The proposed development does not comply with the relevant provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012, Part B, Section 6 – Occupations in respect of landscaping and cooking. The application does not meet the DCP front setback requirements, but the proposed setback meets the relevant objectives of the DCP.
Issues Raised in Submissions
In this regard, the proposal will not have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape, privacy or solar impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal is for a two-storey dwelling and secondary dwelling and does not include a swimming pool.
Internal Referrals
The DCP contains provisions for solar access requirements to the private open space of the affected property and adjacent properties, but this control does not apply to buildings. Issue of inaccuracy in environmental impact statement stating storm water will drain to rear easement when proposed to drain to street.
Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans
The Development Application was assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Sections 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The. The variation to the front recoil control of the DCP has been considered and will not result in an unacceptable streetscape outcome. The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and do not justify refusal of the application.
The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles, vision and objectives outlined in the 'Hills 2026 - Looking to the Future' as the proposed development provides for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social benefits and provides a consistent built form in relation to the streetscape and general location.
External Finishes
Tree Removal
Replacement Planting Requirements
Building Work to be in Accordance with BCA
Separate Construction Certificate Required for Retaining Walls
Air Conditioner Location
Adherence to Waste Management Plan
Management of Construction and/or Demolition Waste
Commencement of Domestic Waste Service
Provision of Domestic Waste Storage Area(s)
House Numbering
At that time, the authorities are informed that the second house number is valid and must be recognized. The street numbers as issued must be displayed at the entrance to the property for mail delivery and service providers, including emergency services. In accordance with Section 4.17(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and The Hills Section 7.12 Contributions Plan, a contribution of $6,613.27 shall be paid to the Council.
This amount must be adjusted at the time of actual payment in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.12 Hills Contribution Plan. Please be informed that the maximum percentage of development charge under Section 7.12 of the Act with the proposed construction costs is within the range set out in the table below;. The tree to be retained must be protected during all works in strict accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on building sites.
All areas within the root protection zone should be covered with composted leaf mulch to a depth of not less than 100mm. The installation of services within the root protection zone must not be undertaken without the prior consent of the Council.
Sydney Water Building Plan Approval
Any trenching for the installation of drainage, sewerage, irrigation or any other services may not take place within the Tree Protection Zone of trees identified for retention without prior notice to the Council (72 hours notice) or under the supervision of a project arborist. If supervision by a project arborist is selected, certification of supervision must be provided to the Certification Authority within 14 days of completion of trenching. Root pruning should be avoided, but where necessary, all cuts should be clean cuts made with sharp tools such as cutters, pruners, handsaws, chainsaws or specialized root pruning equipment.
Where possible, roots to be pruned should be located and exposed using minimally destructive techniques such as hand digging, compressed air or water jetting, or non-destructive techniques. All root pruning must be done in accordance with Section 9 of Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of Ornamental Trees.
Management of Building Sites
Consultation with Service Authorities
Approved Temporary Closet
Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
Stabilised Access Point
Details and Signage - Principal Contractor and Principal Certifying Authority Details
A sign must be erected in accordance with Clause 98A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. The sign must be erected in a prominent place and show – a) the name, address and telephone number of the PCA for the work, .. b) the name and out-of-hours contact telephone number of the main contractor/person responsible for the work. The builder/contractor will be responsible for instructing and controlling subcontractors regarding the working hours.
Survey Report and Site Sketch
Deepened Edge Beam
Compliance with BASIX Certificate
Critical Stage Inspections and Inspections Nominated by the PCA
Roof Water Drainage
Dust emissions must be controlled to minimize nuisance for the residents of the surrounding buildings. Dust screens should be placed around the perimeter of the site and kept in good condition during construction; All dusty surfaces should be wetted and suppressed with a fine mist of water.
All stocks of materials that can create dust must be kept wet or covered.
Landscaping Prior to Issue of any Occupation Certificate
Maintenance of Landscaping Works
The development application is for the conversion of a secondary dwelling into a detached semi-detached dwelling. The original secondary dwelling was approved via a Complying Development Certifcat (CDC) (No. 2011/2048A) issued by a private certification body on 29 April 2013. The proposed development does not comply with the DCP 2012 in terms of rear and side setbacks, building height envelope and landscaping.
A report was provided which demonstrated that the recommended performance solution was considered to meet and meet the performance requirements P2.3.1 of the Building Code of Australia. The DCP requires that where there is an existing dwelling, the second dwelling (for a detached double occupancy) must not exceed a building height level projected 45o from a vertical distance of 1.8m above NGL at any boundary of the site. In this case, the roof of the second detached dwelling in the dual occupancy (at the rear) intrudes the building height envelope, with the roof projecting approximately 75o from a vertical distance of 1.8m at the boundary (Refer Attachment 6).
Concerns were raised about the structural adequacy of the structure and compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The applicant also submitted letters of support for the application from ten (10) neighboring properties, including a letter from one of the objectors supporting the proposal, provided their concerns are addressed and provided there are no further additions. The Development Application is to formalize a conversion of a secondary dwelling into a detached double dwelling.
Works carried out include rearranging the veranda area to create an additional living floor area in the flat of approximately 23m2 and rearranging and closing off the rear deck area to create a larger internal study, adding approximately 5.6m2 of floor area to the flat. A Building Code of Australia (BCA) report has been submitted with this application, demonstrating compliance with the relevant standards, with the exception of the underground area.
Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012
This application for the subsequent approval of the works and for the formalization of an independent two-apartment agreement was submitted subsequently. As the unauthorized works had already been carried out, a Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued for the works approved under the Conforming Development Certificate.
Compliance with DCP Part B Section 3 – Dual Occupancy
Compliance with the DCP's setback arrangements is unreasonable in this case as the double occupancy is consistent with the objectives of the arrangement. Compliance with the DCP's landscape controls is unreasonable in this case, as the double occupancy is consistent and meets the goals and objectives of the control as discussed above. The building was previously approved as a secondary residence and the landscape zone complies with SEPP regulations.
The application does not meet the set DCP landscape requirements and does not meet the relevant objectives of the development standards. As mentioned above, the building was not constructed in accordance with the approved setback of 900mm. The approved lowering for the secondary house would not comply with the building height level.
It is noted that the building complies with the overall height controls identified in the LEP and DCP. Compliance with the DCP's height envelope controls in this case is unreasonable as the double coating is consistent and meets the goals and objectives of the control. The application does not comply with the stated DCP height envelope requirements or the relevant targets in the development standards.
Issues Raised in Submissions
It is argued that the derogation from the DCP requirement is justified and deserves the Council's support.” Since the variation will adversely affect neighboring properties in terms of privacy, the variation cannot be supported. Since the structure has already been built, it is difficult to determine whether the works have been carried out in a constructive manner and according to BCA standards.
An assessment, as part of this application, against the relevant controls of the Council's Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan (DCP) determined that the proposal has variations and is considered unsatisfactory in this respect. The rear apartment has changed the views that the residents of the property have previously enjoyed in the back part of their "back yard". While there is some degree of vegetation and landscaping between the side and rear properties, and the subject property; there is still an unreasonable visual impact on neighboring properties, given the minimum separation distance between the building and the boundary.
The development application has been assessed against the relevant considerations in accordance with 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 unsatisfactory. The proposed development does not comply with the side and rear setbacks, landscaping and building height envelopes of Part B, Section 3 Development Control Plan for Dual Development 2012. The development is considered not to be in the public interest as it contravenes the relevant DCP standards.
