• No results found

ASSESSMENT UNIT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "ASSESSMENT UNIT "

Copied!
34
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 24 March 2020

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

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA 160/2020/LA - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION - LOT 14 DP 232733, 12 MERRILONG STREET, CASTLE HILL

5

(3)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 10 MARCH 2020

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair)

Robert Buckham Principal Executive Planner (New Release & Growth Centres) Benjamin Hawkins Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification

Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Nicholas Carlton

Kristine McKenzie

Manager – Forward Planning Principal Executive Planner APOLOGIES

Nil

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 9:00am

TIME OF COMPLETION 9:09am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 11 February 2020 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 318/2010/JP/H – SECTION 4.55(1A) MODIFICATIONN TO AN APPROVED STAGED WAREHOUSE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT – LOT 2 DP 251094 NO.

18-20 MILE END ROAD, ROUSE HILL

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 application be approved subject to conditions in the report.

(4)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 4 REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.

 Section 4.55 (1A) (EP& A Act) – Satisfactory.

 The Hills LEP 2012 – Satisfactory.

 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land – Satisfactory.

 The Hills DCP Part B Section 7 – Industrial – Satisfactory.

 The Hills DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking – Satisfactory.

 The Hills DCP Part C Section 2 – Signage – Satisfactory.

 The Hills DCP Part C Section 3 – Landscaping – Satisfactory.

 Section 7.12 Contribution:

$408,139.82 (Stage 1) (No change)

$935,498.74 (Stage 2) (No change)

$955,848.96 (Stage 3) (No change)

HOW CONMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION:

The development application was notified and two (2) submissions were received.

ITEM 3 DA 570/2020/ZA – INFILL SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SWIMMING POOL AND SHEDS – LOT 3 DP 1010263, 2 CARY STREET, 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 application be approved subject to conditions in the report.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

 Section 4.15(EP&A Act 1979) – Satisfactory.

 The Hills LEP 2019 – Satisfactory.

 SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land – Satisfactory.

 SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 – Satisfactory.

 The Hills DCP 2012 – Part B Section 1 Residential – Variation sought.

 Section 7.12 Contribution – Nil.

 State Infrastructure Contribution – N/A

HOW CONMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION:

The development application was notified and two (2) submissions were received.

(5)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 5 ITEM-2 DA 160/2020/LA - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION - LOT 14 DP 232733, 12 MERRILONG STREET, CASTLE 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: 24 MARCH 2020

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

SOPHIA BROWN

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PAUL OSBORNE

Applicant Quinn Building Design

Owner L Chen and H Zhao

Exhibition / Notification 14 days Number Advised Ten Number of Submissions Two

Zoning R2 Low Density Residential

Site Area 727.2sqm

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

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory

The Hills LEP 2019 – Clause 4.6 submitted - Satisfactory DCP Part B Section 2 Residential – Variation, see report.

Section 7.12 Contribution: $ 2,950.00 Political Donation None Disclosed

Reason for Referral to DAU/Council/IHAP

1. Variation to LEP 2019 and DCP 2012 2. Submissions received.

Recommendation Approval subject to conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a first floor addition. The first floor addition includes three (3) bedrooms including a master bedroom with en-suite, bathroom, study and sitting room.

The subject site is located on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The existing dwelling is a single level dwelling with a garage located under a portion of the house, which is partially excavated into the slope of the site. With the finished ground level of the garage area being the reference for calculating the overall height of the building, the first floor addition results in a variation to the maximum 9m building height standard prescribed in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012. The development proposes a maximum height of 9.27 metres which is a 270mm or 3% variation to the development standard. The Development Application is accompanied by a written request to vary a development

(6)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 6 standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Local Environmental Plan 2012. Clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 prescribes a maximum height of 9 metres for the subject site. The development proposes a maximum height of 9.27 metres which results in a 270mm (3%) variation to the development standard.

The proposed development includes minor variations DCP 2012 Part B Section 2 – Residential in terms of building width and side setback.

The application was notified and submissions from two properties were received. The issues raised primarily relate to height and parking.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND

The subject Development Application was lodged on 5 August 2019. The proposal was notified for 14 days and 2 submissions were received.

A letter was sent to the applicant on 26 August 2019 requesting a cost summary report.

On 29 August 2019, additional information was received.

A letter was sent to the applicant on 5 November 2019 requesting additional information regarding building height, dwelling width and side setback.

On 20 November 2019, the applicant requested a time extension to submit additional information. A time extension was granted for additional information to be submitted by 12 December 2019.

On 10 December 2019, additional information was received.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a first floor addition. The first floor addition includes three (3) bedrooms including a master bedroom with en-suite, bathroom, study and sitting room.

The existing dwelling is a single level dwelling with a garage located under a portion of the house, which is partially excavated into the slope of the site. With the finished ground level of the garage area being the reference for calculating the overall height of the building, the first floor addition results in a variation to the maximum 9m building height standard prescribed in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012. The development proposes a maximum height of 9.27 metres which is a 270mm or 3% variation to the development standard (refer to Attachement 7 showing the overall height of the building). The Development Application is accompanied by a written request to vary this development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Local Environmental Plan 2012.

No changes are proposed to the existing lower ground floor plan and ground floor plan with the exception of a proposed staircase accessing the ground floor hall to the first floor addition.

(7)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 7 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 (i) Permissibility

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019. Under The Hills LEP 2019, the proposed alterations and additions form part of the development defined as a “dwelling house” as follows:

“dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling.”

A “dwelling house” is a permissible form of development on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under The Hills LEP 2012 subject to consent granted by Council.

(ii) Compliance with The Hills LEP 2019 – Zone Objectives

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019. The objectives of the zone are:

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

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

 To maintain the existing low density residential character of the area.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the stated objectives of the zone, in that the proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment and maintains the existing low density residential character of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to LEP 2019.

(iii) The Hills LEP 2019 - Development Standards

The following addresses the principal development standards of the LEP relevant to the subject proposal:

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

4.1 Allotment Size 700sqm 727.2sqm (no change to existing)

N/A 4.3 Building Height Maximum 9 metres 9.27 metres No – see

comments below (iv) Variation to Building Height

Clause 4.3 of LEP 2019 prescribes a maximum height of 9 metres for the subject site. The development proposes a maximum height of 9.27 metres which results in a 270mm (3%) variation to the development standard. Attachment 3 shows the LEP height limit and Attachment 7 shows the overall height of the building.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards states as follows:

(8)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 8 (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

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

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

(9)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 9 (a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified

for such lots by a development standard, or

(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

(a) a development standard for complying development,

(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(c) clause 5.4, (ca) clause 6.1 or 6.2, (cb) clause 7.12.

The applicant has submitted a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard, i.e. building height (see Attachment 9) which is summarised as follows:

 The departure is a maximum of 270mm and is a result of providing a pitched roof above the first floor that is consistent with the prevailing roof form in the precinct. The pitched roof for, ensures that the addition is compatible with the surrounding streetscape;

 The development is consistent with the intent of the maximum height control and will provide an attractive building that appropriately addresses Merrilong Street;

 The main portions of the building that exceeds the height control is located away from the site’s boundaries. Given this, the portions of the building that exceed the height control will not be discernible when viewed from the immediate surrounding public domain;

 The departure is minor and the impacts arising from overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy are manageable within the site and have no significant impact on adjoining properties;

 The proposal provides an appropriate building form that is consistent with the desired future character of the locality and is reflective of the objectives for the zone and locality generally – noting the building has no habitable floor space that protrudes above the 9m height control;

 The proposal presents an appropriate height on the site that facilitates a high quality urban form to contribute to building diversity within the precinct; and

 The proposed development complies with other key planning controls applying to the proposal including private open space provision, setbacks and parking.

(10)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 10 Comment:

The objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of The Hills LEP 2012 are as follows:

(a) to ensure the height of buildings is compatible with that of adjoining development and the overall streetscape,

(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas.

The proposed variation to the height standard has been reviewed in context with the surrounding development, future streetscape and character of the area. The proposed development has been designed to provide a built form that responds to the site’s opportunities and constraints. The 270mm variation results in a development that is consistent with the Clause 4.3 Height of Building objectives and the R2 Low Density Residential Zone objectives. The variation to the development standard can be supported for the following reasons:

 The Applicant’s request is well founded;

 The proposed variation results in a development that is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Building and the R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives;

 Compliance with the standard is unnecessary or unreasonable in this instance and there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the contravention; and

 The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for the development within the relevant zone.

It is also noted that in accordance with the Department’s Circular PS 18-003 that the Director General’s concurrence can be assumed in respect of any Environmental Planning Instrument that adopts Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of the Standard Instrument or a similar clause.

The Clause 4.6 written request has adequately demonstrated that the proposal would be compatible with adjoining development and the streetscape and would not cause significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.

The written submission demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this regard, it is considered that the proposed development meets the objectives of the height standard and will be in the public interest. The proposed variation to the LEP height standard is supported in this instance.

Court cases dealing with applications to vary development standards resulted in the Land and Environment Court setting out a five part test for consent authorities to consider when assessing an application to vary a standard to determine whether the objection to the development is well founded. In relation to the ‘five part test’ the objection to the building height is well founded on Part 1 of the test as the objectives of this standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

(11)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 11 2. Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 2 –

Residential

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 2 - Residential. The proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant requirements of the DCP with the exception of the following:

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

DCP

REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE Dwelling Width A maximum dwelling

width of 75% for allotments greater than 18m

A maximum dwelling width of 14.645 metres resulting in a 935mm or 6.8%

variation.

No, however the proposed dwelling width will not result in adverse amenity impacts.

Side Setback 3 storey distance of wall to boundary line – 1500mm and distance of eave to boundary line – 1175mm

The western elevation has a minimum side setback of 1446mm to the wall.

No, however the proposed side setbacks will not result in adverse amenity impacts.

a) Dwelling Width

Section 2.14.1(f) of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 requires a maximum dwelling width of 75% for allotments greater than 18m. The width of the subject site is 18.29 metres, therefore the maximum permitted dwelling width is 13.71 metres. The dwelling proposes a maximum dwelling width of 14.645 metres resulting in a 935mm or 6.8% variation.

Comment:

The objectives under Section 2.14.1 of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 are as follows:

“(i) To provide setbacks that complements the streetscape and protects the privacy and sunlight to adjacent dwellings in accordance with ESD Objective 7.

(ii) To ensure that new development is sensitive to the landscape setting, site constraints and established character of the street and locality.

(iii) To ensure that the appearance of new development is of a high visual quality and enhances the streetscape.”

The applicant submitted the following statement in support of the variation:

“Despite the departure from the development control, the development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the standard and is considered an appropriate built form outcome based on the following assessment:

- The development primarily involves a first floor addition and the first floor addition sits above the existing ground floor. Given this the existing dwelling departs from the control and this development does not increase the extent of departure;

(12)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 12 - Providing a compliant dwelling width to the first floor extension would result in a

building that had an awkward and unbalanced presentation to the street;

- The proposal is compliant with the site coverage and landscaped area controls applying to the site and provides for embellishment of the front and rear setbacks to contribute to the landscaped setback of the locality and integrate with the existing character along Merrilong Street;

- The development frontage is only 290mm greater than that for a site which can have a dwelling width of 75% of the site frontage. The development complies with the dwelling width requirement for an 18m wide site. Given the minor nature of the departure, the encroachment will not be discernible.

- The design of the proposal is a contemporary architectural home of high visual quality that will enhance the streetscape as demonstrated on the revised architectural plans.

- The precinct contains numerous dwellings of a similar frontage with many of these dwellings having similar dwelling widths. Accordingly the proposed built form is consistent with the massing of these dwellings.

- The site is provided with 1.45m to 2.1m side setbacks that facilitate low to mid -level landscaping. In conjunction with the landscaping proposed in the front setback it will result in a development that presents as a dwelling in a garden setting;

- The proposal is consistent with the objective of Zone R2 Low Density Residential which seeks to ‘provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment’, and to ‘maintain the low existing low density residential character of the area’. In this regard it is noted that the proposal will lead to the appropriate development of the site, consistent with local and state planning controls and policies and will not only provide housing needs for the community but still ensure that the low density character of the area is maintained.

- The proposed variation is minor and does not prevent the site from appropriately accommodating the proposed addition in a way that is compatible with Councils planning controls in terms of minimum site allotment, landscaped area, open space provision, solar access etc. as well as providing a high standard of residential amenity for future residents as illustrated on the attached plans.

- The non-compliance with building frontage requirement does not result in a trade off in terms of environmental or amenity considerations.

- The proposal will result in an outcome consistent with other recent dwelling developments in the area that feature contemporary homes of similar proportion than the existing dwelling stock, as demonstrated by nearby dwellings;

- It is noted that the site is capable of accommodating a complying development that could have similar or further reduced side setbacks;

- The development is predominantly consistent with the objectives and relevant controls of Councils LEP and DCP documents as illustrated on the architectural plans;

(13)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 13 - The proposal will not adversely affect residential amenity, nor will it lead to adverse

impacts for future residents of the proposal or those of adjoining properties.

- Due to the minor nature of the variation, the proposed non-compliance will be visually unnoticeable as compared to a compliant form; and

- The proposal will not inhibit the development rights and potential of adjoining properties.

Based on the above discussion it can be seen that the proposal is consistent with the underlying objectives of the control. Therefore strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance and it is considered that the proposal results in an appropriate outcome considering the context of the site.”

It is considered that the proposed dwelling is sympathetic to the existing character of the street and site constraints. The dwelling width is existing and the proposed additions do not increase the existing dwelling width.

The two adjoining dwellings to the west of the subject site have a building width of 16.2m or 89% (No. 14 Merrilong Street) and 17.6m or 93% (No. 16 Merrilong Street). The two adjoining dwellings to the east of the subject site have a building width of 16.6m or 89% (No.

10 Merrilong Street) and 17.5m or 94% (No. 8 Merrilong Street). The four adjoining dwellings exceed the maximum 75% dwelling width requirement.

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed dwelling width is consistent with the existing streetscape and character of the locality and the 6.8% variation to the dwelling width does not set as a precedent in the area and therefore it is supportable in this instance.

b) Side Setback

Section 2.14.1(g) of The Hills Development Control Plan Part B Section 2 - Residential requires a side setback for a 3 storey height of building to be a minimum 1500mm distance of wall to boundary line, and minimum 1175mm distance of eave to boundary line.

The development proposes a minimum side setback of 1446mm to the western boundary resulting in a 54mm or 3.6% variation.

Comment:

The objectives under Section 2.14.1 of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 are as follows:

“(i) To provide setbacks that complements the streetscape and protects the privacy and sunlight to adjacent dwellings in accordance with ESD Objective 7.

(ii) To ensure that new development is sensitive to the landscape setting, site constraints and established character of the street and locality.

(iii) To ensure that the appearance of new development is of a high visual quality and enhances the streetscape.”

The applicant submitted the following statement in support of the variation:

(14)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 14

“Despite the departure from the development control, the departure from the control is considered to satisfy the objectives of the standard and is considered an appropriate built form outcome based on the following assessment:

- The development primarily involves a first floor addition and the first floor addition sits above the existing ground floor. Given this the existing dwelling departs from the control and this development does not increase the extent of departure.

- The minor variation relates to the western elevation of the building that is two storey when viewed from both the street and adjoining properties. The setback required for a two storey dwelling is 900mm and the development complies with this setback.

- The proposal is compliant with the site coverage and landscaped area controls applying to the site and provides for embellishment of the front and rear setbacks to contribute to the landscaped setback of the locality and integrates with the existing character along Merrilong Street.

- The design of the proposal is a contemporary architectural home of high visual quality that will enhance the streetscape as demonstrated on the revised architectural plans.

- The precinct contains numerous dwellings of a similar frontage with many of these dwellings having similar setbacks. Accordingly the proposed built form is consistent with the massing of these dwellings.

- The site is provided with 1.45m to 2.1m side setbacks that facilitate low to mid-level landscaping. In conjunction with the landscaping proposed in the front setback it will result in a development that presents as a dwelling a garden setting.

- The proposal is consistent with the objective of Zone R2 Low Density Residential which seeks to ‘provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment’ and to ‘maintain the existing low density residential character of the area’. In this regard, it is noted that the proposal will lead to the appropriate development of the site, consistent with the local and state planning controls and policies and will not only provide housing needs for the community but still ensure that the low density character of the area is maintained.

- The proposed variation is minor and does not prevent the site from appropriately accommodating the proposed addition in a way that is compatible with Council’s planning controls in terms of minimum site allotment, landscaped area, open space, solar access, etc. as well as provide for a high standard of residential amenity for future residents as displayed on the attached plans.

- The non-compliance with the building frontage requirement does not result in a trade off in terms of environmental or amenity considerations.

- The proposal will result in an outcome consistent with other recent dwelling developments in the area that feature contemporary homes of similar proportion to the existing dwelling stock, as demonstrated by nearby dwellings.

- It is noted that the site is capable of accommodating a complying development that could have similar or further reduced side setbacks.

(15)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 15 - The development is predominantly consistent with the objectives and relevant controls of Councils LEP and DCP documents as illustrated on the architectural plans.

- The proposal will not adversely affect residential amenity, nor will it lead to adverse impacts for future residents of the proposal or those of adjoining properties.

- Due to the minor nature of the variation the proposed non-compliance will be visually unnoticeable as compared to a compliant form, and

- The proposal will not inhibit the development rights and potential of adjoining properties.

Based on the above discussion it can be seen that the proposal is consistent with the underlying objectives of the control. Therefore strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance and it is considered that the proposal relates in an appropriate outcome considering the context of the site.”

The proposed side setback of 1446mm is in line with the existing side setback to the western boundary. It is considered that the proposed setback does not adversely impact privacy, overlooking and the environmental amenity of the neighbourhood and surrounding locality. It is considered that the proposal is sympathetic to the existing streetscape.

In view of the above, it is considered that the variation to the side setback is supportable in this instance.

3. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was exhibited and notified for 14 days and two submissions were received.

The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT

The development will result in a 3 storey home. There are no other 3 storey homes on the street and the proposed height with the additional storey will be detrimental to the streetscape and will have a detrimental visual impact.

The proposal is a first floor addition to an existing split level dwelling house (refer to Attachment 5 for photos of the existing dwelling and adjoining dwelling houses).

The proposal would not be detrimental to the visual impact on Merrilong Street and that it is compatible with that of surrounding development and the overall streetscape.

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects states there will be a double garage. This is incorrect as it is constructed as a room. Concern is raised in relation to street parking, no footpaths on the street and that the additional cars will be a safety hazard.

No changes are proposed to the existing double garage. A minimum one (1) on site car parking space is required per dwelling. The existing dwelling provides a double garage and sufficient space for two cars to be parked on site on the driveway and it is considered that sufficient parking is provided.

(16)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 16 4. Internal Referrals

The application was referred to following sections of Council:

 Section 7.12

No objection was raised to the proposal subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.

It is considered that the Applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request to Clause 4.3 height of buildings standard is well founded, and the proposed variation results in a development that is consistent with the relevant objectives, and compliance with the standard is unnecessary in this instance as outlined in this report.

The variations to the dwelling width and side setback controls under the DCP 2012 have been considered and addressed in the report, and will not adversely impact on the environmental amenity of the locality.

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and do not warrant refusal of the application.

Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

IMPACTS Financial

This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.

The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan

The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives outlined within “Hills 2026 – Looking Towards the Future” as the proposed development provides for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and ensures a consistent built form is provided with respect to the streetscape and general locality.

RECOMMENDATION

The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions:

(17)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 17 GENERAL MATTERS

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans

The development being carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details, stamped and returned with this consent except where amended by other conditions of consent.

REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS DRAWING

NO.

DESCRIPTION SHEET REVISION DATE

1812033 Site Plan A03 A 01/08/2019

1812033 Existing Lower Ground and Ground Floor Plan

A04 A 06/06/2019

1812033 Proposed First Floor Plan A05 A 06/06/2019

1812033 North and East Elevation A06 A 06/06/2019

1812033 South and West Elevation A07 A 06/06/2019

1812033 Section Plan A08 A 06/06/2019

- Waste Management Plan - - 15/04/2019

1812033 Schedule of Finishes - - -

No work (including excavation, land fill or earth reshaping) shall be undertaken prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, where a Construction Certificate is required.

2. External Finishes

External finishes and colours shall be in accordance with the details submitted with the development application and approved with this consent.

3. Construction Certificate

Prior to construction of the approved development, it is necessary to obtain a Construction Certificate. A Construction Certificate may be issued by Council or an Accredited Certifier.

Plans submitted with the Construction Certificate are to be amended to incorporate the conditions of the Development Consent.

4. Building Work to be in Accordance with BCA

All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

5. Adherence to Waste Management Plan

All requirements of the Waste Management Plan submitted as part of the Development Application must be implemented except where contrary to other conditions of consent. The information submitted regarding construction and demolition wastes can change provided that the same or a greater level of reuse and recycling is achieved as detailed in the plan.

Any material moved offsite is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility. Receipts of all waste/recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them.

Transporters of asbestos waste (of any load over 100kg of asbestos waste or 10 square metres or more of asbestos sheeting) must provide information to the NSW EPA regarding the movement of waste using their WasteLocate online reporting tool

www.wastelocate.epa.nsw.gov.au.

(18)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 18 6. Management of Construction and/or Demolition Waste

Waste materials must be appropriately stored and secured within a designated waste area onsite at all times, prior to its reuse onsite or being sent offsite. This includes waste materials such as paper and containers which must not litter the site or leave the site onto neighbouring public or private property. A separate dedicated bin must be provided onsite by the builder for the disposal of waste materials such as paper, containers and food scraps generated by all workers. Building waste containers are not permitted to be placed on public property at any time unless a separate application is approved by Council to locate a building waste container in a public place.

Any material moved offsite is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility. The separation and recycling of the following waste materials is required: metals, timber, masonry products and clean waste plasterboard. This can be achieved by source separation onsite, that is, a bin for metal waste, a bin for timber, a bin for bricks and so on. Alternatively, mixed waste may be stored in one or more bins and sent to a waste contractor or transfer/sorting station that will sort the waste on their premises for recycling. Receipts of all waste/recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them.

Transporters of asbestos waste (of any load over 100kg of asbestos waste or 10 square metres or more of asbestos sheeting) must provide information to the NSW EPA regarding the movement of waste using their WasteLocate online reporting tool www.wastelocate.epa.nsw.gov.au.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 7. Section 7.12 Contribution

Pursuant to section 4.17 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and The Hills Section 7.12 Contributions Plan, a contribution of $2,950.00 shall be paid to Council. This amount is to be adjusted at the time of the actual payment in accordance with the provisions of the Hills Section 7.12 Contributions Plan.

The contribution is to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

You are advised that the maximum percentage of the levy for development under section 7.12 of the Act having a proposed construction cost is within the range specified in the table below;

Proposed cost of the development Maximum percentage of the levy

Up to $100,000 Nil

$100,001 - $200,000 0.5 %

More than $200,000 1%

PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE 8. Sydney Water Building Plan Approval

A building plan approval must be obtained from Sydney Water Tap in™ to ensure that the approved development will not impact Sydney Water infrastructure.

A copy of the building plan approval and receipt from Sydney Water Tap in™ (if not already provided) must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority upon request prior to works commencing.

Please refer to the website http://www.sydneywater.com.au/tapin/index.htm, Sydney Water Tap in™, or telephone 13 20 92.

(19)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 19 9. Consultation with Service Authorities

Applicants are advised to consult with Telstra, NBN Co and Australia Post regarding the installation of telephone conduits, broadband connections and letterboxes as required.

Unimpeded access must be available to the electricity supply authority, during and after building, to the electricity meters and metering equipment.

10. Approved Temporary Closet

An approved temporary closet connected to the sewers of Sydney Water, or alternatively an approved chemical closet is to be provided on the land, prior to building operations being commenced.

11. Erosion and Sedimentation Controls

Erosion and sedimentation controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of site works; and maintained throughout construction activities until the site is landscaped and/or suitably revegetated. The controls shall be in accordance with the details approved by Council and/or as directed by Council Officers. These requirements shall be in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing (Blue Book).

12. Stabilised Access Point

A stabilised all weather access point is to be provided prior to commencement of site works, and maintained throughout construction activities until the site is stabilised. The controls shall be in accordance with the requirements with the details approved by Council and/or as directed by Council Officers. These requirements shall be in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing (Blue Book).

13. Details and Signage - Principal Contractor and Principal Certifying Authority Details

Prior to work commencing, submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) notification in writing of the principal contractor’s (builder) name, address, phone number, email address and licence number.

No later than two days before work commences, Council is to have received written details of the PCA in accordance with Clause 103 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

Signage

A sign is to be erected in accordance with Clause 98A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. The sign is to be erected in a prominent position and show – a) the name, address and phone number of the PCA for the work,

b) the name and out of working hours contact phone number of the principal contractor/person responsible for the work.

The sign must state that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

DURING CONSTRUCTION 14. Hours of Work

Work on the project to be limited to the following hours: - Monday to Saturday - 7.00am to 5.00pm;

No work to be carried out on Sunday or Public Holidays.

The builder/contractor shall be responsible to instruct and control sub-contractors regarding the hours of work.

(20)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 20 15. Survey Report and Site Sketch

A survey report and site sketch signed and dated (including contact details) by the registered land surveyor may be requested by the Principal Certifying Authority during construction.

The survey shall confirm the location of the building/structure in relation to all boundaries and/or levels. As of September 2018 the validity of surveys has been restricted by legislation to 2 years after issue.

16. Compliance with BASIX Certificate

Under clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a condition of this Development Consent that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate No.

A344658_02 is to be complied with. Any subsequent version of this BASIX Certificate will supersede all previous versions of the certificate.

17. Critical Stage Inspections and Inspections Nominated by the PCA

Section 6.6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires critical stage inspections to be carried out for building work as prescribed by Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Prior to allowing building works to commence the Principal Certifier (PC) must give notice of these inspections pursuant to Clause 103A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

An Occupation Certificate cannot be issued and the building may not be able to be used or occupied where any mandatory critical stage inspection or other inspection required by the PC is not carried out. Inspections can only be carried out by the PC unless agreed to by the PC beforehand and subject to that person being an accredited certifier.

18. Roof Water Drainage

Gutter and downpipe and/or rainwater tank overflow, to be provided and connected to an approved lawful discharge point (ie. kerb, inter-allotment drainage easement or OSD) upon installation of roof coverings.

19. Dust Control

The emission of dust must be controlled to minimise nuisance to the occupants of the surrounding premises. In the absence of any alternative measures, the following measures must be taken to control the emission of dust:

 Dust screens must be erected around the perimeter of the site and be kept in good repair for the duration of the construction work;

 All dusty surfaces must be wet down and suppressed by means of a fine water spray.

Water used for dust suppression must not cause water pollution; and

 All stockpiles of materials that are likely to generate dust must be kept damp or covered.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Height of Buildings Map 4. Site Plan

5. Site Photos

6. Elevations (2 pages) 7. Section

8. Shadow Diagrams

9. Applicant’s Clause 4.6 Variation Request (5 pages)

(21)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 21 ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

(22)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 22 ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

(23)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 23 ATTACHMENT 3 – HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS MAP

(24)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 24 ATTACHMENT 4 – SITE PLAN

(25)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 25 ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOS

Existing Dwelling

Existing Dwelling

(26)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 26 ATTACHMENT 6 – ELEVATIONS (2 PAGES)

(27)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 27

(28)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 28 ATTACHMENT 7 – SECTION

(29)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 29 ATTACHMENT 8 – SHADOW DIAGRAMS

(30)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 30 ATTACHMENT 9 – APPLICANT’S CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION REQUEST (5 PAGES)

(31)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 31

(32)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 32

(33)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 33

(34)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 MARCH, 2020

PAGE 34

References

Related documents

To address the unintended consequences of the Eclipse decision, and to resolve the current hurdles preventing recycling, appropriate amendments must be made to the EP Act, subsidiary