ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
Comment:
The Carlingford Precinct is undergoing a transition to a high density area. The character and aesthetics of the new building is sympathetic with the adjacent existing and approved built environment. It is modern in style and form and utilises a combination of materials including natural stone.
The landscape treatment seeks to soften the built form and integrate with the development and the site’s context. Deep root planting zones provide the opportunity to have denser and taller trees that partially screen the proposed building from the road.
The material, colours and textures of the proposed development would integrate with the desired character of the locality.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
4.6 Exceptions to development standards
(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:
(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and
(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
Under the provisions of this clause of the LEP the lot size standard may be varied subject to a written request from the applicant justifying the variation. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard as follows:
- The proposal complies with the floor space ratio (FSR) control applicable to the site as well as the building height, open space and building setback controls.
- The site is restricted from further consolidation as it adjoins an existing residential flat building to the north and a mixed use key site development approval exists over the lots to the east and south.
- The proposed development represents the best use of constrained land and enables the site to still be developed to its full zoning potential.
Comment:
The non-compliance with the minimum lot size development standard is considered satisfactory as the proposal still satisfies the zone and clause objectives in the LEP.
The subject site is landlocked by existing and approved high density residential development on all sides which prevents further consolidation. The lot to the north contains an existing residential flat building and the lots to the east and south have an 18 storey mixed use development approval.
Despite the undersized lot, the proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the existing and future character of the locality. An eight storey residential flat building on this site will provide integration between the approved 18 storey mixed use development to the east and south and the existing three storey residential flat building to the north.
The proposed development complies with the height, FSR, setback, open space and parking requirements for residential flat building development in the Carlingford Precinct.
Adequate landscaping is provided within the site to enhance the visual appearance of the development and provide separation between the proposed development and adjoining development.
The proposed development also aligns with the ‘potential site amalgamation guide plan’
within DCP 2012 Part D, Section 12- Carlingford Precinct (see below) which outlines that the subject sited should be amalgamated to form a cohesive development site.
PAGE 41
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
Figure 1: Carlingford Precinct Amalgamation Plan
The proposal ensures residential amenity and provides sufficient measures to preserve privacy and satisfactory open space for future residents. The development will present to Jenkins Road as an appropriate high density development that is of a complementary height and architectural style to surrounding developments.
Clause 4.6 (4) of LEP 2012 states:
PAGE 42
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:
(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:
(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and
Comment: The applicant has adequately addressed the matters required to be addressed by subclause (3).
(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and
Comment: As detailed above, the proposal is an appropriate development outcome and is consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone.
(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.
Comment: Council has assumed concurrence under the provisions of Circular PS 08–003 issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
In view of the above, it is considered that the variation to the site area standard satisfies Clause 4.6 of LEP 2012.
The applicant has argued that the proposed development is in the public interest and is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.1A of LEP 2012 and the R1 General Residential zone. In this regard, the variation to the site area requirement will result in a development that is compatible with the intended future character of the locality.
Accordingly, the proposed variation to the minimum site area development standard is considered satisfactory, and the applicant’s objection to the standard is supported in this regard.
3. Compliance with the Hills Development Control Plan Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Building and Part D Section 12 – Carlingford Precinct The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant standards of the DCP and the following non-compliances have been identified:
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD DCP
REQUIREMENT PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE Apartment Size
(Clause 4.6.2(a) of DCP Part D Section 12 – Carlingford Precinct)
Single aspect apartments should be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window.
Single aspect apartments are 9.8
metres in depth.
No, however a high level of amenity is achieved through
adequate
provisions for privacy,
maximisation of natural ventilation and solar access.
The proposal also satisfies the objectives of this clause of the DCP
PAGE 43
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD DCP
REQUIREMENT PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE as a diversity of apartment types is proposed to cater for different household
requirements to maintain equitable access to new housing.
Unit Layout and Design
(Clause 3.11(b) of DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings)
No less than 10% of the dwelling yield is
to comprise apartments with three or more bedrooms.
The development includes 7 x 3 bedroom apartments which represents 9.7% of the overall dwelling yield.
No, however this is only a very minor variation to a recently adopted DCP requirement.
The proposed development still satisfies the DCP objectives of this clause as a mix of residential
apartments are proposed to cater for different budgets and housing needs.
Unit Layout and Design
(Clause 3.11(e) of DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings)
For developments comprising 30 or more units, Type 1 apartments shall not exceed 30% of the total number of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.
The development includes 65 Type 1 apartments which represents 90% of the overall dwelling yield.
No, however the proposed
development is considered to provide a diversity of apartment types which will cater for the needs of the community. The size and layout of the units is efficient whilst still achieving a high level of residential amenity.
a. Apartment Size
Clause 4.6.2 of the Carlingord Precinct DCP states that single-aspect apartments should be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window. This clause also states that buildings not meeting this standard must demonstrate how satisfactory day lighting and natural ventilation can be achieved, particularly in relation to habitable rooms.
PAGE 44
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
The objectives of this clause of the DCP are:
To provide a diversity of residential flat building/ apartment types, which cater for different household requirements now and in the future.
To maintain equitable access to new housing by cultural and socio-economic groups.
All single aspect units are 9.8 metres in depth which exceeds the suggested 8 metres in the DCP.
Comment:
The proposed variation is considered satisfactory as the development still satisfies the DCP objectives. A diversity of apartments is proposed which will cater for different budget and household requirements. High levels of residential amenity are achieved through the adequate provision of privacy, maximisation of natural ventilation and solar access. The development provides a good interface with both surrounding development and Jenkins Road. The development is considered to represent the best use of a constrained site while still permitting the site to be developed to its full zoning potential.
The proposed apartment layout demonstrates satisfactory spatial arrangement of rooms, circulation between rooms and the degrees of privacy of each room that will allow for good amenity for all the units in the development. The articulation of the building and provision of open space will ensure a maximum standard of residential amenity.
As stated above, the solar access for the development is considered satisfactory. There are no single aspect apartments facing south. The development also achieves a high degree of cross-ventilation. Units are provided with good solar penetration and ventilation and, as detailed below, exceed the minimum apartment sizes within the Residential Flat Design Code.
b. Unit Layout and Design
On 23 September 2014, the Residential Flat Building DCP was amended to include apartment mix and size controls. Clause 3.11(b, d, e, f and g) of DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Building now requires that:
(b) No less than 10% of the dwelling yield is to comprise apartments with three or more bedrooms.
(d) The minimum internal floor area for each unit, excluding common passageways, car parking spaces and balconies shall not be less than the following:
Apartment Size
Category Apartment Size Type 1
1 bedroom 50m2 2 bedroom 70m2 3 or more
bedrooms 95m2 Type 2
1 bedroom 65m2 2 bedroom 90m2 3 or more 120m2
PAGE 45
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
bedrooms Type 3
1 bedroom 75m2 2 bedroom 110m2 3 or more
bedrooms 135m2
(e) Type 1 apartments shall not exceed 30% of the total number of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.
(f) Type 2 apartments shall not exceed 30% of the total number of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.
(g) All remaining apartments are to comply with the Type 3 apartment sizes.
The objectives of this clause of the DCP are:
To ensure that individual units are of a size suitable to meet the needs of residents.
To ensure the layout of units is efficient and units achieve a high level of residential amenity.
To provide a mix of residential flat types and sizes to accommodate a range of household types and to facilitate housing diversity.
Address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.
To ensure designs utilise passive solar efficient layouts and maximise natural ventilation.
The proposal includes 7 x 3 bedroom apartments which represents 9.7% of the overall apartment yield which is less than the 10% required.
The proposal comprises 65 x Type 1 Apartments which represents 90% of the apartment yield which exceeds the 30% maximum.
It is noted however that the application was lodged prior to the adoption of the above controls, hence the applicant has not addressed the provisions of this clause.
Comment:
The proposed apartments do meet the minimum unit sizes required by SEPP 65 and the RFDC. In this regard, Part 3 of the RFDC contains the following minimum apartment sizes:
1 bedroom unit – 50m2 2 bedroom unit – 70m2 3 bedroom unit – 95m2
PAGE 46
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
The proposal incorporates the following range of apartment sizes:
1 bedroom: 50m2- 64m2 2 bedroom: 80m2
3 bedroom: 124m2
Clause 30A of SEPP 65 ‘Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent for residential flat buildings’ states that apartment size cannot be a reason for refusal if the proposed area for each apartment is equal to, or greater than, the recommended internal area and external area for the relevant apartment type set out in Part 3 of the Residential Flat Design Code. As detailed above, the apartment sizes all exceed the minimum requirements of the SEPP.
The proposal has been reviewed against the 10 design quality principles contained within SEPP 65 as well as the relevant rules of thumb in the Residential Flat Design Code. The Design Code aims to provide benchmarks to improve the design of residential flat development which is in line with the intent of the above DCP objectives. The proposed development satisfies these provisions.
Given the undersized lot constraint which was created by development approvals on the adjoining lots, the proposed variations are considered satisfactory as the development still satisfies the DCP objectives.
The area will be well serviced by public transport, allowing ease of use for those without vehicles and a sustainable alternative for those who do. Adaptable units are also incorporated into the design providing options for residents and visitors to the site.
The proposed development fully complies with the height, FSR, setback, open space and parking requirements for residential flat building development in the Carlingford Precinct.
Adequate landscaping is provided within the site to enhance the visual appearance of the development and provide separation between the proposed development and adjoining development.
As a result, the proposed variations are considered satisfactory.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The site is identified as a flood control lot due to a public drainage pipe and an associated overland flow path which conveys a significant amount of stormwater runoff from the upstream catchment through the subject site. An overland flow assessment report was submitted with the application to ensure the overland flow path over the existing drainage easement is not adversely impacted by the proposed development. The proposal has been designed to provide up to 1.2 metres clearance under the soffit in the vicinity of the easement to allow for water flow. This area is to be fenced with pool style fencing to prohibit access to the area by unauthorised persons. No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
TRAFFIC COMMENTS
No objection was raised to the proposal.
TREE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SUSTAINABILITY COMMENTS No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
PAGE 47
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
LAND AND SPATIAL INFORMATION COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions. Some of these conditions have are already covered by engineering conditions as recommended by Council’s Subdivision Engineer. The requirements for No Parking and Loading Zone restrictions along the site’s Jenkins Road frontage to facilitate garbage collection and furniture removalist vehicles are matters for consideration by Council’s Local Traffic Committee.
This has been noted by Council’s Traffic Team.
SYDNEY WATER COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
NSW POLICE FORCE COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to a number of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design factors being considered covering surveillance, lighting and technical supervision, CCTV, territorial reinforcement, environmental maintenance and access control (refer Condition 6). The Police also suggested a number of road upgrades to accommodate future traffic growth. Some of these works are covered in the Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Carlingford Precinct.
AUSGRID COMMENTS
The subject site is partly affected by a 18.595 metre wide transmission line easement which currently exists over the southern portion of No. 17 and 17a Jenkins Road. The proposal was referred to Ausgrid, the benefitting authority for the easement, who raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions. It is also noted that a Voluntary Planning Agreement is in effect for the undergrounding of the powerlines.
A condition is recommended which requires the applicant to submit a notification of arrangement certificate prior to issue of a Construction Certificate confirming that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the undergrounding of existing electrical services and associated infrastructure or provision of underground electrical services.
CONCLUSION
The Development Application has been assessed against the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory.
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.
PAGE 48
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 10 FEBRUARY, 2015
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions of consent.
GENERAL MATTERS