Agenda of Development Committee

Minutes of the Development Committee

Meeting Date: Monday, 5 June 2017

Location: Council Chambers, City Administrative Building, Bridge Road, Nowra

Time: 5:00pm

The following members were present:

Clr Patricia White - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr John Wells

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr Andrew Guile

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clr Gartner and Clr Kitchener

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Gash) MIN17.474

That the Minutes of the Development Committee held on Tuesday 09 May 2017 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Nil

Deputations and Presentations

Mr John Willmott addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.40 Planning Proposal (Rezoning) - St Vincent and Deering Streets, Ulladulla.

Mr Anthony Barthelmess addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.42 SF10554 – 1 Greens Road Greenwell Point – Lot 1 DP 530097.

Mr Tony Marshall addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.43 Development Application – 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake – Lot 149 DP 15648

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.475

That the following items be brought forward for consideration:

DE17.40 – Planning Proposal (Rezoning) – St Vincent and Deering Streets, Ulladulla (Your Urban Designer)
DE17.42 – SF10554 – 1 Greens Road Greenwell Point – Lot 1 DP 530097
DE17.43 – Development Application – 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake – Lot 149 DP 15648

CARRIED

Reports

DE17.40 Planning Proposal (Rezoning) - St Vincent and Deering Streets, Ulladulla (Your Urban Designer)

HPERM Ref: D17/91270

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Give in principle support for the proposed rezoning and building height review for Lots 1-7, 9 DP 21597 and Lot CP SP 42583, St Vincent and Deering Streets, Ulladulla; and submit a Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination upon receipt of the final outstanding owners consent.

2. Request that the following be required as a condition of the Gateway determination:

a. Additional visual impact assessment and/or modelling for the planning proposal site following completion of the Review of Building Heights Study (part of Ulladulla CBD) as required by Council.

b. Economic feasibility analysis to consider the proposed heights following completion of the Review of Building Heights Study (part of Ulladulla CBD).

c. Stage 1 Contamination Assessment for Lots 3-7, 9 DP 21597 and Lot CP SP 42583.

3. Require the proponent to pay pro rata costs associated with the preparation of the Review of Building Heights Study.

4. Advise the proponent, adjacent land owners and relevant community groups of this decision, noting the opportunity for formal consultation later in the process.

5. If necessary, receive a further report following receipt of the Gateway determination.

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Findley) MIN17.476

That Council:

2. Request that the following be required as a condition of the Gateway determination:

a. Additional visual impact assessment and/or modelling for the planning proposal site following completion of the Review of Building Heights Study (part of Ulladulla CBD) as required by Council, which considers up to 14 mts on the subject site.

b. Economic feasibility analysis to consider the proposed heights following completion of the Review of Building Heights Study (part of Ulladulla CBD).

c. Stage 1 Contamination Assessment for Lots 3-7, 9 DP 21597 and Lot CP SP 42583.

3. Require the proponent to pay pro rata costs associated with the preparation of the Review of Building Heights Study.

4. Advise the proponent, adjacent land owners and relevant community groups of this decision, noting the opportunity for formal consultation later in the process.

5. If necessary, receive a further report following receipt of the Gateway determination.

For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Findley, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.42 SF10554 – 1 Greens Road Greenwell Point – Lot 1 DP 530097

HPERM Ref: D17/140378

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Committee:

1. Confirm that it does not support the departure from the Performance Criteria P3.2 and P3.3 of Control 5.3 Subdivision in the Floodplain, Chapter G9, SDCP 2014; and

2. Refer the application (SF10554) back to staff for determination.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.477

That Council

1. Supports the departure from the Performance Criteria P3.2 and P3.3 of Control 5.3 Subdivision in the Floodplain, Chapter G9, SDCP 2014.

2. Refer the application (SF10554) back to staff for determination.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Findley, Clr Cheyne and Clr Alldrick

CARRIED

DE17.43 Development Application – 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake – Lot 149 DP 15648	HPERM Ref: D17/144057
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That the Development Committee 1. Support the variation to maximum building height of 8.5m set by clause 4.3 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for two storey pole home at 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake to a maximum building height of 11.15m; 2. Refer the application back to staff for determination.
Note: Clr Watson left the meeting at 6:15pm
RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Wells) MIN17.478 That the Development Committee 1. Support the variation to maximum building height of 8.5m set by clause 4.3 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for two storey pole home at 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake to a maximum building height of 11.15m; 2. Refer the application back to staff for determination. For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Findley, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg Against: Nil CARRIED

DE17.38 Section 138 Approvals, Roads Act 1993	HPERM Ref: D16/374324
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That; 1. Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 be applied consistently to all development where approval is required in the road reserve. 2. A clear modern driveway profile/gradients and associated fact sheet be produced to assist home builders to ascertain suitable garage floor levels and driveway gradients to facilitate integration with Council’s road reserve.
Note: Clr Findley left the meeting at 6:24pm
RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.479 That 1. Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 be applied consistently to all development where approval is required in the road reserve. 2. A clear modern driveway profile/gradients and associated fact sheet be produced to assist home builders to ascertain suitable garage floor levels and driveway gradients to facilitate integration with Council’s road reserve. For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg Against: Nil CARRIED

DE17.39 Development Application DA16/1759 - 2159 Moss Vale Road Barrengarry - Lot C in DP 18081

HPERM Ref: D17/88129

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Support the following variations to the relevant development standards in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for the purpose of the erection of a dwelling house on Lot C in DP18081:

a. variation to the minimum lot size of 40Ha to 750m2, and

b. variation to the 5.5m building height under clause 4.3 to 6.855m.

2. That the application is referred back to staff for determination.

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Wells) MIN17.480

That Council:

1. Support the following variations to the relevant development standards in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for the purpose of the erection of a dwelling house on Lot C in DP18081:

a. variation to the minimum lot size of 40Ha to 750m2, and

b. variation to the 5.5m building height under clause 4.3 to 6.855m.

2. That the application is referred back to staff for determination.

For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.40 Planning Proposal (Rezoning) - St Vincent And Deering Streets, Ulladulla (Your Urban Designer)

HPERM Ref: D17/91270

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.476

DE17.41 Options - Dual occupancy development - Old residential area of Berry

HPERM Ref: D17/133020

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Receive this options investigation report and provide a direction to progress.

2. Consult with the Berry Forum on the preferred option.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Guile) MIN17.481

That Council

1. Investigate additional heritage listings within Berry and additional controls within the DCP to manage character impacts associated with potential dual occupancy development

2. Consider the provision of $20,000 in the 2017/2018 Budget to review the Shoalhaven Heritage Study to support any additional heritage listings in Berry.

3. Consult with the Berry Forum, Berry Chambers of Commerce and other stakeholder groups on the preferred option.

For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.42 SF10554 – 1 Greens Road Greenwell Point – Lot 1 DP 530097

HPERM Ref: D17/140378

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.477

DE17.43 Development Application – 98 Canberra Crescent, Burrill Lake – Lot 149 DP 15648

HPERM Ref: D17/144057

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.478

Introduction of Items as Matters of Urgency

Recommendation

That the following addendum reports be introduced as matters of urgency:

1. DE17.44 Development Application – 5 Spinnaker Street, Vincentia – Lot 716 DP 1204850

CARRIED

The Chairperson ruled the matter as one of urgency as it relates to urgent business of Council and allowed its introduction.

Addendum Reports

DE17.44 Development Application – 5 Spinnaker Street, Vincentia – Lot 716 DP 1204850

HPERM Ref: D17/177122

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Development Committee:

1. Support the 10.4% variation to the minimum lot size set by clause 4.1 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for allotments at 448 m² each for torrens title subdivision of dual occupancy to be erected at 5 Spinnaker Street Vincentia – LOT 716 DP 1204850;

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Gash) MIN17.482

That the Development Committee:

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

carried

For: Clr White, Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 6.34 pm.

Clr White

CHAIRPERSON

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 8

DE17.45 Development Application – 52 Cyrus St Hyams Beach – Lot 58 DP 577627

DA. No: DA16/1341/4

HPERM Ref: D17/152965

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. Coastal Engineering Review by Advisian (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Coastal Hazards Assessment Summary (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Assessment of submissions (councillors information folder) ⇨

4. Section 79C Planning Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Shadow diagrams ⇩

6. Boathouse Arm Design Statement ⇩

7. Draft conditions of consent (under separate cover) ⇨

8. Statement of Environmental Effects - Part 1 Rev 2 (under separate cover) ⇨

9. Statement of Environmental Effects - Part 2 Rev 2 (under separate cover) ⇨

10. Plans (councillors information folder) ⇨

Description of Development: Demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling and ancillary boathouse arm

Owner: T G Van Veenendahl

Applicant: Peter Stutchbury Architecture

Notification Dates: The application has been notified on three occasions:

1. 6 to 21 April 2016 (extended to 2 May 2016 in response to neighbour’s request);

2. 10 to 25 October 2016 (extended to 31 October 2016 in response to neighbour’s request) – notified amended plans, boathouse arm design statement, initial and supplementary Coastal Hazards Risk Assessment Reports;

3. 17 February to 6 March 2017 – notified additional information on geotechnical and coastal hazard assessment issues.

No. of Submissions: Forty (40)

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

At its Ordinary meeting held on 28 February 2017 Council resolved to call in the application for determination as there is significant public interest in the development (MIN17.133).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application 16/1341 to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a two storey dwelling and ancillary boathouse arm on Lot 58 DP 577627, 52 Cyrus Street Hyams Beach be approved subject to:

1. The boathouse floor being constructed to a height of 4.75m AHD (without any increase in maximum building height) and in accordance with the requirements of the Advisian report dated 6 June 2017 (report No.301015-03779-001) vis:

a. the floor of the boathouse is to be constructed of timber slats to reduce wave uplift pressures;

b. access to the boathouse is to be from the landward side or via a timber ramp oriented south-north so that it does not interfere with wave runup flows;

c. The boathouse is to be landscaped to suitably screen the sub-floor area.

2. The additional conditions contained in Attachment 7 of this report.

Options

1. Approve the application in acordance with the recommendation of this report.

Implications: This would allow the boathouse to be constructed in its present position with an elevated floor. There is no change in the overall height of the boathouse but it would be on piers without filling. The open nature of the subfloor will have a visual impact but additional screen planting will address this matter.

2. Approve the application with an alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to provide justification for alternative recommendation consistent with Setion 79C considerations.

3. Refuse the application.

Implications: Council would need to determine the grounds on which the application is refused consistent with Setion 79C considerations.

Location

The subject site is shown outlined in orange on Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – Location Map

Background

Proposed Development

This application seeks approval to demolish an existing two storey house and erect a new two storey dwelling. The new dwelling is of timber frame construction with timber wall cladding and colorbond metal roof cladding. Full details of the proposal are shown in the final revised plans (Attachment 10) and statement of environmental effects (Attachments 8&9).

The application also includes the erection of what is described by the applicant as the ‘boathouse arm’. This is a non-habitable ancillary building extending along the southern boundary from the new dwelling to 7.5m from the eastern boundary. The boathouse arm includes the boathouse ‘room’ and the screen wall linking the boathouse to the main dwelling. The screen wall varies in height from 3.71 metres to 4.12 metres (approximately) and it is located 900 mm from the side boundary adjoining 54 Cyrus Street. The screen wall is of concrete construction and coloured to coordinate with the beach environment.

The site plan at Figure 2 shows the public reserve to the north of the site and the footprint and roofline of the adjoining house at 54 Cyrus Street to the South.

Figure 2 – Site plan

Subject Land

The subject land is 52 Cyrus Street Hyams Beach with a legal description of lot 58 in DP 577627. The land is 13.715 metres wide and has variable depths of 60.115 metres and 77.22 metres to the North and South respectively. The eastern boundary is skewed and has a length of 21.925 metres. The land has an area of 941.7m² and is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP2014).

The site falls from the southwest corner at the Cyrus Street frontage to the north and the east. It has a maximum elevation at the street frontage of 9.79 metres AHD and a minimum of approximately 1.5 metres AHD at its boundary with the foreshore reserve.

Site & Context

The site is bounded on the east by a strip of foreshore reserve and to the north by another area of reserve, which make up the Cyrus Street Reserve, an area of community land owned and managed by Council. This area of reserve to the north of the site contains a deeply incised natural creek, the lower reaches of which meander in varying locations in the beach in front of the site.

To the west of the site is Cyrus Street and to the south is No 54 Cyrus Street which contains a two storey dwelling with a swimming pool. The eastern section of the site extends to the sand of the beach.

History

The foreshore reserve was subdivided from the subject land and the adjoining No 54 Cyrus Street in 1975, the existing dwelling predates the subdivision. The most recent approval for the land was for a timber fence on the boundary with 54 Cyrus Street (DA11/2452). Council records also include a building approval for dwelling additions in 1971 (BA71/1489).

Issues

The development is generally compliant with the provisions of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP2014) and Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (SDCP2014). There are a number of variations to provisions of SDCP2014 - Chapter G6 (Coastal Management Areas) and Chapter G12 (Dwelling Houses, Rural Worker’s Dwellings, Additions and Ancillary Structures).

Predominant issues in the assessment of the application include: the exposure of the site to coastal hazards; the impact on visual amenity of the adjoining beach and the impact on views enjoyed by nearby properties. The ‘boathouse arm’ features highly in the concerns raised.

Exposure of the site to coastal hazards

This aspect of the development has been the subject of submissions and competing expert reports. The extent to which the site is affected by coastal hazards and erosion from the creek that flows from the public reserve to the north, which frequently meanders across the lower eastern section of the site, are core issues.

Applicant’s submission

The applicant has supplied the following expert reports that address this issue:

1) Coastal Hazards Risk Assessment Report dated 6 June 2016 and prepared by Geoff Metzler and Associates P/L;

2) Coastal Hazards Risk Assessment – Supplementary Report for 2025 ZRFC dated 5 September 2016 and prepared by Geoff Metzler and Associates P/L;

3) impact of Bedrock on Coastal Hazard Assessment dated 21 December 2016 and prepared by Geoff Metzler and Associates P/L;

4) 52 Cyrus Street Hyams Beach – Development Application Review Advice dated 19 December 2016 and prepared by BMT WBM;

5) report on Geotechnical Investigation dated 21 December 2016 and prepared by Douglas Partners P/L;

6) report on Geotechnical Investigation dated 15 February 2017 and prepared by Douglas Partners P/L.

In summary, the applicant’s submission is that the proposed development satisfies all of the considerations around coastal hazards and deserves approval. The applicant does not agree with the position asserted in the coastal hazard assessment reports submitted by the owner of 54 Cyrus Street.

Discussion

These issues have been addressed at length in the assessment of the application.

The lack of concurrence between the expert reports provided by the applicant and the submitter led Council to commission an independent review of coastal hazards. This work was undertaken by Advisian who are recognised as a leading coastal engineering consultancy.

The Advisian coastal engineering review is reproduced at Attachment 1 and the findings are summarised on page 33 of that report. The Advisian report indicates that the development can proceed, subject to the following requirements:

· the boathouse can be constructed at its proposed location subject to the floor level being raised so that it is clear of the extent of wave runup (4.4m AHD) plus an allowance for future sea level rise (0.35m). This level is 4.75m AHD;

· the floor of the boathouse, if constructed at this location, should be constructed of timber slats to reduce wave uplift pressures;

· access to the boathouse would need to be from landward or via a timber ramp oriented south-north so that it does not interfere with wave runup flows;

· alternatively to above points, the boathouse can be relocated landwards of the estimated extent of wave runup, plus an allowance for sea level change;

· all development is to be piled so that it is founded on rock in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report by Douglas Partners;

· there should be no filling or retaining walls under the boathouse or within the extent of wave runup.

A summary of all reports including their findings and recommendations is set out in Attachment 2 ‘Coastal Hazards Assessment Summary’.

Clause 5.2.3 of Chapter G6 (Coastal Management Areas) of Shoalhaven DCP 2014

As the land lies between the public road and the waterfront, the site is subject to a side setback (view corridor) specified in clause 5.2.3 of Chapter G6 (Coastal Management Areas) of Shoalhaven DCP2014. This clause requires one side setback of 10% of the width of the lot (approximately 1400mm) so that opportunities are provided for intermittent views from the public road through to the water. However as the public reserve is on one side of the site the performance criteria is met and a view corridor from the road is available.

Impact on Views from 53-55 Cyrus Street

The western elevation of the new building is provided at Figure 3. The outline of the existing building is shown in pink and the protruding eave on the northern side is clearly visable. The encroachment by the bottom side of the roof is below the protruding eave on the existing building and therefore will have minimal impact on the views currently available to the cottages at 53-55 Cyrus Street.

Figure 3 – Western elevation of new building showing outline of existing building (in pink)

Impact on views – 54 Cyrus Street

View loss has been raised as an issue by the owner of No. 54 Cyrus Street. More detail on this issue is given below in the ‘Submissions’ section of this report and in Attachment 3 ‘Report on Assessment of Submissions’.

Applicant’s submission

The applicant has comprehensively addressed the view impact on 54 Cyrus Street. The applicant’s position is that the views from the upper (living area) floor are not impacted to any significant extent and that all important and iconic views from the upper floor (including those across the side boundary between 52 and 54) are retained.

The applicant contends that the main house building has been sensitively designed and located so as to preserve these views. Had the building been constructed to the full extent of the allowable building envelope, it would have obscured more views from No 54. The applicant has provided an aerial photograph overlaid with the extent of the views retained from No 54 (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Extent of views from first floor living area and rear terrace (pool deck) of 54 Cyrus Street

Discussion

There will be minimal loss of views from the first floor of 54 Cyrus Street. Some loss of north easterly views will occur from the first floor bedroom and bathroom, neither of which are regarded as living areas.

There will be a loss of views from the ground floor rooms and adjoining terrace. However these rooms are two bedrooms and a bathroom and are not considered living rooms. Having regard to the retention of the vast majority of quality and iconic views from the main living areas, the overall loss of views is considered to be acceptable. More detail on the assessment of views is contained in Attachment 4 Section 79C Assessment Report. That assessment follows the view sharing principles established by the NSW Land and Environment Court in its decision in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004].

An important principle established by the Land and Environment Court decision is that the expectation to retain side views is often unrealistic as it is more difficult to protect than views over other boundaries. Council’s LEP and DCP provides for a building envelope and a maximum building height of 7.5 metres. Apart from some minor variations (detailed later in this report) the proposed development is compliant with these controls. Indeed the two storey part of the building (the main house) could extend further seawards while being compliant with the controls, which would have a far more significant effect on views than the proposal before Council. This supports the applicant’s contention that the building has been sensitively designed to minimise view loss to the adjoining property while providing acceptable levels of amenity for the occupants of the new building.

The Banksia trees planted along the southern boundary of the site will be removed where the footprint of the new building lies. The removal of these trees will effectively provide an improvement to the views enjoyed by No. 54.

Impact on views – 57, 59 and 53-55 Cyrus Street

A submission by the owners of Nos. 57 and 59 Cyrus Street (rental cottages opposite) following the third round of submissions argues that these properties as well as ‘The Green Cabins’ at 53-55 Cyrus Street will suffer loss of views of Jervis Bay if the proposal goes ahead.

Discussion

The roof of the new building is 0.75m above the height of the roof of the existing building and 2.1m below the ridge on the house at 54 Cyrus Street. This means that the new building will only marginally reduce the view available from 57 and 59 Cyrus Street. The views of Point Perpendicular and the land/water interface will be retained.

The views from the cottages at 53-55 Cyrus Street are primarily along the side boundary of No 52 and across the adjoining public reserve. These views will not be affected.

A large tree in the front yard of the subject property will be removed as a consequence of the development and this will increase the views available from 57, 59 and 53-55 Cyrus Street.

Solar access

Council’s DCP requires that 50% of the area of the windows or glazed doors of north facing living areas and principal open space of adjoining dwellings retain at least three hours of sun between 9am and 3pm on the shortest day of the year (21 June). Subclause 5.5 (2) (c) of clause 5.5 (Coastal Management Areas) of Shoalhaven LEP2014 also requires Council to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including any significant overshadowing.

Applicant’s submission

The applicant has provided plan and perspective views of the extent of shadowing on the adjoining property (54 Cyrus Street). The shadow diagrams which are shown at Attachment 5 indicate that:

· on the upper floor there will be no loss of solar access to the living rooms and outdoor open space areas, with some loss of sun to the first floor bedroom;

· on the lower floor there will be some additional loss of sun in the afternoon to the ground floor bedrooms, bathroom and outdoor paved area.

Discussion

The extent of shadowing is considered to be acceptable. The living rooms of the upper floor of the adjoining dwelling have no loss of solar access, while the bedroom on the upper floor retains at least 3 hours of sunlight over 50% of its area. The principal open space area on the site is regarded as the pool deck area, which is completely unaffected. The paved area adjoining the lower floor bedrooms and the bedrooms themselves still retain substantial solar access until after 12 pm. Most of the existing Banksia trees planted along the boundary of No 52 and 54 will be removed as a consequence of the new development. This will further reduce the filtered shadowing of No 54.

Visual impact

Submissions have made varying references to the visual impact of the development, with most attention devoted to the boathouse arm element. While the impact of the main house has also featured in a few submissions, it is of lesser concern.

Applicant’s submission

The applicant submits that the boathouse arm is a valid use of the property and that it complies with the 7.5m foreshore setback in DCP2014. The applicant has provided a Design Statement for the boathouse arm (Attachment 6) and states that the colours and materials of the boathouse arm were chosen to be sympathetic to the sand of the foreshore and that the outline of the building will be softened by existing and proposed plantings of endemic coastal species.

The applicant contends that the design was carefully located close to the southern boundary so that it would only ever be viewed as foreground to both levels of No.54.

The applicant has provided 3D images of the building as further illustration of the practical and sensitive management of the building form as seen at Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5 – View from foreshore reserve looking west towards site

Figure 6 – View from foreshore reserve looking south towards site

In summary the design statement concludes the following with respect to the service arm:

· it sits well below neighbours and blends inoffensively with both surrounding scale and materials;

· It has been carefully designed to sit below the neighbour’s primary view lines whilst maintaining a degree of privacy in both directions;

· The eastern garden is overlooked by the southern neighbours and the service arm allows the area to retrieve some privacy.

Discussion

The visual impact of the boathouse arm has been an issue in many submissions. These have been addressed in the submissions section below and in the Report on Assessment of Submissions at Attachment 3.

The height of the boathouse arm was reduced with the amended plans lodged in June 2016. Having regard to the degree of overlooking from the adjoining house at No. 54, the owner’s desire to achieve a degree of privacy in the area of the site between the dwelling and the foreshore is considered reasonable.

The original approval for the house at No. 54 was issued prior to the current DCP which provides for a ‘privacy sensitive zone’ which should not be overlooked from an adjoining property. Generally this is described by a 12m radius from a living room area. As with many waterfront houses, the area between the house and the waterfront at the subject site is intensively used as the principal private open space area on the site. The owners concerns about privacy are exacerbated by the short term rental of the adjoining house.

The extent of the 12m privacy sensitive zone affecting the subject property, from the adjoining property at No. 54, is shown by the heavy red line in Figure 7. The footprint and roof of the house at No 54 is shown below the development site.

Figure 7 – Extent of 12m ‘privacy sensitive zone’ within the subject property

Figure 8 illustrates the extent of the overlooking of the private open space area of No 52 by the first floor living areas and outside deck areas of No 54 Cyrus Street.

Figure 8 – Photo of 54 Cyrus Street showing the extent of overlooking of the private open space of 52 Cyrus Street (in the foreground)

Figure 9 – Approximate location of the boathouse arm with the raised floor level

Figure 9 shows the approximate outline impression of the boathouse arm with the raised floor level as required by the Advisian report. It is considered that the visual impact of the boathouse arm in its proposed location as viewed from the foreshore could be improved by additional plantings, particularly low plants to screen the subfloor structure which is required to be open for to allow for wave runup.

Building envelope (Shoalhaven DCP 2014, Chapter G6, Section 5.2.1)

There is a 1.07 metre encroachment to the building envelope at the northern “eaves” of the eastern end of the roof. Figure 10 shows the encroachment beyond the building envelope which is identified as the red dashed line. The encroachment is beyond the 45 degree angled ‘splay’ at the northern side of the roof.

Figure 10 – East elevation showing the encroachment beyond the building envelope

Applicant’s submission

In the Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) the applicant states the building is generally within the envelope but due to the irregular shape of the lot and the changes of ground elevation, the envelope lines vary significantly from elevation to elevation.

Discussion

The encroachment is considered to be minor. The encroachment has no measurable adverse impact on the amenity, privacy, views or solar access of other residential properties or of the adjoining public reserve. Accordingly it is considered that the minor variation is acceptable.

Planning Assessment

The DA has been assessed under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Please refer to Attachment 4.

Policy Implications

There are no policy implications associated with this application.

Consultation and Community Engagement

The application has been notified on three separate occasions. Submissions have been lodged at other times between the periods of formal notification and all submissions have been considered in the assessment of the application. Forty (40) submissions were received in total.

This application was first notified from 6 to 21 April 2016, which was extended in response to neighbour’s request to 2 May 2016.

The second notification was for the amended plans, a design statement for the boathouse arm and the initial and supplementary Coastal Hazards Risk Assessment Reports. This notification occurred from 10 to 25 October 2016 and it was extended in response to neighbour’s request to 31 October 2016.

The third notification was to notify additional information on geotechnical and coastal hazard assessment issues. The notification period was from 17 February to 6 March 2017.

All notifications were made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy, with the letters for the first notification sent to the owners of four (4) properties lying within a 25m buffer of the site. Subsequent notifications were sent to the owners notified in the first round of notification and also to those people who made submissions during the first and second rounds.

Overall, nearly half of all submissions (45% - 18 of 40) were made by or on behalf of the owner of the adjoining property at 54 Cyrus Street.

Key issues raised in submissions are provided below. Individual submissions and assessment of them is detailed in Attachment 3 ‘Assessment of Submissions’.

Exposure to coastal hazards and creek erosion

Concern has been expressed that the development, and in particular the boathouse arm, will be exposed to coastal hazards and to erosion from the creek which frequently flows across the eastern end of the site.

Comment

This issue has been examined in a series of reports commmissioned by the applicant and by the owner of the adjoining property. Because there was substantial disagreement between the reports Council commissioned independent advice from Advisian on the coastal hazards issues. The assessment of this issue is detailed earlier in this report.

Impact of the boathouse on the visual amenity of the beach

A number of submissions have expressed concern about the impact of the boathouse on the visual amenity from Hyams Point and Hyams Beach.

Figure 11 – Aerial showing Hyams Point, Hyams Beach and the proposed development site

The concern is that the boathouse will visually dominate the beach due to its easterly location, its floor level above the level of the beach, and what respondents consider to be the excessive height of the screen wall above ground level.

Comment

The boathouse complies with the DCP setback of 7.5 metres from the property boundary, however it will have the appearance of being closer to the beach as the eastern boundary of the property extends into the loose sands of the beach. The boathouse will appear to be located just behind the berm at the rear of the beach and well above the normal level of the beach itself. The drawings submitted with the application show landscaping around the boathouse that would have the effect of partially screening it. The boathouse arm when viewed from along the beach will be silhouetted by the more extensive development on 54 Cyrus Street and is not considered to be prominent as shown in Figures 5 & 6.

The independent coastal engineering review by Advisian has found that the floor of the boathouse needs to be clear of the wave runup level. The exposure of the sub-floor space will increase the visual impact of the boathouse, which can be addressed by a condition requiring additional landscaping.

View sharing with 54 Cyrus Street

Submissions made by and on behalf of the owner of 54 Cyrus Street are concerned that the development will have a severe or devastating impact on the views currently enjoyed by No.54.

Comment

This issue is addressed in detail earlier in this report. Overall the impact on views enjoyed by 54 Cyrus Street is assessed as acceptable as:

· the views which remain unaffected are extensive and of high quality;

· the views lost are across a side boundary, which are harder to protect than those across a rear boundary;

· the views from living areas and the principal open space area are virtually unaffected.

View loss to the holiday cottages at 53-55, 57 and 59 Cyrus Street

One submission expressed concern about the potential loss of views to these properties which are heritage items of local significance listed in Sholhaven LEP2014.

Comment

This issue is addressed in the ‘Issues’ section of this report and in the relevant section of the Section 79C Assessment Report at Attachment 4. The impact on views enjoyed by these properties is assessed as negligible.

Application is not validly made – encroachments on adjoining public reserve

One submission has expressed the view that the application is invalid as it lacks the requisite owner’s consent. This is said to be in respect of the adjoining public reserve which is owned by Council.

Comment

The submission bases the assertion on an incorrect assumption that works are proposed within the public reserve. The plans and other information submitted with the application reveal no such works and the application is valid.

It is true there are existing encroachments on the public reserve in terms of part of the concrete driveway and part of the front fence. The proposed new development does not rely on the continuation of these encroachments which have been in existence for decades. As part of the approval, there is a condition requiring the removal of the concrete driveway and fence section from the public reserve.

Impact on Council’s sewer main

The proposed boathouse is located over a section of Council’s sewer main. Some submissions have expressed concern that wave attack at this location may present a risk to Council’s sewer main asset. They have highlighted previous damage to the sewer manhole located close by in the 54 Cyrus Street property and the protective works (rock armouring) undertaken by Council in 2013.

Comment

The application was referred to Shoalhaven Water who have not opposed the development. Shoalhaven Water have suggested conditions requiring the construction of the boathouse arm be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Building Over Sewers Policy. This would require that the foundation loads of the building be taken below the zone of influence of the sewer main and that the sewer main be encased in concrete. The policy also imposes a minimum vertical clearance between the underside of the building floor and the top of the sewer main.

The applicant has indicated a willingness and ability to comply with the Shoalhaven Water requirements. This will be conditioned on the consent.

Rooftop garden

A number of submissions have expressed concern about the garden that was originally proposed on the rooftop of the boathouse arm, mainly in regard to the further loss of views enjoyed by 54 Cyrus Street. Concerns included apprehension that large trees and shrubs would be planted in the rooftop garden. The concerns continued to be expressed in later submissions, after amended plans deleted the roof garden. A few submissions were also concerned that the rooftop garden would increase the bushfire hazard to No 54.

Comment

The rooftop garden was originally proposed to soften the visual impact of the boathouse arm as viewed from No 54, but was deleted from the amended plans lodged in June 2016 following the receipt of the earlier adverse submissions.

Financial Implications:

If the application is appealed it will result in costs to Council for defending the appeal. In most cases this prospect is reasonably remote and is not a matter Council is required or entitled to consider in determining a development application. Accordingly it should not be given any weight in Council’s decision.

Legal Implications

If the application is refused, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination, the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

Under some circumstances, third parties may have a right to appeal Council’s decision to the Land and Environment Court.

Summary and Conclusion

This application has been extensively notified on three occasions and has been subjected to analysis of the main issues identified including:

· coastal hazards;

· impact on the amenity of the adjoining property in terms of view sharing and solar access; and

· visual impact when viewed from the beach and foreshore.

The main issues arising from the proposal come from the boathouse arm and screen wall rather than from the main house building and these have been extensively assessed both in this report and attachments.

Accordingly it is recommended that the application be determined by approval with the requirement to raise the floor level of boathouse to 4.75m AHD and construct it in accordance with the requirements of the Advisian report with respect to open sub-floor, timber slats and timber ramp. The additional conditions contained in Attachment 7 are also recommended.

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 25

DE17.46 Development Application – 59 Princes Highway Ulladulla – Lot A DP 346694

DA. No: DS17/1162

HPERM Ref: D17/209331

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Ulladulla Service Centre

Description of Development: Single Storey Dwelling for use as Respite Care Cottage, detached storage shed and car parking partially within council road reserve

Owner: Lions Ulladulla District Community Foundation Inc.

Applicant: Robert Bellet

Notification Dates: 30 January 2017 to 14 February 2017 & 12 to 27 May 2017

No. of Submissions: Nil in objection

Nil in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction with respect to a request for a variation to Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic to permit part of the parking for the development off site on council road reserve.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Supports the variation to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter G21 – Car Parking and Traffic to allow part of the car parking for the development to be provided on the adjoining road reserve.

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

Options

1. To support the variation to allow parking on the adjoining road reserve.

Implications: This is the recommended option and will provide more onsite area for recreation of respite care attendees

2. Not support the variation to allow parking on the adjoining road reserve.

Implications: This would require the development to be redesigned to provide all car parking onsite.

Background

Proposed Development

Lions Ulladulla are developing a dwelling, detached storage shed and parking for use as a Respite Care Cottage [Jindelara] as a community project that is funded by a number of grants. The original development was approved on 8^th February 2016 and the project was tendered seeking a suitable builder. Subsequent tenders identified that the approved design was in excess of original cost estimates resulting in lodgement of a modified design under DS17/1162.

Due to grant funding milestone constraints council staff approved the revised dwelling component of the application in part under delegation to lock in the grant funding and left the parking design for later consideration by council as it requires a portion of its parking to be provided off site on council’s road reserve. (refer Attachment 1 – Plans).

Subject Site

Figure 1 - Location Map

Subject Land

The site is located at the junction of Nurrawallee Street and the Princes Highway Ulladulla. It has a 21.45m frontage to the highway and 40.45m frontage to Nurrawallee Street and is orientated east-west.

Site & Context

Nurrawallee Street is closed to the highway at this location resulting in no through traffic and only local street traffic. The site is surrounded by low density residential dwellings south and west on R3 zoned land that supports conversion over time to medium density. An existing display home was converted to a dental surgery immediately north of the subject site [33 Nurrawallee Street] under DA08/1876 that provided parking partially on council road reserve.

Figure 2 - Parking Locations Map

Figure 3 – Site Plan

Issues

Variation to Clause A2.1 Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic

Acceptable Solution A2.1 states - Car parking spaces are provided on-site and are readily accessible from the road frontage of the development. The revised design seeks to locate part of the car parking for the proposal on council road reserve.

Applicant’s Submission

The Lions Club seek to maximise the play area on site for its children and to provide physical separation of vehicle parking area from the play area to provide increased safety for both the children and the public.

Discussion

Performance Criteria P2 part 5.3 Parking layout and Dimensions of Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic requires the development to provide safe and efficient circulation, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.

The proposed parking design incorporates a circular one way driveway that starts from the closed end of Nurrawallee Street and moves west below a covered entry portico allowing for undercover entry and pick up from the front door of the respite care cottage then proceeding back to Nurrawallee Street to 90 degree parking located in an arc close to the western boundary of the subject lot and projecting approximately 7m onto council road reserve.

Internal Referral Comments

Asset and Works – The principle of providing private parking spaces on public land is not generally supported.

Property - No objection provided there are no permanent structures erected within the road reserve.

Planning Assessment

The remaining part of the application will be assessed by staff under s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

No public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a (25)m buffer of the site

Legal Implications

The carparking on the road will be covered by a Section 138 approval under the Roads Act.

Summary and Conclusion

After reviewing the applicant’s submission and proposed plans it is considered that the variation is reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

· The design provides:

o Safe and efficient circulation, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles

o The ability to drop off and pick up children under cover from the front door

o Entry and exit in a forward direction

o Compliant site distance for pedestrians

o Separates the childrens play area from the public which is critical for child safety in a respite care situation

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 31

DE17.48 Shoalhaven LEP 2014 - Review of Subdivision Controls

HPERM Ref: D17/144236

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Purpose / Summary

To review the current Torrens subdivision related provisions and commence the preparation of a Planning Proposal to clarify and amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to facilitate appropriate subdivision outcomes for medium density development in Shoalhaven.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Committee:

1. Prepare a planning proposal to amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 to:

a. Investigate inclusion of an exception to clause 4.1 to remove Torrens subdivision restrictions following lawful dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing development.

b. Revise Clause 4.1A – Dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing to:

i. Remove provisions relating to a minimum lot size for the subdivision of resulting lots and replace with a minimum lot size for the parent lot prior to the erection of a dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing development.

ii. Consider expansion of areas to which this provision would apply.

c. Investigate the application of a minimum lot size to the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy on a battle-axe lot in certain areas and include the term ‘battle-axe’ in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Dictionary.

d. Revise Clause 4.1C - Dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to:

i. Reduce the minimum lot size for resulting lots to 300m² or less.

ii. Expand application to the R3 and RU5 zones.

iii. Investigate additional provisions for urban release areas.

2. Consider a briefing and a further report to consider the detail of the planning proposal for submission to the NSW Department and Planning of Environment for Gateway determination.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This is the preferred option, as it will commence a review of Torrens subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to facilitate appropriate subdivision outcomes for medium density development in Shoalhaven.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: Depending on its nature, an alternative recommendation could delay the updating of Torrens subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and could result in provisions that do not facilitate appropriate subdivision outcomes.

3. Not review the current subdivision related provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

Implications: This is not a preferred option as the existing Torrens subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 will not be reviewed and appropriate subdivision outcomes for medium density development in Shoalhaven will not be achieved.

Background

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 includes a number of provisions relating to the subdivision of land in the City. These provisions address the three main titling systems:

· Torrens,

· Strata

· Community.

Following the commencement of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 in April 2014, there has been some concern that the current Torrens minimum lot size (MLS) provisions are too large for certain medium density development in urban zoned areas (e.g. multi dwelling housing, dual occupancy and integrated dwelling houses, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings).

In response, strata and community subdivision has increased in popularity, as there are limited lot size restrictions for these titling options. Under Shoalhaven’s current LEP provisions, existing residential development in an R1, R2, B4 or SP3 zone can be strata or community subdivided with resulting lots being less than that prescribed by the relevant minimum lot size map.

The Shoalhaven LEP 2014 enables the Torrens subdivision of medium density development via a number of principal development standards:

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Clause

Minimum lot size for subdivision

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Torrens only. As per the associated lot size maps. Subdivision can occur prior to development.

4.1A Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing

Enables Torrens lots smaller than prescribed by clause 4.1. Subdivision can only occur after development has been carried out.

Dual occupancy:

Area identified on the lot size map

Minimum area

Area 1:

Bomaderry, North Nowra, Nowra, West Nowra, Worrigee, South Nowra, St Georges Basin, Sanctuary Point, Huskisson, Vincentia, Sussex Inlet, Mollymook Beach, Mollymook, Ulladulla.

350m²

Area 2:

Shoalhaven Heads, Greenwell Point, Culburra Beach, Callala Bay, Callala Beach.

400m²

Multi dwelling housing:

· R1 zone – 350m².

4.1C Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development

Enables Torrens lots smaller than prescribed by clause 4.1. Single application in the R1 zone that considers both:

· Subdivision of land into 3 or more lots; and

· Erection of dwelling house, attached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling on each lot resulting from the subdivision where each lot is greater than 350m².

Generally, it is unusual for medium density development to be Torrens subdivided under Clause 4.1 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014. Torrens subdivision will usually occur under clause 4.1A or 4.1C depending on the land use type. Importantly, a subdivision of this nature occurs either after the development has been carried out, or where the subdivision and actual development is considered in a single application.

In June 2016, Council staff undertook a review to consider, in part, the appropriateness of Torrens, community and strata title subdivision of dual occupancy development. The Dual Occupancy Review concluded that the actual subdivision and its form does not change the appearance of development as it usually occurs later. However, consideration should be given to the timely inclusion of revised design controls in Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 to improve the standard of the finished development. As such, Council staff are currently preparing Amendment 9 to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 that considers improved design provisions for medium density development (including dual occupancy development).

Despite the fact that DCP design provisions should be of primary consideration, inevitably most medium density development will be subdivided at some point and it would be inequitable and unreasonable to not allow this. If there are limited restrictions for strata and community title subdivision, the inequity of Torrens potential is questioned. There appears to be little point in permitting medium density development in urban areas and not allowing its subsequent subdivision under the Torrens system.

The Review

Staff have reviewed the Torrens subdivision provisions adopted by surrounding and comparable local government areas - Eurobodalla, Kiama, Shellharbour, Palerang, Wollongong, Goulburn-Mulwaree, Wingecarribee, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Coffs Harbour, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Tweed.

Generally, two main approaches were identified:

· A specific minimum lot size per resulting lot based on land use - Shoalhaven’s current approach.

· A minimum lot size for the parent lot with no restriction on the minimum lot size for each resulting lot. This approach encourages sites with an appropriate area to accommodate the proposed development. Generally, there are no restrictions on Torrens subdivision once the development is constructed.

The three areas that are proposed for review include the following and are discussed below:

· Dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing.

· Dual occupancy on battle-axe lots.

· Dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.

Dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 enables the Torrens subdivision of existing:

· Dual occupancy development in certain areas to a minimum lot size of 350m²or 400m²(clause 4.1A(2)); and

· Multi dwelling housing in the R1 zone to a minimum lot size of 350m² (clause 4.1A(4)).

A summary of surrounding and comparable LGA provisions, where applied, is provided in the following table:

Local Environmental Plan	Dual Occupancy Provision	Multi Dwelling Housing Provision
Kiama	150m² per resulting dwelling in residential zones. Development must be completed prior to commencement of Kiama LEP 2011.
Wollongong	No MLS for the subdivision of an existing dual occupancy development in a residential zone. Resulting lots could be as small as 225m² per dwelling.	No MLS for an existing multi dwelling housing development in a residential zone. Resulting lots could be as small as 150m² per dwelling (based on 3 dwelling development).
Shellharbour	450m² for the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy development in R2 and R3 zones. There are no restrictions on the subsequent Torrens subdivision of a lawfully constructed dwelling and resulting lots could be as small as 225m² per dwelling.	600m² for the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy development in R2 and R3 zones. There are no restrictions on the subsequent Torrens subdivision of a lawfully constructed dwelling and resulting lots could be as small as 200m² per dwelling (based on 3 dwelling development).
Lake Macquarie	MLS of 250m² per dwelling in the R1 or R2 zone.	-
Coffs Harbour	Minimum lot size of 800m² for the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy development in the R2 zone.	-

Generally, there is a preference for a MLS for a parent lot or a MLS for the resulting dwellings. Wollongong is unique in enabling Torrens subdivision in residential areas without supporting provisions. Where an LEP only prescribes a minimum lot size for the resulting dwelling, this area is generally significantly less than that prescribed by Shoalhaven.

Applying a parent lot MLS appears to be more in line with the conclusions of the recent Dual Occupancy Review and would enable LEP provisions to be supported by complimentary DCP provisions.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) Subdivision Code, resulting from the proposed Codes SEPP Medium Density Housing Code amendment, may result in Torrens subdivision of medium density dwellings as complying development at a MLS significantly less than current Shoalhaven provisions.

Further, the proposed Medium Density Housing Code amendment has suggested that the Standard Instrument LEP, and eventually Shoalhaven LEP 2014, be amended to include a mandatory provision for a MLS for parent lots for the purpose of dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing.

In applying a parent lot MLS, the most important consideration is the size of the parent lot. As outlined in the table above, parent lots adopted by surrounding and comparable LGAs are in the range of 450m² to 800m². It is important that the MLS is of a suitable size to enable the realisation of the design provisions in Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Essentially, inappropriate/undersized sites would be ruled out and the size of the resulting lots would be controlled by the built form already erected.

To enable the Torrens subdivision of resulting lots to a size less than prescribed by clause 4.1 (MLS maps), an amendment to clause 4.1 would be required. Wollongong and Shellharbour LEPs include a provision similar to the following that could be adapted for the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 in this regard:

This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of land in a residential zone on which there is an existing dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing approved under this Plan.

Thus in regard to this development form, it is recommended that the following inform a planning proposal:

· Remove provisions relating to a MLS for the subdivision of resulting lots. In its place, apply a MLS for the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing development.

· Consider areas to which this provision would apply, e.g.:

- Expand application of MLS for multi dwelling housing to include the R3 zone.

- Expand the area (i.e. beyond Areas 1 and 2) to which the dual occupancy provisions would apply as per MIN16.8:

“That Council’s policy position on locations where subdivision of dual occupancy can be permitted be reviewed”.

· Investigate inclusion of an exception to clause 4.1 to remove Torrens subdivision restrictions following lawful dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing development.

Dual occupancy on battle-axe lots

Shoalhaven DCP 2014 currently includes a requirement for a battle-axe lot to have a minimum lot size of 1000m² prior to the construction of a dual occupancy development. To ensure consideration of amenity, privacy, private open space, access/circulation and to avoid over development, this numerical standard is considered the minimum area required to enable a well-considered dual occupancy development.

There are no provisions relating to minimum lot size for the erection of a dual occupancy development in Shoalhaven LEP 2014, beyond clause 4.1B that encourages greater density in the R3 zone. No comparable/surrounding Council LEPs include MLS provisions for dual occupancy development on battle-axe lots.

It is generally acknowledged that a larger site area is required for a dual occupancy development on a battle-axe lot, than that required for a standard dwelling house, or a dual occupancy with street frontage. A larger MLS will also enable its subsequent and appropriate subdivision under the Torrens system.

Thus in regard to this development form, it is recommended that the following inform a planning proposal:

· Investigate application of a MLS for the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy on a battle-axe lot in certain areas.

· Include the term ‘battle-axe’ in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Dictionary.

Dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 enables the Torrens subdivision of dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to a minimum lot size of 350m² where there is a single application for both construction and subdivision (i.e. integrated development with generally 3 or more lots) in the R1 zone (clause 4.1C).

A summary of surrounding and comparable LGA provisions, where applied, is provided in the following table:

Local Environmental Plan	Integrated Dwellings, Attached Dwellings and Semi-Detached Dwellings Provision
Kiama	150m² per resulting dwelling in R2 and R3 zones.
Wollongong	No provisions restricting Torrens subdivision of attached or semi-detached dwellings.
Shellharbour	225m² (application for subdivision only). 200m² (application for both subdivision and dwellings).
Lake Macquarie	200-450m² depending on location. In an urban release area, 10-50% of lots are to be 300-450m².
Palerang	350m²
Eurobodalla	300m²
Goulburn-Mulwaree	350m² – attached or semi-detached dwelling. 300m² if part of an integrated 5 lot subdivision include erection of a dwelling, attached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling.
Port Macquarie	No provisions restricting Torrens subdivision of attached or semi-detached dwellings.
Maitland	300m²
Newcastle	200m²

The provisions above indicate that the MLS of resulting lots is generally the preferred approach and the numerical standards are generally less than currently prescribed in Shoalhaven, falling within a range of 150-450m².

The proposed amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and the Codes SEPP Subdivision Code, as a result of the proposed Codes SEPP Medium Density Housing Code, could result in Torrens subdivision in the R1, R3 and RU5 zones with resulting lots of the following size:

· Dwelling house – 300m² (proposed Subdivision Code amendment) or 375m² (proposed LEP amendment) per dwelling; or

· Attached/semi-detached dwelling – 300m² (both proposed amendments).

Thus in regard to this development form, it is recommended that the following inform a planning proposal:

· The MLS be reduced to 300m² or less which would be comparable with other LGAs and provide greater flexibility in certain areas. It would also be more consistent with the proposed Medium Density Housing Code amendments. This is of particular significance as it is likely that Torrens subdivision of this nature will be permissible as complying development as a result of the Medium Density Housing Code.

· Investigate expansion of clause 4.1C to the R3 and RU5 zones as per the proposed Codes SEPP and LEP amendment.

· Investigate the merit in expanding 4.1C to include provisions for dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings in urban release areas (as per the Lake Macquarie example).

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal process would enable the existing Torrens subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to be refined and brought in line with industry expectations and proposed amendments to NSW Government policy.

Ultimately, any Planning Proposal would seek to enable provisions for equitable Torrens subdivision that may provide greater housing choice and opportunity.

Community Engagement

Any future Planning Proposal will be exhibited for comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy and in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements.

The Gateway determination from the NSW Government will also specify the minimum exhibition period and any government agencies with whom Council must consult.

Community Consultative Bodies (CCB’s) and other interest groups would also be advised of future exhibition arrangements.

Policy Implications

Any Planning Proposal will need to consider the provisions of the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan (Plan). The suggested amendments are generally consistent with the Plan’s direction to provide sufficient housing supply to suit the changing demands of the Region. More appropriate Torrens subdivision opportunities may increase desirability of medium density development as an alternative housing choice to standard detached dwellings.

Financial Implications

Based on the recommended approach, there are no immediate financial implications for Council, as the preparation of a Planning Proposal would be resourced within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 38

DE17.49 Strategic Planning Works Program - Adoption and Finalisation

HPERM Ref: D17/142532

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. New Strategic Planning Works Program - July 2017 ⇩

2. Interim Strategic Planning Work Program - November 2016 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To report the new Strategic Planning Works Program (SPWP) to Council for adoption and finalisation.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise Attachment 1 as Council’s Strategic Planning Works Program.

2. Request that the Strategic Planning Works Program be reported back to the Development Committee annually in June to coincide with each new financial year.

3. Make future changes to the Strategic Planning Works Program only after considering the current program, project priority, staff workload and resources.

4. Receive a briefing on how to use the interactive Strategic Planning Works Program when operational.

Options

1. Adopt and finalise the SPWP (Attachment 1).

Implications: This option is favoured as it builds on the earlier approach of Council in this regard to have a works program that guides our strategic planning effort and ensure that we are proactively undertaking forward planning. The SPWP will assist in the prioritisation of projects and management of staff workload

The SPWP structure and projects have been refined with Councillors during two workshops held in March and May 2017. The SPWP is also aligned with the community’s expectations following the recent Community Strategic Plan/Integrated Strategic Plan 2027 process.

2. Adopt and finalise the SPWP (Attachment 1) with modifications.

Implications: The SPWP has been prepared taking into consideration current and expected strategic planning tasks, community involvement/expectations and known planning challenges/expectations. Further, the two detailed workshops provided Councillors with an opportunity to shape the SPWP. Modifications to the SPWP at this stage may delay its finalisation.

3. Not adopt or finalise the SPWP (Attachment 1) and react to requests, opportunities etc. as they arise in the future.

Implications: This option would mean that Council reacts to requests, opportunities, requirements etc. for strategic planning work in an ad-hock or unmanaged manner. This is not desirable, as it does not necessarily focus Councils efforts in areas or on projects that support the broader community or are required by legislation or other drivers.

Background

Strategic Planning Works Program - History

The SPWP originally emerged from an internal tool that was used to track and manage strategic and land use planning projects being undertaken by Council.

It was formally reported to Council from 2003 onward for information and to enable priorities to be considered. The SPWP was initially reported to Council quarterly and then moved to twice yearly.

The 2008 NSW Department of Local Government Promoting Better Practice Review recommended that:

Council should review the projects on the Strategic Planning Group Work program in order to give priority to finalising the Growth Management Strategy and new Comprehensive LEP.

As part of considering the completion of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014, Council also resolved to:

Prepare a new Planning Works Program to focus Councils Strategic Planning effort and arrange a Councillor briefing to discuss the desired detail of this program before it being reported back to Council for consideration.

In December 2016, an Interim SPWP (Attachment 2) was adopted by Council (MIN16.950) and staff immediately commenced the preparation of the new SPWP. As part of this resolution, Council also resolved that the new SPWP be reported back for adoption by mid-2017.

Formulation of the new SPWP

In preparing the new SPWP, the following matters were considered:

· Current Strategic Planning tasks.

· Expected Strategic Planning tasks.

· Community involvement and expectations around land use planning including the Community Strategic Plan/Integrated Strategic Plan 2027 exhibition outcomes.

· Ongoing, known and future planning challenges.

On 9 March 2017, an initial Council workshop was held to provide an opportunity for detailed and early Councillor input into the structure and content of the suggested new SPWP. During the workshop (and subsequent meetings), key priority areas, overarching strategies and priority projects were identified in consultation with Councillors.

On 18 May 2017, a second Councillor workshop was held to further refine the form and content of the new SPWP. At this workshop, the priority areas and overarching strategies were further developed and confirmed as follows:

Priority	Priority Area	Overarching Strategy
1	Managing Future Growth	· Developing and maintaining a Growth Management Strategy to provide continued residential development and infrastructure ‘ahead of the game’.
2	Economic Development, Retailing, Town Centres and Tourism	· Balance commercial development with cultural and recreation opportunities.
3a	Natural Environment/Agriculture	· Maintain an ‘unspoilt’ environment, plan for infrastructure to manage high use areas, maintain sustainable agriculture sector focusing on diversity and quality of output.
3b	Affordable Housing	· Work to increase affordable housing opportunities in Shoalhaven.
4	Population, Ageing and Social Infrastructure	· Facilitate a healthy, active and accessible community. · Identify and respond to demonstrated need and create best practice liveable communities for all ages and stages
5	Heritage and Events	· Maintain, investigate and bring forward our Aboriginal and European heritage into the future.
6	Legislation and Policy	· Maintain Shoalhaven LEPs, DCP and Contributions Plan. · Monitor and respond to legislative and policy changes/proposals – consistent with Council’s strategic direction.

For each priority area, current and future (yet to commence or on hold) projects have been identified. At present, the SPWP (Attachment 1) contains a total of 89 projects - 53 current projects and 36 projects that are yet to commence or are on hold.

A number of projects have been recognised as being a priority and these will be advanced ahead of other projects on the SPWP.

These identified priority projects include:

· Urban Release Area (URA) Planning and Significant Planning Proposals (PP):

o Moss Vale Road South URA (and Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter).

o Moss Vale Road North URA (and Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter).

o Nowra CBD Heights Planning Proposal (and DCP chapter).

o Culburra Beach/Callala Bay/Kinghorne Point (Halloran) Planning Proposal.

· Shoalhaven DCP 2014 – Residential and Subdivision Review.

· Central Nowra Residential Area Character Controls (and resulting outcomes)

· Contributions Plan Review.

· Review of Strategies and Structure Plans:

o Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan:

o Growth Management Strategy

o Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy

o Shoalhaven Heritage Strategy.

o Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy.

· Shoalhaven Riverfront Precinct (including future PP and DCP Chapter).

· Nowra-Bomaderry Retail Hierarchy review.

· Review of tourist and visitor provisions in rural and environmental protection zones.

· Biodiversity Certification Application (Bio Banking) for the Halloran Planning Proposal.

· Cambewarra Escarpment character assessment/review.

· Implement Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan Implementation.

The proposed new SPWP is provided as Attachment 1.

Using and interrogating the new SPWP

Councillors and key Council staff will have direct access to the new SPWP via an interactive format on Council’s Intranet (currently under development). It is intended that the SPWP will be updated on a fortnightly basis and will include the following detail (where relevant):

· Project name.

· Project type and reference (LEP, DCP etc.)

· Minute reference for the project.

· Envisage project timeframe.

· Where the project is up to and next steps.

· Project officer and contact details that Councillors can pass onto stakeholders (provisions of Councillor and Staff Interaction Policy applicable).

Councillors will be able to search for specific projects and interrogate the data accordingly.

Council staff are currently preparing a pilot interactive SPWP and a Councillor briefing will be scheduled when appropriate to demonstrate its use. Until the interactive SPWP is live, an updated SPWP based on Attachment 1, will be available for viewing via Council’s intranet and will be updated on a fortnightly basis.

Process for adding/removing projects from the new SPWP

The SPWP will assist with some discipline in Councils decision making regarding new planning related projects. Ideally, the new SPWP will be proactive and not reactionary. It is inevitable, however, that changes to the SPWP will happen through time and this needs to be done in a considered manner.

Prior to changing the SPWP (e.g. adding a project), consideration should be given to the likely impact on the current program, priorities, staff workload and resources. Projects should only be included on the SPWP (or reprioritised) after consideration by Council and following a formal resolution. Ideally, consideration should be given to how they sit against the overarching strategies identified in the SPWP. The exception would be matters that must be resolved operationally (legislative directions, reactive policy submissions etc.).

It is expected that projects will be removed from the SPWP upon completion or via a resolution of Council.

Monitoring and reporting

The full SPWP will be reported back to the Development Committee annually in June, in line with the each new financial year, to enable formal reconsideration and highlight progress, including what has been achieved or completed in the year. The SPWP will also be monitored for efficiency on an ongoing basis and any required or proposed changes to the structure or projects will be reported as needed.

Community Engagement

The SPWP is essentially a tool to manage Council’s strategic planning effort. No formal community consultation is required as it is an internal management resource.

Based on existing knowledge, plans and community engagement processes (especially the recent Community Strategic Plan/Integrated Strategic Plan 2027 process) the broader expectations of the community have been considered during preparation of the SPWP.

Policy Implications

It is considered important to have a clear work program to focus Councils current and future strategic planning effort. This will ensure that Council has an appropriate strategic framework in place that is forward thinking and responsive in nature.

Financial Implications

Generally, projects that are on the SPWP will be undertaken within existing budgets. However, should projects require specific funding allocations these will be reported to Council for consideration as the need arises.

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 52

DE17.50 Endorsement for Exhibition - Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

HPERM Ref: D17/146959

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To obtain Council endorsement to enable the public exhibition of the draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (Attachment 1).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (Strategy) at Attachment 1 with the following changes:

a. Identify the Council owned site at 42-46 Coomea Street, Bomaderry as the preferred site for the short term strategy and investigate potential opportunities for expansion to include additional land in the precinct;

b. Remove the following sites as potential affordable housing project sites:

i. 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra.

ii. Corner Greenwell Point Road and Clipper Road, Nowra.

iii. 10 Pleasant Way, Nowra.

c. Outline that Council will undertake investigations into the suitability of other sites for affordable housing projects that may also include sites not owned by Council.

d. Include a set of desired affordable housing location characteristics and a definition of key centres in line with the Background Report and Discussion Paper.

e. Include commentary on the broader approach to affordable housing maintenance.

f. Consider the relevant outcomes of the Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy 2017.

2. Support the public exhibition of the draft Strategy with the Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework.

3. Arrange for Dr Judy Stubbs to brief Council on the strategies/actions in the draft Strategy either prior to or during the public exhibition period.

4. Continue to pursue the possibility of an initial demonstration affordable housing development at Coomea Street, Bomaderry with the NSW Government, Community Housing Providers, property industry representatives (e.g. Property Council of Australia) and relevant community consultative bodies.

5. Receive a future report, following the public exhibition period of the draft Strategy, to enable any submissions to be fully considered and any changes made prior to Council adoption.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: this is the preferred option as it will enable the draft Strategy to be placed on public exhibition and will give the community an opportunity to comment on the proposed strategic approach to affordable housing in Shoalhaven.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: depends on the extent of changes.

3. Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This may postpone the development of an affordable housing strategy for Shoalhaven.

Background

Council resolved on 7 November 2016 (MIN 16.840), that the Development Committee:

1. Receive the Affordable Housing Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework prepared by Judith Stubbs and Associates as the initial stages of the development of an Affordable Housing Strategy for Shoalhaven for information

2. Make the Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework publicly available and endorse the continued preparation of a draft Affordable Strategy for Shoalhaven based on the Strategic Framework.

3. Receive a future report on the draft Affordable Housing Strategy for Shoalhaven, to enable it to be fully considered prior to proceeding to community consultation/engagement

4. Arrange for Dr Judy Stubbs to brief Council, when appropriate, on the Affordable Housing Strategy work for Shoalhaven

Affordable Housing Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework

Council engaged Judith Stubbs and Associates (JSA) in late 2015 to develop and present an initial Affordable Housing Discussion Paper. This Discussion Paper can be viewed at:

http://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/LepRegisterDocuments/Msc/301/ShoalhavenAffordableHousing_DiscussionPaper.pdf.

The purpose of the Discussion Paper was to outline achievable and feasible options and strategies that would increase the supply of affordable housing in Shoalhaven for relevant target groups in appropriate locations. The Discussion Paper includes evidence based recommendations regarding those locations likely to be most effective in the local housing market context.

To inform the Discussion Paper and draft Strategy, JSA also prepared the following documents (they can also be viewed at the web links provided below):

· Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Background Report (Background Report): http://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/LepRegisterDocuments/Msc/301/ShoalhavenAffordableHousing_BackgroundReport.pdf ; and

· Framework for an Affordable Housing Strategy (Framework): http://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/LepRegisterDocuments/Msc/301/ShoalhavenAffordableHousing_Framework.pdf.

The Background Report provided detailed research, analysis and calculations regarding the demographic housing market, policy and planning context of affordable housing in Shoalhaven, and an analysis and critical review of the range of potential strategies and mechanisms likely to be most effective in this context.

The Framework provided an outline of the draft Strategy and was based on evidence of local affordable housing need and the planning and market context. It outlines achievable strategies and mechanisms that are most likely to be effective in the local context.

Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

JSA have now prepared the draft strategy (Attachment 1) which is in line with the strategic framework document. The draft strategy seeks to target the most effective policy solutions in the context of the local challenges presented in the Background Report and Discussion Paper.

The draft Strategy has been designed to be implemented through a number of key stages over the next 10 years with short, medium and long-term strategies. The initial focus would be on strategies that are most likely to have a practical impact on the supply of affordable housing, particularly the development of surplus or underutilised Council land in partnership with government or community agencies and/or the private sector.

The draft Strategy also provides for ongoing and sustainable engagement of Council in affordable housing through long-term strategies related to relevant planning mechanisms, amendments to relevant planning instruments and monitoring its effectiveness against key performance indicators over time.

Internal Consultation

Following a period of internal consultation in April 2017, the following submissions were received from Councils Development Services and Social and Infrastructure Planning sections (responses have also been provided):

Submission	Response
Development Services
Medium term strategies are more likely to yield opportunities for affordable housing.	Noted. The draft Strategy includes strategies to achieve affordable housing outcomes over the short, medium and long terms.
Need a clear definition of Council’s role in the provision of affordable housing.	The draft Strategy outlines Council’s role being “a statutory responsibility to seek to preserve and create affordable housing through the planning and assessment process”. The strategies within with draft Strategy range from ‘light’ planning intervention to ‘strong’ intervention, or direct provision of affordable housing. It is not Council’s role to act as service provider.
All suggested sites except Coomea Street have environmental constraints that make development difficult to achieve: · 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra: o The site is not currently certified for residential use because of contamination. o Significant traffic implications, i.e. loss of car parking to the Nowra CBD. · Corner Greenwell Point Road and Clipper Road, Nowra: o A significant part of the site functions as a detention basin. o The whole of the site provides open space to the existing low cost housing. o The site is classified as Community land. · 10 Pleasant Way, Nowra: o Flood prone. o Listed heritage item.	It is acknowledged that Coomea Street, Bomaderry and 19 Boree Street, Ulladulla are the only two suggested Council owned sites that are not heavily constrained. There is merit in removing the following sites from the draft Strategy prior to exhibition to manage community expectations for the sites that have limited/no development potential: · 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra. · Corner Greenwell Point Road and Clipper Road, Nowra. · 10 Pleasant Way, Nowra (in the process of being sold). Additional sites could be identified as the project progresses, including land not necessarily in Council ownership e.g. other public owned sites.
Tiny homes appear to provide emergency accommodation not affordable rental housing.	Tiny homes have been suggested to be included as a medium term strategy for affordable housing as part of a manufactured home site that includes partnership with social support agencies. Emergency accommodation is intrinsically linked to the supply of affordable housing and therefore it is appropriate to address it in some form within the draft Strategy.
Need to consider other land not in Council ownership.	There is merit in further investigating potential affordable housing sites that might not be in Councils ownership and ways to facilitate development of these other suitable sites. Council is currently seeking support and funding from the State Government for the site at 42-46 Coomea Street, Bomaderry. There are a number privately owned land parcels in the broader precinct at Bomaderry that could be investigated to enable the expansion of the project area. This is consistent with the Council resolution of 28March 2017 to consider opportunities as they arise to further consolidate the Council land holding at Coomea Street.
Need to consider a contributions plan for site acquisition.	Affordable Housing is not community infrastructure and cannot be included in a Section 94 contributions plan as prescribed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
Need a clear set of desired characteristics for affordable housing locations (e.g. proximity to transport, key sites). Also need to include a definition of key centres.	Although mentioned in the Background Report and Discussion Paper, a set of desired characteristics and a definition of key centres could be included and clarified in the actual Strategy.
Social and Infrastructure Planning Unit
Strategy needs to consider how residents will maintain properties in comfortable and sustainable manner.	The draft Strategy considers maintenance within strategy three, however, there would be merit in providing commentary on the broader approach to maintenance. It is noted that depending on the approach taken, this is not something that Council is likely to be directly involved in.
Imperative affordable housing placement made with jobs availability in mind.	The draft Strategy identifies appropriately located affordably priced housing as a key principle. The Background Report and Discussion Paper look at locating affordable housing projects in the three key urban centres of Shoalhaven (Nowra-Bomaderry, Bay and Basin and Ulladulla) which are close to services, transport and job opportunities. The placement of affordable housing with jobs availability and consideration of the draft Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy could be incorporated into the draft Strategy.
Consider objectives of draft Shoalhaven Economic Development strategy.	There is merit in considering the Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy 2017 in the strategic framework of the draft Strategy.
Great concept for those who have down payment but strategy does not address saving for down payment. Are there opportunities for Council to explore lending pathways or rent to own?	It is not Council’s role to lead the overall management and arrangements associated with loans or saving strategies. The draft Strategy includes commentary on ‘Shared Equity Arrangements’ but indicates that they could be developed by a Community Housing Provider potentially in partnership with a financial institution and/or on Council owned land. The recent Federal budget announcements could assist in this regard.
A risk factor is the potential concentration of affordable housing. Therefore should be distributed across residential areas.	The draft Strategy looks at promoting a mix of affordable accommodation types for different target groups to complement the existing housing mix in established areas.
Council could facilitate through the sale of ‘pocket-parks’ earmarked for rationalisation which could be put back into community infrastructure budget.	Council has not made any decision to rationalise pocket-parks at this stage and any proposed sale of ‘pocket-parks’ would need further consideration by Council and extensive community consultation as part of a separate process. However, there is merit in further considering what other Council properties could assist with the realisation of this Strategy in the longer term.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the draft Strategy in response to the internal staff consultations are included in item 1 of the recommendation.

Once the recommended changes are completed, the draft Strategy can be placed on public exhibition. Following public exhibition and targeted community engagement, submissions will be reviewed and reported back to Council for consideration.

In accordance with the previous resolution, arrangements will be made for Dr Judith Stubbs to brief Councillors on her work and the draft Strategy actions, either prior to, or during the exhibition of the draft Strategy.

Community Engagement

Following changes to the draft Strategy, a detailed engagement and consultation will be undertaken with relevant bodies, interested parties and the broader community.

Policy Implications

The Discussion Paper and Background Report have identified possible changes to Council’s policies and planning controls. Any resulting changes to policy will ultimately be considered following the adoption of the draft Strategy.

Financial Implications

These affordable housing investigations are being conducted within the current Strategic Planning budget.

Depending on which strategies or actions are adopted there may be financial implications/considerations for Council and these will be discussed in future reports.

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 58

DE17.51 Exhibition & Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Additional Permitted Use - 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry (PP021)

HPERM Ref: D17/163745

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Gateway Determination ⇩

2. Public Exhibition Documentation (under separate cover) ⇨

3. RMS Submission ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Report the outcomes of the public exhibition and enable the finalisation of the Planning Proposal (PP) that seeks to add a Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Use (APU) into the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 for Lot 393 DP 1144727, 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry to allow for vehicle sales and hire premises.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the Planning Proposal as exhibited.

2. Under Council’s delegation for this Planning Proposal, forward the Planning Proposal to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel instructing them to draft an amendment to the SLEP 2014 under Section 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. Advise the proponent and surrounding landowners of this resolution and again when the LEP Amendment is notified.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation and finalise the PP as exhibited.

Implications: Given that no submissions objecting to the proposal were received, this is the preferred option, as it will enable the PP to be finalised within the timeframe set by NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) in the Gateway determination.

2. Adopt an alternative or revised recommendation.

Implications: Depending on the nature of any changes, this could mean Council would not meet the timeframe set by DP&E in the Gateway determination, or may result in the PP needing to be re-exhibited.

Background

This matter was initiated by the lodgement of a PP in February 2016 by Ride Australia Pty Ltd for the rezoning 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry to allow for a new commercial premises comprising of a boat and merchandise showroom with associated office space.

The original PP sought to rezone the subject land from R2 Low Density Residential and SP2 Infrastructure to B5 Business Development under Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

In considering the preliminary PP, adjoining landowners were notified of the proposal and consultation was undertaken with the NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS).

Initially the RMS strongly opposed the proposal and submissions (6) were received from adjoining landowners raising concerns with the proposal in respect to access, impact on residential amenity and the design of the future development.

The proponents subsequently advised that they were willing to revise the proposal from a rezoning (to B5 Business Development) to a Schedule 1 APU that would enable the specific use they were seeking.

The Development Committee resolved (under delegation) on 3 May 2016 (MIN16.341) that:

a) Consideration of the Planning Proposal be deferred to allow

i. A further report being provided to Council on the Proponents amended proposal and approach regarding the use of Schedule 1 of the LEP

ii. Council to consult with Department of Planning regarding the use of Schedule 1 for the proposed rezoning

iii. Council to further consult with Roads and Maritime Services given the scale and activity of the proposed development

iv. Council and the proponent undertaking further consultation with the local residents

b) That Council write to MP Gareth Ward to advise him of Councils decision in relation to the proposal.

Consistent with this resolution, a meeting was held in May 2016 between adjoining landowners/residents (4), the proponents and Councils staff to discuss the PP. The discussion at the meeting included:

· Strong desire to “future proof” the site from more intensive business and industrial uses associated with a B5 Business Development zone, given that these uses could result in a greater impact on amenity. Thus, the use of a tailored Schedule 1 APU appeared to be a more favourable way forward.

· Ability to concurrently submit a Development Application (DA) for assessment alongside the PP was also discussed and there was general support for this as it provided an opportunity to see and comment on the detail associated with the proposal aspects. It is noted that at the time of writing this report, a development application had not yet been lodged for the proposed development over the subject site.

· Inclusion of a “sunset” provision in the resulting LEP Amendment that requires that the APU be acted on within 12 months. This provision provides a window within which the LEP provision is to be utilised and ensure the proponents act on the provision in a timely manner and the site is not ultimately left undeveloped and subject to further change.

At the conclusion of this meeting, there was consensus that the proposal was generally acceptable and it was confirmed that residents would have future opportunity to comment further on the proposal as part of the formal exhibition process and eventual development application.

Following the meeting a further report was considered by Council on 28 June 2016 and it was resolved (MIN16.489) to:

a. Support a Planning Proposal over 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry that enables the proposed boat and merchandise showroom and associated office space via a suitably worded inclusion in Schedule 1 (Additional Permitted Use) of Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2014 that “sunsets” in 12 months if not acted upon;

b. Submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment to request a ‘Gateway Determination’

c. Encourage the proponent to also lodge a development application for the proposed use to be considered and advanced alongside the Planning Proposal so that the adjoining landowners/residents can get a greater certainty on the proposed development outcome; and

d. Notify the NSW Roads & Maritime Services and the adjoining landowners/residents who participated in the early discussions surrounding this matter of this resolution

e. Should the planning proposal be approved a subsequent DA not be dealt with under delegated authority and be brought to the Council for consideration in relation to the right of way on the site.

The PP subsequently received Gateway determination from DP&E on the 27 October 2016 (Attachment 1). The Gateway determination outlined that the Traffic Impact Statement was to be amended to address issues raised by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) prior to exhibition and that the amending of the LEP be finalised within 12 months of the Gateway Determination.

Community Engagement

The PP was publicly exhibited for comment from 26 April until 31 May 2017 in accordance with the Gateway determination. A copy of the exhibited PP document is provided at Attachment 2.

All surrounding landowners, including those in attendance at the landowner meeting, were advised in writing of the public exhibition of the PP. In addition, Council staff contacted at least two of the landowners by telephone to ensure that they had received the advice of the exhibition and were comfortable that all their concerns had been addressed by way of the Schedule 1 APU. It was noted to these landowners that a subsequent opportunity to provide comment on the proposed development would be available as part of the future development application.

At the conclusion of the exhibition period and at the time of writing this report, no community submissions have been received.

RMS Response

RMS provided comment on the exhibited PP, which noted: “RMS is satisfied that the proposed access arrangements are consistent with, and can be constructed to comply with the relevant standards”. A copy of the RMS submission is provided as Attachment 3.

Conclusion

The PP, if adopted, will amend Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to add an APU over the subject site to allow for a vehicle sales and hire premises, specifically a boat and merchandise showroom with associated office space. The exhibited PP was prepared to address the concerns raised initially by RMS and the adjoining landowners. As such, it is recommended that Council adopt the PP as exhibited and forward it to NSW Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) to enable finalisation of the resulting LEP Amendment.

Policy Implications

This PP will amend the Shoalhaven LEP 2014, by:

· Adding a Schedule 1 APU to permit with development consent a ‘vehicle sales and hire premises’ excluding ancillary industrial activities. The ability to narrow the wording further to also include a reference to “boat and merchandise showroom, with associated office space” will be discussed with the PCO as part of the drafting of the LEP Amendment;

· Including a 12 month sunset provision requiring that development on the site is acted upon;

· Amending the relevant Clauses Map; and

· Insert an exception to Clause 1.8A Savings Provision in relation to the proposal.

At the time of writing this report, a development application has not been lodged for the development. The exception to Clause 1.8A is only required if an application is lodged prior to the finalisation of the LEP Amendment. As part of the drafting of the LEP Amendment, Council staff will liaise with PCO to determine whether the exception to clause 1.8A will need to be included in the final Amendment.

Financial Implications

As this is a proponent initiated PP, the proponent has paid the relevant fees and charges to cover the cost of staff resources required to complete the post exhibition assessment and finalisation.

Development Committee – Monday 17 July 2017

Page 69

DE17.52 Options Report - Berry Heritage Investigations

HPERM Ref: D17/194330

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Listing Report - National Trust Register - Berry Township Urban Conservation Area (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

Obtain clarification on future strategic planning projects in Berry, related to heritage conservation, arising from two potentially inconsistent resolutions, specifically:

· MIN12.494(2) – “Investigate the inclusion of the Berry Township Urban Conservation Area as a Heritage Conservation Area in Council’s LEP as a matter for consideration following the completion of LEP 2009”.

· MIN17.481(1) – “Investigate additional heritage listings within Berry and additional controls within the DCP to manage character impacts associated with potential dual occupancy development”.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Resolve to pursue Option 1 as detailed in this report as the appropriate approach to progress heritage investigations in the Berry urban area.

2. Apply for grant funding to support Option 1 via the NSW Government’s Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects grants program.

3. Notify the Berry Forum of this outcome.

Options

1. Pursue Option 1 as outlined in this report.

Implications: This is the preferred option, as it will enable Council staff to focus the strategic planning effort in relation to Berry’s heritage and character.

2. Receive this report for information.

Implications: This option is not favoured, as it does not provide a direction as to which of the two resolutions Council wishes to pursue. Staff resources would remain allocated to both projects and Council would be required to consider this matter again as part of any future Planning Proposal.

Background

On 5 June 2017, Council’s Development Committee received an options report to manage the changing character of the old residential area of Berry, primarily resulting from dual occupancy development where the existing character dwelling house is demolished rather than integrated into the proposal.

The Development Committee resolved under delegation to (Part MIN17.481(1)):

Investigate additional heritage listings within Berry and additional controls within the DCP to manage character impacts associated with potential dual occupancy development.

This resolution to investigate additional individual heritage listings is potentially inconsistent with or at odds with an earlier resolution of Council in May 2012 (MIN12.494(2)) for a wider heritage conservation area (HCA) investigation:

Investigate the inclusion of the Berry Township Urban Conservation Area as a Heritage Conservation Area in Council’s LEP as a matter for consideration following the completion of LEP 2009.

As such before staff move forward with MIN17.481 (individual additional listings), it is necessary to clarify Councils current thinking in terms of MIN12.494 (heritage conservation listing for the town)

Individual heritage items and heritage conservation areas

A summary of the characteristics, benefits and limitations of individual heritage items and HCA’s is provided in the following table:

Individual Heritage Items

Heritage Conservation Area/s

Listing applies to individual properties only. These items have a heritage value in their own right.

Any change to a listed place can be assessed for approval. The demolition of locally listed items is not prohibited.

Any proposed development within the vicinity of a heritage item must consider any impacts on the importance of the item.

HCA is a collection of places (e.g. streetscape) that together have significance, but individually may not.

Manages sympathetic change to protect character without overly restricting development opportunity. More substantial changes to individual buildings can be made to the rear or to the interior.

Dwellings/structures that do not fit in with the character of a HCA can usually be removed or altered. A HCA does not prevent demolition.

Any proposed development within the vicinity of a HCA (including development within) must consider any impacts on the character of the HCA.

Options

A summary of the two resolutions (Options 1 and 2) are outlined below for consideration.

Option 1: Additional Heritage Listings (MIN17.481)

Council’s recent resolution to investigate additional individual heritage listings in the study area, rather than a HCA (part or whole), sought to protect the individual items contributing to the character of the old residential area of Berry whilst enabling appropriate redevelopment opportunities. The resolution also includes investigation of additional DCP controls to manage character impacts associated with dual occupancy development.

The current heritage items and HCA’s (one) within the old residential area of Berry are listed in Schedule 5 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. Prior to the commencement of this plan, there were a number of other heritage items and conservation areas suggested for inclusion as part of the Heritage Amendments to the previous Shoalhaven LEP 1985 (Amendment No. 212) in 2007. These items were ultimately not included in Amendment No. 212, however they are detailed in the Shoalhaven Heritage Study and Inventory.

Figure 1 shows the current Shoalhaven LEP 2014 heritage items and HCA, as well as the heritage items and HCA’s identified within the Shoalhaven Heritage Study and Inventory, that were not ultimately included as part of Amendment No.212 to Shoalhaven LEP 1985.

There are approximately an additional 30 items (dwellings etc.) and two HCA’s identified in the Shoalhaven Heritage Study that could be investigated and reconsidered for future inclusion in Shoalhaven LEP 2014:

Location	Heritage Item/Conservation Area
Berry Showground Conservation Area
Queen, Alexandra and Prince Alfred Streets Conservation Area
17 Albany Street	Victorian Georgian Brick Residence
27 Albany Street	Inter War Federation style Weatherboard Cottage
29 Albany Street	Inter War Weatherboard & Fibro Cottage
31 Albany Street	Post War Fibro & Tile Residence & Garden
3 Albert Street	Victorian Georgian Style Weatherboard Cottage
46 Albert Street	Federation Georgian style Weatherboard Cottage
50 Albert Street	Victorian Georgian Style Weatherboard Cottage
66 Albert Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
70 Albert Street	Inter War Timber & Durabestos Cottage
39 George Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
19 Prince Alfred Street	Inter War Weatherboard Californian Bungalow
33 Prince Alfred Street	Federation Georgian style Weatherboard Cottage
36 Prince Alfred Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
45 Prince Alfred Street	Weatherboard Cottage
44 Princess Street	Inter War Weatherboard & Fibro California Bungalow
64 Princess Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
71 Princess Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
51 Queen Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
53 Queen Street	Inter War Weatherboard Cottage
54 Queen Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
59 Queen Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
68 Queen Street	Federation Georgian style Weatherboard Cottage
70 Queen Street	Inter War Weatherboard Cottage
44 Victoria Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
50 Victoria Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
63 Victoria Street	Inter War Georgian style Weatherboard Cottage
69 Victoria Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
73 Victoria Street	Federation Weatherboard Cottage
75/77 Victoria Street	Inter War Californian Bungalow style Residence

The review of the Shoalhaven Heritage Study for Berry will clarify the ongoing significance of these items, and identify additional items that may warrant inclusion following the passage of time. Amendments to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 will be investigated and prepared to manage character impacts associated with potential dual occupancy development.

The review of the Shoalhaven Heritage Study for Berry and subsequent planning efforts would be undertaken concurrently with extensive community involvement and consultation.

Option 2: Urban Conservation Area (MIN12.494)

In June 2011, the National Trust of Australia (NSW) notified Council that the Berry Township Urban Conservation Area had been listed on the National Trust Register. The National Trust Register listing report for the Berry Township Urban Conservation Area is provided as Attachment 1.

Submissions relating to the Citywide LEP process at the time requested the new LEP recognise the National Trust Berry Township Urban Conservation Area as a HCA. A number of submissions were received from National Trust of Australia (NSW), Berry and District Historical Society, Berry Alliance and the wider community.

The report to Council in 2012 noted that the listing of a property or area on the National Trust Register does not automatically warrant the listing of that property or area in the heritage schedule of an LEP and that classification by the National Trust does not have any legal force.

Further investigation into the inclusion of the Berry Township Urban Conservation Area as a HCA was considered necessary to ensure appropriate strategic justification supported any amendments to the LEP in this regard, particularly as the existing Shoalhaven Heritage Study had not assessed this entire area as having heritage significance. Thus, this was added to the matters for subsequent consideration following the completion of the Citywide LEP (MIN12.494).

Since 2014, Council staff have attempted to secure funding via the NSW Heritage Grants for a review of the Shoalhaven Heritage Study to investigate a HCA for Berry Township, however to date have been unsuccessful. Recently, Council staff, in conjunction with Council’s Heritage Advisor, commenced the preparation of an application to gain funding under a new grant funding stream more appropriate for this project: Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects program. This application is on hold pending Council’s direction concerning this matter. Any future application would seek funding to complete a Heritage Planning Study including:

· HCA assessment to assess the setting and spaces between heritage items and identification of contributory elements and buildings.

· Thematic history to identify the character, places and elements.

· Policy to guide the development of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 objectives and controls.

Conclusion

At present there are two Council resolutions in this regard, one more contemporary and one more dated. As such, Council direction is sought in this regard.

Community Engagement

No community engagement has been undertaken on this matter as this report seeks a direction to proceed with one of the options outlined above. Any amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 or Shoalhaven DCP 2014 will include community consultation in accordance with legislative and project requirements.

Council is aware of the work the Berry community is undertaking to support the Berry Community Strategic Plan. It is noted that both options are generally consistent with the vision statement and relevant heritage objective within the Berry Community Strategic Plan:

· Berry is highly valued by both its residents and its visitors for its location and its heritage village atmosphere…. Future development, infrastructure improvement and growth of tourism will be carefully balanced with a heightened focus on Berry's unique historic charm, rural character and renown as "The Town of Trees".

· Maintain the history, setting and unique character of the Berry area through careful planning and development.

Policy Implications

Both options outlined in this report could potentially reduce the opportunity for housing growth in Berry and may be considered inconsistent with the Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan (Regional Plan). Despite this, one of the key principles of the Regional Plan is for Councils to “conserve heritage assets when undertaking local strategic planning and development”. Any planning proposal would need to balance the competing actions and directions of the Regional Plan.

Financial Implications

There are no immediate financial implications for Council because of this report.

Should Council continue to pursue Option 1, MIN17.481(2) details Councils resolution to:

Consider the provision of $20,000 in the 2017/2018 Budget to review the Shoalhaven Heritage Study to support any additional heritage listings in Berry.

It would be appropriate to seek additional funding through the Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects grants program administered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Should Council continue to pursue Option 2, it is anticipated that the Heritage Planning Study, including the review of the Shoalhaven Heritage Study for the Berry area, will be in vicinity of $100,000. This would be reliant on funding via the Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects grants program.

Any future amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 or Shoalhaven DCP 2014 will require financial commitments from Council. These will be separately considered and reported as needed in the future.