• No results found

ASSESSMENT UNIT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "ASSESSMENT UNIT "

Copied!
24
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

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 APRIL, 2018

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA 932/2018/HA - DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND STRATA SUBDIVISION - LOT 12 DP 270951, NO. 33 BUDAWANG AVENUE, KELLYVILLE

4

(3)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 10 APRIL 2018

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Environment & Planning Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Andrew Brooks Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Angelo Berios Acting Manager – Environment & Health

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Stewart Seale Manager – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES

Mark Colburt Manager – Environment & Health

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8:30am

TIME OF COMPLETION 8:34am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 3 April 2018 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 578/2018/HA - ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY - LOT 2 DP 1216035, NO. 4A EXCELSIOR WAY, CASTLE HILL

RESOLUTION

The application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report.

(4)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 4 ITEM-2 DA 932/2018/HA - DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND STRATA SUBDIVISION - LOT 12 DP 270951, NO. 33 BUDAWANG AVENUE, KELLYVILLE

THEME: Balanced Urban Growth

OUTCOME: 7 Responsible planning facilitates a desirable living environment and meets growth targets.

STRATEGY: 7.2 Manage new and existing development with a robust framework of policies, plans and processes that is in accordance with community needs and expectations.

MEETING DATE: 24 APRIL 2018

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

AMANDA HAWKINS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER KRISTINE MCKENZIE

Applicant Everlast Property Development Pty Ltd Owner Everlast Property Development Pty Ltd Notification 14 days

Number Advised 4 Number of Submissions Nil

Zoning E4 Environmental Living

Site Area 911.1m2

List of all relevant

s4.15(1)(a) matters Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory.

SEPP Growth Centres – Unsatisfactory.

North Kellyville DCP – Unsatisfactory.

Section 7.12 Contribution: Not applicable as refusal is recommended.

Political Donation None Disclosed Reason for Referral to

DAU

Refusal recommended

Recommendation Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the construction and strata subdivision of a detached dual occupancy development.

The subject site is located on land zoned E4 Environmental Living. The minimum lot size required for subdivision in the zone, pursuant to Clause 4.1 of SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, is 4,000m2. The proposed lots do not achieve the required minimum as lots of 508.4m2 and 402.8m2 are proposed. In a recent decision of the Land

(5)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 5 and Environment Court under DM and Longbow Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council, the Court held that the minimum lot size standard applied to new strata plans (with only subdivisions within an existing strata plan being exempt) ie. a 4,000m2 minimum lot size is required. Given the decision of the Court, the proposed strata subdivision of the dual occupancy would result in a development that fails to comply with the minimum lot size set by SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and cannot be supported.

The applicant has also not submitted the requested additional information to demonstrate that the proposed development can achieve the performance criteria for providing asset protection zones as required in ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’

and the NSW RFS Fast Fact. The methodology used in the submitted report was also not supported by the NSW Rural Fire Service. The information requested was required to demonstrate compliance with the title restrictions that relate to the bushfire prone nature of the site.

The submitted plans do not provide sufficient detail to enable a full assessment of the proposal to be undertaken against the DCP requirements and title restrictions. Amended plans have been requested however have not been submitted.

The proposed design also results in several non-compliances with the North Kellyville Development Control Plan. Both cut and fill proposed significantly exceed 500mm, the front and rear setbacks of the development do not comply with the required minimum, the finished floor level of the development is more than 1 metre above existing ground level and compliant private open space and solar access is not achieved.

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners however no submissions were received.

The application is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND

The Development Application was lodged on 15 November 2017. A letter was sent to the applicant on 20 November 2017 advising that strata subdivision of the proposed dual occupancy cannot be supported and that the BAL rating achieved in the bushfire report is being reviewed by the NSW Rural Fire Service. A response was received on 12 February 2018 challenging Council’s position on strata subdivision. A further letter was sent to the applicant on 26 February 2018 confirming Council will not support strata subdivision and requesting additional information and amendments relating to the bushfire prone nature of the lot and the DCP requirements and title restrictions. Since this letter was sent, emails have been sent to the applicant requesting the outstanding information however no further information has been submitted.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the construction of a detached dual occupancy development. Both dwellings are two storey in height. Dwelling 1 includes five bedrooms, a double garage and alfresco area. Dwelling 2 includes four bedrooms, a double garage and alfresco area.

Strata subdivision of the development into two lots is proposed. The submitted Subdivision Plan states that proposed lot 1 has a total area of 508.4m2 and proposed lot 2 has a total area of 402.8m2.

(6)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 6 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

(i) Permissibility

The proposed development is defined in the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 as a dual occupancy. Dual Occupancy development is permitted with consent within the E4 Environmental Living zone.

(ii) Strata Subdivision / Minimum Lot Size

The proposal seeks consent for the strata subdivision of the proposed dual occupancy development.

Clause 4.1 of the SEPP (North Kellyville Precinct Plan) provides development standards applying to the subdivision of any land shown in the relevant Lot Size Maps that requires development consent. The minimum lot size applicable to the subject site is 4,000m2. The subdivision of land is permissible within the E4 Environmental Living Zone, subject to compliance with the 4,000m2 minimum lot size requirement.

The subject site has an area of 911.1m2. The submitted Subdivision Plan states that proposed lot 1 has a total area of 508.4m2 and proposed lot 2 has a total area of 402.8m2.

DM and Longbow Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1358

In a recent decision of the Land and Environment Court, which was also considered under appeal by the Chief Judge, the Court was required to consider the operation and construction of Clause 4.1 of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP) relating to minimum subdivision lot size.

For clarity it is noted that Clause 4.1 of WLEP is worded in identical terms to clause 4.1 of the SEPP (North Kellyville Precinct). Clause 4.1(4) of the SEPP states that:

(4) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan.

The Court found that the reference to a strata plan in Clause 4.1(4) of WLEP is a reference to an existing strata plan. In this regard, the Court held that the use of the word “subdivision” in Clause 4.1 includes a reference to a proposed strata subdivision and the exemption in Clause 4.1(4) applies only to the subdivision of individual lots in an existing strata plan.

Given the decision of the Court, it is considered that proposed strata subdivision of the dual occupancy on the subject lot would result in a development that fails to satisfy or comply with the minimum lot size development standards of the SEPP as Clause 4.1(4) applies only where there is an existing strata plan.

The subject site is not in an existing strata plan and so each proposed lot is required to achieve the minimum lot size requirement of 4,000m2. The proposed lot sizes are 508.4m2 and 402.8m2. As a result, given the recent Court decision it is considered that proposed strata subdivision of the dual occupancy is not supportable in this instance.

(7)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 7 Further to the above, Clause 6.5 of Appendix 2 (North Kellyville Precinct Plan) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 applies specifically to the subdivision of land in the E4 Environmental Living zone.

Clause 6.5(3) of the SEPP (North Kellyville Precinct Plan) states:

(3) The consent authority may grant development consent for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies, only if:

(a) the land is subdivided in accordance with the Community Land Development Act 1989 for a neighbourhood scheme, and

(b) each lot, other than a lot comprising neighbourhood property, to be created by the subdivision will have an area of not less than 600 square metres, and

(c) the subdivision will not result in more than 7.5 development lots per hectare

The subject lot was created under this clause. Under the provisions of the Community Land Development Act 1989, land subdivided as part of a neighbourhood scheme cannot be further subdivided. As a result, development consent cannot be granted for the strata subdivision component of the Development Application.

The applicant was advised and was requested to withdraw their request for consent for strata subdivision of the proposed development. The applicant has failed to do this and as a result, the application is recommended for refusal.

(iii) Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006– Zone Objectives

The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living. The objectives of the zone are:

• To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

• To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

As detailed in this report, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the DCP requirements and title restrictions.

As a result, the proposal is not considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives of the zone.

(iv) State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 - Development Standards

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

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

Clause 4.1

Minimum

subdivision lot size

4,000m2 911.1m2 No

4.3 Height of buildings

9 metres 8.14 metres Yes

(8)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 8 As detailed above, the strata subdivision of the proposed development is not supported as compliance with the minimum land size requirements of the SEPP have not been achieved.

2. Compliance with Title Restrictions

The proposal has been reviewed against the restrictions contained within the 88B Instrument for Deposited Plan 270951 and the following have not been complied with.

The Deposited Plan is Attachment 7 and Attachment 3 shows the siting of the dual occupancy in relation to the APZ shown as Item 7.

a. Item 7 – Restriction on the Use of Land ‘EG’ and Item 18 – Positive Covenant

Item 7 of the 88B Instrument states that:

‘No part of a dwelling or other habitable building may be constructed or allowed to remain within the asset protection zone delineated ‘EG’ on the plan complying with the requirements of The Hills Shire Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service relevant and applicable at the time.’

Item 18 of the 88B Instrument states that:

‘The registered proprietor of the lot(s) hereby burdened will maintain at the sole expense of the registered proprietors the whole of the asset protection zone delineated (EG) on the plan, including, but not limited to, the removal of vegetation in accordance with fuel load requirements and restricting the placement of combustible materials, buildings or improvements, complying with the requirements of The Hills Shire Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service relevant and applicable at the time.

1. The registered proprietor of the lot(s) hereby burdened will maintain at the sole expense of the registered proprietor the whole of the asset protection zone delineated 'EG' on the plan, including, but not limited to, the removal of vegetation in accordance with fuel load requirements and restricting the placement of combustible materials, buildings or improvements, complying with the requirements of The Hills Shire Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service relevant and applicable at the time.

2. Any dwelling house or other habitable structure constructed on the lot(s) hereby burdened must be located wholly within the area nominated for development defined as an asset protection zone by this positive covenant. Any asset protection zone relating to this dwelling house or other habitable structure must also be contained to this same area, sized to comply with the requirements of The Hills Shire Council and the NSW Rural Fire Service relevant and applicable at the time.

3. The asset protection zone referred to has been determined at the subdivision stage based on a performance based alternate solution prepared by EcoLogical Australia dated 28/8/2014 and this needs to be considered in the design and construction of the dwelling or other habitable building in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3959-2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas and Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (or equivalent where these documents are superseded).’

The proposed development significantly encroaches into the asset protection zone delineated as ‘EG’ on the Deposited Plan. Attachment 3 shows the area of the lot within which no development is allowed.

(9)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 9 To justify the encroachment, the application was accompanied by a bushfire assessment report that relied upon an alternate solution (the use of short fire run methodology) to achieve a BAL 29 rating. The report also stated that existing managed lands are relied upon for APZ’s, in reference to the community lot created with the subdivision.

Encroachment of the APZ into the community lot is not permitted as the lot is subject to an approved vegetation management plan. The vegetation management plan includes management zones for the community lot and details on how each zone is required to be revegetated and maintained. The subject site is located adjacent to Management Zone 1 within Stage 2. The vegetation management plan states that Management Zone 1 shall be maintained as woodland with assisted natural regeneration occurring. As a result, the lot cannot be relied upon as ‘managed land’ as stated in the bushfire report.

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service who requested additional information to demonstrate that the development can achieve the performance criteria for providing asset protection zones to achieve radiant heat levels of 29kW/sqm or less as required in ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ and the NSW RFS Fast Fact. The applicant was advised that the parent subdivision was approved subject to an APZ of 34 metres being provided between future dwellings and the unmanaged vegetation to the west (Community Lot 1). This APZ comprised the width of the public road and the delineated area (EG) within the subject lot.

The applicant was further advised that the use of the alternate solution (short fire run methodology) in the bushfire report was not supported in this instance as the vegetation to the west, when considered as a whole, provides potential fire runs exceeding 150 metres. Considering fire runs only to the bottom of the riparian corridor, as the bush fire consultant had done in this instance, cannot be supported.

To date, the requested additional information has not been submitted and as a result, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

3. Compliance with the North Kellyville Development Control Plan

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the North Kellyville Development Control Plan (DCP).

The proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant requirements of the above Development Controls with the exception of the following:

DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL DCP

REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE Clauses 4.1.1(4) and

4.1.1(5) – Cut and Fill

Maximum 500mm cut and fill

On sloping sites, site disturbance is to be minimised by the use of split level or pier foundation housing designs.

The proposed

development includes up to 1.6 metres of cut and 850mm of fill which does not comply.

Neither a split level design, nor the use of a pier foundation has been proposed to minimise site disturbance.

No, both cut and fill proposed exceed the maximum DCP requirement.

The applicant was advised that the proposed

earthworks are considered

excessive and are not supported.

Amended plans have not been submitted for review which minimise site disturbance.

(10)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 10 DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL DCP

REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE Clauses 4.2.2(1) and

4.2.2(2) –

Streetscape and Architectural Design

Primary and

secondary street frontages are to include two of the following:

- entry feature or porch;

- awnings or other features over windows;

- balcony treatment to any first floor element;

- recessing or projecting

architectural elements;

- open verandah;

- bay windows or similar features; or

- verandahs,

pergolas or similar features above garage doors.

The western

secondary street elevation of Dwelling 1 fronts the street but does not include a minimum of two of the design elements required.

No, the secondary street elevation of Dwelling 1 is not considered to provide two of the design elements required for a street frontage.

The applicant was requested to amend the design to comply.

Amended plans have not been submitted which demonstrate an appropriate

streetscape outcome.

Table 13 of Clause 4.2.3(1) – Front Setbacks

4.5 metres to the building façade line.

3 metres articulation zone

Garage setback 1m behind the building façade line (5.5 metres).

The following non- compliant setbacks are proposed:

Dwelling 1 provides a front setback of 2.5 metres to the porch (articulation zone) and 5.389 metres to the garage.

Dwelling 2 provides a front setback of 3.862 metres to the building façade.

No, the articulation zone and garage setback for Dwelling 1 as well as the building façade setback for Dwelling 2 encroach into the minimum setbacks required by the DCP.

The applicant was requested to submit amended plans with compliant front setbacks provided however amended plans have not been submitted to demonstrate

reasonable streetscape outcome.

(11)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 11 Table 13 of Clause

4.2.4(1) – Rear Setbacks

Clause 4.3(8) – Dual Occupancy

Ground Floor: 4 metres

Upper Floor: 6 metres

For dual occupancies on corner lots, the rear setback can be varied to be consistent with side setbacks provided the minimum private open space and solar access requirements to both the site and adjoining properties are met.

The proposed

development includes a rear setback of 1.497 metres for Dwelling 1 and 990mm for Dwelling 2.

These setbacks would be permitted pursuant to Clause 4.3(8) of the DCP however Dwelling 2 does not meet the minimum private open space or solar access requirements.

No, the rear setbacks proposed can only be supported if the development

achieves compliance with the private open space and solar access requirements.

As detailed below, compliance is not achieved.

The applicant was requested to submit amended plans that achieve compliance with these controls so that the rear setback can be considered.

Amended plans have not been submitted that demonstrate

compliant private open space and solar access is achieved.

Clause 4.2.5(5) – Dwelling Height, Massing and Siting

The ground floor level shall be no more than 1 metre above finished ground level.

As a result of the earthworks proposed, the ground floor level of Dwelling 1 is more than 1 metre above finished ground level.

No, as detailed above, the applicant was requested to reduce the extent of earthworks

proposed.

Amended plans have not been submitted which reduce the bulk and scale of the development.

Table 13 of Clause 4.2.7(1) – Principal Private Open Space

Minimum 20m2 with

a minimum

dimension of 4 metres.

Dwelling 2 does not provide principal private open space with a minimum dimension of 4 metres.

No, principal private open space with a minimum dimension of 4 metres is not provided for Dwelling 2.

(12)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 12 The applicant was requested to submit amended plans that achieve compliance with this control so that the rear setback can be considered.

Amended plans have not been submitted which show adequate principal private open space is provided.

Table 13 of Clause 4.2.7(1) – Solar Access

50% of the required principal private open space should receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice (21 June)

Shadow diagrams were submitted with the application which show that the non- compliant principal private open space of Dwelling 2 does not receive sufficient solar access with the majority of the principal private open

space area

overshadowed

between 9am and 3pm.

No, the non- compliant principal private open space of Dwelling 2 does

not receive

compliant solar access either.

The applicant was requested to submit amended plans that achieve compliance with this control so that the rear setback can be considered however amended plans have not been submitted to demonstrate that a reasonable level of amenity will be achieved.

Clause 4.2.10 –

Fencing 1. Front fencing shall be in harmony with the street, consistent in design and style with its dwelling and a maximum of 1m high. Separate application is to be made for fences higher than 1m and for courtyard walls.

Side and rear fencing are to be a maximum of 1.8m high. Front fences

The submitted plans do not provide any fencing detail to

enable an

assessment to be undertaken. Given the large street frontage of the lot, and that a large portion of it may be used as private open space, fencing detail is required.

No, the applicant was requested to submit amended plans showing all proposed fencing.

Amended plans have not been submitted which show compliant boundary fencing

for the

development.

(13)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 13 and walls are to not

impede safe sight lines for traffic.

2. On corner lots the preferred outcome is for the dwelling to front both street frontages providing a better overall streetscape

presentation. Where fencing to the secondary street frontage is proposed, it is not to exceed 1.8m high for more than one third of the length of the secondary road frontage, if relevant.

3. On corner lots the front fencing style is to be continued along the secondary street frontage to at least 1m behind the building line of the dwelling. Side fences higher than 1m are not to extend past the Building Facade Line or Garage Building Line.

4. Internal Referral – Subdivision

The application was referred to Subdivision for review and the following additional information was requested to enable a full assessment of the proposal to be undertaken:

a. Rain Gardens

Item 16 of the 88B Instrument includes the detail for the required rain gardens. The applicant was requested to submit amended architectural and landscape plans to show the location, storage volume and surface area of each rain garden.

In this regard, the applicant was advised that while the rain gardens are located appropriately on the site, the raingarden for Dwelling 2 needs a lot outlet pit because of how far it is from the existing inter-allotment drainage pit. In addition, both rain gardens are located on sloping parts of the site however the plans only show a notional batter around all four sides of each rain garden. Raingardens hold water and need to be flat which means there will need to be cut or fill (or a combination of both) to make them work in the locations shown. As a result, the applicant was requested to show any works required in this regard on the plans.

(14)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 14 The applicant was also advised that the raingardens are able to be consolidated into a single, larger raingarden at the bottom of the site. This will lessen the footprint and scope of stormwater work required for the development.

Additional information has not been submitted for review.

b. Rain Water Tanks

Item 15 of the 88B Instrument requires a 3,000 litre rain water tank for each dwelling.

The submitted plans detail a 1,000 litre tank is proposed for each dwelling.

The applicant was requested to update the architectural and landscape plans to show the location and 3,000 litre capacity for each tank however amended plans have not been submitted for review.

c. Driveways

Despite the earthworks proposed, no detail is provided to show how the level difference between the road and the front of the building is to be treated.

The applicant was requested to submit a driveway long-section for each dwelling demonstrating compliant grades and transitions. As a result of the cross fall of the lot, the sections must to be taken through the steepest side of each driveway, not down the middle. The transition at the front of the site needs to take into account the narrow footpath verge also. The sections must extend from the garage to the kerb and include levels, grades and dimensions/ distances.

Additional information has not been submitted for review.

5. External Referral - NSW Rural Fire Service

As detailed above, the proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service who advised that the information submitted was insufficient to enable a proper assessment to be undertaken.

Additional information was requested to demonstrate that the development can achieve the performance criteria for providing asset protection zones to achieve radiant heat levels of 29kW/sqm or less as required in ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ and the NSW RFS Fast Fact. For consideration when preparing their response, the applicant was advised that the parent subdivision was approved with an APZ of 34 metres between future dwellings and the unmanaged vegetation to the west. The APZ comprised of the width of the public road and the delineated area (EG) within the subject lot.

The applicant was also advised that the use of short fire run methodology is not supported in this instance as the vegetation to the west, when considered as a whole, provides potential fire runs exceeding 150 metres. Consideration of fire runs only to the bottom of the riparian corridor, as undertaken by the bush fire consultant in this instance, is not supported.

To date, the requested additional information has not been submitted and as a result, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

(15)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 15 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, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and The North Kellyville Development Control Plan and is considered unsatisfactory.

The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to enable a full assessment to be undertaken and the proposed strata subdivision is not supported given the minimum lot size requirements of the SEPP and a recent Court judgement.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

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 not consistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives outlined within “Hills 2026 – Looking Towards the Future” as the proposed development does not provide for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and may unreasonably impact on property owners within the site.

RECOMMENDATION

The Development Application be refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposed strata subdivision of the development does not comply with the provisions of Clause 4.1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.

(Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2. The proposed development does not comply with the minimum front and rear setbacks, cut and fill, private open space, solar access, fencing, streetscape and architectural design or dwelling massing and siting requirements of the North Kellyville Development Control Plan.

(Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3. The applicant has not submitted the adequate information to demonstrate that the proposal will result in an appropriate built form outcome.

(Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4. The development is not suitable for the site as it will not provide a satisfactory relationship between the built form and topography of the lot.

(Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

5. The proposed development has been located within the nominated Asset Protection Zone shown on the Deposited Plan and the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal will result in a safe environment for future residents given the bushfire prone nature of the site and area.

(Section 4.15(1)(b)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

(16)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 16 ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Site Plan

4. Elevations

5. Shadow Diagrams

6. Proposed Plan of Subdivision 7. Deposited Plan

(17)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 17 ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

(18)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 18 ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

(19)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 19 ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN

Area shaded in red depicts the approximate extent of the APZ on the lot

(20)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 20 ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS

Street Elevation (North)

Rear Elevation (South)

(21)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 21 Dwelling 1 Western Elevation

Dwelling 2 Eastern Elevation

(22)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 22 ATTACHMENT 5 – SHADOW DIAGRAMS

Shadow Diagram June 21 9am

Shadow Diagram June 21 12pm

Shadow Diagram June 21 3pm

(23)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 23 ATTACHMENT 6 – PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

(24)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 24 APRIL, 2018

PAGE 24 ATTACHMENT 7 – DEPOSITED PLAN

References

Related documents

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 7 DECEMBER, 2021 PAGE 13 All requirements of the Waste Management Plan submitted as part of the Development Application must be implemented

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 03 APRIL, 2018 PAGE 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Section 4.551A modification application seeks to amend Conditions 17 Life of the Exhibition