Agenda of Local Planning Panel Meeting

Item No: 3.1
Title: DA/1627/2023 - 42 Hobart Avenue, Umina Beach - Dual Occupancy, two lot Torrens title subdivision and demolition
Department: Environment and Planning
15 May 2025 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: DA/1627/2023 - D16690269

Author: Kate Alberry, Senior Development Planner

Section Manager: Ailsa Prendergast, Section Manager Residential Assessments

Unit Manager:: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager Development Assesments

Summary

An application has been received for an attached dual occupancy, two lot torrens title subdivision and demolition. 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.

The development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel for determination as a result of the number of submissions. 22 submissions were received during the notification period.

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Applicant Untapped Planning

Owner C & M Federici

Application No DA/1627/2023

Description of Land 42 Hobart Avenue, Umina Beach

Proposed Development Attached Dual Occupancy, two lot Torrens title subdivision and demolition.

Site Area 651.2m2

Zoning R2 Low Density Residential

Existing Use dwelling house

Employment Generation No

Estimated Value $1,127,261.30

Recommendation

1. That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA/1627/2023 – 42 Hobart Avenue, Umina Beach – for the purpose of a dual occupancy development, torrens title subdivision and demolition 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

· Matters raised in public submissions - the development application is required to be reported to the Local Planning Panel due to the development attracting twenty-two (22) submissions.

· The development proposes a 4% variation to Clause 2.2.4.2 Floor Space Ratio of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP) from the required 0.5:1 for a Dual Occupancy, to 0.54:1.

· The development requires a variation to clause 2.2.5(e) Building Setbacks of the CCDCP 2022, for a side setback of 1.736m to Mount Ettalong Road, this is a variation of 0.264m instead of the required 2m which represents a variation of 13.2%.

Precis:

Proposed Development	Attached dual occupancy with two lot Torrens title subdivision.
Permissibility and Zoning	The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Central Coast Local Environmental plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022). The existing development is defined as a ‘dwelling house’ which is defined under the CCLEP 2022 as: *Dwelling house* means a building containing only one dwelling. The proposed development is defined as a ‘dual occupancy’ which is defined under the CCLEP 2022 as: *Dual occupancy (attached)* means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other but does not include a secondary dwelling.
Current Use	Dwelling house
Integrated Development	No
Submissions	The development application was notified (in accordance with the CCLEP 2022 from 3^rdNovember 2023 to 17^th November 2023. Twenty-two (22) submissions were received, 18 within the time frame and 4 late submissions. All submission have been considered as part of this report.

Variations to Policies

Clause	Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of the CCDCP 2022
Standard	0.5:1
DCP	CCDCP 2022
Departure basis	0.54:1 (A variation of 27.62m² or 4%)

Clause	2.2.5(e) Building Setbacks of the CCDCP 2022
Standard	e. Corner Allotments Side Street – Dual Occupancy i. 2.0m, plus compliance with sight preservation lines
DCP	CCDCP 2022
Departure basis	The development has a side setback of 1.736m to Mount Ettalong Road, this is a variation of 0.264m instead of the required 2m. Sight lines comply due to the road reserve and corner alignment. This represents a variation of 13.2%.

The Site

The site is legally described as Lot 362 DP9894 and is commonly known as 42 Hobart Avenue, Umina Beach. The site area is 651.2m2 by title with a street frontage to Hobart Avenue of 19.81m and side boundary of 32.92m to Mount Ettalong Road.

The site contains and existing residential dwelling. The area is surrounded by residential lots also zoned R2 Low Density residential which is predominantly single storey dwelling development. Development in this area is interspersed with newer style developments including dual occupancy development and 2 storey dwellings.

Adjacent and on the eastern side of Mount Ettalong Road is an area of R1 General Residential land.

Figure 1 - Site Locality Plan

Figure 2 - Proposed Development Site viewed from Hobart Avenue

Figure 3 – Proposed Development site viewed from Mount Ettalong Road

Figure 4 - Zone Pattern

The Proposed Development

The proposed development seeks consent for the construction of a dual occupancy development and a 2 lot Torrens title subdivision.

The dual occupancy relates specifically:

Ground floor

· Garage

· Study

· Dining/family/kitchen

· Laundry

· Bathroom

First floor

· 4 x bedrooms

· Activity room

· Toilet

Figure 5 - Site plan

Figure 6 - front elevation

History

The dwelling and subdivision pattern existed prior to the 1970’s, it might be worth noting that the pattern of vegetation removal is not new in this area.

Figure 7 - Historical Imagery 1971 - Spatial Services

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 the consideration of the Local Planning Panel.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index) BASIX 2004

A compliant BASIX certificate achieving the NSW Government’s Energy Efficiency targets has been provided in support of the application. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development satisfies the relevant provisions of SEPP (BASIX) 2004, subject to recommended conditions.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

The relevant provisions of the SEPP are addressed as follows:

The aims of Chapter 2 are to be considered when determining an application within the Coastal Management Areas. The Coastal Management Areas are areas defined on maps issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment and the subject property falls within the ‘Coastal Environment Area’ and ‘Coastal Use Area’ identified on these maps.

In considering the impact of any development application, the consent authority must have regard to matters within clause 2.10 of the SEPP (for the coastal environment area) and clause 2.11 (for the coastal use area).

The relevant matters have been considered in the assessment of this application. The proposed development is not likely to cause undue impact on the biophysical, hydrological or ecological environment. The values of the natural coastal processes are not likely to be impacted, marine vegetation and fauna habitats will not be disturbed by the proposal and the proposal does not impact on known aboriginal cultural heritage, the surf zone, or existing public spaces. The proposed development will not result in adverse impact on rock shelves, overshadowing, loss of views from public places nor visual amenity.

The Panel can be satisfied that the relevant matters of clause 2.10 for development within the coastal environment and use area and clause 2.11 for development within the Coastal Environment Area have been considered in the assessment of this application. The application is considered consistent with the stated aims and objectives.

Chapter 4 Remediation of Land

Clause 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. The current use of the site is residential purposes, and there are no known previous uses that would lead to the site being contaminated or unsuitable for the proposed use.

It is noted that a condition of consent has been imposed to deal with the presence of asbestos, if required, due to the age of the existing dwelling which is proposed to be demolished.

The Panel can be satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable with regard to Chapter 4 of the SEPP.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP 2022)

The subject site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of CCELP 2022. The proposed development is defined as an attached dual occupancy, which is defined under CCLEP 2022 as:

dual occupancy (attached) means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other but does not include a secondary dwelling.

Note—

Dual occupancies (attached) are a type of dual occupancy—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

The development is permissible in the zone, with development consent.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP2022) – Zone Objectives

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the CCLEP 2022.

The objectives for the R2 zone are:

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

• To enable other land uses that provide 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 and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposed development and it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the stated objectives of the zone, providing housing consistent with the character of the area and does not have adverse impacts on the locality.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 – Principal Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant development standards of CCLEP 2022:

Development Standard	Required	Proposed	Compliance with Controls	Variation %	Compliance with Objectives
Clause 4.1C Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies	550m2	651.2m²	Yes	Nil	Yes
Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings	8.5m	7.6m	Yes	Nil	Yes
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio	Not Mapped
Clause 7.1 Acid Sulfate Soils		Class 4 No construction more than 2m below the natural ground surface	Yes	Nil	Yes

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4(2) Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 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 Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (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 in the area.

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 4 Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) which are likely to occur where:

· Works more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface.

· Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more than 2m below the natural ground surface.

A Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Ideal Geotech, dated 23 December 2022 was provided with the application. The purpose of the investigation was to provide an assessment of site classification, risk of overall instability and related geotechnical advice, consideration of relevant Council controls. It is noted that the presence of acid sulfate soils was not identified as part of this report. The Statement of Environmental Effects states that no works are more than 2m below the natural ground surface and therefore, a condition of development consent relating to the discovery of acid sulfate soils is included with the conditions of consent.

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 is currently 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 from Hobart Avenue.

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 (CCDCP)

The relevant controls of CCDCP 2022 are considered below:

Chapter 2.2 – Dual Occupancy and Multi Dwelling Housing

Development Standard	Required	Proposed	Compliance with Controls	Compliance with Objectives
2.2.3.1 a Building Height	8.5m.	7.6m	Yes	Yes
2.2.3.1 c Building Height	Building Height shall generally not exceed two storeys.	2 storey	Yes	Yes
2.2.4.2 Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	FSR not mapped in LEP FSR Dual Occupancies – 0.5:1 (CCDCP)	0.54:1 4% variation = 27.62m²	No 4% variation = 27.62m²	Yes
2.2.4.3 Site Coverage	25% of site area shall be ‘soft’ landscaping.	Site coverage is 48% and is providing 30% soft landscaping.	Yes	Yes
2.1.3.1 a (i) Front Setbacks	Average distance of the 2 neighbouring properties. This is a corner block therefore 2.25a is used. Hobart Avenue is not a classified Road.	6.066m is provided to the wall at the front of the site.	Yes	Yes
2.2.5 a Front setback	Road reserve < 12m	Dwelling 1 – 6.066m Dwelling 2 – 6.066m	Yes	Yes
2.2.5 b Side Setbacks	For any part of the building with a height of up to 4.5m—0.9m, 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. Unbroken walls exceeding 10m in length and 3m in height	Western side – ground floor - 1.736m First floor - Eastern side 1.736m 7.6m-4.5m = 3/1m/4 = 0.775 +0.9m = 1.675m required first floor. Both units have unbroken walls of 15.8m but the walls are only 2.7m in height and then articulation is provided	Yes	Yes
2.2.5 c Rear setbacks	3m	D1 – 11.652m D2 – 11.652m	Yes	Yes
2.2.5.d Garages	5.5m required setback to the garages.	Garages: Dwelling 1 – 7.066m Dwelling 2 – 7.066m	Yes	Yes
2.2.5 e Corner allotments side street dual occupancy	2m plus compliance with sight preservation toot he eastern side boundary to Mouth Ettalong Road.	1.736m side setback provided to Mount Ettalong Road. This is a variation of 0.264m or 13.2%. Sight preservation is provided in the road reserve. Mount Ettalong Road is a classified Road.	No This is a variation of 0.264m or 13.2% to the eastern side boundary. The western side boundary is providing a 3.51% greater side setback than what is required.	Yes
2.2.6.1 Facades & Articulation	10 m in length and 3m in height articulation Garages door width is 12m or < or 6m or 60% of the width of the building.	Both units have unbroken walls of 15.8m but the walls are only 2.7m in height and then articulation is provided. Garages are within 7.5m of the frontage. Garage doors are 4.1m in width and the width of the dwelling/s is 8.3m. 49% of the building width.	Yes	Yes
2.2.6.2 Roof Elements	Respond to solar access	No roof top gardens are proposed, and the roof elements respond to solar access.
Residential Address	Identification for visitors and emergency services and passive surveillance	Both dwellings face the street and offer surveillance.	Yes	Yes
2.2.7.1 Views	No view sharing		Yes	Yes
2.2.7.2 Privacy	Direct overlooking of internal living area and private open space from surrounding dwellings must be minimised by building layout, location and design of windows and balconies, screening devices and landscaping.	The proposal does not result in any direct overlooking of private open space or internal living areas. Bedroom 4 on each dwelling has a window which faces the other bedroom 4 over the garage and as such this has an elevated sill high to prevent overlooking.	Yes	Yes
2.2.7.2.2 Acoustic Privacy	Site layout should separate active recreational, parking, access and service equipment from bedroom areas.	The dwelling design will not result in any adverse acoustic impacts.	Yes	Yes
2.2.7.2 Private Open Space	Minimum area of 45m2 with minimum dimensions of 4.5m.	Open space at the rear of the dwellings is 79m² / dwelling which is not including the alfresco area.	Yes	Yes
2.2.7.5 Sunlight Access	50% of POS for all dwellings should receive at least 3 hours unobstructed sunlight access between 9am and 3pm	Complies	Yes	Yes
	50% of POS on adjoining land should receive at least 3 hours unobstructed sunlight access between 9am and 3pm	Complies	Yes	Yes
2.2.8 Car Parking	Provide minimum off street parking facilities – 2 spaces for dwelling with 4 or more bedrooms. Ensure safe vehicular access to public road. Driveway access does not detract from aesthetic qualities of the site.	2 parking spaces have been provided. I garage and 1 stacked.	Yes	Yes
2.2.8.2 Access design	Driveways to be in accordance with Australian standards	Driveways are compliant	Yes	Yes
2.2.9 Earthworks	Cut/fill maximum 1m within 1m of boundaries, or 3m if more than 3m from boundary	Complies	Yes	Yes
2.2.10 Landscaping	Landscape	No vegetation is to be removed from the development site. The proposal provides adequate space for shade trees and high levels of landscaping.	Yes	Yes
2.2.10.2 Street trees	Provide 2 street tree planting	The development requires the removal of 1 existing street tree from the verge. The street trees are a cluster of remnant vegetation. It is noted that this is the only cluster of remnant vegetation in the immediate area. Council has recommended that no street planting occurs in the verge because of the amount of remnant vegetation.	Yes	Yes
2.2.10.3 Deep Soil	A Minimum 50% of landscaping shall be a deep soil zone.	All landscaping provided is a deep soil zone.	Yes	Yes
2.2.10.4 Fencing	Maximum height of 1.8m for side and rear fencing	Existing fencing to remain.	Yes	Yes
2.2.11.1 Servicing	Site shall be services	Site already contains a dwelling and servicing can be achieved.	Yes	Yes
2.2.11.3 Stormwater	A stormwater management plan is to be submitted.	Stormwater plan accompanies the application.	Yes	Yes
2.2.11.4 Garbage and waste	Waste management	Bins are located in the space allocated adjacent to the garage on the internal boundary.	Yes	Yes
2.2.11.5 Dual Occupancy Subdivision	Applications for the subdivision of dual occupancy development must include: · Proposed plan of subdivision · Details of easements · Details of the location of any existing easements or services on the site.	A Torrens Title subdivision plan has been included in the application.	Yes	Yes

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP)

The proposed development proposes a variation to the maximum permitted floor space ratio set out under clause 2.1.2.3 Floor Space Ratio and clause 2.2.5 e Corner allotments side street - dual occupancy of CCDCP 2022.

Clause 2.2.4.2 Floor Space Ratio

2.2.4.2 Floor Space Ratio

OBJECTIVES

▪ To have development sites and densities that are appropriate in the zone and compatible with the local context

▪ To ensure building bulk and site coverage provisions are compatible with neighbouring development

▪ To ensure the intensity of the use of the site is appropriate

REQUIREMENTS

a. Central Coast LEP 2022 contains a Floor Space Ratio map and the relevant considerations for certain areas within the Central Coast LGA.

b. The maximum floor space ratio for development proposals subject to this Chapter that relate to land not included in the Floor Space Ratio Map of Central Coast LEP 2022 is specified in Table 2 below:

Form of Housing	Floor Space Ratio (where not specified in the central coast LEP 2022)
Dual Occupancy and semi-detached dwellings (except in rural or environmental living zones)	0.5:1
Multi-dwelling housing and attached dwellings	0.6:1

Table 2 - Floor Space Ratio requirements

Clause 2.2.4.2 provides the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) required for a dual occupancy in this area is 0.5:1.

The variation sought is a departure of 0.04:1 (0.54:1) which equates to a 4% variation required to this control. Numerically it represents 27.62m². It is noted that FSR is not mapped under the CCLEP 2022 for this area.

Clause 2.2.5e corner allotments side street – dual occupancy

2.2.5 Building Setbacks

OBJECTIVES

▪ To ensure that setbacks are compatible with adjacent development and complements the character, streetscape and natural areas

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

▪ To ensure views, privacy and solar access of adjacent properties are reasonably maintained

▪ To reasonably 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 provide 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

Clause 2.2.5.e provides for the minimum side setback on corner allotments for a dual occupancy is 2m plus compliance with site preservation.

The variation sought is for the provision of 1.736m side setback to Mount Ettalong Road which is a departure of 0.264m, or 13.2% for the required 2m. It is noted that the side setbacks provided are greater than what would normally be applied to a dual occupancy on a block that is not on a corner by 3.51%.

Comment:

The variations to the CCDCP 2022 will not result in any decrease in amenity to adjoining properties.

The minor variation to clause 2.2.5 e - Corner Allotments side street for dual occupancy development of the CCDCP, a total of 27.62m² (to the eastern side boundary) less than the required 2m and a minor variation to clause 2.1.2.3 FSR of the CCDCP for the provision of a FSR of 0.54:1 instead of 05:1, will not have a material impact any of the following in terms of amenity:

· Overshadowing

· Privacy

· Visual dominance

· Streetscape and Character

· Views

The cumulative impact of the proposed minor non-compliances of side setback and FSR has been considered.

The surrounding area is undergoing a transition whereby older style existing dwelling are progressively being preplaced with larger contemporary dwellings. 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. Appropriate conditions are included in the development consent.

Chapter 2.17 Character and Scenic Quality

The site is located within the character area:

Peninsula – Landscape Units Covered: Woy Woy, Umina, Woy Woy Bays. This sit is within the Umina 1 area Ocean Beachfront – Existing, #6 Parkland Bungalows. The character statement provides the existing and desired character as follows:

Umina 6: Parkland Bungalows - Existing Character

A cluster of established low-density residential neighbourhoods on flat land, partly cleared of original vegetation but also planted with shady garden and street trees, supporting a variety of modestly-scaled houses in wooded garden settings that are significant features of the Peninsula’s traditional garden suburbs.

Across regular gridded subdivisions, narrow to medium frontage allotments face a local thoroughfare or access streets that are long and straight, generally with secondary frontages to rear lanes. Access streets are mostly narrow unkerbed pavements, flanked by broad grassed verges supporting copses of tall woodland remnants and planted shady trees that often also extend along rear lane frontages, providing scenically-distinctive streetscape features and contributing to a leafy, open woodland atmosphere. The local thoroughfare has a wider unkerbed pavement flanked by narrow grassed verges without trees.

Situated on medium-sized allotments, dwellings are predominantly traditional mid-Twentieth Century bungalows that are modestly-scaled single storey timber-framed buildings, clad in boards or sheets and capped by hipped roofs of tile or corrugated iron, with a scattering of newer brick or weatherboard houses of one or two storeys capped by pitched tile roofs.

Facing the street, buildings display consistent front and side setbacks, fronted by gardens that are generally small and relatively open containing scattered woodland remnants plus planted shady trees and shrubs set behind low fences. In general, back yards are deep with space for a variety of detached garages and sheds, surrounded by tall fences along rear lanes, and shaded by corridors of tall woodland remnants plus planted trees that rise above the rooftops contributing to a leafy woodland appearance.

Umina 6: Parkland Bungalows - Desired

Desired Character

These should remain leafy low-density residential hillsides, retaining the streetscape and scenic qualities of existing lush hillside gardens that surround each dwelling.

Minimise disturbance to natural slopes and existing trees that are visually-prominent features of any hillside or street frontage by appropriate siting of new structures, plus low-impact construction such as suspended floors and decks rather than extensive cut-and-fill. Complement the established tree canopy by planting additional trees and shrubs throughout each garden as well as along street verges. Facing the street, emphasise a leafy garden character by avoiding wide driveways and terraces, tall fences or multiple retaining walls.

Avoid the appearance of a continuous wall of development along any street or hillside. Locate new buildings behind front setbacks that are similar to their surrounding properties. Provide at least one wide side setback or step the shape of front and rear facades.

Minimise the scale and bulk of buildings by stepping floor-levels to follow natural slopes and by using irregular floorplans to create well-articulated forms. For example, divide floorspace into linked pavilions that are capped by individual roofs and separated by courtyards. Front or rear facades that are taller than neighbouring dwellings should be screened by balconies, verandahs, stepped forms or extra setbacks. Roofs should be gently pitched to minimise the height of ridges, and flanked by wide eaves to disguise the scale of exterior walls.

Minimise the scale of prominent facades by using extensive windows and verandahs plus a variety of materials and finishes rather than expanses of plain masonry. All dwellings should display a traditional “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 from a dwelling to the street. Locate and screen all balconies or decks to maintain the existing levels of privacy and amenity that are enjoyed by neighbouring dwellings.

Comment: The proposed dual occupancy development design incorporates these desired character features. The proposed dwelling design is consistent with the desired character of the area.

The Likely Impacts of the Development

Built Environment

Given the position of the proposed dwelling on the allotment and comparison of bulk and scale with other dwellings, the proposal is suitable with regard to the context and setting of the subject site and is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area.

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 does not involve any site excavation. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to impacts on the natural environment. Additionally, no vegetation removal on the site is proposed and one tree on the verge is proposed to be removed to allow for driveway access to the site. The remaining vegetation on the verge for both Hobart Avenue and Mount Ettalong Road will be retained and protected during the construction works.

Context and Setting

The proposal is located within the R2 Low Density Residential land under CCLEP 2022. The proposal provides an updated housing option within a residential zone and is consistent with the objectives of the R2 land use and the Peninsula Landscape Unit. In addition, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired character for future development within the Umina 6: Parkland Bungalows of CCDCP 2022.

Economic and Social Impacts

The proposal will provide minor economic benefit through the provision of temporary employment during demolition and construction. The application does not require any tree removal in the site to facilitate the development however there is the need to remove 1 street tree to facilitate the development. The private open space provided within the subject site is generous and it provides the replacement of 2 trees as well as landscaping.

Any Submission made in Accordance with this Act or Regulations

The development application was notified in accordance with the CCDCP 2022 from 3 November 2023 to 17 November 2023 and twenty-two (22) submissions were received. Of these submissions 18 were received within the timeframe however all submissions were included.

A summary of the submissions is detailed below:

1. Removal of the tree on the verge/ The tree on the verge is an Angophora Floribunda needs to be kept

The Angophora floribunda or rough barked apple tree is a very common woodland and forest tree. It is a large tree reaching up to 30m tall and live for 40+ years (Angophora floribunda | Australian Plants Society).

The Arborist Report indicates ‘… opinion of the Arborist, the current development has been designed to take into consideration the location of the trees onsite, specifically the location of the garages which minimises disturbances to TPZ’s.’ Additionally, the Arborist states that ‘…T1 under the current plans will require removal and replacement at a 2:1 ratio to align with the Central Coast Council’s Greener Places Strategy’. This requirement will form part of the conditions of consent to be provided for the development. Additionally, a site arborist shall be appointed to supervise all tree protection procedures and the trees to be retained will be protected with truck protection during construction, this will form part of the conditions of development consent.

From historic photographs this strand of trees has been on this verge area since at least the 1970’s. The majority of vegetation in the area was removed prior to the 1970’s.

The arborist advises:

Under the current plans one (T1) tree will require removal, this specimen recorded a Medium retention value, under the STARS rating system located in Appendix D STARS methodology, trees classified as medium retention should be considered for retention, usually these specimens are considered less critical than the high retention specimens and could be removed if adversely affecting the build.

Therefore, it is considered that 1 tree on the verge being removed as part of the site’s redevelopment is a reasonable impact. It is noted that all other street trees both on Hobart Avenue and Mount Ettalong Road will be retained. Another building design would have required more trees to be removed.

2. The application states no vegetation removal.

That is correct, there is no vegetation to be removed from the development site. The trees are on the Council verge and outside the site.

3. Heat island effect/ Peninsula is bare of trees/ Greener Places Strategy

According to the Department of Planning ‘urban heat islands’ are described as:

Urban heat islands develop in areas with hard, sealed surfaces and a lack of vegetation or ‘green infrastructure’ such as tree canopies, vegetated roofs and walls and waterways. This is because hard surfaces absorb, store and radiate heat, while green infrastructure reflects heat, provides shade and releases water into the atmosphere.

Urban heat islands are increasing the effects of climate change, making higher temperatures and extreme hot weather events more severe and difficult to manage, placing more people at risk of exposure. During a heatwave, for instance, temperatures in western Sydney, which has less green cover, are sometimes 10 °C higher than in eastern Sydney.

Planning how we use land plays an important role in reducing vulnerability to urban heat. It helps create places and communities that are more sustainable and resilient to a changing climate. We are delivering several planning initiatives to reduce urban heat.

The Central Coast Council Greener Places Strategy 2021-2031 (the Strategy)

The Strategy acknowledges the ability of urban greening to mitigate certain urban health effects and maintain livability in urban centers. Urban trees provide shade to buildings, and roads along with private and public open space which can assist in reducing the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect. The Strategy identifies all of the positive attributes of trees and vegetation along with and acknowledges that 19 Central Coast suburbs have been identified for priority planting to mitigate urban heat island effects. The planting is to increase canopy cover by a further 5% over the next 30 years in these locations. The Greener Places Strategy is supported by its inclusion in the Central Coast Regional Plan 2041.

Umina Beach is identified as one of the areas where there is an impact from the Urban Heat Island Effect. It is reported that Umina Beach experiences significantly higher temperatures compared to surrounding rural areas due to the lack of vegetation and the abundance of hard surfaces like buildings and roads, which absorb and radiant heat making the area noticeable warmer in the summer months.

Figure 8 - Mount Ettalong Road - vegetation will remain

Figure 9 - The existing trees on the corner are being retained

Figure 10 - frontage to Hobart Avenue - tree removal

Figure 11 - Hobart Avenue street scape

Comment:

Several strategies of, The Greener Places Strategy, identify that remnant and existing vegetation should be retained. In this regard it is recommended that only 1 tree is recommended for removal. It is also recommended that no street trees be replanted as the verge area is already adequately vegetated with remnant vegetation. It is noted that the pattern of clearing in the area occurred prior to 1970. Additional trees are proposed to be planted in the rear private open space of each dwelling. Two feature trees are being proposed which are native to the Coast along with additional native shrubs and landscape plantings. This is considered adequate for this development.

4. Exceed the FSR requirements.

As discussed in the body of the report, the proposal is for a minor variation to the clause 2.1.2.3 of the CCDCP 2022 requirement to provide a 0.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to provide a 0.54:1 FSR. The variation represents a departure of 27.62m² or a 4% variation.

Comment:

This minor variation is recommended for support, and it is noted that the development is providing additional requirements above what is required by the CCDCP 2022:

5. No landscape plan provided.

A landscaping plan was provided in the material for notification.

6. Garages dominate the elevations.

The garages are compliant.

7. Large concrete driveway

A 5.5m driveway is the minimum requirements and appropriate to cater for a dual occupancy development and is considered appropriate. The vehicle access crossing are to comply with Council specification and the AS/NZ 2890.1:2004.

Advise from engineering:

The proposed double width of the vehicle access crossing is required for the following reasons:

- Narrowing the vehicular access crossing would result in potential conflicts with the vehicular swept turning paths between vehicle entering and exiting the site for one dwelling and the tandem car parking space for the other dwelling, which in effect could/would reduce effective parking on site to the garage spaces only, with the tandem spaces being unusable.

- The application proposes a Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy. Narrowing the vehicle access crossing would require right of accesses to be created over the driveways where turning paths for one dwelling/lot encroached into the neighbouring lot. This in effect could/would again reduce effective parking on site to the garage spaces only. Furthermore, right of accesses are not proposed with the subdivision of the development.

Additionally, semi permeable pavers are to be used in the driveways within the boundary of the property, which will allow a softening aspect to the development and aid water infiltration. The street has no kerb and guttering, and it is proposed to remain as such which also aids in water infiltration.

8. Parking/ no visitor parking

No visitor parking is required for this type of development.

9. Flood zone

This site is not affected by Flood Controls 1% AEP+ freeboard. However, the site is affected by flooding in the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event with levels in the order of RL 5.89m - RL 5.90m AHD.

The architectural plans prepared by G J Garner (Rev F dated 29/01/24) indicate ground floor levels of RL 6.20m AHD and garage levels of RL 6.20m AHD which are above the PMF level. Safe evacuation of the development to the Hobart Street frontage would be feasible in a PMF event.

Internal Consultation

Traffic Engineer		Supported without conditions.
Development Engineer		Supported subject to conditions.
Tree Assessment Officer		Supported subject to conditions.
Waste Services		Supported subject to conditions.
Water and Sewer		Supported subject to conditions.

Trees Assessment Comments

A Landscape Plan has been provided which nominates planting of two (2) advanced Alloxylon Fammeum – Tree Waratah in the rear POS. Combined with the established native trees to be retained on the road reserve, this will be sufficient.

Engineering Assessment Comments

A Flood Information Certificate issued by Council for the site indicates that the site is not affected by flooding or associated flood planning controls for events up to the 1%AEP event but is affected by flooding in the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event with levels in the order of RL 5.89m - RL 5.90m AHD. The architectural plans prepared by G J Garner (Rev F dated 29/01/24) indicate ground floor levels of RL 6.20m AHD and garage levels of RL 6.20m AHD which are above the PMF level. Safe evacuation of the development to the Hobart Street frontage would be feasible in a PMF event.

The Public Interest: (s79C(1)(e)):

Section 4.15 (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration as to whether to proposal is in the public interest.

The proposal will not have any adverse impact on the natural environment and will not unreasonably impact the amenity of neighbouring properties. The approval of the application is considered to be in the public interest.

Ecologically Sustainable Principles:

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

The proposed development is considered to incorporate satisfactory stormwater, drainage and erosion control and 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.

Other Matters for Consideration:

Section 7.11 and 7.12 Contributions (formerly Sections 94 and 94A Contributions)

Water and Sewer Contributions.

Contributions are applicable to this development.

Political Donations

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

Conclusion:

The application has been assessed under the relevant heads of consideration specified under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and all relevant planning instruments and policies and found to be satisfactory. In particular:

· The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives as set out under the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022.

· The variations proposed to the provisions of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 are relatively minor and will not have a material impact in terms of amenity or impact on adjoining lands.

· The potential constraints of the site have been assessed and it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent.

· The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse social or economic impact. It is considered that the proposed development will complement the locality and meet the desired future character of the area.

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

Attachments

1 ⇩	Draft conditions /Reasons - 42 Hobart Avenue UMINA BEACH NSW 2257- DA/1627/2023		D16746933
2 ⇩	PORTAL DOC - 42 Hobart Avenue, UMINA BEACH NSW 2256 - DA/1627/2023 - ARBORIST REPORT		D16745085
3 ⇩	Portal Doc - 42 Hobart Avenue, UMINA BEACH NSW 2257 - DA/1627/2023 - Statement of environmental effects - SoEE - 42 Hobart Avenue Umina Beach Rev B.pdf -		D16778446
4	Portal Doc - 42 Hobart Avenue, UMINA BEACH NSW 2257 - DA 1627 2023 - Architectural Plans - Lot 362, 42 Hobart Avenue, Umina Beach.pdf - REDACTED	Provided Under Separate Cover	D16778431

Item No: 3.2
Title: DA/1496/2024 - 203 Matcham Road, Matcham - 2 Lot Subdivision
Department: Environment and Planning
15 May 2025 Local Planning Panel Meeting

Reference: DA/1496/2024 - D16765382

Author: Kirra Hartley, Senior Development Planner

Section Manager: Ailsa Prendergast, Section Manager Residential Assessments

Unit Manager: Andrew Roach, Unit Manager Development Assessment

Summary

An application has been received for 2 Lot Subdivision - (Nominated Integrated & Integrated) at 203 Matcham Road, Matcham. 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.

The application is required to be referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination as the proposed development has a departed from the development standards by more than 10% under Subdivision 18 (4)(b) of Interim Development Order No. 122. Schedule 2 Point 3 of the Local Planning Panels Ministerial Direction (dated 6 March 2024) requires such applications to be referred to the Panel.

The development proposes the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) Torrens title lots which comprises a variation to the minimum lot size development standard of subdivision 18 (4)(b) of the Interim Development Order No. 122 (IDO) by 27.39% for lot 1 and 29.2% for lot 2.

The applicant was notified with one objection received.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Applicant T M Green

Owner C P Green and T M Green

Application No DA/1496/2024

Description of Land 203 Matcham Road, MATCHAM, NSW 2250

Proposed Development 2 Lot Subdivision - (Nominated Integrated & Integrated)

Site Area 1.435 Hectares

Zoning 7(C2) Scenic Protection Rural

Existing Use Dwelling house

Employment Generation Nil

Estimated Value $70,000

Site Inspection 20 November 2024

Recommendation

A That the Central Coast Local Planning Panel as consent authority refuse the Development Application No. DA/1496/2024 for 2 lot Subdivision - (Nominated Integrated & Integrated) on Lot 11 DP 629366, 203 Matcham Road, Matcham subject to the reasons for refusal detailed in the schedule attached to the report and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the following reasons:

1: The proposed development is not considered in the public interest. There would be an increased risk to life as a result of this development. There will be no safe evacuation for the additional occupants during a flood which would result in:

o An increased exposure to the risk factors of sheltering in place

o An increased risk of people being isolated during medical emergencies

o An increased risk of people making dangerous decisions such as entering floodwater while access roads are inundated.

o An increased workload for emergency services who will need to rescue or resupply a greater number of people

o An increased risk to life compared to existing.

2: The proposed allotments are significantly less than the minimum lot size requirement of 1 hectare (Ha) for land zoned 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural as prescribed under Clause 18 within the IDO 122. Undersized subdivision of lots in this area is not consistent with current legislation or approval patterns and would set a precedence in the area for significantly undersized lots which is not consistent with the orderly development of the area.

3: The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural zone. The environmental limitations over the site within the zone include Medium Landslip, Flooding, Biodiversity Values and Bushfire Prone Land which forces the building envelope for any future dwelling to be located close to the north and eastern boundaries prompting objection from a neighbouring property. This will adversely affect the aesthetic and scenic value of the land by clustering any future dwelling with the existing dwelling houses which will interfere unreasonably with the amenity of existing adjoining properties.

4: Insufficient information and documentation was provided with the development application. The applicant did not provide a Preliminary Engineering Plan and the Wastewater Management Report comprised insufficient information to support the DA application.

B That Council advises those who made written submissions of the Panel’s decision.

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

Key Issues

1. Flood safety concerns

2. Minimum lot size variation

3. Insufficient information provided.

4. Submission/s and matters raised therein.

5. The Development Application has not satisfactorily resolved the issues identified in the Pre-Development application meeting undertaken.

Precis:

Proposed Development	2 Lot Subdivision
Permissibility and Zoning	The subject site is zoned 7(c2) Conservation and Scenic Protection (Scenic Protection - Rural Small Holdings) under Interim Development Order No. 122. The proposed development is defined as a Torrens title subdivision which is permissible in the zone with consent of Council.
Current Use	Dwelling house
Integrated Development	Yes. The Development Application (DA) was submitted to the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) as ‘integrated development’ for the purposes of Section 100B (special fire protection purpose) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The Development Application (DA) was submitted to The Department of Planning and Environment-Water as Nominated Integrated.
Submissions	One (1) submission received during the notification period.

Proposed Variations to Policies and Departure from Legislation

Clause	Section 4.15(1)(b)(c) and (e)
Standard	1. The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. 2. The suitability of the site for the development 3. The public interest.
LEP/DCP/Act	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)
Departure basis	Non numerical variation. Unsuitability of the site for the proposed development due to significant flooding and the development not being in the public interest.

Clause	· 18(4)(b)
Standard	The minimum subdivision allotment size prescribed by clause 18(4)(b) of the Interim Development Order No 122.
LEP/DCP	State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1). Note that because the subject land is subject to Interim Development Order No 122, the provisions of the former SEPP 1 apply with respect to proposed variations to development standards.
Departure basis	Lot 1: 27.39% variation Lot 2: 29.2% variation

Clause	Clause 5(3)
Standard	Consent must not be granted for development of land within the prescribed zone, unless the objectives of the zone have been taken into consideration in conjunction with the objectives of the Local Government Act 1993, pertaining to Ecologically Sustainable Development.
LEP/DCP	Interim Development Order No. 122
Departure basis	Non numerical variation. Inconsistency with zone objectives.

Clause	Subdivision 18 (4)(b)
Standard	Subdivide land within Zone No. 7(c2) so as to create one or more allotments having an area of less than 2 hectares but not less than 1 hectare.
LEP/DCP	Interim Development Order No. 122 (IDO)
Departure basis	As above: Lot 1: 27.39% variation Lot 2: 29.2% variation

Clause	Chapter 2.4, Clause 2.4.5
Standard	Lot Size and Design.
LEP/DCP	Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022
Departure basis	Not compliant pursuant to the IDO.

The Site

· Subject site is legally described as lot 11 DP 629366 at No. 203 Matcham Road, Matcham. The overall site area is 1.43 Hectares (Ha) and is currently occupied by a dwelling house and ancillary development (refer to Figure 1).

· The site is impacted with Biodiversity Values (refer to Figure 2).

· The site is identified as Bushfire Prone Land (refer to Figure 3).

· The site is identified as Medium Landslip (Refer to Figure 4).

· The site identified as Flood Prone Land Mapping indicating 1% AEP (Refer to Figure 5).

· The site is identified on the Flood Precincts Map as impacted by Floodway, Precinct 4: High Hazard, Precinct 3: Flood Storage, Precinct 2: Flood Planning and Precinct 1: Probable Maximum Flood (refer to Figure 6).

· The site has an Identified Watercourse (Erina Creek) and 40m buffer zone traversing the site (refer to Figure 7).

· The site is zoned 7(C2) Scenic Protection Rural IDO under Interim Development Order No 122 (refer to Figure 8). The site is proposed to be rezoned to C4 Environmental Living per the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022.

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site

Figure 2: Biodiversity Values Map Extract

Figure 3: Bushfire Prone Land

Figure 4: Medium Landslip Hazard

Figure 5: Flood Prone Land mapping indicating 1% AEP

Figure 6: Flood Precincts

Figure 7: Identified Watercourse and 40m buffer zone traversing the site

Figure 8: Zoning map, 7 (c2) Scenic Protection Rural per the Interim Development Order No. 122

Surrounding Development

Surrounding development adjoining the site and in the immediate area comprises dwelling houses on large rural lots. The land slopes towards the centre of the site where Erina Creek traverses the site and adjoining properties to the east and west (refer to Figures 7 and 12).

The Proposed Development

The proposal comprises the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) Torrens title lots (refer to Figure 9 Subdivision Plan), both lots being less than the minimum lot size requirement (1 Hectare) as per Council’s Interim Development Order No 122 (IDO) as follows:

Proposed Lot 1 (southern portion):

· 7261m²

· Existing dwelling and ancillary development to be retained on this site; and

· Access off Matcham Road to be retained.

Proposed Lot 2 (northern portion):

· 7080m²

· Vacant land with building parcel outline.

· New vehicle access crossing (VAC) proposed off Elaine Road.

The boundary between the two is to be approximately centred on and parallel to Erina creek which passes through the property in an east to west direction.

Figure 9: Proposed Plan of Subdivision

History

On 30 May 2024 the applicant and Council staff attended a Pre-Development Application meeting (Ref. PDA/91/2024) via Microsoft Teams whereby the proposed 2 lot Torrens title subdivision of the site (which is now being assessed within this report), was discussed.

The applicant was advised both during the Pre–Development Application (Pre-DA) meeting and within the Pre-DA meeting minutes provided that the proposed 2 lot subdivision would not be supported by Council for reasons outlined during the Pre-DA meeting, and calrified in writing within Pre-DA Meeting Minutes.

It is advised that the reasons outlined for position taken in the Pre-DA discussions (and set out in the Pre-DA Minutes) have not been resolved within the Development Application submitted.

Previous Applications

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

· DA/46470/2014 approved on 14 May 2015 for Dwelling Additions, Swimming Pool In-ground and Garage.

· DA/56026/2019 approved on 19 March 2019 for Dwelling Alterations, Additions & Swimming Pool Above Ground.

· DA/56026/2019A approved on 15 January 2020 for Section 4.55 Amendment - Remove pergola, add wrap-around veranda and stage development.

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.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Delegation to the Local Planning Panel

In accordance with s.9.1 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this development application (DA) is delegated to the Central Coast Local Planning Panel (LPP) for determination due to that the proposed variation to a development standard is greater than 10%.

· The development proposes the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) Torrens title lots which comprises a variation to the minimum lot size development standard of subdivision 18 (4)(b) of the Interim Development Order No. 122 (IDO) by 27.39% for lot 1 and 29.2% for lot 2.

Per the Ministerial Directions for the referral of development applications to the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications and Applications to Modify Development Consents specified in Schedule 2, dated 6 March 2024, the development will be delegated to the Local Planning Panel (LPP) under Schedule 2, (3) Departure from development standards as ‘Development that contravenes a development standard imposed by an environmental planning instrument by more than 10% or non- numerical development standards.’

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

An AHIMS search was submitted with the DA indicating no items or places of Aboriginal heritage have been identified within 200m of the development area.

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

Rural Fires Act 1997

The Development Application (DA) was submitted to the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) as ‘integrated development’ for the purposes of Section 100B (special fire protection purpose) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS provided their concurrence and issued a bushfire certificate which would be conditioned as part of the consent if the proposal was to be supported.

Water Management Act 2000

The Development Application (DA) was submitted to The Department of Planning and Environment-Water which reviewed the proposal and responded with a determination that

for the purposes of the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act), a controlled activity approval would not be required for the proposed works and no further assessment by that agency would be necessary.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

The use of the area of the land to be utilised for residential purposes is a paddock with no previous uses that would lead to the site being contaminated.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Development Standards

The proposed allotments are significantly less than the minimum lot size requirement of 1 hectare (Ha) for land zoned 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural as prescribed under Clause 18 within the IDO 122.

Specifically:

· proposed lot 1 comprises a 27.39% variation; and

· proposed lot 2 comprises a 29.2% variation

to the minimum lot size development standards pursuant to the IDO 122.

Consequently, a written objection per Clause 6 Making of application of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (1980 EPI 10) was provided by the applicant which states that compliance with the development standard Clause 18 of the IDO 122 is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Although SEPP 1 is now repealed, it is applicable in this instance given that the land is still subject to interim Development Order No. 122, rather than the Central Coast LEP 2022.

Aims, objectives

The aims and objections of the SEPP are set out within Clause 3 the SEPP as follows:

‘This Policy provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the [Environmental Planning & Assessment] Act.’

Although the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act has been amended and now has sections numbered differently, the aims and objectives mentioned above, before the repeal of SEPP 1, as follows:

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

(similar objectives are now contained within Section 1.3 of the Act)

Clause 6 of the SEPP set out:

‘Where development could, but for any development standard, be carried out under the Act (either with or without the necessity for consent under the Act being obtained therefor) the person intending to carry out that development may make a development application in respect of that development, supported by a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection.’

Clause 7 of the SEPP states:

‘Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3, it may, with the concurrence of the Director, grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection referred to in clause 6.’

Applicants Written Justification

The applicant has provided a written justification for the variation (provided in full as an Attachment for the information of the Panel).

The applicants SEPP 1 submission concludes, as follows:

‘Strict compliance with the development standard is not achieved on this occasion in relation to one (1) of the two (2) lots in the subdivision, however, the departure from strict compliance with the standard will not impede the achievement of zone objectives and or the desired future character of the locality. Strict compliance with the development standard in the circumstances would hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Subsequently it is submitted to Council for the reasons set out in the objection that it would be both unreasonable and unnecessary for the prescriptive measures of the Gosford Interim Development Order No. 122 to be applied to this application. It is considered that the SEPP 1 Objection is well founded and outlines how the proposal meets the overarching objectives of the IDO (including clause 18(4)(b)) and would not result in the undermining or destroying the development standard or the planning objectives of the locality.’

Council Comment:

With respect to objective (i) within the SEPP:

The justification provided by the applicant that the proposal will promote the social and economic welfare of the community is not agreed. As advised by Council’s Flood Engineer, the proposed subdivision fails to incorporate measures to minimise the risk to life and ensure the safe evacuation of people in the event of a flood which is also not compliant with Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.

The development, therefore, has not considered the proper management or development of the site given the increased risk to human life. The development is not considered to promote a better environment or be a benefit to the community.

With respect to objective (ii) within the SEPP:

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

Council received an objection to the proposed development disputing the applicants claim the proposed development preserves environmental amenity which Council agrees with.

The plans show any future building envelope is in close proximity to existing dwellings at Nos. 9 and 17 Sarah Road which is more consistent with the orderly development of general or high density residential zones as opposed to the 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural zone.

The objectives of the 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural zone are as follows:

(a) to provide a buffer or transition zone between conservation areas and urban areas; and

(b) to enable development for the purposes of rural-residential holdings to be carried out on land which is suitable for those purposes and which is unlikely:

(i) to adversely affect the aesthetic and scenic value of the land and its setting; or

(ii) to create a demand for the uneconomic provision of services; and

(c) to allow for non-residential uses where those uses are:

(i) compatible with rural-residential development and unlikely to create an unreasonable demand for public services or substantially reduce existing levels of service;

(ii) unlikely to adversely affect the aesthetic and scenic value of the land and its setting; and

(iii) unlikely to interfere unreasonably with the amenity of adjoining properties.

The environmental limitations over the site within the (C2) Scenic Protection Rural zone include Medium Landslip to the north, Flooding and Biodiversity Values to the south and Bushfire Prone Land to the east which forces the building envelope for any future dwelling to be located close to the north and eastern boundaries. This will adversely affect the aesthetic and scenic value of the land by clustering the any future dwelling with the existing dwelling houses which will interfere unreasonably with the amenity of existing adjoining properties.

To give further context, dwelling separation in the immediate area is approximately between 35m to over 140m to neighbouring dwellings. The proposed building envelope shown on the Subdivision Plan indicates approximately 7m setback to the northern boundary (which has an approximate zero boundary setback) and 8m to the western boundary (which has an approximate 12m boundary setback). As the existing neighboring dwellings have not been identified on the site plan, an exact distance is unclear. However, the proposed location is shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10: Proposed building envelope

In addition, flooding events over the site must be considered as an uneconomic provision of services with regards to the increased workload for emergency services who will need to rescue or resupply a greater number of people as raised by Council’s Flood Engineer.

It is not considered best Floodplain Management Practice to intensify development in a location which will be cut off by flood water. Due to the isolation of proposed lot 2 and the lack of an evacuation plan there will be an increased risk of local motorists leaving their premises for general purposes or in a medical emergency and entering into flood waters which happened in 2022 when a local motorist was killed in Matcham while attempting to cross a flooded road during a storm event.

It is advised that the proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the objectives specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act or with the objectives of the 7 (C2) Scenic Protection Rural zone.

Making of applications

Where development could, but for any development standard, be carried out under the Act (either with or without the necessity for consent under the Act being obtained therefor) the person intending to carry out that development may make a development application in respect of that development, supported by a written objection that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifying the grounds of that objection.

Council Comment:

The applicant provided a SEPP 1 written objection with the DA which has been reviewed and found to be unsatisfactory in this report under clause 3 - Aims, objectives. It is advised that the IDO 122 standards are not considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as outlined above in this document.

Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3 Aims, objectives, it may, with the concurrence of the Director, grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection referred to in clause 6.

Council reviewed the SEPP 1 written objection provided with the DA and is not satisfied the justifications for the proposed variations are well founded. The proposal is not considered consistent with the aims, objectives of this policy for the reasons outlined above and do not support the proposed variation to the IDO 122.

Concurrence

The matters which shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether concurrence should be granted are:

(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

Council Comment:

The public benefit of maintaining the minimum lot size planning controls adopted by the IDO 122 include minimising the risk to life as a result of this development and retaining the aesthetic and scenic value of the area as well as the amenity of the existing Adjoining properties.

Both Council’s Flood Engineers as well as the applicant’s Flood Engineers have identified there is no safe evacuation for the additional occupants during a flood event. By maintaining the minimum lot size planning controls adopted by the IDO 122 there will be:

· Reduced exposure to the risk factors of sheltering in place

· Reduced risk of people being isolated during medical emergencies

· Reduced risk of people making dangerous decisions such as entering floodwater while access roads are inundated.

· Reduced workload for emergency services who will need to rescue or resupply a greater number of people

· Reduced risk to life compared to existing.

In addition, the retention of the minimum lot size planning controls adopted by the IDO 122 will allow the retention of the aesthetic and scenic value of the 7(c2) Conservation and Scenic Protection land and its setting and will retain the amenity of the existing adjoining properties.

Interim Development Order No. 122

Permissibility

· The subject site is zoned 7(c2) Conservation and Scenic Protection (Scenic Protection - Rural Small Holdings) under Interim Development Order No. 122. The proposed development is defined as a Torrens title subdivision which is permissible in the zone with consent of Council.

Relevant Clauses

· Clause 5(3) of Interim Development Order No 122 stipulates that consent must not be granted for development of land within the prescribed zone, unless the objectives of the zone have been taken into consideration in conjunction with the objectives of the Local Government Act 1993, pertaining to Ecologically Sustainable Development.

The objectives for the 7(c2) Conservation and Scenic Protection (Scenic Protection - Rural Small Holdings) are:

Objectives 7(c2) Scenic Protection – Rural Small Holdings