Some of the responses were applicable to the Development Application on the proposed adjoining lot. The Development Application is for the construction of a three-storey dormitory containing 14 rooms and is made in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH). Modifications are proposed to the interior layout of the previously approved dwelling to facilitate accommodation.
It is assessed that the proposed density is too high and out of character with the low density character of the location.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land
The amendment to the SEPP aims to facilitate the development of boarding houses in R2 Low Density zones that are compatible with the nature of the existing residential density typically expected in that zone. In this connection, it is proposed in the amendment that a boarding house in the low-density zone R2 may consist of no more than 12 rooms. It is noted that the proposed development was submitted on November 2, 2018, before the amendment takes effect.
The provision contains a savings and transition provision Article 54C for the change, so that the application can be assessed as if the change had not taken place.
Compliance with Local Environmental Plan 2019
The Local Environment Plan 2019 came into force on 6 December 2019 and applies to the Hills local government area, including the site of the proposed development. The proposed development also does not meet the R2 low density residential zoning objectives in accordance with the Hills Local Environment Plan 2012 as the scale of this development detracts from the existing low density residential character of the area. It was considered that the proposal was unlikely to affect the visual cut or setting of the heritage site or obstruct significant views to and from the heritage site.
As the building envelope, colors and external decorations of the dormitory have not been substantially modified by this application, a further heritage assessment is not considered necessary in this case.
Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012
The application does not comply with the stated DCP height envelope requirements or the relevant development standards objectives. Ensure that vegetation removed as part of the land development process is replaced with appropriate endemic species in line with ESD Council Goal 4. The application does not comply with the stated landscape design requirements of the DCP and does not meet the relevant objectives of the development standards.
The application does not comply with the stated privacy requirements of the DCP and does not meet the relevant objectives of the development standards.
Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposal is not in harmony with the existing residential character of the area which would change significantly as a result of this proposal. The applicant has confirmed that there are buses running hourly at weekends, in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the SEPP ARH 2009. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to affect the visual abatement or setting of the heritage site or obstruct significant views to and from the site. inheritance.
Within the R2 Low Density Residential zone, there is no control prohibiting balconies on the first floor, but the applicant has submitted amended plans that remove the balconies from the rear of the building.
Internal Referrals
An amended traffic report to reflect the impact due to road widening has not been provided. Surface levels of the above-ground OSD basin must be capable of gravity draining back to the discharge control sump. Frontage landscaping should comply with streetscape in accordance with SEPP (ARH) 2009 and DCP Landscape Council requirements.
After a number of changes, including the deletion of the rear balconies, and the submission of additional information, there was no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
External Referrals
The development application has been assessed in relation to the relevant considerations in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the state's environmental planning policy (affordable rental housing) 2009, local environmental plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is treated as unsatisfactory. It is assessed that the questions raised in the submissions warrant rejection of the application. This case may have a direct financial impact on Council's adopted budget as dismissal of the case may result in Council having to defend a Class 1 appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court.
The proposal is not in accordance with section 30A of the state's environmental planning policy (affordable rental housing) 2009 in terms of compatibility with the character of the area. The proposal is not in accordance with the parking regulations under section 29(2)(e)(iia) of the state's environmental planning policy (affordable rental housing) 2009, as the development is deficient with one parking space. The development fails to provide sufficient parking spaces for future residents or ensure that parking needs are met on the development site.
The proposal does not comply with the landscape and floor area ratio provisions under clause 29(1)(a) and 29(2)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Therefore, the proposal does not comply The "character test" in clause 30A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in this regard. The proposed location is considered unsuitable and incompatible with the low density residential environment due to the proposed scale and is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in the Local Environment Plan 2012.
The proposed built form is not compatible with the natural, built, social and economic environment of the locality. The development is considered not to be in the public interest as it does not meet the relevant provisions described above and given the number of submissions received.
LOCALITY PLAN
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
APPROVED SUBDIVISION PLAN (DA 1528/2015/ZA)
SITE PLAN
ELEVATIONS (EAST – STREET)
ELEVATIONS (WEST – REAR)
ELEVATIONS (NORTH AND SOUTH)
SECTIONS
BASEMENT PLAN
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
EXTERNAL COLOURS AND FINISHES
Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
In this regard Section 3 of the SEPP applies to the proposed development and therefore may be carried out with permission. Development Standard Proposal Conformity (1) A consenting authority may not. refusing permission for a development to which this section applies on the basis of density or scale, if the density and scale of the buildings, expressed in terms of floor area ratio, do not exceed:. a) the existing maximum floor area ratio (FSR) for each form of. A permitting authority shall not withhold permission for development covered by this section on the basis of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings, expressed as a floor area ratio, does not exceed -. a) the existing maximum floor area ratio for each form of living space permitted on the ground.
In terms of FSR, the total gross floor area of the proposed development is 683m2, equating to 0.74:1. A permitting agency may not deny permission for a development to which this section is subject if the landscaping treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located. The landscape treatment of the front setback does not reflect the predominant form of development in the immediate and surrounding low-density housing.
In this regard, he considered that the proposal is an excessive development of the location and not a suitable place for this form of development. Compliance with the Development Standard Proposal (1) A consent authority shall not. consent to development to which this Division applies, unless he is satisfied with each of the following:. a) if a dormitory has 5 or more dormitory rooms, at least one common living room shall be provided. An approval authority must not give consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has considered whether the design of the development is consistent with the character of the local area.
Clause 30A requires consideration of whether the design of the development is consistent with the character of the local area. Having regard to the above requirements of clause 30A of SEPP ARH 2009, it is considered that the proposal will not be compatible with the existing and future character of the local area.
Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019
The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Hillside Development Control Plan (THDCP) for character assessment purposes only. The DCP requires that the building shall not exceed the building height plane projected at 45o from a vertical distance of 1.8m above the natural ground level at any site boundary. The resulting design with insufficient landscaping and excessive site coverage is considered incompatible with the character of the area.
It is also noted that the location and size of the windows on the north elevation may also give rise to concerns about visual privacy. 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 residence will result in adverse amenity impacts on the site, and a scale of development that is above what would normally be expected within. the area. To mitigate privacy concerns, the applicant has provided amended plans to remove the balconies from the rear of the building.
If the application were to be supported, there could be recommended conditions regarding the acoustics and use of the courtyard. The design also complies with the maximum height control of 9 metres, however the proposal is considered to over-build the site in relation to the parking, landscaping and building height envelope variations and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused accordingly. Since parking on the street is not allowed, residents of the pensions will park in the nearby streets.
This is not a matter for review under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The Council has not obtained the certification within 14 works as required by the consent. The proposal was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for approval and approval pursuant to section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
EXTERNAL COLOURS AND FINISHES
