been considered in the paragraph above.

· Remediation works will be required to re-establish the site and dune with fill/sand/landscaping on the subject site to improve beach amenity, refer discussion under Resilience and Hazard SEPP and relevant conditions are imposed.

Planning Summary

The documentation submitted with the application, including the Coastal Engineers Advice which is prepared by a Land and Environment Court acknowledged expert, Structural Engineering Advice and Geotechnical Investigation demonstrate the proposal is satisfactory in relation to the impacts of coastal hazards on the site.

The proposed development will have an acceptably low risk of damage if founded in accordance with the design parameters in these reports. The proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the site or other land.

The proposed location of the dwelling house is not likely to impact on any future seawall/coastal protection works. A condition is imposed for any structures or coastal protection works to require separate approval by Council.

The proposal is of a satisfactory height, bulk and scale and provides equity in redevelopment of the site which allows for view sharing and does not adversely impact on privacy and overshadowing to existing adjoining development.

Revised documentation submitted during the assessment have been reviewed by Council’s Coastal Planning Officer who raises no objection in relation to the provisions of Chapter 3.2 of CCDCP 2022 in that the proposal would be at an acceptable risk of coastal hazard, provided that the proposed structures should be founded on suitable footing system and should be designed to support all the loads and structural actions.

Conditions of consent are imposed for the design and implementation of the requirements of the expert reports including certification from the Geotechnical Engineer that all works have been carried out in accordance with the expert reports, plans and recommendations (as amended), refer Conditions 2.3, 5.4, 6.4.

Conditions of consent are imposed for management of dune erosion and potential visual/amenity impacts of development following coastal storm events on the site, refer Conditions 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6.

Chapter 3.5 Tree and Vegetation Management

The proposal does not propose, impact nor require removal of prominent trees.

Landscape Plans provide both dune stabilisation and streetscape plantings appropriate for the beachfront location.

Chapter 3.7 Geotechnical Requirements for Development

Chapter 3.7 provides a management strategy for development in areas identified as having landslip potential and guidelines on the content of geotechnical reports.

The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 30 April 2024 provides recommendations for foundation designs which together with the Coastal Engineers Advice are provided by the Structural Engineering Advice and Plans. Conditions of consent are imposed for the design, implementation and certification of the structural design of the foundations and piling for the proposal, refer Conditions 2.3, 5.4, 6.4.

Likely Impacts of the Development

Section 4.15 (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration of the likely impacts of the development including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

In this regard, potential impacts related to the proposal have been considered in response to SEPPs, LEP and DCP controls outlined above and summarised below:

Built Environment, Context and Setting

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under CCLEP 2022 and adjoins residential developments comprising single and two-storey dwellings.

A thorough assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the built environment has been undertaken in terms of CCLEP 2022 and CCDCP 2022 compliance. Despite non-compliance with the building height and northern side setback, the proposal generally complies with the development controls as discussed throughout the report and the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the character or amenity of the area in terms of overshadowing, privacy, noise generating activities and views. The proposed built form is considered acceptable in the context of the site, subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

Access and traffic

The local road network is considered to have adequate capacity to cater for the proposed development and minimal increase in traffic generated by the proposal. More than adequate provision is provided for onsite car parking and vehicle movements within the site to enable entry and exit in a forward manner.

Natural Environment

The proposal is satisfactory in relation to impacts on the natural environment as identified throughout this report for land subject to coastal hazards. There will be no significant impact upon the natural environment as a result of the proposed modifications.

Economic and Social Impacts

The proposal replaces a dwelling that was damaged from a large storm event in July 2020. No unreasonable economic or social impacts will arise from the approval of the dwelling house and swimming pool.

Suitability of the Site for the Development

Section 4.15 (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration whether the site is suitable for the proposed development.

The site is zoned is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under CCLEP 2022. Dwelling houses are permissible in the zone.

The impact of the proposal within the sensitive coastal location has been considered. The proposed development will have an acceptably low risk of damage if founded in accordance with the design parameters in the supporting Coastal, Structural and Geotechnical reports and plans which demonstrate the proposal is satisfactory in relation to the impacts of coastal hazards on the site. The proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the site or other land.

As such the site is considered is suitable for this type of development subject to conditions.

Any Submission made in Accordance with this Act or Regulations

Section 4.15 (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration of any submissions received during notification of the proposal.

The proposed modification has been notified in accordance with the provisions of Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. The application was notified for the period 11 October 2023 to 25 October 2023.

No submissions were received.

Submissions from Public Authorities

The application did not require referral to any public authority.

Internal Consultation

Environmental Health Officer		Supported subject to conditions.
Tree Assessment Officer		Supported subject to conditions.
Coastal Planning Officer		Supported subject to conditions.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles

The development has been assessed having regard to ecologically sustainable development principles and is consistent with the principles.

The development is considered to incorporate satisfactory stormwater, drainage and erosion control and the retention of vegetation 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 development proposed to be modified 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.

The Public Interest

Approval of the development is in the public interest for the following reasons:

· The development has been prepared having regard to the aims and objectives of relevant state and local environmental planning instruments and generally complies.

· The development is deemed to have no negative environmental, social or economic impacts to surrounding residential dwellings or the public domain.

· Subject to various mitigation measures recommended by consultants and Council’s technical officers, the proposal is deemed to have no negative environmental, social or economic impacts to surrounding residential dwellings or the public domain.

· The development is designed and sighted to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and result in a quality residential development.

· The development is sympathetic to the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood and respects and maintains privacy to and from neighbouring properties.

Political Donations

During assessment of the application there were no political donations were declared by the applicant, applicant’s consultant, owner, objectors and/or residents.

Other Matters for Consideration:

Development Contributions Plan

The land is subject to the Central Coast Section 7.12 Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2023 which was adopted by Council on 28 November 2023 and replaces the Central Coast Regional Section 7.12 Development Contribution Plan 2019.

There are no transitional arrangements in place, therefore any subject contributions will be applied to an application based on the contributions plan in force at the date of application determination.

Development that is not subject to a section 7.11 contribution under any other contributions plan adopted by the Council under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, may be subject to levy of section 7.12 contributions unless is development that is exempt under Clause 1.5 of this Plan.

Development contributions are only levied where the proposal meets the cost of works thresholds and not subject to any exemption under this plan. The proposed cost of works is $2,685,720 however the development is for a dwelling house and is exempt under clause 1.5 of the plan; no development contributions levy is applicable in this instance.

Water and Sewer

Water and Sewer services are available to the site. A Section 305 application will be required to obtain a Section 307 Certificate of compliance. The resulting Section 306 letter of requirements will contain Water Authority conditions if required.

Air Quality

Standard dust condition is applied during construction works.

Noise

The plant room is depicted on the basement level, therefore noise impacts from mechanical plant and equipment on adjoining residential receivers is not expected. Standard condition for construction times is applied.

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. Following a thorough assessment of the relevant planning controls and the key issues identified in this report which have been resolved satisfactorily through amendments to the proposal, it is considered that the application can be supported, noting that:

· The Panel can be satisfied that the provisions of the following State Environmental Planning Policies have been considered and satisfied:

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

ii) Chapter 2 and Chapter 4, section 4.6(4) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

· The Panel can be satisfied that the provisions of clause 7.1 Acid Sulfate Soils and 7.6 Essential Services of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 have been considered and satisfied.

· The Panel can be satisfied that the relevant provisions of the environmental planning instruments, plans and policies that apply to the development have been considered in the assessment of the application, in particular the impacts of development within the the sensitive coastal location.

· The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse social or economic impact.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subject to conditions.

Attachments

1⇩

Draft conditions - 67 Ocean View Dr, WAMBERAL NSW 2260 - DA 1955 2023

Item No: 3.3
Title: DA/2461/2023 - New Dwelling House & Demolition of Existing Structures - 42 North Avoca Parade North Avoca NSW 2250
Department: Environment and Planning
17 October 2024 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: DA/2461/2023 - D16434344

Author: Karen Hanratty, Senior Development Planner Residential Assessments

Section Manager: Ailsa Prendergast, Section Manager. Residential Assessments

Unit Manager: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager. Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received for New Dwelling House & Demolition of Existing Structures. The application has been examined having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other statutory requirements with the issues requiring attention and consideration being addressed in this report.

This development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel as the application proposes a variation greater than 10% to the Height of Building development standard in clause 4.3(2) of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022. The subject land has a maximum building height standard of 8.5 metres. The proposed development has a maximum height of 9.644m which represents a variation of 1.144m (or 13%).

The application was notified with no submissions received.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Applicant Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd

Owner S R & C P Webb

Application No DA/2461/2023

Description of Land Lot 1 DP 1296711. 42 North Avoca Parade, North Avoca

Proposed Development New Dwelling House & Demolition of Existing Structures

Site Area 631.9sqm

Zoning R2 Low Density Residential

Existing Use Dwelling House

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $2,380,260

Recommendation

Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

2 That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA/2461/2023 on Lot 1 DP 1296711, 42 North Avoca Parade North Avoca NSW 2250 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

· Compliance with Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022).

o Variation greater than 10% to clause 4.3(2) Height of Building development standard.

· Compliance with the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

o Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Structures – building height and side boundary setback.

o Chapter 3.2 Coastal Hazard Management – Southern area - development located within Coastal Hazard Area.

Precis:

Proposed Development	New Dwelling House & Demolition of Existing Structures
Permissibility and Zoning	The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022). The proposed development is defined in the CCLEP 2022 as ‘dwelling house’ and is permissible in the zone with consent.
Current Use	Dwelling House
Integrated Development	No
Submissions	Nil

Variations to Policies - Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022

Clause	4.3(2) Height of Building
Standard	The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map of 8.5m.
Departure basis	Maximum height of 9.644m is proposed to the eastern pavilion of the development. This represents a variation of 1.144m or 13%.

Variations to Policies - Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

Chapter 2.1 Dwelling Houses, Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Development

Clause	2.1.2.1(a) Building Height
Standard	Height of building is not to exceed the maximum building height on the Central Coast LEP 2022 Height of Building Map of 8.5m.
Departure basis	Maximum height of 9.644m is proposed to the eastern pavilion of the development. This represents a variation of 1.144m or 13%.

Clause

2.1.3.1(a)(i) Front Setback

Standard

The average distance of the setbacks of the nearest 2 dwelling houses having the same primary road boundary and located within 40m of the lot on which the dwelling house is erected.

Departure basis

The front setback required is 8.3m.

A setback of 2.88m to 5.84m is proposed from the front boundary to the western elevations of the development. This represents a variation of 66% and 30% respectively.

Clause

2.1.3.1(a)(iv) Garage Setback

Standard

A minimum of 1m behind the front boundary setback

Departure basis

The front setback required is 9.3m.

A setback of 2.88m to 3.75m is proposed. This represents a variation of 69% and 60% respectively.

Clause

2.1.3.1(c)(i) Side Setbacks

Standard

900mm setback for any part of the building with a height of up to 4.5m – the dwelling house pavilion structures comply, and,

for any part of the building with a height of more than 4.5m—0.9m plus one quarter of the height of the building above 4.5m.

Departure basis

Proposed side setbacks vary along the site boundaries and respective building elevations due to changes in building height over the three linked pavilions and described in detail under the stated clause and summarised below.

Northern side boundary:

· Western Pavilion (garage and rumpus room) – Section B1 West 22%, Section B1 East – 20%

· Eastern Pavilion – Section B3 West 43%, Section B3 East 39%

Southern side boundary:

· Western Pavilion (bedrooms 2, 3 and 4) – Section B2 West 3%, Section B2 East 2.5%.

· Eastern Pavilion – Section B3 East 8%.

The Site

The site is described as Lot 1 DP 1296711. 42 North Avoca Parade, North Avoca and has an area of 631.9sqm. The site is irregular in shape and is located on the eastern side of the street, with a rear, eastern boundary to the beach reserve of North Avoca Beach, refer Figure 1.

The site contains an existing elevated one and two storey weatherboard dwelling with a floor level of RL 8.2m AHD (approved 29 June 1993, only stage 1 was constructed) toward the eastern boundary and detached clad building at the street frontage (the original dwelling house pre-1985), several trees, private gardens and grassed covered areas, refer Figures 2, 3 and 4.

The topography of the site is predominantly flat. From the street boundary the ground surface is approximately RL 6.34m AHD and rises to a dune crest situated within the eastern portion of the site at approximately RL 7.00m AHD. Seaward from the eastern site boundary, the ground surface falls at about 5 degrees for approximately 30-40m over densely vegetated dunes. The beach area is approximately 70m to the waterline of North Avoca Beach.

The site is not identified as bushfire prone land. The site is affected by flooding and contains Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils. The site does not contain any native vegetation or fauna habitat.

Figure 1 – Site and Locality Plan (subject site blue outline)

Source: Nearmap 21 August 2024

Figure 2 – Subject Site from North Avoca Parade

Figure 3 – Subject Site – Internal view of existing structures

Figure 4 – Subject Site from North Avoca Beach

Surrounding Development

The site is surrounded by existing residential accommodation, mostly single detached dwellings. To the northwest opposite the site beyond North Avoca Parade, is an existing mixed-use development featuring a three-storey building with a combination of commercial, retail and residential tenancies. The site shares its eastern boundary with North Avoca Beach and enjoys exceptional panoramic ocean and coastal views to the northeast, east, and southeast. A short distance north is the North Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club.

The Proposed Development

The development application seeks approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding and the construction of a two storey four (4) bedroom dwelling house.

The dwelling design incorporates three linked pavilions (eastern pavilion/east wing and two western pavilions/west wings) featuring a central sun court and courtyard terrace that facilitate dwelling connectivity and comprises:

· Lower Ground Floor (western pavilion/west wing)

o Front entry stairs / attached double garage / laundry / bedroom 2 with ensuite / internal stairs and undercroft (sub-floor).

o Finished floor level (FFL):

§ Garage and laundry – RL 6.65m AHD

§ Bedroom 2 – RL 7.10m AHD

· Ground Floor (western pavilion/west wing)

o Rumpus room with covered terrace / bedroom 3 with ensuite / bedroom 4 with ensuite / hall and internal stairs.

o Finished floor level:

§ Rumpus room with covered terrace – RL 9.40m AHD

§ Bedroom 3 and hallway – RL 8.50m AHD

§ Bedroom 4 – RL 9.90m AHD

· Ground Floor (outdoor)

o Central sun court with spa

o Constructed planter box to facilitate deep soil planting for a proposed feature tree.

o Finished floor level – RL 8.50m AHD

· Ground Floor (eastern pavilion/east wing)

o Main front entry / kitchen-living-dining areas / courtyard terrace (west) / ocean terrace (east) / WC / internal stairs / outdoor shower / timber decking along southern side of the east wing.

o Finished floor level – RL 8.50m AHD.

· First Floor (eastern pavilion/east wing)

o Master bedroom with ensuite, walk in wardrobe / small east facing viewing deck / study / storeroom/ internal stairs.

o Finished floor level – RL 11.80m AHD.

Associated works include, front fencing, earthworks, tree removal and landscaping replenishment, stormwater infrastructure.

A site plan is provided in Figure 5, building elevations in Figures 6, 7 8 and 9, and Landscape Plan in Figure 10.

Figure 5 – Site Plan

Figure 6 – West Elevation – street frontage

Figure 7 – East Elevation – beach frontage

Figure 8 – North Elevation

Figure 9 – South Elevation

Figure 10 – Landscape Plan

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. 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.

Provisions of Relevant Instruments/Plans/Policies:

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

No draft Environmental Planning Instruments apply to this application.

State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings (2022)

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Chapter 2 Coastal Management

The site is located within the Coastal Environment Area (section 2.10) and Coastal Use Area (section 2.11) as identified on these maps. Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within these areas unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact; and is satisfied the proponent has taken all reasonable measures to avoid, minimise and/or mitigate that impact.

Section 2.10 - Development on land within the coastal environment area

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment.	The proposal is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological, or ecological environment. The proposal will be connected to reticulated sewer and stormwater will be managed on-site in accordance with the submitted stormwater plans. Erosion and sediment controls will be in place during demolition and construction, and the proposal will not impact on the environment. No significant vegetation is recorded on site.
(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes.	The site shares its eastern boundary with North Avoca Beach. However, the proposed works are to occur wholly within an already disturbed area of the site and acceptably landward of natural coastal processes. The site is largely protected by an existing vegetated sand dune seaward of the eastern boundary. The proposal will not impact on the geological and geomorphological 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.	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate and does not drain to a sensitive lake contained in Schedule 1. The proposal will be connected to reticulated sewer and stormwater will be managed on-site in accordance with the submitted stormwater plans. Furthermore, stormwater and overland flow is directed west being toward the landward (street) boundary. Erosion and sediment controls will be in place during demolition and construction, to minimise impacts on water quality, and the proposal will not impact on any sensitive coastal lakes.
(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms.	The proposal will not result in an adverse impact on native vegetation or fauna, undeveloped headlands, and rock platforms. The proposed works will occur within an already disturbed area the site. The development will not interact with subaqueous areas and therefore, is unlikely to impact marine vegetation or flora and fauna for an acceptably rare storm and acceptably long life.
(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.	The proposal will not impact on public access to the foreshore being entirely within the subject site.
(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places.	An AHIMS search was undertaken, and the subject land has not been identified as containing or being within 200m of any Aboriginal sites or places.
(g) the use of the surf zone.	The proposal is located entirely on the subject site and will not interact with the surf zone or impact on use of the surf zone.

In accordance with section 2.10(2) development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subsection (1), or	The proposed dwelling house is appropriately designed and sited and will be managed to avoid any adverse impacts referred to in clause 2.10(1) having regard to LEP and DCP requirements, the location and characteristics of the site and existing development on the site and surrounding properties. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation. No additional structures or coastal protection works shall be erected on the dune seaward of the new dwelling house unless separately approved by Council.
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or	N/A – no adverse impacts
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact,	N/A – no adverse impacts

Section 2.11 - Development on land within the coastal use area

Matters for Consideration	Compliance
(a) 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 funnelling 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.	The site has a direct frontage to the foreshore of North Avoca Beach. There will be some impact from overshadowing of the upper dune areas of the beach in the afternoons mid-winter which is similar to the shadows cast by other development along the beachfront. However, the proposal will not cause an adverse impact on overshadowing, access, wind funneling or view loss from public places to any foreshore. The dwelling house will be visible from the beach and coastal areas and will maintain an appropriate presentation that is consistent with other more recent development along the beachfront. The proposal has minor exceedance of the required building height however is not considered to have unacceptable bulk and scale and is not likely to have any adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of the coast including coastal headlands. There are no known objects, areas, or items of heritage significance on the land, and no potentially adverse impacts on cultural or environmental heritage have been identified.
(b) is satisfied that i. the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or ii. if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or iii. if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact,	If designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the coastal engineering report and geotechnical engineering report prepared for the site, the proposal will not result in adverse impacts referred to in section 2.11(a) having regard to LEP and DCP requirements, the location and characteristics of the site and existing development on the site and surrounding properties.
(c) has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development	The bulk and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the scale and appearance of other development along the beachfront and is considered satisfactory for the site and location.

Section 2.12 - Development in coastal zone generally - development not to increase risk of coastal hazards

Comment:

The proposal will be located within the Coastal Hazard Area under CCDCP 2022 although landward of the Coastal Building Line. The Coastal Engineering Advice Ref PA3313, prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV dated 14 November 2023 states:

· Chapter 3.2 of DCP 2022 requires piling into the 2100 Stable Foundation Zone, which occurs below RL -1 across most of the subject property; only 11 m of the most landward portion of the property is characterised by stable foundation conditions above this level. While this may permit a slight rationalisation of the detailed foundation design for any structure located within this 11 m zone, the use of different foundation types is generally not recommended. To avoid differential movement and structural cracking it would be preferred that the proposed development be founded on piles across the entirety of the property. This should be verified by a geotechnical and structural engineer at detailed design.

· Given that the proposed development would be elevated on piles above most wave action, wave reflections due to the development would be avoided and it would not be expected that there would be significant impacts on neighbouring developments.

· In practice, any overtopping flows would “fold over” the crest of the dune and travel as an intermittent sheet flow at shallow depth, spreading out and infiltrating over landward areas. A significant reduction in the velocity and depth of the runup would be expected within the order of 10 m landward from the foreshore crest.

· If the foundations for the proposed development are designed in accordance with Section 6.2 of the Coastal Engineering Advice the proposed development would not be expected to adversely affect coastal environmental values or natural coastal processes over its design life, as it is at an acceptably low risk of damage from erosion/recession and inundation for an acceptably rare storm and over an acceptably long design life and would be well landward and above typical coastal processes.

In summary, if the proposal is designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the Coastal Engineering Advice and Geotechnical Assessment prepared for the site the proposal is not likely to have adverse impact on coastal hazards, coastal environmental values and visual amenity. The proposal is satisfactory in relation to clause 2.12 of the SEPP.

Section 2.13 - Development in coastal zone generally - coastal management programs to be considered

Comment:

The Gosford Beaches Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) lapsed on 31 December 2023.

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

The site has been used for residential purposes and subject to conditions, is considered suitable for the proposed use.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the provisions of Chapter 2 Coastal Management and Chapter 4 Remediation of Land of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022)

Zoning and Permissibility

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under CCLEP 2022, identified in Figure 9. The proposed development is defined as dwelling house which is permissible in the zone with consent of Council.

The CCLEP 2022 defines the following:

dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling.

dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

· To encourage best practice in the design of low density residential development.

· To ensure that non-residential land uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services.

· To maintain the enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.

Properties along North Avoca Beach are zoned R2 Low Density Residential (identified by the pink shaded area in Figure 11). East of the site, the Beach and the North Avoca Surf Life Saving Club is zoned RE1 Public Recreation (identified by the green shaded area in Figure 11). Opposite the site is a multi storey mixed use development on land zoned E1 Local Centre.

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as follows:

o Low density urban morphology is achieved through a combination of development controls including, minimum lot size, setbacks, floor space ratio (FSR), site coverage and building height. The CCLEP 2022 does not prescribe an FSR control for the site.

o The proposed development incorporates three linked pavilions (east wing and two west wings) featuring a central sun court and courtyard terrace that facilitate dwelling connectivity. The proposed development has a general linear form that follows the shape and topography of the site. The proposed development is consistent in size and scale to existing neighbouring development in the low-density residential zone.

· The design of the proposal responds to the beachfront location of the site and the site constraints including flooding, coastal inundation and geotechnical requirements.

· The proposal demonstrates architectural quality with a general linear form that follows the shape and topography of the site. The pitch and scale of the proposed roof has been designed to maximise solar access to the occupants of the dwelling and adjoining properties. The materials are commensurate with the natural and built environment and will complement surrounding development in the locality.

· The design of the proposal responds to the beachfront location of the site and is compatible with the scale and nature of more recent development on the beachfront and maintains a two storey presentation to the beach front and designed to achieve views yet does not unreasonably obstruct any significant views from private property or the public domain.

· The amenity of the residential streetscape will be improved by retention and replenishment of trees along the property boundary. Additional vegetation will improve the outlook from upper-floor levels of dwellings to the west.

· The proposed development is ecologically, socially and economically sustainable in the sensitive coastal location and will not give rise to any increased coastal hazards on adjacent land.

Figure 11 – Zoning Map CCLEP 2022

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The eastern pavilion/east wing will have a maximum height of 9.644m. This represents a variation of 1.144m or 13% to the development standard. The area of the proposed development that exceeds the development standard is the apex of the roof over the eastern pavilion at RL 16.20m AHD. The area of non-compliance with the building height is shown in Figures 12, 13 and 14.

The western pavilions/west wing of the proposed development located at the front of the site complies with the maximum building height of 7.379m. These buildings are consistent in height to the secondary dwelling located at the site frontage of the adjoining northern property, 44 North Avoca Drive.

Figure 12 – Building Height Exceedance Diagram

Figure 13 – Building Height Exceedance Diagram

Figure 14 – Building Height Exceedance Diagram

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4(2) Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of CCLEP 2022 provides the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land. There is no floor space ratio applying to the site under the CCLEP 2022.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

A clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards variation for the non-compliance associated with floor space ratio development standard in Clause 4.3(2) of CCLEP 2022 was provided by the applicant.

(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.

The development proposes a maximum building height of 9.644m for the east wing. This represents is a variation of 1.144m or 13% to the development standard. The non-compliance with the building height is shown above in Figures 12, 13, and 14.

The majority of the development is contained, and well within the maximum building height standard. The only area of the proposed development that exceeds the development standard is the apex of the roof over the eastern pavilion at RL 16.20m AHD. The western pavilions, located at the front of the property are well within the prescribed maximum building height.

From the east elevation of the eastern pavilion, natural ground level is identified at RL 7.018m AHD. The resultant breach at the east elevation is 0.681m representing a departure of 8.5% from the development standard. From the west elevation of the eastern pavilion, natural ground level is identified at RL 6.555m AHD. The resultant breach at the west elevation is 1.144m representing a departure of 13% from the development standard.

The Applicant’s written request to vary the height of building development standard demonstrates the following (summarised):

· The height of building development standard is also concerned with establishing appropriate development density and ensuring that height of buildings are compatible with the character of the locality. The exceedance of the development standard will ensure the proposed development has a positive relationship with established surrounding development and the scale of existing dwellings (and those recently approved) on beach front properties along North Avoca Parade.

· To address the impact of coastal inundation and coastal hazards, a minimum habitable floor level applies to the site. This presents additional challenges in achieving full compliance due to augmented building heights. The impact of coastal hazards restricts development to the western and central parts of the site, leading to a reduced development footprint. Consequently, building heights are increased to achieve additional floor space commensurate with the grandeur building forms proposed along the beach front at North Avoca.

· The proposed development will provide high quality housing in close proximity to facilities and public open spaces including North Avoca Beach.

· The height of the building is without impact, in terms of increased overshadowing, permitting overlooking or disrupting views.

· The variation facilitates good design. The proposed floor plates allow habitable windows to face the public domain from the ground and first floor levels. The floor plate provides for significant modulation and articulation in the built form.

· The linked pavilion design, separated by a central courtyard, contributes to a well-articulated building form. The use of architectural features and a diverse range of external materials and finishes further enhances the design, collectively diminishing perceived bulk and scale while increasing visual interest and presentation.

· First floor levels are extremely modest containing only bedrooms, bathrooms and a study. By minimising the amount of floor area within these levels (which are under the building height plane), the development is able to provide a highly modulated and articulated development when viewed from all elevations.

· The pitched roof design will allow for internal areas of the west wing pavilion to receive sunlight and be successfully cross ventilated, thus reducing the reliance on artificial air conditioning systems.

· The variation in height facilitates the provision of a dwelling that is commensurate to the standard and size of other recently constructed dwellings in the North Avoca Beach locality, whilst still allowing a highly articulated and attractive development to be provided.

· As demonstrated in the SEE Report and supporting documentation/plans attached as Appendices to the DA Submission, the increase in building height which is limited to the apex of the pitch roof design does not result in any adverse impact to the built or natural environment.

· The objectives of the building height development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are achieved by the proposed development, notwithstanding its partial non-compliance with the development standard.

· The proposed departure from the maximum building height development standard will achieve a positive outcome for and from the proposed development, will not raise any matter of significance for State or Regional environmental planning and there would be no public benefit served by maintaining the standard.

· Development density is compatible with the existing urban context and built form. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the desired future character of the area and there is no impact to adjoining properties. The proposed dwelling respectfully responds to the natural hazards on the site and the scale of built form in the locality.

In accordance with clause 4.6(4), development consent must not grant consent for a development that contravenes a development standard unless:

1. The consent authority is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated in clause 4.6(3).

Comment:

The request for variation has been assessed with consideration of relevant principles set out in various judgements applying to variations to development standards, including:

· Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827;

· Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90;

· Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118;

Council is satisfied that the matters required to be demonstrated in subclause 4.6(3)(a) have been adequately addressed for the variation to the maximum height of building development standard.

Comment:

In order to demonstrate if the proposal has merit, consideration has been given to the proposed height of buildings non-compliance and achieving the objectives of the control contained within Clause 4.3(1) as follows:

The objectives of clause 4.3 Height of Buildings:

(a) to establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density,

(b) to ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality.

Context of the building height of the proposal to the dwellings on adjoining properties is established as follows:

· 44 North Avoca Parade is located to the north of the site, the dwelling has a ridge height of RL15.73m AHD and building height of approx. 8.5m, the secondary dwelling located to the street frontage is below the 8.5m maximum building height.

· 40 North Avoca Parade is located to the south of the site. Described as a second-floor addition approved in 2017, the dwelling has a building height of 9.72m and a ridge height at RL 16.3m AHD.

The proposal is consistent with objectives in CCLEP 2022 as follows:

· The variation will not be readily perceptible externally and is considered minor. The proposed variation to the maximum building height applies only to a small section of the ridgeline of the east pavilion, with the majority of the roof contained within the building envelope. The design of the east pavilion roof provides greater environmental benefits, including increased effectiveness of the solar panels and maximising solar access to the main dwelling. The design preserves the essential character of the locality while providing for contemporary housing needs in keeping with the community expectations. The size and design of new residential housing within this beachside setting is commensurate to the location, aspect and land value. Combining a mixture of external materials and finishes will ensure the proposed development integrates and blends with both the natural and built environment,

· The extent of the non-compliance does not contribute to the bulk and scale of the building and is not considered to have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining residents by overshadowing or overlooking. The height of the building is minimised by the design of the development and the linked pavilions providing articulation of the building form, extensive use of glazing (east and west elevation) and provides natural ventilation, acoustic and visual privacy to neighbours that generally consistent with the DCP requirements.

· The proposed dwelling design provides for a better outcome and responds to the coastal hazard affectation, topography of the site and scale of built form in the locality.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives for the R2 Low Density Residential zone as follows:

· The design of the proposal responds to the beachfront location of the site and the site constraints including flooding, coastal inundation and geotechnical requirements.

· The proposed development is ecologically, socially and economically sustainable in the sensitive coastal location and will not give rise to any increased coastal hazards on adjacent land.

The assessment of the proposal against the objective of the development standard and the R2 Low Density Residential zone confirms that the proposal complies with these objectives despite the variation and the proposed building height is commensurate with residential development on North Avoca beachfront properties.

Clause 5.21 Flood Planning

This land has been identified as being affected by flooding and the matters contained in clause 5.21 of CCLEP 2022 have been considered.