ATTACHMENT 13 EXTERNAL COLOURS AND FINISHES
3. Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
Clause 30AA states:
A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms.
The amendment to the SEPP aims to facilitate the development of boarding houses in R2 Low Density zones that are compatible with the character of the existing residential density that is typically expected in that zone. In this regard, the amendment proposed that a boarding house in the R2 Low Density zone can consist of no more than 12 rooms. The changes, while ensuring greater compatibility with existing density, will still enable the provision of diverse housing options for the community.
The amendment was adopted and came into force on 28 February 2019.
It is noted that the proposed development was lodged on 2 November 2018 prior to the amendment coming into effect. The provision contains a savings and transitional provision, Clause 54C, for the amendment which would allow the application to be determined as if the amendment had not been made. Clause 54C states as follows:
54C Savings and transitional provisions—2019 amendment
1. This clause applies to a development application that was made before the commencement of the amending SEPP and was not determined by a consent authority or, if appealed, not finally determined by a court before that commencement.
2. The application must be determined by applying all provisions of this Policy as if the amending SEPP had not commenced.
3. In this clause, the amending SEPP means State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment (Boarding House Development) 2019.
In this regard the proposal is not required to comply with Clause 30AA which prohibits more than 12 boarding rooms on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential.
2. State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Environment and Health Officer and it has been determined that the previous use of the site was residential so is unlikely to have been used for any potentially contaminating purposes. However, should the application be approved a condition of consent has been recommended requiring that ground conditions are monitored and should evidence such as, but not limited to, imported fill and/or inappropriate waste disposal indicate the likely presence of contamination on site, works are to cease, Council’s Manager-Environment and Health is to be notified and a site contamination investigation is to be carried out in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
Local Environmental Plan 2019 came into force on 6 December 2019 and applies to The Hills local government area, including the site of the proposed development.
Clause 1.8A of The Hills LEP 2019 states that:
“If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”
As such LEP 2012 applies to the development. Nevertheless, the provisions of LEP 2019 are the same as those contained in the previous LEP 2012. The only change is the change of name.
a. Permissibility
Under LEP 2012 development for the purpose of a Boarding House is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The subject Development Application is lodged relying upon the provisions of SEPP ARH 2009 which also permits a boarding house within the R2 Low Density zone subject to the land being within an accessible area.
b. Zone Objectives
The proposed boarding house is on a site that is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under LEP 2012. The objectives of the zone are:
The objectives of the R2 Low Density zone are:
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
• To enable other land uses that provides 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 considered to be consistent with the stated objectives of the zone, in that the proposal will provide for a land use to meet the needs of the surrounding residents and is also considered to provide an alternative housing option for future residents.
The deficiency in parking provision for future residents, floor space ratio and inadequate landscaping treatment of the front setback as outlined above indicates that the proposal in its current form is an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development also does not satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the scale of this development detracts from the existing low density residential character of the area.
Accordingly, the proposal is considered unsatisfactory with regard to LEP 2012.
c. Development Standards
The following addresses the principal development standards of the LEP:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES
4.3 Height 9m 8.47m Yes
4.4 Floor Space Ratio
N/A N/A N/A
d. Heritage Conservation
Clause 5.10 of the LEP requires that the consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned.
Under Schedule 5 of Local Environmental Plan 2012, the site is adjoining a heritage listed item, namely No. 118 Old Northern Road, identified as heritage item (I15) – ‘House’.
A Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Archnex Designs, dated March 2017 was submitted and approved as part of the DA documentation with DA 2008/2017/LD. The proposed dwelling was reviewed by Council’s Heritage Officer and no objections were raised at that time to the proposed development on heritage grounds.
It was considered the proposal was unlikely to impact on the visual curtilage or setting of the heritage item or obstruct important views to and from the heritage item. The proposed colours and external finishes are recessive and the proposed works are within a suitable distance from the heritage item and will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item located at 118 Old Northern Road, Baulkham Hills.
As the building envelope, and external colours and finishes, of the boarding house is not substantially modified by this application a further heritage assessment is not considered necessary in this case.
4. Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012
The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan (THDCP) for the purpose of assessing character only. The DCP has general provisions relating to all residential developments but does not contain any provisions relating specifically to boarding houses. The development has been designed to have regard to the Development Control Plan, particularly:
• Part B Section 3 - Dual Occupancy
• Part C Section 1 – Parking
• Part C Section 3 – Landscaping
The proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant requirements of the DCP with the exception of the following:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
DCP
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
COMPLIANCE Part B Section 3
Dual Occupancy Clause 2.1 (c) Floor Space Ratio
The floor space ratio of all dwellings shall not exceed 0.5:1.
The proposed FSR is 0.74:1
No, see comment below.
Part B Section 3 Dual Occupancy Clause 2.7 Building Height Envelope
The dwelling shall not exceed a building height plane projected at an angle of 45 degrees over the land from a vertical distance of 1.8 metres above the natural ground level at any boundary of the site.
The proposal does not comply with the requirements.
No, see comment below.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
DCP
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
COMPLIANCE Part B Section 3
Dual Occupancy Clause 2.4 (a)
Landscaped Areas
Urban Zones: 50% of site area.
Does not comply. No, see comment below.
Part B Section 3 Dual Occupancy Clause 2.18
Privacy – Visual and Acoustic
Buildings are to be designed to ensure maximum protection of privacy, and, where appropriate:
Using windows that are narrow, translucent, obscured or in the case of bathrooms, they have window sills a minimum of 1.5 metres above the upper storey floor level; and ensuring that windows that face directly to the windows, balconies or yards of adjoining dwellings are appropriately screened.
First floor balconies will not be permitted where they overlook living areas of adjacent dwellings.
Windows should be placed to minimise direct viewing between dwellings.
Dwellings are to be designed to limit the potential for noise transmission to the living and sleeping areas of adjacent existing and future developments.
Does not comply. No, see comment below.
a. Floor Space Ratio
The DCP requires that the floor space ratio (FSR) shall not exceed 0.5:1. The proposed FSR of 0.74:1 does not comply.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:
There are no specific controls relating to boarding houses in the DCP and it is not appropriate to assess the proposal as a dual occupancy which is an entirely different form of residential accommodation.
Comment:
The relevant objectives of the FSR standards in the DCP are:
(i) To maintain allotments of sufficient size to satisfy the requirements of this Section of the DCP and to enable flexibility in housing design.
(ii) To ensure development on a particular site has due regard to adjoining developments in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.
(iii) To control the density of residential development.
(iv) To prevent excessive site coverage.
Apart from dual occupancies, there is no FSR prescribed for any other form of residential development. While the proposed development will not be of the same style of many as the older dwellings in the area it should be acknowledged that approval was previously granted for a new dwelling on the same lot with a similar built form. Notwithstanding that, the proposed boarding house is a separate development, and should be assessed as a standalone building, and is considered excessive in bulk and scale when compared to other buildings in the locality.
It is considered that insufficient justification has been provided as the applicant fails to demonstrate that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and how the proposed departure to the DCP requirements will provide a better planning outcome for the site and locality as a whole. It is also noted that the applicant was previously advised at the prelodgement meeting to undertake an assessment against the dual occupancy DCP controls.
The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.
b. Building Height Envelope
The DCP requires that the building is not to exceed a building height plane projected 45o from a vertical distance of 1.8m above natural ground level at any boundary of the site. In this instance the building encroaches on the building height envelope.
The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:
There are no specific controls relating to boarding houses in the DCP and it is not appropriate to assess the proposal as a dual occupancy which is an entirely different form of residential accommodation.
Comment:
The relevant objectives of the height envelope standards in the DCP are:
(i) To improve and enhance the visual aspect of developments when viewed from the street, public place and surrounding properties in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
(ii) To provide dual occupancy development of a size and bulk generally in keeping with neighbouring development and the surrounding environment.
(iii) To minimise the impact of dual occupancy development in new release areas and in areas where single dwelling housing is dominant.
The application does not comply with the stated DCP height envelope requirements or the relevant objectives of the development standards. Given that the variation will result in adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale, the variation cannot be supported.
The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.
c. Landscaping
The DCP requires 50% of the site area to be landscaped. The proposal provides 182m2 or 24% landscaped areas which is a variation of 26%. The DCP also requires a minimum 2.0m wide landscape strip between any driveway, car parking space and property boundary, which is not provided.
The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:
There are no specific controls relating to boarding houses in the DCP and it is not appropriate to assess the proposal as a dual occupancy which is an entirely different form of residential accommodation.
Comment:
The relevant objectives of the landscape standards in the DCP are:
(i) To ensure a high standard of environmental quality of dual occupancy developments and the overall visual amenity and character of the neighbourhood in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.
(ii) To ensure that landscaped areas can be efficiently maintained.
(iii) To provide useable outdoor open space for residents.
(iv) To provide a satisfactory relationship between buildings, landscaping areas and adjoining developments.
(v) To ensure that existing trees are given every opportunity to be incorporated into the final design.
(vi) To minimise stormwater runoff and provide the opportunity for on-site groundwater recharge in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 3.
(vii) 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.
The application does not comply with the stated DCP landscaping requirements and does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the development standards. The design outcome, with insufficient landscaping and excessive site coverage, is considered to be incompatible with the character of the area.
The proposed 24% variation for landscaped areas is a significant variation. In addition a 2m wide landscaping strip is not provided at the driveway. Given the above, the proposal is not considered a suitable outcome for the site.
The proposed landscaping for the site is therefore considered unsatisfactory in this instance.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
d. Privacy – Visual and Acoustic
The DCP requires that buildings are to be designed to ensure maximum protection of privacy and should use windows that are narrow, translucent, obscured or in the case of bathrooms, have window sills a minimum of 1.5 metres above the upper storey floor level. The DCP also requires that windows that face directly to the windows, balconies or yards of adjoining dwellings are appropriately screened. First floor balconies are not be permitted where they overlook living areas of adjacent dwellings and windows are to be placed to minimise direct viewing between dwellings. Buildings should also be designed to limit the potential for noise transmission to the living and sleeping areas of adjacent existing and future developments.
The proposed number and location of windows and living areas in close proximity to adjoining residences results in a development that will adversely impact of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposed design does not meet the requirements of Clause 2.18.
The applicant has provided the following justification for the variation:
There are no specific controls relating to boarding houses in the DCP and it is not appropriate to assess the proposal as a dual occupancy which is an entirely different form of residential accommodation.
Comment:
The relevant objectives of the privacy standards in the DCP are:
(i) To site and design buildings to ensure visual privacy between dwellings in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.
(ii) To avoid overlooking of living spaces in dwellings and private open spaces.
(iii) To contain noise within dwellings and communal areas without unreasonable transmission to adjoining dwellings.
The application does not comply with the stated DCP privacy requirements and does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the development standards. The design of the building, in particular the location of the communal living area at the rear, does not result in an outcome that would protect the amenity and privacy enjoyed by the existing adjoining residents. While it is acknowledged that the balconies were removed from the submitted plans, and screens proposed at the rear mitigating overlooking into neighbouring properties, it is still considered that there would be significant privacy impacts. There could be over 20 occupants congregating within the communal area at any one time, which could create acoustic impacts.
It is also noted that the location and size of the windows on the northern elevation could also give rise to visual privacy concerns. The location of the proposed boarding house is within a predominantly low density residential area and it is considered that the increased density from the boarding house would result in adverse amenity impacts on the locality, and a development scale that is above what would normally be expected within the area.
Given that the variation will result in adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, the variation cannot be supported. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in this regard.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 27 APRIL, 2021
5. Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposal was notified for 14 days and nine submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
The proposal would significantly change the character of the residential area.
The proposal does not complement existing natural and built environment.
The bulk, scale and size of the buildings are excessive. It is an overdevelopment of the site.
The extent of hard stand area at the front shared driveway is excessive.
It is considered that the proposal is not compatible with the existing streetscape as the proposal is considered a three storey development with basement parking.
The proposal will dominate the streetscape and will not integrate into the Old Northern Road frontage, and does not have the appearance of a dwelling house or dual occupancy. The proposal is not in harmony with the existing residential character of the area which would change significantly as result of this proposal.
The proposal is recommended for refusal.
The development will negatively impact on peace, comfort and privacy within our properties.
Location of communal room and open space will project noise into adjoining properties. Common area should be at front of building.
Screens should be installed on all windows to mitigate any noise and privacy impacts.
To mitigate privacy concerns the applicant has provided amended plans removing the balconies from the rear of the building.
Should the application have been supported conditions may have been recommended regarding acoustics and the use of the courtyard.
Notwithstanding the above there are still concerns that a boarding house with increased residential density, with a maximum of 31 occupants, would adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining property owners.
The proposal is recommended for refusal.
Will create additional waste. Additional waste will be created by the development above what would normally be expected for a single residential dwelling or dual occupancy however should the application have been supported conditions relating to the storage and collection of waste would apply.
The proposal is for a commercial enterprise and the motive for the developer is only financial, with no consideration for the community or future consequences.
Boarding houses are intended to provide affordable rental housing under the provisions of SEPP ARH 2009 and are envisioned to be rented out to lodgers however this is not unlike renting out single residential dwellings or dual occupancy developments to tenants.
The affordable housing SEPP has created a loophole enabling boarding houses in
Under the LEP 2012 development for the purpose of a Boarding House is permissible with consent in