The original approval under DA 96/2017/LD included a variation to the DCP with 1.18m of Cut being supported in excess of the permitted 500mm. The subject modification application does not propose any additional variations to the DCP and therefore achieves compliance with the relevant development controls.
5. Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposal was notified for 14 days. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Loss of character and streetscape due to the change in colours and finishes pallete.
The proposal while different in colour to the immediate surrounding dwellings does not contain materials indifferent to surrounding dwellings. The external façade is of a beige render finish with burgundy window frames and roofing.
The completed colours of the dwelling are not considered to be of a dominant nature and
contribute to providing a variety of façade designs within the streetscape. The building finishes and materials used are not different to what is
approved on dwellings on surrounding properties along Water Creek Blvd which consists of brick veneer or rendered finish.
The subject dwelling complies with the required DCP building setbacks and LEP height limit and is consistent with surrounding residences.
Extended roof pediment height dominates the front façade and resembles a place of worship.
The subject application seeks to modify an approved residential dwelling being a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under The Hills LEP 2019. The intended use of the site is for a residential dwelling. Should the site be used in future for a different land use to a
residential dwelling, Council’s Development Monitoring team should be notified to investigate further.
The roof pediment was built 856mm higher than originally approved resulting in the maximum building height being increased from 8.664m to 9.52m at the front of the dwelling and from 9.222m to 9.42m at the back of the dwelling.
The front façade contains a double garage and a number of windows that contribute to passive surveillance of the street, being compatible with the adjoining residential dwellings and the overall streetscape.
The roof pediment that was constructed higher
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 03 NOVEMBER, 2020
PAGE 94
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
than originally approved creates minimal changes in respect to shadow diagrams and streetscape appeal. The articulation features within the front façade are consistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding dwellings and do not create any unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining
properties and is therefore considered supportable as it demonstrates consistency with Clause 8.1.3 of the DCP.
The balustrade dominates the front façade and is built of concrete rather than glass which has created concerns for safety as gaps are apparent.
The balustrade on the upper level balconies has been certified by a Structural Engineer to confirm that it complies with the Australian Standards. To mitigate concerns raised by the PCA, the applicant installed a glass balustrade behind the concrete balustrade to ensure no gaps or treads are apparent and the Australian Standards are complied with.
With respect to the balustrade causing any loss of amenity due to its finished colour, the concrete balustrade integrates with the dwelling being the same colour and rendered finish. By the colours being the same it ensures that the concrete balustrade does not stand out within the streetscape and compliments the front façade.
Upper floor side setbacks not stepped in to
allow for solar access. The subject application provides a 1.75m side setback to both sides of the dwelling compliant with the required setbacks under Part D Section 7 of the DCP.
A number of other properties within close proximity also do not include a stepped in upper floor
setback (Refer to 6 and 14 Water Creek Blvd).
The subject property complies with the solar access provisions of the DCP creating minimal overshadowing to the adjoining dwellings private open space area at 6 Water Creek Blvd between the hours of 11am and 1pm.
Site coverage controls have not been adhered to.
The original application included 58% site coverage. The subject modification application seeks to legitimise the built roof pediment, balustrade, colours and finishes which does not propose any additional building footprint therefore the site coverage remains unchanged.
Inadequate parking provided & garage
setback forward of building line. The proposal is for a residential dwelling with seven bedrooms. The dwelling provides a double garage with the opportunity for two stacked car spaces in front of the garage. In this regard a total
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 03 NOVEMBER, 2020
PAGE 95
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
4 cars can be accommodated off street being consistent with the controls set by the DCP.
Part D Section 7 of the DCP does not provide specific controls for the garage to be setback 1m behind the building line. The proposed dwelling is built consistent with the adjoining properties 4, 6, 10 and 12 Water Creek Blvd which all contain the garage forward of or in line with the building line.
Front fencing creates additional bulk to the streetscape.
The front fencing was not approved under the original development application.
Throughout the assessment of the application the applicant was advised that the front fence was considered to be unauthorised building works without development consent as it exceeded 1.2m in height.
The applicant has since amended the design of the fence to ensure it complies with the SEPP Exempt & Complying Development 2008 and does not exceed 1.2m. The fence does not form part of this application.
6. Internal Referrals
The application was referred to following sections of Council:
x Development Monitoring
Council’s Development Monitoring Team has reviewed the amended plans and spoken to the Principal Certifying Authority regarding the roof over the balcony. No structural concerns were raised as a result and the changes considered minor and can be legitimised as a part of the Section 4.55 (2) modification application. No further objections were raised.
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, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.
The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and do not warrant refusal of the application.
Approval is recommended subject to conditions.
IMPACTS Financial
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 03 NOVEMBER, 2020
PAGE 96