The relevant objectives of the setback standards in the DCP are:
(i) To provide setbacks that complements the streetscape and protects the privacy and sunlight to adjacent dwellings in accordance with ESD objective 7.
(ii) To ensure that new development is sensitive to the landscape setting, site constraints and desired future character of the street and locality.
(iii) To ensure that the appearance of new development is of a high visual quality and enhances the streetscape.
The application does not meet the DCP rear setback requirements however the proposed setback satisfies the relevant objectives of the DCP. In this regard the proposed single storey secondary dwelling will not unreasonably impact on privacy or solar impacts to adjoining properties. The proposal has considered the site constraints and given that the secondary dwelling is located behind the principal dwelling, it will not impact on streetscape.
The proposal is also considered satisfactory as the proposed secondary dwelling provides appropriate side setbacks. In this regard the DCP requires a 900mm side setback, with side setbacks of 4.172m (to the western boundary) and 4.2m to the secondary dwelling and 1.2m to the deck (to the eastern boundary).
The existing dwelling and secondary dwelling are provided with appropriate private open space which receives adequate solar access. On merit, the rear setback is considered satisfactory and will not adversely impact on adjoining properties. The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable impact beyond that of a compliant development, and is therefore considered a suitable outcome for the site.
The proposed rear setback is therefore considered satisfactory, on merit, in this instance.
3. Issues Raised in Submissions
The Development Application was notified on two occasions. Two submissions were received during the first notification period and one submission was received during the second notification period. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
First notification period
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Concern about not enough off-street parking for two dwellings.
It will lead to an increase in on-street parking. Worried that cars will park in front of neighbouring properties. Will be a safety hazard and will create issues for garbage trucks.
The DCP requires that at least one car space is provided for dwellings with a floor area of less than 125m2.
SEPP ARH 2009 does not require parking to be provided for a secondary dwelling. The comment in regard to one car space being required for a dwelling under 125m2 relates to dual occupancy development. This requirement is not applicable to a secondary dwelling.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 13 OCTOBER, 2020
PAGE 36
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
The driveway is not wide enough to cater for additional vehicles.
SEPP ARH 2009 does not require increased parking provision.
No other secondary dwellings in area so not in keeping with character of low density area.
Not enough infrastructure for new developments that increase the density of the residential area.
Secondary dwellings are permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential area under the provisions of SEPP ARH 2009.
The proposed secondary dwelling will not create an unreasonable impact on existing services and infrastructure. Notwithstanding this conditions have been recommended which require building plan approval from Sydney Water and consultation with service authorities (See Conditions 11 and 13).
Proposal will result in privacy impacts to adjoining properties. Location of dwelling at rear of lot will enable overlooking into neighbours.
The proposal is for a single storey structure. The proposal will provide appropriate side setbacks and separation to adjoining properties which will minimise any potential privacy impacts. It is also noted that the proposed secondary dwelling and deck is to be located adjacent to the adjoining property’s detached garage, which will act as a barrier between the existing dwelling and the proposed secondary dwelling, reducing any potential for privacy concerns. In addition, the windows on the western (side) elevation are high- light windows with a sill height of 1.6 metres from the finished floor level.
Questioned why dwelling is not in a north- south orientation like other dwellings in area.
There is no requirement or control in SEPP ARH 2009 regarding dwelling orientation. Nevertheless a review of other properties in the area indicate they include both north-south and east-west orientations dependent on location.
Concerned that secondary dwelling will breach the maximum height of 3.6m
The maximum permitted height for a dwelling is 9m under LEP 2019. The proposed height of the secondary dwelling is a maximum of 5.393m.
Concerned whether existing boundary fences will be replaced or damaged during construction.
It is not proposed to replace the existing boundary fences.
The owner of the subject property and/or their builder will be responsible for any damage caused during construction. To mitigate concerns about potential fence damage during construction, a condition is recommended requiring the replacement or rectification of the fence if any damage occurs (See Condition 10).
Questioned how stormwater will be managed. Concerned that runoff from the roof will end up in adjoining properties.
The lot falls to the street and it is proposed to connect the secondary dwelling to the existing system which drains to the street/kerb. The roof water will be collected by gutters and downpipes and be connected to a pit at the front of the lot
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 13 OCTOBER, 2020
PAGE 37
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
(and then onto the street drainage) via a series of stormwater lines (See Condition 23).
The property will likely become a rental property and not used for family members.
It is a matter for the owner regarding whether the secondary dwelling will be used for family members or tenants. Nevertheless it is the objective of SEPP ARH 2009 to provide affordable housing, and renting the property to non-family members is not prohibited.
The property has an easement through it and it was not shown on the plans.
A search through Council’s records, the deposited Plan 227396 and the survey by registered surveyors C&A Surveyors Ltd. did not reveal an easement on the property.
The property is not currently maintained to a high standard, with overgrown grass, rats, lots of rubbish, resulting in odour, externally stored furniture and the like.
Concerned that this situation will be amplified with new dwelling.
This is not a matter for consideration as part of the Development Application. Concerns about maintenance, vermin and odours have been forwarded to Council’s Environment and Health Section for investigation.
The proposal will result in overshadowing. The proposed secondary dwelling is single storey in design. There will be minimal overshadowing on any adjoining properties. The required solar access to the subject and adjoining properties is achieved.
The secondary dwelling is too close to the western side boundary. Neighbour would like it set back at least 2m from side boundary.
The residential DCP requirement for side setbacks is 900mm. The original proposed side setback of 1000mm was compliant.
Amended plans were subsequently submitted with the secondary dwelling relocated into a more central position located 4.172m from the western (side) boundary.
Second notification period
Concerns over secondary dwelling relocation as it is closer to eastern side boundary and results in unacceptable loss of privacy.
Privacy and enjoyment of adjoining back yard and garden amenities has been significantly impeded. The orientation of the dwelling with large glass entry doors, faces east, directly into neighbouring garden.
The amended secondary dwelling location is considered satisfactory and the setback of 4.2m complies with the DCP 900mm side setback control. The proposed deck is set back 1.2m from the side boundary.
The secondary dwelling is single storey and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts. It is also noted that the secondary dwelling and deck is to be located adjacent to the adjoining property’s detached garage which will act as a barrier between the existing dwelling and the proposed secondary dwelling, reducing any potential for privacy concerns.
Notwithstanding this a condition of consent is
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 13 OCTOBER, 2020
PAGE 38