PAGE 46 DEVELOPMENT
5. Issues Raised in Submissions
The development application was notified between 4 February 2021 and 1 March 2021 and nine unique submissions from the owners and/ or occupants of eight nearby properties were received. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT
Concern was raised with regards to the orientation of the proposed subdivision/
dwellings. Specifically, concern was raised with both dwellings fronting onto Dressage Street.
The initial plans submitted with the application had the main residential entry of lot 161 fronting Dressage Street with the garage/ driveway located off George Street. Council staff raised concern with the location of the main residential entry as part of a request for additional information in conjunction with other setback issues. The plans have been amended so that the main residential entry and garage/ driveway for the dwelling on lot 161 both front onto George Street.
Concern was raised that the proposed development did not meet the minimum lot size requirements. Several submissions referred Council’s Dual Occupancy Fact Sheet.
The subject site is located within the Box Hill Growth Centre Precinct and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Growth Centres SEPP.
Council’s Dual Occupancy Fact Sheet relates to those areas to which The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 (LEP) applies. The SEPP prevails over the LEP in this instance. It is noted that the development is not for a dual occupancy also; rather for subdivision and dwelling houses.
Notwithstanding the above, as discussed earlier in this report the proposed subdivision is permissible by virtue of Clause 4.1AC of the SEPP which allows the subject site to go down to a minimum of
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER, 2021
PAGE 47
ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT
225m2 where the application includes subdivision of the land into two or more lots and the erection of a dwelling house on one of the lots resulting from the subdivision. The proposed development includes lots that are 267.1m2 and 252.5m2 with a two storey dwelling proposed on each resultant lot.
The proposed development is therefore compliant with regards to the minimum lot size under the SEPP.
Concern was raised that the proposed development is not in accordance with the character of the area. One submission raised concern that the development did not meet the objectives of the R2 zone and further suggested that it is the only
“duplex” development in the area.
As discussed earlier in this report, the subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone.
The proposed development is not for a duplex or dual occupancy, rather for subdivision and detached dwelling houses. This form of development is consistent with the surrounding area, with the only difference being the lot sizes which are marginally less, albeit compliant as discussed above.
The proposed dwellings remain two storey in height, similar to other dwellings in the locality, and the architectural design is generally typical of the existing area.
The proposed development is therefore considered to be generally consistent with the R3 zone and is unlikely to impact on the character of the area.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would result in the loss of on- street parking and would increase traffic in the area and create safety issues.
Both proposed dwellings provide two off-street car parking spaces in accordance with the DCP. The street network for this area and Box Hill more broadly has been designed to cater for increased traffic flows resulting from the increased density.
Concern was raised that the proposed dwellings were not in accordance with the setback requirements. In particular, concern was raised with regards to the rear and garage setback requirements and their impacts on privacy/ the street.
Council staff raised concern with regards to the garage setback non-compliance as shown on the initial plans submitted with the application. The proposed dwellings have been amended so as to achieve compliance with the 5.5m garage setback requirement as stipulated under the DCP.
Several submissions raised concern that both dwellings did not meet the rear setback requirements. The proposed dwelling on lot 162 provides a 4m ground floor setback and 6m first floor setback in accordance with Table 14 of the DCP.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER, 2021
PAGE 48
ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT
The proposed dwelling on lot 161 is able to utilise side setbacks rather than a rear setback as it is a corner lot. This is stipulated by Control 4.2.4 (11) of the DCP. As such, the proposed dwelling on lot 161 provides a minimum 950mm to the ground floor and provides a setback of approximately 2.1m to the western boundary. This more than exceeds the side setback requirements and is unlikely to impact on the adjoining properties.
Notwithstanding this, a condition of consent has been imposed requiring the bedroom window on the north-west elevation to be a highlight window to remove any privacy concerns.
Concern was raised that the proposed dwelling on lot 162 was not in accordance with the setback requirements associated with the padmount substation.
The padmount substation has an easement and two associated restrictions associated with the structure. The padmount substation has a 2.75m wide easement which contains the substation itself and further has two outer restriction “rings” which require specific fire ratings. The inner ring requires a 120/120/120 fire rating to be achieved for any structures within this easement and are up to1.5m away from the substation footing. The outer ring requires a 60/60/60 fire rating to be achieved for any structures more than 1.5m away from the substation footing. The proposed dwelling on lot 162 has demonstrated that the substation is not impeded, however parts of the dwelling are located within the easement rings as above. A condition of consent has been imposed requiring that the proposed dwelling is able to achieve the required fire ratings.
Concern was raised that the proposed developments were not in accordance with the site coverage requirements.
The DCP establishes maximum site coverage controls for dwellings within the precinct. For lots with a frontage greater than 15m (so lot 161), the ground floor is note to exceed 50% of the total lot size and the upper floor is not to exceed 30% of the total lot size. The dwelling on lot 161 has a ground floor site coverage of 99m2 (37%) and first floor site coverage of 79.8m2 (29.88%).
For lots with a frontage greater than or equal to 7m and less than or equal to 15m (so lot 162), the ground floor site coverage cannot exceed 60% of the total site area and the upper floor cannot exceed 40% of the lot area where the proposed lot is less than/ equal to 375m2. The dwelling on lot 162 has a ground floor site coverage of 110m2 (43.56%) and first floor site coverage of 89m2 (35.25%).
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER, 2021
PAGE 49
ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT
Both lots therefore comply with the site coverage requirements.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would impact on the value of surrounding properties.
Perceived impacts on property values for surrounding land are not a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The objection has not been substantiated with any evidence to justify this perceived impact.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would impact on the existing street trees.
Council staff raised concern with regards to the impact of the development, namely the driveway locations, on the existing street trees. The development has been amended so as to retain the existing street trees. Conditions of consent have been imposed requiring the street trees to be protected during works.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would create privacy and acoustic impacts on the adjoining neighbours. In particular, one submission raised concern that the driveway/ garage of one of the dwellings would create acoustic and privacy issues.
The proposed dwellings are in accordance with the setback requirements and are unlikely to generate privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. Any potential privacy issues have been addressed as part of amendments to the plans or as conditions of consent.
The driveway for lot 161 includes landscaping between the driveway and adjoining property to minimise privacy/ acoustic issues. Notwithstanding this, a dwelling house is not considered to be a noise-generating development and is not considered to create any significant acoustic impacts on adjoining properties.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would impact on the existing stormwater drainage network of the area and would create flooding issues.
The stormwater runoff of the existing site was accounted for as part of the catchment area considered under the parent subdivision approved by Development Consent 735/2016/ZB. The temporary basin servicing this lot and other lots created under the parent subdivision is adequately sized to capture all stormwater runoff and has accounted for future flood levels where relevant.
The proposed subdivision is unlikely to generate flooding issues given the temporary basin servicing the area is designed to capture such flows.
Concern was raised that the construction of the development would generate debris and wastes that would impact on the street and waterways.
The developer is required to have a waste management plan and erosion and sediment control plan in place prior to works commencing.
Conditions of consent have been imposed requiring this.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER, 2021
PAGE 50
ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT
Concern was raised that the proposed dwellings were going to be used for display homes.
The proposed dwellings are not approved for the purposes of being display homes. Separate approval and additional on-site car parking requirements are required for the purposes of a display home and are not included in this consent.
Concern was raised that the shadow diagrams submitted with the application were not accurate.
The shadow diagrams submitted with the application have been assessed by Council staff.
The proposed dwellings are unlikely to have any solar impacts on the private open space areas of adjoining properties.
Concern was raised that the proposed earthworks were not being contained adequately.
Council staff raised concern with regards to how the earthworks were being contained. The plans were amended to reduce the amount of earthworks and include retaining walls where level differences occur. The only retaining wall proposed is located in between proposed lots 161 and 162 and is no greater than 400mm in height.
Concern was raised that the proposed development would impact on utility services such as water, electricity, etc.
Services to the area were established under the parent subdivision being Development Consent 735/2016/ZB. Conditions of consent have been imposed requiring the proposed lots to be connected to the required services and must seek approval for these connections with the relevant servicing authorities. Connection of the dwellings to the services must occur prior to the issue of an occupation certificate/ subdivision certificate and are unlikely to impact on adjoining properties.
Concern was raised that rules are being changed to facilitate these kinds of development.
The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant planning framework established under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Namely the SEPP and DCP are State imposed controls and any changes to these planning instruments is subject to exhibited amendments.
One submission requested for the future
addresses of each lot be provided. The addresses of the proposed lots are not provided at this point of the development.
Addresses will be provided for the created lots as part of the Subdivision Certificate process.
6. Internal Referrals
The development application was referred to following sections within Council.
• Engineering
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER, 2021
PAGE 51
• Certification/ building
• Resource recovery
• Landscape management
No objection was raised to the proposed development subject to conditions as recommended below.
CONCLUSION
The development application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Appendix 11 The Hills Growth Centre Precincts Plan and the Box Hill Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan and is considered satisfactory notwithstanding the variation proposed to the latter. The concerns raised in the submissions have been addressed by way of amended plans, conditions of consent or in the report and do not warrant further amendment or 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 development application to be approved subject to the following conditions GENERAL MATTERS