• No results found

ASSESSMENT UNIT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "ASSESSMENT UNIT "

Copied!
73
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 29 September 2020

T O S T R I V E F O R B E T T E R T H IN G S

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

ITEM-2 DA 1102/2018/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, SUBDIVISION INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCTION OF 40 TOWNHOUSES IN THREE STAGES AND PARTIAL WIDTH LOCAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION, LOT 84A DP 11104, NO. 21 HYNDS ROAD, BOX HILL

5

ITEM-3 DA 1433/2020/LA - FORMALISATION OF UNAUTHORISED WORKS INCLUDING PART DEMOLITION AND RECONFIGURATION OF RETAINING WALLS AND ASSOCIATED EARTHWORKS - LOT 22 DP 703423, 5 YANDIAH PLACE CASTLE HILL

54

(3)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair) Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Ben Hawkins Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Nicholas Carlton Manager – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES Nil

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8.30am

TIME OF COMPLETION 8.35am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 8 September 2020 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 1347/2020/HA – TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUDING MONOPOLE, ANTENNAS, EQUIPMENT, FENCING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS - LOT 169 DP 1151135 AND LOT 2 DP 220508, NO. 288 WINDSOR ROAD, BAULKHAM HILLS

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITEM 20(2)(c) AND (d) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

DECISION

The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions of consent outlined in the report with additional referenced plans in Condition 1 as follows:

(4)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 4 DRAWING

NO. DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE

S2834-P1 Draft Site Layout 01 03/03/2020

S2834-P2 Draft Site Elevation 01 03/03/2020

OSD-140 Site Boundary Fence & Gate Details B 12/2010

- Material Schedule - -

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 SEPP Infrastructure 2007 – Satisfactory

 NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline including Broadband (2010) – Satisfactory.

 LEP 2019 – Satisfactory

 DCP Part C Section 5 – Telecommunications Facilities –Satisfactory.

 Section 7.12 Contribution: $3000.00

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The Development Application was notified and one (1) submission was received with issues raised discussed in the report.

(5)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 5 ITEM-2 DA 1102/2018/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, SUBDIVISION INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCTION OF 40 TOWNHOUSES IN THREE STAGES AND PARTIAL WIDTH LOCAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION, LOT 84A DP 11104, NO. 21 HYNDS ROAD, BOX HILL

THEME: Shaping Growth

OUTCOME:

5 Well planned and liveable neighbourhoods that meets growth targets and maintains amenity.

STRATEGY:

5.1 The Shire’s natural and built environment is well managed through strategic land use and urban planning that reflects our values and aspirations.

MEETING DATE:

29 SEPTEMBER 2020

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR:

SENIOR TOWN PLANNER KATE CLINTON

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER KRISTINE MCKENZIE

Applicant J S Architects

Owner Deskal Pty Ltd

Notification 14 days

Number Advised 12

Number of Submissions Nil

Zoning R3 Medium Density Residential

Site Area 10,120m2

List of all relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters

Section 4.55 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Appendix 11 The Hills Growth Centre Precinct Plan - Satisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 — Remediation of Land - Satisfactory

Sydney Region Environmental Plan No. 20 (Hawkesbury- Nepean River) No. 2 – 1997 - Satisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) 2009 - Unsatisfactory

Draft Amendment to SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (North West Priority Growth Area Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan) - Satisfactory

Central City District Plan – Satisfactory

Box Hill Development Control Plan 2018 - Unsatisfactory

(6)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulation 2000 - Satisfactory

Section 7.11 Contribution: Unable to be calculated (Refer Section 10 of this report).

Political Donation None Disclosed

Reasons for Referral to DAU 1. Variations to DCP

2. Recommended for refusal Recommendation Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures, subdivision into three lots, and construction of multi dwelling housing comprising 40 townhouses over three stages, partial width construction of Aurora Street and associated civil engineering works and landscaping. The application originally proposed 48 townhouses.

The subject site is located on land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and subject to a 14 metre height limit pursuant to SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. The proposed development complies with the key controls in the SEPP, and the proposed density of 38.53 dwellings per hectare is reasonable with respect to the draft density band amendments to the SEPP.

The proposed development relies on direct vehicular access from Hynds Road, proposed Ursa Street and Amalthea Street (located wholly on adjoining properties Nos. 23 and 19 Hynds Road respectively), and Aurora Street (located both on the subject site and No. 31 Mason Road). The full width construction of Ursa Street was approved on No. 23 Hynds Road under Development Consent No. 646/2020/ZA (9 June 2020), and the full width of Amalthea Street was approved on No. 19 Hynds Road under Development Consent No. 606/2018/HA (19 March 2018) (See Attachment No. 16).

The applicant has not obtained consent from landowners of No. 19 and 23 Hynds Road to gain access to the subject site, and partial width road construction of Ursa Street and Amalthea Street is not proposed in the application. Construction certificates for the approved development on those properties have not been obtained to date, therefore timing for the construction of the roads is unknown. Consent for the partial width construction of Aurora Street has been obtained from the owner of No. 31 Mason Road.

The proposed development includes variations to or has not satisfied a number of controls in the Box Hill DCP, including site coverage, adaptable housing, garage setbacks and cut and fill.

Concerns are also raised with respect to the quality of common open space and landscaping, onsite parking, proposed subdivision, and inadequacies in the plans.

The proposed development has been amended on a number of occasions in an attempt to resolve issues raised by planning, engineering, waste and landscaping staff. The applicant has continued to propose access to the development from roads that are approved yet not constructed, with no intention to construct them as part of the application, nor has consent been obtained from the relevant landowners.

The current plans have changed the waste management arrangement with the deletion of slip lanes for bin collection. This has resolved a key issue of site safety, and waste management matters are now almost resolved.

(7)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 7 The original application was notified to adjoining and nearby landowners and following the submission of amended plans. No submissions were received.

Whilst the proposal complies with key planning provisions including building height and proposes an appropriate density, the amended design of the development, information that remains outstanding and the inadequate plans has resulted in an outcome that is unable to be supported.

Given the significant amount of time that the application has been under consideration, and the various opportunities given to the applicant to resolve issues raised, it is considered reasonable to recommend the application for refusal.

BACKGROUND

The site is located at No. 21 Hynds Road, Box Hill, legally known as Lot 84A DP 11104, and has a total area of 10,120m2. The site is located in the Sydney Region Growth Centres Box Hill Precinct and is located on the northern side of Hynds Road. The site slopes north to south, towards Hynds Road.

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential pursuant to Appendix 11 - The Hills Growth Centre Precincts Plan of SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. Future roads as shown in the Box Hill Development Control Plan 2018 Indicative Layout Plan are located either partially within or adjacent to the site (Aurora Street, Ursa Street and Amalthea Street). The site is currently accessed via Hynds Road and future access to Hynds Road is not denied by the DCP.

Applications for residential development and the construction of Ursa Street, Amalthea Street and partial construction of Aurora Street have been approved on the adjoining land to the east and west of the site (Nos. 23 and 19 Hynds Road under Development Consent Nos.

699/2020/ZE and 606/2018/HA) (See Attachment 16). To date construction has not commenced on these approved developments.

The subject Development Application was lodged on 7 December 2017. The application as originally lodged proposed the subdivision of the site into three allotments, and the construction of 48 x 3 bedroom townhouses. Access to the townhouses was proposed from roads on all four sides of the development, including future Ursa Street and Amalthea Street which are wholly located in the adjoining properties to the east and west (Nos. 19 and 23 Hynds Road). The consent of those landowners has not been obtained.

On 7 March 2018, a letter was sent to the applicant requesting additional information addressing the proposed density, clarification of works proposed and compliance with key controls, adjoining owners consent (Nos. 19 and 23 Hynds Road and Nos. 21 and 23 - 23A Mason Road), subdivision plan, road construction and a traffic safety report, stormwater management, vehicular access and car parking, waste management, property numbering, contamination, dam dewatering report, landscaping, and adaptable housing certification. The plans did not specify which dwellings were adaptable. The slip lane design for waste collection also raised safety concerns since the works encroached into the front setback of some townhouses.

On 29 March 2018, the applicant requested an extension of time to provide additional information until 27 April 2018. This extension was granted. At this time, the applicant was also requested to ensure the plans and statement of environmental effects address and demonstrate compliance in relation to the proposed development on all three proposed lots. A further extension of time was granted until 25 May 2018.

(8)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 8 On 25 June 2018 the applicant submitted additional information and amended plans which were renotified. The number of townhouses was reduced from 48 to 40 x 3 bedroom townhouses. The plans continued to propose access to the development via future roads, Ursa Street, Amalthea Street and Aurora Street without the consent of the adjoining landowners. The slip lane for bin collection was still unsatisfactory in terms of its design in regard to safety concerns.

Following a meeting with the applicant and Council Officers, a letter was sent to the applicant on 29 October 2018 requesting additional information addressing owners consent, environmental health, waste management, tree and landscaping matters, property numbering and engineering comments relating to new roads, stormwater drainage, vehicular access and carpark and subdivision plan.

The applicant was requested on 14 December 2018 to provide an update on progress of amended plans. The applicant advised on 16 December 2018 that amended plans were being prepared and civil engineering plans would be submitted in January 2019. On 15 February 2019 the applicant was requested to provide a further status update as additional information had not been submitted.

On 20 February 2019, the applicant submitted amended architectural plans which continued to propose dwellings accessed via future streets located on adjoining land without the consent of the relevant landowner. The slip lane for bin collection was still considered unsatisfactory.

The applicant was requested on 21 February 2019 to submit evidence from water and electricity suppliers that the site can be serviced. It was noted that adjoining landowner’s consent and a Detailed Site Investigation report remained outstanding.

On 13 March 2019 the Site Investigation Report was submitted. On 16 May 2019 the applicant was advised that engineering matters were under review but could not be finalised as DRAINS and MUSIC models had not been provided. The models were submitted on the same day. The applicant was also requested to clarify staging and at which stage internal roads, access to visitor parking and bin storage would be constructed. It was noted that proposed bin collection area slip lanes rely on the construction of Ursa Street and Amalthea Street.

On 8 August 2019 an updated landscape plan was submitted.

On 6 September 2019, comments on the landscape plan were sent to the applicant with advice that engineering comments would be provided. The applicant advised issues regarding orderly development in relation to access to the adjoining land were being addressed. Evidence of servicing capacity from Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy was submitted.

On 7 November 2019 the applicant was advised of all outstanding matters including site coverage details, owner’s consent, adaptable housing certification, waste management arrangements, detail on plans including levels and retaining walls, staging issues, car parking, landscaping and BASIX.

Engineering comments were sent to the applicant on 4 December 2019. The applicant was advised that a number of matters remain outstanding or are unsatisfactory including owner’s consent for access and construction of roads to provide access to the development, stormwater drainage details, subdivision plan, location of OSD on all plans, vehicular access and car parking.

The applicant was advised on 16 December 2019 that waste issues were currently being considered. Comments in regard to waste management were provided to the applicant on 15 January 2020.

(9)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 9 A letter was sent to the applicant on 27 May 2020 requesting an update on outstanding matters.

On 12 June 2020 the applicant advised that outstanding information would be submitted the following week.

A letter was sent to the applicant on 19 June 2020 requesting that outstanding information be submitted by 3 July 2020.

Amended architectural and engineering information was submitted on 3 July 2020. Bin collection arrangements were amended with slip lanes deleted, and adaptable dwellings were identified resulting in 8 x 4 bedroom and 32 x 3 bedroom townhouses. Common area parking on the site was increased from 10 spaces to 35 spaces. Additional spot level details were added to the plans. Amended landscape plans were submitted on 10 August 2020. The amended plans and information was renotified and no submissions were received.

On 28 August 2020 the applicant verbally requested that no further requests for information be sent and for the application to be determined in its current form.

An assessment of the submitted information has found that some requested information remains outstanding. Furthermore, the plans contain inaccuracies and are generally inadequate. Given the significant amount of time the application has been under assessment, the requests for information and issues that remain unresolved, it is recommended that the application be refused.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures, subdivision into three lots, and construction of multi dwelling housing comprising 40 townhouses in three stages, partial width road construction of Aurora Street and associated civil engineering works and landscaping.

The proposed development relies on direct vehicular access from Hynds Road and proposed Ursa Street and Amalthea Street (located wholly on Nos 23 and 19 Hynds Road respectively), and Aurora Street (located both on the subject site and No. 31 Mason Road).

The applicant has not obtained consent from landowners of No. 19 and 23 Hynds Road and construction of the approved development on those properties has not commenced. Therefore the provision of these roads is not assured. The applicant was advised that a Deferred Commencement consent in relation to road access would not be permitted.

The works are proposed to be constructed in three stages as follows:

Stage 1

- 10 town houses (including 4 adaptable town houses) comprising:

6 x 3 bedrooms 4 x 4 bedrooms

- Three common outdoor areas including a splash pool.

- Internal road/driveways and at-grade parking accessed via Hynds Road and (future) Ursa Street.

Stage 2

- 10 town houses (including 4 adaptable dwellings) comprising:

9 x 3 bedrooms 1 x 4 bedrooms

- Additional at-grade parking spaces and internal road/driveway.

- Partial width construction of Aurora Street.

(10)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 10 Stage 3

- 20 town houses (including 2 adaptable dwellings) comprising:

17 x 3 bedrooms 3 x 4 bedrooms

- Additional at-grade parking spaces and driveway/internal road access from (future) Amalthea Street.

Attachment 8 shows the proposed staging of works.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 a) Owner’s Consent and Orderly Development

Clause 49(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 states the following:

“49 Persons who can make development applications (1) A development application may be made:

(a) by the owner of the land to which the development application relates, or (b) by any other person, with the consent in writing of the owner of that land.”

The proposed development relies on direct public road access from Hynds Road (existing) as well as three proposed new roads, being Amalthea Street to the east and Ursa Street to the west (located on adjoining land Nos. 19 and 23 Hynds Road, Box Hill), and Aurora Street to the north (located both within the subject site and adjoining land No. 31 Mason Road, Box Hill.

Consent is therefore required from all adjoining landowners for at least the partial construction of these roads in order to gain access to the site. Adequate evidence of owner’s consent has not been provided.

The applicant submitted a number of consent letters in relation to and between different property owners, the following of which are not relevant to the subject site:

- Owners of Nos. 23-23A Mason Road and No. 29 Hynds Road in relation to Zaniah Street.

- Owners of Nos. 25 and 27 Mason Road in relation to Aurora Street, Aries Way and Tucana Street.

- Owners of Nos. 23-23A Mason Road and No. 25 Mason Road in relation to Aurora Street, Aries Way and Taurus Way.

The applicant has provided a letter from the landowner of No. 31 Mason Road, which permits the partial width construction of Aurora Street on that land. Aurora Street cannot be constructed without access to the rear of the site via future Ursa Street or Amalthea Street (from Hynds Road or Mason Road), or via other properties to the east on Hynds Road which would provide road connections to Aurora Street via Hynds Road.

The application has therefore not provided adequate evidence of consent from adjoining landowners at Nos. 19 and 23 Hynds Road. Therefore until such time as the construction of Ursa Street and Amalthea Street occurs on the adjoining land in conjunction with approved developments on those properties, the subject site does not provide adequate vehicle access.

(11)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 11 2. State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

a. Permissibility

The land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. The proposal is defined as ‘Multi dwelling housing’ as follows:

Multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building or a manor home.”

The proposed development satisfies the provisions for permissibility with respect to SEPP (SRGC) 2006.

b. Development Standards

The following addresses the principal development standards of SEPP (SRGC) 2006:

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

4.1A Minimum lot

sizes for

development

Multi Dwelling Housing – 1,500m2

Total Site Area: 10,120m2 Lot 1: 3,435.55m2

Lot 2: 2,670m2 Lot 3: 3,526m2

Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.1B Residential

Density

Minimum residential densities

18 dwellings per hectare

38.53 dwelling p/ha (40 dwellings)

Yes

4.3 Height Maximum 14 metres Maximum 8.185 metres (estimated)*

Yes 4.6 Exceptions to

development standards

Exceptions will be considered subject to appropriate assessment.

N/A N/A

* It is clear from the submitted plans that the development is within the 14 metre height limit however a maximum height measurement was not provided.

c. Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the SEPP requires the consent authority to be satisfied that proposals do not significantly or adversely impact upon known European or Aboriginal items or places of heritage significance. The subject site does not contain any European heritage items nor is it located within the immediate vicinity of any heritage items or conservation areas.

The site is not identified as possibly containing sensitive Aboriginal archaeological areas under the Box Hill DCP. However the applicant provided an Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment (Baker Archaeology, October 2017) which advised that no Aboriginal objects have previously been identified on the site nor were any observed on the land during the site inspection. No Aboriginal objects are considered likely to occur undetected on the land and there is no identified Aboriginal heritage constraint to proceed with proposed development.

If the application was recommended for approval, conditions of consent would be recommended which require that all work cease on the site should an item of Aboriginal or European heritage be found at the site.

(12)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 12 d. Clause 6.1 - Public Utility Infrastructure

Clause 6.1 Public Utility Infrastructure states that development consent must not be granted unless Council is satisfied that any public utility infrastructure (water, electricity and sewage) that is essential for the proposed development is available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make that infrastructure available when required.

In April 2019, the applicant submitted a Notice of Requirements from Sydney Water and a Technical Review from Endeavour Energy. Sydney Water advised that a water main extension would be required for water and waste water. The stated requirements were to be satisfied by March 2020, therefore a new Notice of Requirements must now be obtained.

Endeavour Energy advised that at the present time there is capacity in the network to supply 40 townhouses from existing high voltage feeders. Future electricity supply for the proposed development in the area shall be underground. A new distribution padmount substation may be needed if the low voltage solution from the existing network cannot support an additional 40 townhouses.

As there is no supply date for the proposed development, a revision of Endeavour’s advice would need to be undertaken once a firm supply date is lodged with the load application or proposed method of supply.

Whilst updated advice should be obtained, it is considered that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with Clause 6.1 – Public Utility Infrastructure of the SEPP (SRGC) 2006.

3. Draft Amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

In May 2017, the Department of Planning released the draft North West Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan. In addition to a new growth centres structure plan and an infrastructure schedule the package proposes a draft amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and associated draft changes to the DCP. The proposed changes include the introduction of density bands (rather than only minimum density) and reinstatement of minimum lot sizes for all residential areas (that were removed as part of the 2014 Housing Diversity changes).

The Explanation of Intended Effect states that “a consent authority is not required to apply the provisions of the Explanation of Intended Effects to a DA lodged before May 22 2017”. The subject Development Application was lodged on 7 December 2017. The proposed amendments are required to be taken into consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, being a

“proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority …”

Clause 4.1B ‘Residential Density’ in Appendix 11 ‘The Hills Growth Centres Precinct Plan’ of the SEPP (SRGC) 2006 states the following:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to establish minimum density requirements for residential development within the Box Hill Precinct or Box Hill Industrial Precinct,

(b) to ensure that residential development makes efficient use of land and infrastructure, and contributes to the availability of new housing,

(c) to ensure that the scale of residential development is compatible with the character of the precincts and adjoining land.

(13)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 13 (3) The density of any development to which this clause applies is not to be less than the

density shown on the Residential Density Map in relation to that land.

(4) In this clause:

density means the net developable area in hectares of the land on which the development is situated divided by the number of dwellings proposed to be located on that land.

net developable area means the land occupied by the development, including internal streets plus half the width of any adjoining access roads that provide vehicular access, but excluding land that is not zoned for residential purposes.

Clause 4.1B is proposed to be amended to introduce a minimum and maximum density band.

The ‘Explanation of Intended Effect’ published by the Department of Planning which accompanies the proposed amendments to the Growth Centres SEPP states the following proposed density bands in the Box Hill and Box Hill Industrial Precincts:

Appendix 1 of the ‘Explanation of Intended Effect’ provides an amended Residential Density Map for the North West Priority Land Release Area, which confirms that the subject site is to be located in the 15 – 30 dwelling density range per hectare (land zoned R3 Medium Density).

(14)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 14 The Growth Centres SEPP currently specifies a minimum density provision of 18 dwellings per hectare. The draft amendment to impose a density range of 15 – 30 (for land zoned R3 Medium Density) equates to a minimum of 14.8 and a maximum of 29.64 dwellings being permitted on the development site.

The proposed development results in a density of 38.56 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is above the proposed maximum density under the draft SEPP amendments, when compared with other approved, similar developments in the vicinity of the site shown in the following table, the proposed density is considered reasonable:

Town houses

Property / Application

Dwellings Density/ha Status / Approval 31 Mason Road

2023/2017/JP

55 townhouses 46.35 Approved (Land & Environment Court), 3 August 2018

47 Hynds Road 709/2017/JP

90 townhouses 53.8 Approved (SCCPP), 12 January 2018

19 Hynds Road 606/2018/HA

30 townhouses 28.2 Approved (Delegated Authority), 19 March 2018

29 Mason Road 79/2017/JP

40 townhouses 46 Approved (Former JRPP), 30 July 2018

17-21 Mason Road 1951/2017/JP

111 townhouses 40.14 Approved (Land & Environment Court), 8 August 2018

39-43 Hynds Road 896/2018/JPZ (Stage 1)

21 Terry Road 1252/2018/JPZ (Stage 2)

39-43 Hynds Road 984/2018/JP (Stage

46 townhouses

67 townhouses

110 townhouses

28.48

30.03

65.3

Approved (Delegated Authority), 1 May 2019

Approved (SCCPP), 20 June 2019

Approved (SCCPP), 20 June 2019

(15)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 15 3)

Average:

41.27 27 Hynds Road

1184/2018/ZE

14 detached dwellings and 28 semi-detached dwellings

32.5 Approved (Land & Environment Court), July 2019

47 Hynds Road 709/2017/JP/A

81 townhouses 48.4 Approved (SCCPP), 16 April 2020

27 Mason Road 1545/2018/JP

41 townhouses 45.76 Approved (SCCPP), 30 June 2020.

Average Density (approved) = 42.49 dwellings/ha

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the draft density control and the density objectives (b) and (c) of Clause 4.1B of the Growth Centres SEPP since the proposed development makes efficient use of land and infrastructure, contributes to the availability of new housing, and within the context of approved developments in the vicinity, the scale of the proposed development is generally consistent with the desired character of the precinct.

The assessment of residential density against the draft provisions introduced in May 2017 also has regard to the status of the draft legislation which has been under review by the Department of Planning and Environment for a significant amount of time.

4. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land

This Policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspects of the environment.

Clause 7 of the SEPP states:-

1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Comment:

A Stage 1 Preliminary Environmental Investigation Report and Detailed Site Investigation Report prepared by Geotesta Pty Ltd, dated 5 December 2017 and 7 March 2019 were submitted in support of the application. Council’s Environmental Health Officer reviewed the reports and raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

5. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 The application has been assessed against the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004. This Policy provides State-wide planning controls to promote and guide the achievement of energy efficiency and ecological sustainability in all new development.

(16)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 16 A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the development application when first lodged in December 2017. Amended plans submitted in July 2020 have changed the configuration of the development and require a new BASIX certificate which has not been provided.

Insufficient information has therefore been provided to confirm the proposed multi dwelling housing will meet the NSW government’s requirements for sustainability.

6. Sydney Region Environmental Plan No. 20 (Hawkesbury-Nepean River) No. 2 - 1997 The aim of this plan is to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Subject to appropriate conditions of development consent, the development is unlikely to have detrimental impacts on the health of the environment of the Hawkesbury and Nepean River system.

7. A Metropolis of Three Cities – the Greater Sydney Region Plan

The Central City District Plan seeks to provide housing supply which is diverse and affordable and which meets the needs of residents and which bring people together. The plan seeks to provide housing in locations which are easily accessible by public transport to reduce commuting time. Housing should be located in places which are liveable, walkable and cycle friendly.

Housing should also respond to the changing needs of residents and consider single person and aging households. Great places are defined as areas which have a unique combination of local people, built form and natural features which reflect shared community values and which attract residents, workers and visitors.

The proposed development generally meets the intent of the Plan as follows:

The proposal will provide a range of townhouses which will assist in meeting housing demands.

Being located within 450 metres of a B2 Local Centre zone, the proposed development will contribute to the viability of a future local centre in Box Hill;

The site is located in an area to be increasingly serviced by public transport (buses); and Adaptable town houses are provided within the proposed development (subject to confirmation with an Accessibility Report).

8. Compliance with The Box Hill Development Control Plan 2018

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of The Box Hill Development Control Plan and the following addresses the relevant development controls of the DCP. Specific objectives are provided for multi dwelling housing in Section 5.3 of the DCP as follows:

i. To ensure that the design of multi-dwelling housing is consistent with the character of residential areas within the Precinct.

ii. To ensure that the quality of multi-dwelling housing is of a high quality and contributes to the amenity of residents.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE 3.0 Land Development

Minimum Lot Size 1,500m2 Lot 1: 3,435.55m2 Lot 2: 2,670m2 Lot 3: 3,526m2

Yes Yes Yes

5.0 – Additional Controls For Certain Development Types – Multi Dwelling Housing Site Coverage

(maximum)

50% (max) Not provided No, refer to

comments below.

(17)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 17 DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE Landscaped Area

(minimum)

30% (min) Stage 1: 34.05%

Stage 2: 26.25%

Stage 3: 40.04%

Average: 34.11%

Yes

Private Open Space (minimum)

16m² with 3m dimension

10m² per dwelling if provided as balcony or rooftop with 2.5m dimension.

Minimum 19.15m2 provided.

Not applicable

Yes

NA

Front setback (minimum)

4.5m to building façade line; and 3m articulation zone

Min. 5.95m setbacks with min. 4.239m articulation (Hynds Road).

Min. 5.95m setbacks with min. 3m

articulation (Ursa Street)

Min. 5.95m setback with min. 4.278m articulation (Amalthea Street).

Yes

Corner lots

secondary setbacks

2m Not applicable NA

Side setback (minimum)

900mm Min. 3.382m provided Yes

Rear setback (minimum)

4.0m Not applicable NA

Internal building separation (minimum)

5m (unless dwellings are attached by a common wall)

Min. 5m provided. Yes

Car parking 1 space per dwelling plus 0.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom.

Visitor – 1 per 5 units Disabled parking

Required total:

Residential x 60 Visitor x 8 Provided total:

Residential x 94 Visitor x 9

A total of 6 disabled spaces are provided in addition to the above.

Yes – 34 more spaces than required.

Yes – 1 more space than required.

Plus 6 disabled.

(18)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 18 DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE

Car parking spaces to be behind the building line OR garages fronting the street to be set back 1m behind the front building line.

Where garages front the street, the max width of a garage door is 6m and each garage is to be separated by a dwelling façade or landscaped area.

Required per stage:

Stage 1 (10 dwellings):

Residential x 15 Visitor x 2 Provided:

Residential x 20 Visitor x 2 Disabled x 4

Stage 2 (10 dwellings):

Residential x 15 Visitor x 2 Provided:

Residential x 30 Visitor x 6 Disabled x 2

Stage 3 (20 dwellings):

Residential x 30 Visitor x 4 Provided:

Residential x 44 Visitor x 1

Garages fronting proposed public roads are set back 5.5 metres. Garages are positioned in front of the primary building setback which is 5.95metres, but are least 1.26m behind two storey articulated elements.

Adjoining single

garages are separated by a solid wall and are no more than 6 metres wide in total.

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

No – Additional visitor parking in Stage 2 will enable compliance.

No, refer to comments below.

Yes

(19)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 19 DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE Garages and car

parking dimensions

1-2 bedrooms will provide at least 1 car space

3 or more bedrooms will provide at least 2 car spaces.

Not applicable.

3 and 4 bedroom units are provided with two car spaces (garage and space in front).

NA

Yes

4.0 – Residential Development

4.1.1 Cut and Fill Retaining walls within residential allotments are to be no greater than 500 mm high at any point on the

edge of any

residential allotment.

A combined 1 m maximum retaining wall height is permissible between residential lots (2 x 500 mm).

All retaining walls for the site are to be identified.

The development is stepped in response to the slope of the site and incorporates retaining walls up to approximately 900mm high.

Not all retaining walls have been identified on the plans.

No, refer to comments below.

5.5 Adaptable Housing

Adaptable Housing 10% of all multi dwelling housing are to be designed to be capable of adaptation for disabled or elderly residents. Dwellings must be designed in accordance with the Australian Adaptable Housing Standard (AS 4299-1995).

Certification from an accredited Access Consultant

confirming

compliance with the Australian Adaptable Housing Standard (AS 4299-1995).

Car parking and

Required: 4 Provided: 8

Not provided

Certification not Yes

No, refer to comments below.

(20)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 20 DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE garages allocated to

adaptable dwellings must comply with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard for disabled parking spaces.

provided.

No, refer to comments below.

a. Site Coverage

The DCP allows 50% site coverage. Site coverage is defined in the SEPP (Growth Centres) as:

the proportion of a site area covered by buildings. However, the following are not included for the purpose of calculating site coverage—

(a) any basement,

(b) any part of an awning that is outside the outer walls of a building and that adjoins the street frontage or other site boundary,

(c) any eaves,

(d) unenclosed balconies, decks, pergolas and the like.

Comment:

The compliance table submitted as part of the Architectural Plans advises a proposed ‘building envelope’ of 13.41%, 14.05% and 22.91% for each respective stage. It is assumed this refers to the actual footprint of the proposed dwellings only. No site coverage diagram has been provided to demonstrate compliance with the site coverage control. Driveways and parking areas should also be included in site coverage.

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with the site coverage control. Site coverage could be further minimised by the reduction of proposed paving in common open space areas and a reduction in common area parking since more than the required number of parking spaces has been provided.

b. Cut and Fill

The Box Hill Development Control Plan specifies that retaining walls within residential allotments are to be no greater than 500 mm high at any point on the edge of any residential allotment. A combined 1 m maximum retaining wall height is permissible between residential lots (2 x 500 mm).

Comment:

The objectives of the control are as follows:

a. To minimise the extent of cut and fill within residential allotments.

(21)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 21 b. To protect and enhance the aesthetic quality of the area by controlling the form, bulk and

scale of land forming operations.

c. To ensure that filling material is satisfactory and does not adversely affect the fertility or salinity of soil, or the quality of surface water or ground water.

d. To ensure that the amenity of adjoining residents is not adversely affected by any land forming operation.

The site slopes from north to south with a difference of approximately 10.5 metres between the northern and southern boundaries of the site. The architectural plans illustrate a development that is gradually stepped in response to the slope of the site and incorporates some retaining walls. The DCP requires that all retaining walls are shown on the plans. Whilst some walls and wall heights have been provided on the plans, proposed differences in levels shown on the plans indicate that more retaining walls than are shown on the plans are required. Examples include the following:

Elsewhere within the site, differences in levels are considered reasonable and are generally no more than 1 metre. In general however, the plans still lack detail in that not all retaining walls or the proposed levels throughout the site are shown (ie. all common areas, front setbacks, future footpath reservations). The north/south section plans show a line of natural ground level, however no spot levels in the front setback areas have been provided for reference on the architectural plans. In addition, no east/west sections of the development have been provided to demonstrate the relationship of the site to the adjoining land existing and approved levels.

The application is therefore unsatisfactory with respect to Section 4.1.1 Cut and Fill since the plans do not provide sufficient details of all retaining walls. Furthermore, insufficient spot levels

(22)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 22 have been provided on the plans in relation to finished levels in front setbacks (excluding details provided for steps and pathway gradients) and proposed footpath reservation. It is noted that road-centre spot levels have been provided. Comments on the consistency of these with levels approved under Development Consent Nos. 646/2020/ZA and 606/2018/HA on the adjoining properties are provided in Section 9(b) of this report.

c. Adaptable Housing

The DCP requires 10% of dwellings to be capable of adaptation for disabled or elderly residents.

The development application must be accompanied by certification from an accredited Access Consultant confirming that the adaptable dwellings are capable of being modified to comply with the Australian Adaptable Housing Standard (AS 4299-1995). Car parking and garages allocated to adaptable dwellings must comply with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard for disabled parking spaces.

The applicant has provided 20%, being a total of 8 dwellings as adaptable dwellings. Only 10%, being a total of 4, are required to be adaptable in accordance with the Box Hill DCP.

Comment:

The objectives of the control are as follows:

a. To ensure a sufficient proportion of dwellings include accessible layouts and features to accommodate changing requirements of residents.

b. To ensure the provision of housing that will, in its adaptable features, meet the access and mobility needs of any occupant.

The provision of more than the minimum required adaptable dwellings is satisfactory. The matter for consideration is whether the adaptable dwellings are provided with appropriate allocated car parking and whether appropriate access to the dwellings from the allocated parking is provided.

Each adaptable home is provided with a single garage and car space in front. Six disabled parking spaces are provided within the common parking area of the development. The applicant has not specified whether these disabled spaces are intended to function as the allocated parking for the adaptable houses or not. No certification from an accredited Access Consultant has been provided to clarify the matter.

Insufficient information is provided to demonstrate that the proposed adaptable housing and associated parking arrangement is satisfactory and meets objective (b) of Section 5.5 Adaptable Housing of the DCP.

d. Car Parking

The relevant objectives of Section 4.2.8 Garages, Storage, Site Access and Parking are as follows:

a. To control the number, dimensions and location of vehicle access points. To reduce the visual impact of garages, carports and parking areas on the streetscape.

b. To provide safe, secure and convenient access to parking within garages, carports and parking areas, with casual surveillance of private driveways from dwellings and from the street.

c. To minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles at the junction of driveways and footpaths.

d. To provide predominantly on-site parking for residents.

(23)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 23 i. Setbacks to Parking

The DCP requires car parking spaces to be behind the building line or garages fronting the street to be set back 1m behind the front building line.

The proposed front building line setback of the townhouses is 5.95 metres from the boundary.

Garages are proposed to be set back 5.5 metres from the boundary. Rather than being set back 1m behind the building line, the garages are positioned 450mm in front of the building line, thereby proposing a variation to the control.

The proposed building line of the townhouses is set back at least 5.95 metres from the property boundary, 1.45m more than the required 4.5 metre minimum setback. Two storey articulated elements / verandahs are projected forward of both the proposed building line and garages by at least 1.71 and 1.26 metres respectively. Together with the street setbacks, this provides adequate articulation to the street frontages of the development and is considered to be a reasonable variation of the control in this instance.

ii. Car parking numbers and distribution

Table 18 of The Box Hill DCP requires multi dwelling housing to provide:

1 car parking space per dwelling; plus

0.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling; plus 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings.

The DCP also states the following with reference to garages and parking:

1-2 bedrooms will provide at least 1 car space

3 or more bedrooms will provide at least 2 car spaces.

There is no specific rate for disabled parking in the DCP, however it is expected that each adaptable dwelling be provided with a space that complies with the provisions of Australian Standard 2890 for people with a disability. At least one visitor parking space should also comply with the Standard (The Hills DCP, Part B Section 4 Multi dwelling housing). No certification has been provided in relation to compliance with the standards for parking related to adaptable housing.

The applicant has advised in the compliance tables attached to the architectural plans that a total of 68 car parking spaces are required, and that a total of 72 parking spaces have been provided.

According to the architectural plans however, the number of required and provided parking spaces is summarised in the following table. Overall, the development provides more than the required number of car parking spaces. All but two townhouses are provided with two parking spaces consisting of a single garage and a parking space in front. The two townhouses without an additional parking space in front of the garage are provided with common area residential parking which could be specifically allocated to these townhouses.

STAGE Required Car Parking Provided Car Parking Compliance

Resident (incl. disabled) 15 24 Yes

Visitor 2 2 Yes

Stage 1 Total 17 26 Yes

Resident (incl. disabled) 15 32 Yes

(24)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 24

Visitor 2 6 Yes

Stage 2 Total 17 38 Yes

Resident (incl. disabled) 30 44 Yes

Visitor 4 1 No*

Stage 3 Total 34 45 Yes

All Stages Total 68 109 Yes

* Able to comply if reallocated from residential/disabled parking.

Although on-site parking in excess of the required amount is desirable and assists in achieving the objectives of Section 4.2.8 Garages, Storage, Site Access and Parking of the DCP, the provision of 41 more spaces than is required (including disabled parking), is considered excessive and could be reduced. This would assist in mitigating the possible site coverage non- compliance and would enable common areas and landscaping to be enhanced.

9. Other matters for consideration

a. Common Open Space, Landscaping and Parking

The development proposes four common open space areas consisting of paved seating and barbeque areas, landscaping and a pool. No shade structures are proposed within the common areas. The proposed common open space areas have not been designed to maximise residential amenity and soft landscaping, or to provide a variety of uses within the development. Common open spaces do not achieve objective (b) of Section 5.3 Multi-Dwelling Housing of the DCP with respect to residential amenity.

The current plans provide more visitor and residential parking than is required by the DCP.

Assuming garage / driveway parking associated with adaptable dwellings is compliant with the relevant standards, the development requires 41 parking spaces less than is proposed across the three stages. A reduction in on-site parking would assist in reducing site coverage, which would allow increased landscaped area and improve amenity.

b. Plans

The submitted plans contain various errors or omissions which has impacted the assessment of the application, including:

Spot levels are not provided in the front setback areas (apart from pathway gradients and step levels), and within the future footpath reservations to demonstrate consistency with adjoining approved developments.

Section plans and proposed spot levels indicate that that retaining walls will be required between some private open space and front setback areas which are not shown on the plans. Additional section plans are required to be provided, particularly east/west sections to demonstrate the relationship of the site with existing and approved levels of adjoining land.

Street frontage elevation plans do not provide an accurate view of the proposed development as proposed fencing, retaining walls and landscaping has not been detailed;

(25)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 25 Street elevations lacking detail.

Plan details of the proposed pool has not been provided and depth is not shown on Section Plans;

First floor plans lack detailed information in terms of room labels and appear to be a repeat of the ground floor plan in error (ie. kitchens are shown on the first floor plans).

First Floor plans appear to be a repeat of Ground Floor Plans and are unlabelled.

Plan Nos. C16, BC17A, C17B, C18A, C18B, C19 provide details of “typical townhouses”

six, four, four + corner, two, two + corner and two with corner. These groupings do not correspond with any labels or townhouse numbers on the plans so it is uncertain as to what town houses they represent.

(26)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 26 The OSD basin has not been shown on architectural and landscape plans.

As a result of the above a full assessment of the plans is unable to be undertaken.

c. Staging and Subdivision

The proposed Subdivision and Staging Plans are provided in Attachments 7 and 8. The applicant has not advised why the site is proposed to be subdivided. Subdivision into three lots is not required to facilitate a three-staged development. If the applicant’s intention is to subdivide only for the purpose of staging, a subdivision need only show the development site and half of Aurora Street, noted for construction and dedication at no cost to Council. Staging of a development can be managed through conditions of consent.

Proposed Lot 2 on the Subdivision Plan currently has no access to a public road. The creation of a lot without access to a public road is not supported. Proposed Stage 1 is reliant on access to the site via Hynds Road and proposed Ursa Street. Proposed Stage 2 is reliant on both future Ursa Street and Aurora Street. Stage 3 is reliant on access via proposed Amalthea Street. The appropriate owner’s consent has not been provided to enable any of these stages to commence.

The proposal has been designed so that each stage is provided with sufficient car parking.

However it is noted that the line of subdivision between proposed Lots 1 and 2 is positioned in the middle of a visitor parking space and through a common open space area.

The purpose of the proposed subdivision is unclear. Furthermore, the Subdivision Plan has not been prepared by a Registered Surveyor and therefore cannot be supported.

10. Referrals

a) External Referrals NSW Police Comments

The application was referred to the NSW Police when first lodged. No objections were raised to the proposal. The current plans were not referred to NSW Police for comment given the proposal remains similar in principle to the original plans in respect to Safer by Design requirements.

b) Internal Referrals

Subdivision Engineering Comments

The amended Engineering Concept Plan generally addresses the design aspect raised previously.

The Ursa Street design profile has been amended to be consistent with the adjoining approvals, particularly the DA 79/2017/JP/A and 699/2020/ZA approved over the properties 29 Mason Road and 23 Hynds Road. However, the RLs 47.32 on the architectural plan in the vicinity of Ursa Street and Aurora Street intersection is 1m lower than the approved approximate RL 48.3.

Though the design RL 47.6 at the intersection of Amalthea Street and Aurora Street as shown on the architectural plan is consistent with the longitudinal section of Amalthea Street, the RL 48.805 shown on the design profile of Aurora Street of the civil concept plans is 1m higher. This further leads to uncertainty about the internal driveway profile provided on the civil concept plans relying

(27)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 27 on RL 48.4m, which is 700mm higher than the RL 47.74 shown on the architectural drawing as below.

On the same basis, the internal carpark arrangement and design compliance against Australian standards are subject to amended road design requested above.

Stormwater Drainage

Temporary OSD and the bio-retention basin proposed with the development have been supported by DRAINS and MUSIC model. DRAINS modelled two scenarios including Lot 21 and Lot 29. However, the Stormwater Quality Modelling report that addresses the water quality treatment is silent on the OSD design objectives. In order to review the design concept, the report must be amended to include the OSD design aspects.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the OSD location and the layout are feasible in principle.

Amended Plans

Architectural and landscape plans were requested to provide an outline of the OSD basin. This information has not been submitted.

Similarly, in order to correctly assess the architectural design and driveways etc the applicant has been requested to show the chainage consistent to the civil drawings. Architectural drawings have included only some spot levels.

Subdivision Plan

The subdivision layout is reflective of the proposed staging.

Proposed lots with no public road access are not supported.

Landscaping Comments

The submitted Landscape Plans were found to be unsatisfactory as follows:

i. Communal area adjacent townhouse Nos. 17-19 has been amended from common open space to at grade car parking west of the internal driveway. Parking spaces do not comply with The Hills DCP 2012 Part C Section 3 – Landscaping, Clause 3.12 – Car Parking which requires outdoor parking to be screened by a minimum 2 metre wide landscape

(28)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 28 strip, and a 2 metre wide landscaping strip (including canopy trees) between car spaces at the rate of one in every 10 car spaces. Levels between the new car park area and surrounding areas such as the ramped pedestrian path are unresolved. There are insufficient levels provided, and the where levels are provided, there are level discrepancies. The image below on the left shows an area where there are no walls proposed, with a difference of levels of approximately 1.35m. The below right image shows a level change between a path and pool common open space of approximately 500mm with no walls or steps provided to resolve the levels.

Examples of unresolved levels

ii. Required retaining walls have not been provided throughout the site to cater for level changes between the townhouses, road, and communal open space. Path levels are required to be shown particularly at access points to unit courtyards and common open space. Planting is required to be amended in accordance with required retaining walls and levels. Below is an example of two townhouses with a level change of 1.45m between them. There are no retaining walls provided to the setbacks between them, and the proposed steps do not clearly relate to the driveway grades. Levels at the boundary on driveways are to be provided to assess levels between paths driveways.

Retaining wall required

(29)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 29 iii. Planting proposed to many areas include inappropriate plant selections, such as mass planted grasses in areas which require screening. The symbol for Westringia fruticosa (a medium sized native shrub) is shown as a tree. Plant selections throughout are to be amended to provide greater variety. Plant symbols are to be indicative of actual plant size, and plant selections are to respond more closely to the proposed development in terms of screening, and provision of shade.

iv. Additional tree planting has not been provided as per the previous request for further information.

Health and Environmental Protection Comments

Environmental Health has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections subject to conditions of consent.

Waste Management Comments

i. It is noted that some townhouses have a storage area located in the rear courtyard and have an access gate at the rear of the property which leads to a footpath for residents to wheel their bins to the front kerb. However, plans also show that some townhouses will have to wheel their bins over the trafficable internal driveway(s) as footpaths have been provided in some sections. The plans below show that residents from townhouse Nos. 21- 30 and also potentially Nos. 7 and 8, will need to wheel their bins over the internal driveway. This is not supported. Amended plans are required showing that residents of each townhouse can safely wheel their bins from their designated bin storage area to the collection point along the front kerb area. Bins must not be wheeled over trafficable driveways. Alternatively, bin storage areas can be located within the garage if it is demonstrated there is adequate space to store 3 x 240L bins, or bin cupboards sized for 3 x 240L bins can be located within the front setback of each unit.

Locations where footpaths are required unless alternative solution is proposed.

Section 7.11 Contribution Comments

The application was referred to the Forward Planning Team for calculation of Section 7.11 Contributions for infrastructure.

Due to the errors in the floor plans as described in Section 10(d) of this report, Section 7.11 Contributions could not be calculated.

(30)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER, 2020

PAGE 30 CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed under the relevant head of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, Box Hill Development Control Plan 2018 and is considered unsatisfactory.

The proposed development has been amended on a number of occasions to address issues raised by Council’s planning, engineering, waste and landscaping staff. Despite this, the applicant has failed to provide adequate plans and requested information, such as a revised BASIX certificate, adaptable housing certification, adjoining landowners’ consent, sufficient detailed information on plans such as front setback levels, retaining walls and east/west sections, adequate waste management and civil engineering plans.

Whilst the proposal complies with key planning provisions including building height and proposes an appropriate density, the amended design of the development, information that remains outstanding and the inadequate plans has resulted in an outcome that is unable to be supported.

Notwithstanding the unresolved orderly development issue of no access to the site from future Amalthea and Ursa Streets, the design of the development could be improved with the provision of additional landscaped area and improved common open space areas coupled with a reduction in common area parking.

Given the significant amount of time that the application has been under consideration, and the various opportunities given to the applicant to resolve issues raised, it is considered necessary to recommend the application for refusal.

IMPACTS Financial

This matter may have a direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget as refusal of this matter may result in Council having to defend a Class 1 Appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The Hills Future - Community Strategic Plan

The proposed development is inconsistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives outlined within “Hills 2026 – Looking Towards the Future” as the proposed development provides for urban growth which would result in adverse environmental and amenity impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

The Development Application be refused as follows:

1) The proposal does not include evidence of the consent of adjoining landowners (Nos. 19 and 23 Hynds Road, Box Hill) to enable the partial construction of Ursa Street and Amalthea Street in order to provide access to the development site.

(Section 4.15(a)(iv) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2) The application, as amended, is not supported by a revised BASIX certificate as required pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

(Section 4.15(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3) The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of the Box Hill Development Control Plan 2018 with respect to site coverage, cut and fill, adaptable housing, and car parking in Sections 4.1.1 – Cut and Fill, 5.2.8 Garages, Storage, Site Access and Parking and Table 18, 5.5 Adaptable Housing.

Figure

Table 18 of The Box Hill DCP requires multi dwelling housing to provide:

References

Related documents

DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986 WA EP Regulations Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 WA Existing Works