development assessment unit - thehills.nsw.gov.au€¦ · development assessment unit meeting 19...

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 19 May 2020

TO

S

TR

IV

E F

OR

B

ET

TE

R T

HIN

GS

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 19 MAY, 2020

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA 23372018/LD/B - SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION

TO AN APPROVED THREE STOREY DWELLING,

INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND RETAINING

WALLS - LOT 5 DP 286704, NO. 18 BERNABEAU

STREET, NORTH KELLYVILLE

7

ITEM-3 DA 794/2020/ZA - - INFILL SUBDIVISION CREATING

TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS INCLUDING DEMOLITION -

L0T 6002 DP 817992, 4 CRAIGTON PLACE,

GLENHAVEN

25


PAGE 3

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 12 MAY 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 8:31am TIME OF COMPLETION 9:19am ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 28 April 2020 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 746/2020/LD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY DWELLING, SWIMMING POOL, RETAINING WALLS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING OUTBUILDING - LOT 1B DP 101701, NO. 138 PITT TOWN ROAD, KENTHURST

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 refused for the following reasons:


PAGE 4

1. The proposed development is not in keeping with the rural character of the locality due to its bulk and scale and is therefore is inconsistent with the aim of DCP Part B, Section 1 – Rural which requires development to have regard to the natural environment, scenic qualities and rural character. (Section 4.15 1(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

2. The proposed development does not satisfy the Statement of Outcomes for new development of DCP Part B, Section 1 - Rural as the scale, siting and visual appearance of the development does not maintain and preserve the existing scenic and environmental qualities of the area. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3. The proposed development does not satisfy the Statement of Outcomes for Dwellings within DCP Part B, Section 1 - Rural as the dwelling is inconsistent with the rural landscape setting and does not appropriately address the impacts on surrounding residents given the massing of the building is distributed towards the property boundaries. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4. The proposed development does not comply with the following Development Controls of DCP Part B, Section 1- Rural and results in an unsatisfactory built form outcome and will impact on surrounding land uses, the natural environment and the rural character of the surrounding area.

- Cut and Fill - Front Elevations

(Section 4.15 1(a)(iii) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

1979).

5. The distribution of massing to the side property boundaries and bulk and scale of the development constitutes an overdevelopment in the context of the surrounding built form. (Section 4.15 1(b) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

6. The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development. The proposed design of the development results in excessive building length whilst utilising the minimum setbacks permitted under DCP 2012. This design outcome is not appropriate on a site of this lot width, and results in unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. (Section 4.15 1(c) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

7. The proposal is not in the public interest due to the incompatible character and scale of the development with regard to the locality and its departure from the requirements under The Hills Development Control Plan (Part B Section 1 – Rural). (Section 4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

REASONS FOR THE DECISION As outlined above.

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION: The development application was notified and two (2) submissions were received.


PAGE 5

ITEM-3 DA 436/2020/HA/A - SECTION 8.2 REVIEW OF DETERMINATION FOR THE DEMOLITION OF CARPORT, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING AND ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING (UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEPP AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING 2009) – LOT 4 DP 249815, NO. 4 LYNSTOCK AVENUE, CASTLE 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.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 - Satisfactory

The Hills LEP 2019 – Satisfactory.

DCP Part B Section 2 – Variation, see report.

Section 7.12 Contribution: $3,941.90

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION: The development application was notified and no submissions were received.

ITEM-4 DA 1615/2019/LD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH BASEMENT, INGROUND SWIMMING POOL, FENCING AND RETAINING WALLS - LOT 318 DP 238119, 11 BRUSHFORD AVENUE CASTLE HILL


DECISION:

The application be approved subject to conditions in the report.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory

The Hills LEP 2019 – Satisfactory

SEPP BASIX – Satisfactory.

DCP Part B Section 2 – Residential – Variation, see report.

DCP Part X Section X – X – Satisfactory.

Section 7.12 Contribution: $11,908.75


PAGE 6

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

The development application was notified and four submissions were received however, one submission was withdrawn.

ITEM-5 DA 1946/2018/HC/A - SECTION 4.55(1) MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SELF STORAGE FACILITY - LOT 1 DP 1232824 AND PART LOT 19 DP 1111404, NO. 739 WINDSOR ROAD, BOX HILL


DECISION:

The application be approved subject to Condition 29 being amended as follows:

29. Section 7.11 Contribution The following monetary contributions must be paid to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to provide for the increased demand for public amenities and services resulting from the development.

Payments comprise of the following:-

The contributions above are applicable at the time this consent was issued. Please be aware that Section 7.11 contributions are updated quarterly.

Prior to payment of the above contributions, the applicant is advised to contact Council’s Development Contributions Officer on 9843 0268. Payment must be made by cheque or credit/debit card. Cash payments will not be accepted.

This condition has been imposed in accordance with Contributions Plan No 15.

Council’s Contributions Plans can be viewed at www.thehills.nsw.gov.au or a copy may be inspected or purchased at Council’s Administration Centre.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory

Section 4.55 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory

SEPP Sydney Region Growth Centres – Satisfactory

Section 7.11 Contribution: $1,171,03.20

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION: The development application was notified and no submissions were received.

http://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/


PAGE 7

ITEM-2 DA 23372018/LD/B - SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED THREE STOREY DWELLING, INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND RETAINING WALLS - LOT 5 DP 286704, NO. 18 BERNABEAU STREET, NORTH KELLYVILLE

THEME: Valuing our Surroundings

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: 19 MAY 2020


AUTHOR: SENIOR HEALTH AND BUILDING SURVEYOR

TONY BROWN

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER

KRISTINE MCKENZIE

Applicant Alagaratnam Chandrahasan

Owner Rishi Sood

Exhibition / Notification 14 days

Number Advised Eight

Number of Submissions One

Zoning E4 Environmental Living

Site Area 600.1m²

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

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory. Section 4.55(2) (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory SEPP Growth Centres – Satisfactory.

Political Donation None Disclosed

Reasons for Referral to DAU 1. Previous Section 4.55 Modification Application determined at DAU.

2. Submission received.

Recommendation Approval subject to modified conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development Application 2337/2018/LD was approved under Delegated Authority on 14 December 2018 for a three storey dwelling, swimming pool and retaining walls.


PAGE 8

Inspections of the ongoing construction works by Council’s officers revealed that works had been constructed which differed from the approved plans. Specifically the works to the upper floor area were not in compliance with the requirements of the SEPP building height (9.0 metres limit) and first floor site coverage (30% limit). In response to the unauthorised works the applicant lodged a Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application which included an increase in the dwelling’s upper floor site coverage area and SEPP height variation. The modification was refused at the Development Assessment Unit meeting of 12 November 2019 for reasons including variations to controls. The variations included an exceedance to the SEPP height limit of 9 metres, with a height of 9.15 metres proposed. The applicant did not submit a variation request which addressed the relevant criteria under Clause 4.6 of the SEPP. In addition, the DCP limited upper floor site coverage to 30%, while an upper floor site coverage of 31.9% was proposed. The subject Modification Application seeks to regularise some of the unauthorised works and to further amend the constructed (but not approved) dwelling design to decrease the habitable floor area of the upper level of the three storey dwelling by the conversion of some floor area to a balcony, revised floor levels to reflect the as-built levels to correct a survey error and a ground floor awning. The original plans submitted with the application indicated that the proposal included a variation to the SEPP height standard and the DCP requirement for upper floor site coverage. However during the assessment revised plans have been submitted which shows the upper level enclosed habitable floor area is now compliant by providing a portion of unenclosed balcony, and the survey confirms that the dwelling is within the SEPP 9 metres height limitation. The application was notified to adjoining property owners and one submission was received. The concerns raised included that the works had been undertaken without consent, created additional building bulk and would impact on privacy. It is acknowledged that works have been undertaken without consent and this application seeks to regularise some of these works. The bulk of the dwelling is considered reasonable and will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. In addition, privacy measures were imposed on the original approval and additional measures will be utilised under the current proposal. The application is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND

The original three storey dwelling, in-ground swimming pool and retaining walls were approved via Development Consent 2337/2018/LD under Delegated Authority on 14 December 2018. During the assessment of the original proposal the plans were amended to reduce height, bulk and scale in order to result in a reasonable streetscape outcome and to reduce impacts to adjoining properties. The plans that were originally approved included variations to the North Kellyville DCP in regard to 1 metre of external fill to support the front driveway (in lieu of the DCP requirement of 500mm fill); allowing the dwelling design with a minor variation to the control criteria for accepting a three storey dwelling. In addition as a variation due to the slope of the land, the ground floor level was approved over 1.0 metre above natural ground level. On 15 February 2019 Council’s Development Certification Team issued Construction Certificate 1214/2019/KD. On 27 August 2019 the owner requested a change to the Principal Certifying Authority for the works. In order to allow the change to PCA, Council’s Certification


PAGE 9

team were required to undertake an inspection to ascertain the progress of works. During this inspection it was observed that works had been undertaken which were unauthorised and inconsistent with the approval. In response to the unauthorised works the applicant lodged a Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application for an increase in the upper floor site coverage area and height variation. The application which was subsequently refused at the Development Assessment Unit meeting of 12 November 2019. Between 4 September 2019 and 11 March 2020 Council’s Development Monitoring Team pursued action in regard to the unauthorised works. This included the issue of Development Control Order No. 11 – Compliance Order on 12 February 2020 requiring the works to be rectified within 60 days. This Order is being held in abeyance until the subject Section 4.55(2) Application is determined. On 11 March 2020 the subject Section 4.55(2) Modification Application was lodged. PROPOSAL

The Section 4.55(2) Modification Application is for the increase in floor area to the upper level of the three storey dwelling, conversion of some floor area to a balcony, revised floor levels and a ground floor awning. As outlined in the background, some of the works the subject of this application have been constructed. These works include the additional floor area on the upper level and the works constructed at a lower level than shown on the approved plans. The subject application will regularise these works. The subject Section 4.55(2) Modification Application seeks to allow the dwelling to remain substantially as it has been constructed. Attachments 5, 7 and 9 show the proposed works.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Assessment of Proposed Modification

The original Development Consent was for a three storey dwelling, in-ground swimming pool and retaining walls which was approved with minor DCP variations. As outlined in the history, the works proposed have been substantially completed in regard to the upper floor. The bulk and scale created by the third storey additional area is considered reasonable as it blends into the approved elevations. On merit, the proposed design, including the additional upper floor balcony conversion, satisfactorily integrates with the original approved dwelling design with limited additional impact on the surrounding built environment. As detailed below the amended design, in contrast to the first Modification Application which was refused, complies with the requirements of the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Appendix 2 North Kellyville Precinct Plan in regard to building height, and the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018 in regard to first floor site coverage. 2. Section 4.55(2) Modification of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act, 1979

Under the provisions of Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, a consent authority may, in response to an application, modify a consent if it is satisfied that the proposed modification is substantially the same development as originally approved.


PAGE 10

The proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same development as approved. Although some variations were approved under the original consent, the subject proposal does not include any further variations to either the SEPP - Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006 including the height of the building, or the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018, including site coverage controls. Accordingly, the proposed modification is satisfactory having regard to the provisions under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. 3. Compliance with the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Appendix 2

North Kellyville Precinct Plan The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living under SEPP Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006 – Appendix 2 North Kellyville Precinct Plan. A dwelling house is a permissible form of development on land zoned E4 Environmental Living subject to development consent. The development is defined in the SEPP as follows: dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling; The following addresses the principal development standards of the planning instrument relevant to the subject proposal:

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

4.3 Height of Buildings (Height map under the SEPP)

9m 8.9m

Yes

The proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of building height. As outlined above, a revised survey and explanation were received from the applicant advising that the dwelling has been constructed approximately 250mm below the approved levels. The updated survey confirmed that the actual dwelling height is compliant at 8.9 metres above the original natural ground level. 4. Compliance with the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan (DCP) 2018. The following addresses the DCP control relevant to the subject modified proposal:

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

Dwelling Height, Massing and Siting - Site Coverage

Two Storey dwellings: Ground level: 50% Upper level: 30%

Ground level: 180m² or 30% (no change proposed) Upper level: 178.5m² or 29.7%

Yes Yes

The proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the DCP requirements.


PAGE 11

5. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was notified for 14 days and one submission was received. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT

The additional room/space was constructed in defiance of Council’s Development Consent. The upper floor bedroom extension created a three storey dwelling and added excessive bulk and scale and impacts the visual appearance for the immediate neighbours.

Although the additional room area was constructed prior to the lodgement of the Section 4.55 Modification Application the applicant has amended the building to provide an open balcony which will somewhat reduce the visual bulk of the building. The additional bulk and scale created by the third storey additional area is considered reasonable as it blends in with the approved elevations and is generally consistent with the built form in the area.

There is a privacy concern from the third floor window/balcony as there will be uninterrupted views into the front of both properties to the rear.

The objector’s property is a vacant battle axe property located at an angle to the rear of the subject dwelling (see Photograph 3 provided by the objector in Attachment 10). A 1.7m high privacy screen has been added to the rear facing balcony opening to minimize the potential for overlooking (see Attachment 7 and Condition 1).

The second floor balcony will impact on privacy to the rear properties.

There is no change to the approved second floor balcony design. The balcony includes a solid rear balustrade which is 1m high and 1.5m high solid side facing balustrade. (See Attachment 10).

There is no architectural merit to the design of the dwelling. The larger dwelling would create unacceptable glare during summer.

The front façade of the dwelling has a modern architectural design that presents to Bernabeau Street. The rear elevation of the subject dwelling includes articulation and window placement variation ensuring that there are no large expanses of blank walls facing the rear properties. Given the light brown colour of the dwelling it is unlikely that unreasonable glare will result.

The amended Statement of Environmental Effects does not address the concerns of the neighbours and they have built something that was not approved and are attempting to gain consent after the fact. The dwelling was constructed with the additional floor space as part of its intended design. By allowing this development to build outside of the SEPP guidelines will create a precedent for others to circumvent the planning authority of Council.

The Section 4.55 Modification Application has been assessed on merit. The constructed and proposed works, including the additional upper floor balcony, integrates with the original approved dwelling design satisfactorily with limited impact on the surrounds.


PAGE 12

CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15 and Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018 and is considered satisfactory. The issues raised in the submission 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 Section 4.55(2) application for modification of Development Consent 2337/2018/LD/B be approved as follows: CONDITIONS OF CONSENT 1. Condition 1 be deleted and replaced as follows:

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended) The development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent.

The amendments in red include: -

Pool safety fencing to comply with AS1926.1-2012.

Bushfire protection and construction to be in accordance with the Consultant’s “Bushfire Hazard Assessment” report.

Privacy screens are to be provided to the al fresco on the northern and southern sides, at least 1.5 metres above the al fresco floor level and they are to have no individual opening more than 30mm wide.

Obscure glazing or solid screening is to be provided to the alfresco balustrade.

The privacy screen provided to the proposed balcony on the eastern (rear) elevation is to be a minimum 1.7 metres above the balcony floor level with no individual opening more than 30mm wide. The balcony is not permitted to be fully enclosed and is to remain as an open structure. The privacy screen is to be provided within six (6) months from the endorsed date of this Consent.


PAGE 13

REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS

DRAWING NO DESCRIPTION SHEET REVISION DATE

18.05 Site Plan DA01 C 05/04/2020

18.05 Ground Floor Plan DA02 C 05/04/2020

18.05 Basement Floor Plan DA03 C 05/04/2020

18.05 First Floor Plan DA04 C 05/04/2020

18.05 Sections DA05 C 05/04/2020

18.05 Elevations DA06 C 05/04/2020

18.05 Shadow Diagrams DA08A, DA08B, DA08C.

16/01/2020

BR-100618-A Bushfire Hazard Assessment 21 pages A 24/06/2018

17-033 Schedule of External Finishes - - 2018

4070/1 Survey 1 A 13/01/2018

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. Condition 14a be added as follows: 14a Building Information Certificate (BIC) to be Lodged. An application for a Building Information Certificate (BIC) to authorise the completed upper floor works is required to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of the new Construction Certificate. The application is required to include architectural plans and all documentation as required confirming that the addition is structurally adequate. 3. Condition 26 be deleted and replaced as follows: 26. 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. 918192S_04 is to be complied with. Any subsequent version of this BASIX Certificate will supersede all previous versions of the certificate.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Site Plan 4. Approved Elevations – North and South 5. Proposed Elevations – North and South 6. Approved Elevations – West and East 7. Proposed Elevations – East 8. Approved Upper Level Floor Plan 9. Proposed Upper Level & Basement Floor Plan 10. Site Photographs


PAGE 14

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN


PAGE 15

ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH


PAGE 16

ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN


PAGE 17

ATTACHMENT 4 – APPROVED ELEVATIONS – NORTH AND SOUTH


PAGE 18

ATTACHMENT 5 – PROPOSED ELEVATIONS NORTH AND SOUTH


PAGE 19

ATTACHMENT 6 – APPROVED ELEVATIONS – WEST AND EAST


PAGE 20

ATTACHMENT 7 – PROPOSED ELEVATION – EAST


PAGE 21

ATTACHMENT 8 – APPROVED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN


PAGE 22

ATTACHMENT 9 – PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL & BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN


PAGE 23

ATTACHMENT 10 –SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 – Subject property

Photograph 2 – Northern side of subject property


PAGE 24

ATTACHMENT 10 –SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 3 – Rear of subject Dwelling (photo taken by Objector).

Photograph 4 – Subject property at left.


PAGE 25

ITEM-3 DA 794/2020/ZA - - INFILL SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS INCLUDING DEMOLITION - L0T 6002 DP 817992, 4 CRAIGTON PLACE, GLENHAVEN

THEME: Shaping Growth

OUTCOME:

Well planned and liveable neighbourhoods that meets growth

targets and maintains amenity.

STRATEGY: 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: 26 MAY 2020


AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

GANNON CUNEO

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:

MANAGER – SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION

BEN HAWKINS

Applicant Ms F M Farrugia

Owner Ms F M Farrugia

Notification 21 days – extended due to December/ January holiday exclusion period

Number Advised 18

Number of Submissions Five unique submissions received

Zoning R2 Low Density Residential

Site Area 1,752 square metres

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

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory The Hills LEP 2019 – Satisfactory State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land – Satisfactory Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 – Satisfactory The Hills DCP Part B Section 2 Residential – Variations sought/ unsatisfactory, see report

Political Donation None Disclosed

Reason for Referral to DAU 1. Variations to DCP 2. Five submissions received 3. Refusal recommended

Recommendation Refusal


PAGE 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for an infill subdivision creating two residential lots at 4 Craigton Place, Glenhaven. The subject site is located on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 (LEP). The proposed development includes a number of variations to Part B Section 2 – Residential from The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP). The variations include the minimum lot depth, minimum building platform, minimum building setbacks for battle-axe lots, encroachment into a Restricted Development Area (RDA) and minimum building setback to Gilbert Road. The application was notified between 18 December 2019 and 22 January 2020 and five unique submissions were received. The issues raised primarily relate to tree removal, traffic noise, DCP non-compliances, potentially undesirable precedent being set, potentially unauthorised works and proximity of the work to an existing bus stop and intersection on Gilbert Road. The application is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND

The applicant/ owner attended a pre-lodgement meeting with Council staff on 18 June 2019 with written advice provided following that meeting. Concern was raised at the meeting and documented in the advice regarding a number of items that are proposed in this application. Contrary to the advice the application was lodged on 6 December 2019. An inspection of the site was undertaken on Thursday 19 December 2019. A preliminary assessment of the proposal was undertaken and an initial request for information was issued on 15 January 2020. The contents of the letter are summarised as follows:

A plan of subdivision prepared by a surveyor has not been submitted;

Concern was raised with the non-compliant lot depth proposed for lot 1 closest to Gilbert Road;

Concern was raised with the non-compliant building platform for lot 1;

Concern was raised with the non-compliant front setback to the building platform from Gilbert Road for lot 1;

The application did not adequately address stormwater treatment and disposal;

The application did not adequately address the proposed tree removal and the potential impact on critically endangered vegetation on the site;

Concern was raised with the non-compliance with the RDA identified on the title of the property and in the DCP.

The applicant was requested to withdraw the application with the above letter. A preliminary response to the information requested above was provided by the applicant dated 17 January 2020. The response proposed an alternative plan of subdivision. The alternative plan of subdivision proposed access to/ from Craigton Place for both lots via the


PAGE 27

existing access handle which does not comply with the minimum width of 6 metres required for an access handle servicing more than one lot. A further response was provided on 23 January 2020 seeking to justify the non-compliant access handle width. A review of the additional information and amendments was undertaken and a response was provided to the applicant on 3 February 2020 advising that the application remains unsupported and a report recommending refusal will be prepared. A further response from the applicant was provided on 3 March 2020 containing additional information and further plan amendments. The amended documentation retained the proposed shared access handle from Craigton Place which is not supported. The applicant was again advised the application is not supported on 15 April 2020. A further email from the applicant on 15 April 2020 requested clarification as to the reasons for the concerns raised. A response was provided to the applicant on 17 April 2020 providing clarification to the queries and confirming the application will be recommended for refusal. A further email was received from the applicant on 20 April 2020 requesting that the application be determined based on the original plan of subdivision submitted with the development application at lodgement (which proposed access for lot 1 to/ from Gilbert Road directly) contrary to the DCP. The subdivision plan that is the subject of this report is included in Attachment 5.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for subdivision of one lot into two residential lots. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing dwelling to achieve the required minimum lot size for both proposed lots whist containing the dwelling to its own lot. See Attachment 5 for the plan of subdivision. The proposal seeks to retain the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 with access via an existing handle from Craigton Plan. Proposed lot 1 is proposed to have access to/ from Gilbert Road directly. A building envelope plan has been submitted for proposed lot 1 to show the developable rea due to the irregular shape and dimensions. The proposal also includes removal of three trees from within the site.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Compliance with Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BCA) establishes the requirements for the protection of biodiversity, outlines the requirements for the regulating a range of development activities on land and provides mechanisms for the management of impacts resulting from development activities. Part 7 of the BCA sets out the requirements for biodiversity assessment and sets out significant impact threshold criteria that trigger entry into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS). Development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened entities if:


PAGE 28

1. The amount of native vegetation being cleared exceeds clearing thresholds; or 2. The development is “likely to significantly affect threatened species” using the test of

significance in Section 7.3 of the BCA; or 3. The development has any impact within an area mapped on the Biodiversity Values

Map; or 4. The development is to be carried out in a declared Area of Outstanding Biodiversity

Value. The BOS must be applied to applications under Part 4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 wherever the project is likely to have a ‘significant impact’ on threatened biodiversity based on the criteria outlined above. The subject site contains an area identified on the Biodiversity Values Map which is likely to be part of a larger remnant patch of the critically endangered ecological community Blue Gum High Forest. The proposal as lodged included some removal of vegetation on land identified on the Biodiversity Values Map as shown in Attachment 9 which would have triggered entry into the BOS. The proposal has since been amended to retain all vegetation within land identified on the Biodiversity Values Map and is unlikely to trigger entry into the BOS. 2. Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) contains guidelines and prescriptive measures with regard to site contamination and remediation requirements for all land-based development across the State. In considering a development application for new development, the consent authority is to have regard for the prescriptive requirements of Clause 7 of the SEPP provided below: (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.

Issues with potential contamination for this site have been considered in accordance with SEPP 55. The intended use of the site remains consistent with the existing use being for residential purposes. No history of past land use indicates any likely contamination of the subject site. Council’s Environment Health team has reviewed the application and documents provided and raised no objection from a contamination perspective. 3. Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019

(i) Permissibility The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the LEP. The proposed development is defined as subdivision and demolition. Subdivision is permissible with consent under Clause 2.6 of the LEP.


PAGE 29

(ii) Zone Objectives

The objectives of the R2 zone are:

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

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

To maintain the existing low density residential character of the area. The proposal is consistent with the stated objectives of the zone.

(iii) Development Standards The following addresses the principal development standards of the LEP relevant to the subject proposal: Clause 2.6 Subdivision – consent requirements Clause 2.6 of the LEP requires that development consent be sought for subdivision of land to which this clause applies. The application seeks consent for subdivision and therefore complies with this requirement of the LEP. Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size The subject site is located on land identified on the Lot Size Map under Clause 4.1 of the LEP. In accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.1 the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map. The minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map for the subject site is 700 square metres. The proposed development seeks to create two residential lots which are identified on a plan of subdivision as Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 is identified as having an area of 700 square metres. Lot 2 is identified as having an area of 1052 square metres (940 square metres excluding the access handle). The proposed lots comply with the requirements of Clause 4.1 of the LEP. 4. Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP. The proposed development does not comply with the following requirements of the DCP as follows:


PAGE 30

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE

2.13.1(c) Minimum lot depth – 27 metres

Lot 1 has a depth of 22.71 metres Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling and has an average lot depth of 44 metres

No – see discussion below Yes

2.13.2(a) Minimum building platform – 20m x 15m

An irregular shaped building platform has been provided on proposed Lot 1 (the platform has a depth of 8.72m) Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling

No – see discussion below Yes

2.13.2(c) Minimum setbacks for battle-axe lots – 4 metres to three sides (6 metres to first floor) and 900mm to one.

Lot 1 has frontage to Gilbert Road and is not a battle-axe lot. The proposed boundary between the lots results in the existing dwelling on Lot 2 not complying with the setback requirements

Yes No – see discussion below

Residential Sheet Map 3 – Restricted Development Areas and 18 metre building line to Gilbert Road.

Lot 1 has access from Craigton Place and is greater than 18 metres from Gilbert Road. Lot 2 proposes building envelope setback 10 metres from Gilbert Road.

Yes No – see discussion below

2.13.1(c) Minimum lot depth The DCP requires that residential lots created from a subdivision must have a depth of 27 metres. Lot 1 is an irregular shape and has a depth ranging between 22.71 metres and 34.55 metres. Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling (part of which is to be demolished) which demonstrates that the subject lot is capable of being developed with compliant setbacks. The non-compliance proposed for lot 1 is not supported. Whilst the variation to the proposed lot depth may not appear significant the proposed lot is significantly constrained. The subject site requires a minimum front setback of 18 metres from Gilbert Road which significantly reduces the development potential of the lot. This requirement is discussed in further detail below.


PAGE 31

2.13.2(a) Minimum building platform Proposed lot 1 proposes an irregular shaped building envelope which is as a result of the subdivision boundaries proposed. Proposed lot 2 contains an existing dwelling (part of which is to be demolished) therefore a building platform is not required. Lot 1 is proposed as a vacant lot and is required to provide a nominal building platform of 20 metres by 15 metres with complying boundary setbacks. The platform identified on the plan in Attachment 6 provides an irregular shape with a depth ranging between 8.72 metres and 14.38 metres. The platform provides a width ranging between 25 metres and 30.21 metres. Overall, the area of the platform provides for a building area of 278 square metres. The building platform for lot 1 however includes a significant encroachment into the RDA which is identified in the DCP and on the title of the property (refer to Attachments 10, 11 and 12). When the RDA is excluded from the building platform the building platform has an area of 184 square metres. When considering the building platform both in the context of the RDA and excluding the RDA neither are considered suitable. The building platform shown on the plan proposes a setback of 10 metres from Gilbert Road and a rear setback of 4 metres. When considering the building platform depth of 8.72 metres and rear setback requirement of 6 metres to the first floor of a dwelling the depth of the first floor of a dwelling would be a maximum of 6.72 metres. Further the building platform for lot 1 proposes a front setback of 10 metres and has not applied the minimum front setback requirement of 18 metres to Gilbert Road. The front setback requirement is discussed in further detail below however when the 18 metre setback is applied the depth of the building platform is reduced to 720mm. This represents a variation of 96.4 percent to the building platform depth requirement. The applicant has submitted sample floor plans for a hypothetical dwelling which may be considered suitable for proposed lot 1. The floor plans submitted rely on a 10 metre setback from Gilbert Road which is not supported (as above) and therefore these floor plans cannot be relied upon as being a suitable justification for the non-compliant aspects of the development. Based on the information submitted and the assessment undertaken the proposed building platform has not satisfied the overall objective of the building platform requirement. The applicant has not demonstrated that a suitable dwelling is able to be constructed within the minimum setbacks required and the proposed variation is not supported. 2.13.2(c) Minimum setbacks for battle-axe lots The proposal includes retention of the existing dwelling on proposed lot 2 (subject to partial demolition). The DCP requires that battle-axe lots provide a 4 metre setback to the single storey element on three of four boundaries. Currently the existing dwelling is setback approximately 1.5 metres from the northern boundary and in excess of 4 metres to the east, south and west boundaries which is compliant with the DCP. The proposed boundary separating lots 1 and 2 would result in the existing dwelling on lot 2 being located 900mm from the southern boundary and therefore not complying with the minimum setback requirements for battle-axe lots. This is exacerbated by the building platform proposed for Lot 1 which is setback 4 metres from the boundary. Support for the proposed subdivision would result in the existing dwelling significantly overshadowing the


PAGE 32

rear setback of any dwelling located on proposed lot 1 which may also result in concerns for visual and acoustic privacy. The proposed setbacks to the existing dwelling on proposed lot 2 are considered unsuitable and are not supported. Residential Sheet Map 3 – Restricted Development Areas and Gilbert Road setback

The DCP identifies the subject site as being affected by an RDA and requiring any dwelling accessed from Gilbert Road to be setback a minimum of 18 metres. The proposal includes a building platform setback 10 metres from Gilbert Road. The RDA and setback requirement to Gilbert Road are identified on Residential Sheet Map 3 which is provided in Attachment 10.

The RDA identified in the DCP and on the title of the property relates to the drainage corridor to the north-west of the subject site. The RDA provides a buffer between any buildings and the drainage reserve. The RDA on the subject site also includes a remnant patch of Blue Gum High Forest which is identified as a critically endangered ecological community. Whilst the proposal does not include removal of any critically endangered vegetation the proposal does include an amendment/ request to vary the RDA on the site. This would provide opportunity for future unregulated impacts on the vegetation including potential unauthorised works and dwelling constructed as relied upon by the building platform submitted with this application. The variation to the RDA is not supported on this basis. The proposal seeks to vary the front setback requirement of 18 metres to any dwelling accessed from Gilbert Road. The DCP identifies Gilbert Road as being a potential future heavy vehicle route (bypassing the Castle Hill town centre) which will require widening of the existing road reserve to provide for the construction of a service road/ laneway and relocation of services where there is existing access points along Gilbert Road.

The proposal includes building platform setback 10 metres from Gilbert Road. The applicant has requested a variation to this requirement in the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application. The request includes justification by comparison between title searches of nearby and adjoining properties, lack of provisions relating to land zoning or acquisition, comparison to nearby approved developments, topography and the lack of heavy vehicle traffic utilising Gilbert Road and therefore noise mitigation is not required. Some points raised by the applicant are valid; however the extent and number of non-compliances associated with the development suggest that the site is not suitable for the proposed development.

It is worth singling out the reference/ comparison to a recently approved development nearby at 1 Glenshee Place, Glenhaven to the east. This property was subdivided and a dwelling constructed with a setback of approximately 4 metres to Gilbert Road. The setback is suitable in that instance as the property is accessed from Glenshee Place and there is no requirement for a service road or laneway to be constructed parallel to Gilbert Road in this location (or for the majority of Gilbert Road heading east from Glenshee Place). It is also a corner lot and so reduced setbacks apply. That subdivision addressed the above non-compliance with respect to the reasoning for the 18m setback to begin with. The development of the subject site is unable to obtain access from Craigton Place and therefore relies on access from Gilbert Road and therefore the 18 metre setback applies in case a service road/ laneway is required later (to address the access specifically created by this subdivision).

As noted above the 18 metre setback to the building platform would result in a building platform depth of 720mm which is significantly deficient of the minimum 15 metres required. The non-compliance in this instance represents a significant departure from the development control and would set an undesirable precedent for development within the locality. The requested variation is not supported in this instance.


PAGE 33

5. Likely Impacts

Consideration has been given to the likely impacts of the proposed subdivision as well as the impact of the non-compliant aspects of the development.

Support for the proposed subdivision in its current form would set an undesirable precedent for development applications within the locality and for the infill R2 Low Density Residential zoned parts of the Shire more broadly. The information provided with the proposed development has not sufficiently justified the non-compliances proposed. Support for the proposed development would set a precedent for subdivisions of this nature in the future which is undesirable.

The likely impacts of future development applications for built form have not been given adequate consideration. Council’s tree management provisions allow for removal of trees within 5 metres of an approved dwelling or ancillary structure. Whilst the provisions of the BCA prevail any support for the proposed subdivision and associated building platform on lot 1 may result in a dwelling or ancillary structure located within 5 metres of the critically endangered vegetation and infers support for their removal. This is certainly not the case therefore the location of the building envelope is considered unsuitable and may result in adverse impacts on the natural environment.

Based on the information provided with this application and the assessment undertaken based on that information, the likely impacts of the proposed subdivision and the likely impacts of future development on the site would be significant. 6. Suitability of the site

The proposal is for a subdivision creating two residential lots. As outlined above, the site is constrained by an RDA, critically endangered vegetation, DCP controls and an 18 metre setback requirement to Gilbert Road. Based on the number and extent of non-compliances associated with the proposal, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that ways in which the site is suitable for the proposed development. Council’s assessment of the proposal considers the site unsuitable for the proposed development and is reflected in the reasons for refusal outlined below. 7. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was notified to nearby and adjoining properties between 18 December 2019 and 22 January 2020. Five unique submissions were received in response to the notification period. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below:

ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT

Concern is raised for the proposed tree removal and the impact this will have on habitat for fauna.

The applicant has confirmed the proposal includes removal of three exotic trees. Whilst there is no concern raised for these three trees being removed with the subdivision the site contains Blue Gum High Forest and future development of the lot may result in removal of this critically endangered ecological community.

Concern is raised for the building envelope contains a number of trees within 5 metres and could therefore be removed as exempt development.

As noted above, Council’s assessment confirms there is potential for further tree removal with future development of the lot, including removal of a critically endangered species.


PAGE 34

ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT

Concern is raised for the reduced tree canopy in the locality and increased traffic noise resulting from the tree removal.

The proposal would result in a reduced tree canopy. The removal of these trees is unlikely to result in an increase in traffic noise above the required noise levels; however the future heavy vehicle traffic route may have an impact on this.

Concern is raised that support for this development may set a precedent for similar developments in the locality.

Council’s assessment has identified the number and extent of variations proposed is not suitable. Support for this application may set a precedent for similar developments, particularly where lots are accessed from Gilbert Road and may have subdivision potential.

Concern is raised with the proposed setback to the building platform from Gilbert Road noting the minimum requirement is 18 metres.

Council’s assessment has identified that the proposed setback to the building platform is not suitable and is therefore not supported.

Concern is raised with the proposed lot depth and potential building platforms, both of which do not comply with the DCP.

Council’s assessment has identified that the proposed depth of the lot and the building platform is not suitable and is therefore not supported.

Concern is raised for the proposed amendment to the RDA and flood related impacts within the vicinity of a potential dwelling on Lot 1.

Council’s assessment has identified that the RDA also serves to protect the critically endangered ecological community being Blue Gum High Forest. Amendment to the RDA is therefore not supported on this basis.

Concern is raised for the potential driveway location for proposed Lot 1 and its proximity to a bus stop and intersection.

The proposed access from Gilbert Road is not supported on the basis of it being a potential heavy vehicle route in the future. Further assessment in relation to the location of the bus stop and intersection has not been undertaken.

Concern is raised that the site may have been subject to tree removal without consent.

The trees removed from the property in 2019 were approved under application/s lodged with Council or as otherwise allowed through policy (within 3 metres of a dwelling house).

8. Internal Referrals The application was referred to following sections of Council with comments provided as follows:

Engineering Information was requested relating to Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) requirements for the site which has not been provided. The development involves subdivision of one lot into two lots. As such the Council’s adopted policy of the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust OSD Handbook applies to the development. The OSD requirement may be applied solely to the new lot or shared by both lots which needs to be confirmed and indicated on the stormwater plan submitted by the applicant.


PAGE 35

In addition the design must be accompanied with a calculation sheet supporting the OSD design and the plan must clearly identify all levels and where the stormwater is proposed to discharge noting the site falls to the north-west away from both Craigton Place and Gilbert Road. There is a public park to the west which is not a legal point of stormwater discharge. The applicant is required to negotiate an easement to create this legal right the same as would be the case for any other adjacent land. Environmental Health Issues with potential contamination have been considered in accordance with SEPP 55. The intended use of the site will stay consistent as a residential lot and no history of the past land use indicate it is likely contaminated. Therefore no further contamination assessment is deemed necessary. Salinity and wastewater for the subject site was also considered but the site is not likely affected by saline soils and has the availability to connect to a public sewer system. Tree Management The subdivision layout has changed from when the original Arboricultural impact assessment was prepared. Whilst no major objections are raised to the proposal further information in relation to the amended subdivision design is required. The main issue is the proposed storm water pits/ line within proposed lot 2 which may have impacts to existing trees but has not been addressed. This stormwater design was provided in the most recent subdivision concept plans and has not previously been identified. These comments relate to the amended subdivision layout which is not the layout being considered here. The applicant defaulted back to the original layout as explained above. Ecology The Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment Report prepared by Land Eco Consulting dated 27 February 2020 indicates that only two non-native trees are to be impacted by the proposal. The trees along the boundary that have been mapped under the Biodiversity Values Map which are likely to be part of a larger remnant patch of the critically endangered ecological community Blue Gum High Forest are proposed to be retained within the subdivided land. No objection is raised to the proposal subject to associated consent conditions for the retention of native trees on site and subject to the confirmation that tree comments agree that impacts to these trees can be satisfactorily avoided. If any impacts to native trees on the site are deemed likely then further biodiversity assessment may be required and a referral to the ecology team should be forwarded. As noted in the tree comments above the information submitted does not clearly identify the impact the proposed works will have on the existing trees. Resource Recovery No objection is raised to the proposal from a Resource Recovery perspective. Traffic/ Infrastructure This is one of the properties that will be affected by a future service road along Gilbert Road that will remove most of the individual driveways and have all the access diverted to exiting intersections along the planned service road. This application needs to be refused.


PAGE 36

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 2019 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered unsatisfactory for the reasons explained in the report. The issues raised in the submissions are similar to the conclusions drawn from Council’s assessment and the application is therefore not supported.

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 does not provide for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and does not ensure a consistent (future) built form is provided with respect to the streetscape and general locality.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Application be refused for the following reasons. REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal does not meet the following matters prescribed by the Regulations:

The following information has not been submitted and is able to be requested under

Clause 54.

a) A plan of subdivision prepared by a registered surveyor. b) A legal point of stormwater discharge from proposed lot 1 has not been identified

(noting an easement is required over adjoining land).

2) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions from Part B Section 2 Residential of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012:

a) 2.13.1(c) Minimum lot depth b) 2.13.2(a) Minimum building platform c) 2.13.2(c) Minimum setbacks for battle-axe lots d) Residential Sheet Map 3 – Restricted Development Areas and Gilbert Road setback


PAGE 37

3) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not considered the likely impacts of the development.

4) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site is not suitable for the proposed development.

5) The application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(e) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not in the public interest.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. LEP Zoning Map 4. LEP Lot Size Map 5. Proposed Plan of Subdivision 6. Proposed Building Platform 7. Concept Subdivision Works Plans 8. Proposed Plan of Demolition 9. Biodiversity Values Map 10. DCP Residential Map Sheet 3 11. Deposited Plan 817992 12. Section 88B Instrument for DP 817992


PAGE 38

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN


PAGE 39

ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Red Outline – Subject Site


PAGE 40

ATTACHMENT 3 – LEP ZONING MAP


PAGE 41

ATTACHMENT 4 – LEP LOT SIZE MAP


PAGE 42

ATTACHMENT 5 – PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION


PAGE 43

ATTACHMENT 6 – PROPOSED BUILDING PLATFORM


PAGE 44

ATTACHMENT 7 – CONCEPT SUBDIVISION WORKS PLAN


PAGE 45

ATTACHMENT 8 – PROPOSED PLAN OF DEMOLITION


PAGE 46

ATTACHMENT 9 – BIODIVERSITY VALUES MAP


PAGE 47

ATTACHMENT 10 – DCP RESIDENTIAL MAP SHEET 3


PAGE 48

ATTACHMENT 11 – DEPOSITED PLAN 817992


PAGE 49

ATTACHMENT 12 – SECTION 88B INSTRUMENT FOR DP 817992


PAGE 50

development assessment unit - thehills.nsw.gov.au€¦ · development assessment unit meeting 19...

Documents