The proposal has been assessed against the following provisions of DCP 2012:
Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing;
Part B Section 1 – Parking; and
Part C Section 3 – Landscaping.
The proposal achieves compliance with the DCP with the exception of the following:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 69 DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL
DCP
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
COMPLIANCE Landscaped Area 50% of the total lot
area, exclusive of access driveways and parking
42% (933.26m2) of landscaped area provided.
No, however the proposal results in an acceptable landscaped
outcome.
a) Landscaped Area
The DCP requires that a minimum of 50% of the site shall be provided with landscaped area.
The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:
We have given consideration to the controls set out in Part B of The Hills DCP and are satisfied that the proposal to convert the grassed area at the rear of townhouses 1, 2 and 3 to a mix of timber deck and planter boxes is a good planning outcome and is not only practical, but is consistent with the intent of the DCP. Our reasons for arriving at this decision are set out in point form as follows:
The proposal is consistent with 3.7 Landscaped Area Objectives as:
The timber deck is a more practical solution for land that adjoins the primary living spaces of the dwelling and that will be subject to continued year round use as an extension to the living spaces. The maintenance of this area will be challenged by a fence that will shadow the space and inhibit grass growth.
The timber decking will not result in any additional stormwater being generated.
The amended design incorporates planter boxes that will enable the growth of screen planting at the edges of the open space area.
Therefore the benefit of screen planting and vegetation growth is not inhibited by the proposal.
The visual impacts of the amendment are inconsequential as the timber decking (if seen) is a positive aesthetic material and vegetation growth at the edges of the open space area is being maintained.
The proposal is consistent with 3.7 Landscaped Area Development Control as:
The timber deck area was never intended for the purpose of growth of substantial planting by virtue of its location immediately adjacent the living areas of the townhouses, and therefore was always intended as an extension of the living space. Accordingly, the proposal to convert the grassed area to a timber deck does not impact upon the proposals overall provision of substantial planting in the form of trees.
The landscape treatment harmonises with the building design.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 70 Comment:
The relevant objectives of this clause of the DCP are:
(i) To provide a satisfactory relationship between buildings, landscaped areas and adjoining developments.
(ii) To minimise stormwater runoff and provide the opportunity for on-site groundwater recharge in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 3.
(iii) To ensure a high standard of environmental quality in multi dwelling housing developments and the overall visual amenity and character of the neighbourhood in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.
(iv) To ensure that landscaped areas can be efficiently maintained.
(v) To ensure that existing trees are given every opportunity to be incorporated into the final design.
(vi) To ensure that vegetation removed as a part of the land development process is replaced by suitable endemic species in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 4.
(vii) To avoid the creation of drainage and runoff problems through minimising the amount of impervious area.
(viii) To minimise bulk and scale of the development.
The proposal falls short in providing the minimum required landscaped area. The non- compliance is considered acceptable for the following reasons:
The further shortfall in landscaping is a result of converting the elevated rear facing balconies associated with Townhouse 1, 2 and 3 from turf to timber decking. As identified in the applicant’s justification, the landscaping in this area will be difficult to maintain and support;
The proposal provides for extensive pervious areas to assist in facilitating stormwater run-off. The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Subdivision Engineer who raises no objection to the proposed stormwater concept subject to conditions of consent;
The proposed development maintains the same extent of deep soil planting throughout the site, consistent with the approved Development Application; and
The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer who raises no objection to the proposed landscape concept plan subject to conditions of consent.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the control and a variation is considered acceptable in this instance.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 71 4. Unauthorised Works
As previously identified, the works on-site have been substantially completed, and a number of modifications have been made without consent. The following works have been undertaken without development consent and will need to be addressed through a separate Building Information Certificate Application:
Driveway levels lowered by 580mm;
Lower ground level in Townhouses 6 and 7 lowered by 810mm to accommodate the revised level of the stormwater detention tank;
Electrical and NBN cupboards provided near Townhouse 1 garage door;
Various internal changes to Townhouses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;
Modification to approved materials and finishes;
Various external changes to window and external opening placements and dimensions; and
Modifications to external finished ground levels, internal finished floor levels and building heights.
The three storey building at the front of the premises (containing Townhouses 1, 2 and 3) has been approved at Construction Certificate stage as class 1a and 10a. Following a review of the as-built building by Council staff, it is considered that the building should be classed as a class 2 and 7a building. When issuing a Building Information Certificate, a classification must be given and Council would not be in a position to issue a Building Certificate on the building that is not consistent with the classification given at CC stage. This would then trigger a Fire Safety Order for upgrading.
To resolve this matter, a Development Application for a change in use for this building should be lodged and include a BCA report on how to upgrade the premises by way of a performance solution as class 2 & 7a building should be provided.
5. Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposal was exhibited and notified for 14 days. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
The two townhouses on the rear boundary would be provided with privacy screening around the landings, off the rear sliding doors. This is a wide opening and looks directly into our rear yard, as we are downhill from this development, we will lose our privacy.
Following a site inspection, it was observed that any view towards the neighbouring property are obscured by the existing lattice screening which sits on top of the shared boundary fence between the objector’s property and Units 6 and 7.
Nevertheless, the developer has agreed to retain the privacy screens required under the parent development consent. This will be reinforced via condition of consent with the modification.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 72 There was to be no fill behind our fence.
The original level of the land is our fence position. Confirm that there is no fill behind our fence. Please also confirm that the plants will be planted in the garden behind our fence as there were supposed to be screening plants along our rear boundary.
Following a site inspection, it is evident that the ground levels in the rear yards of Units 6 and 7 have been raised as a consequence of an error in the original survey levels. Measured at the existing ground level at the fence line at TH6 and TH7, the ground level has been raised 310mm and 40mm respectively. Notwithstanding, the finished ground levels in the rear yards of Townhouses 6 and 7 do not result in any adverse privacy impacts as any views over the boundary fence are obscured by the existing and additional lattice screening.
Furthermore, extensive landscaping with varying heights will be provided along the rear boundary, in accordance with the landscape plan to further alleviate any adverse privacy impacts. The above is considered satisfactory in addressing any visual privacy concerns.
The top floor bathrooms are standard height and allow direct view into our yard.
The ground floors of both townhouses do not sit on original ground level. The ground floor ceilings must be very high as skylights have been installed above the ground floor windows. The two townhouses behind our rear fence tower above our back yard. Is there a restriction on the height of a two storey dwelling?
Obscure glazing will be to all bathrooms via conditions of consent with the modification. The proposed development complies with the building height control.
Air conditioner location. Air conditioner locations are not depicted on the approved plans. Accordingly, any air conditioners installed would need to be in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy – Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008. If specific concerns are raised regarding the location of noise emissions from specific air conditioning units, this should be report to Council’s Environment and Health Team for further investigation.
Gum trees on nature strip to be retained.
Concerns were raised that the approved masonry decorative front fencing would result in an adverse impact on the gum trees in the nature strip.
The eucalypt trees on the nature strip will be retained.
Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has reviewed the proposal and advised that subject to conditions of consent, including the use of pier and beam construction, including hand digging within the TPZ, the proposal is considered satisfactory in preserving the health of the trees within the road reserve.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 73 6. Internal ReferralsThe application was referred to following sections of Council:
Fire Safety;
Landscape Assessment; and
Subdivision.
No objection was raised to the proposal (as amended) subject to conditions.
CONCLUSION
The Section 4.55(1A) Modification has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.
The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and do not warrant refusal of the application.
Approval is recommended subject to conditions.
IMPACTS Financial
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.
The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives outlined within “Hills 2026 – Looking Towards the Future” as the proposed development provides for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and ensures a consistent built form is provided with respect to the streetscape and general locality.
RECOMMENDATION
The Section 4.55(1A) Modification be approved subject to the following:
A) Conditions No. 1, 2, 25 and 52 to be deleted and replaced as follows: