ASSESSMENT UNIT

(1)

DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 26 November 2019

T O S T R I V E F O R B E T T E R T H I N G S

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 26 NOVEMBER, 2019

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA 576/2016/JP/A - A SECTION 4.55 MODIFICATION TO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - LOT 12 DP 1169214 YORK ROAD, KELLYVILLE

6

ITEM-3 DA 1701/2017/ZD - SUBDIVISION CREATING 12 COMMUNITY TITLE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE ASSOCIATION LOT (RURAL CLUSTER) - LOTS 2 AND 3 DP 585842, 600-620 WISEMANS FERRY ROAD, SOUTH MAROOTA

51

(3)

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2019

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance (Chair)

Robert Buckham Principal Executive Planner (New Release & Growth Centres) Benjamin Hawkins Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification

Angelo Berios Manager – Environment & Health Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Nicholas Carlton Manager – Forward Planning APOLOGIES

Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 4:00pm

TIME OF COMPLETION 4:07pm

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 29 October 2019 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 1355/2019/HA - A HOME BUSINESS (ACUPUNCTURE AND MASSAGE) - LOT 13 DP 222378, 39 CHRISTOPHER STREET, BAULKHAM HILLS

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITEM 2(2)(c) AND (d) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 7 ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

DECISION:

The application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report.

(4)

PAGE 4 REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

 Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.

 The Hills LEP 2012 – Satisfactory.

 DCP Part B Section 2 – Satisfactory.

HOW COMMUNIT VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION:

The development application was notified and five (5) submissions including a petition were received. The issues raised were discussed in the report.

ITEM-3 DA 2337/2018/LD/D – SECTION 4.55(1A) MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED THREE STOREY DWELLING, INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND RETAINING WALLS – LOT 5 DP 286704, NO. 18 BERNABEAU STREET, NORTH KELLYVILLE

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITEM 20(2)(c) AND (d) OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

DECISION:

The Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application be refused on the following grounds:

1. The development does not comply with Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979in that the development is not considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved because it introduced non-compliances with height and site coverage providing a building with unreasonable bulk and scale.

2. The development’s height does not comply with the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 height of building requirements and as a result impacts on surrounding development through increased bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy (Section 4.15(1)(b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979). A Clause 4.6 variation has not been submitted in support of the height of building variation.

3. The development’s bulk and scale, overshadowing and impacts on privacy impact on neighbouring properties and on the aesthetic values of the locality. (Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4. The development does not comply with the site coverage of the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018 (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

5. The development is not suitable for the site as it will not provide a satisfactory relationship between the built form and adjoining properties. (Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

(5)

PAGE 5 6. The development is considered not to be in the public interest as it contravenes with the relevant DCP standard. (Section 4.15(a)(i), and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

 Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory – see report

 Section 4.55(1A) (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory - see report

 SEPP Growth Centres – Unsatisfactory.

HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION:

The development application was notified and no submissions were received.

Please note:

A late submission was received by a resident which was tabled and discussed at the meeting.

(6)

PAGE 6 ITEM-2 DA 576/2016/JP/A - A SECTION 4.55 MODIFICATION TO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - LOT 12 DP 1169214 YORK ROAD, KELLYVILLE

THEME: Valuing our Surroundings

OUTCOME: 5 Well planned and liveable neighbourhoods that meets growth targets and maintains amenity.

STRATEGY: 5.1 The Shire’s natural and built environment is well managed through strategic land use and urban planning that reflects our values and aspirations

MEETING DATE:

26 NOVEMBER 2019

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

HARRISON DEPCZYNSKI

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PAUL OSBORNE

Applicant Namul Pty Ltd

Owner Namul Pty Ltd

Notification 14 days

Number Advised 185

Number of Submissions 8

Zoning R4 High Density Residential R3 Medium Density Residential

Site Area 3.59ha

List of all relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters

Section 4.56 (EP&A Act) - Satisfactory

SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development - Satisfactory

SEPP Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities 2017 - Satisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land - Satisfactory

Local Environmental Plan 2012 - Satisfactory Development Control Plan 2012 – Satisfactory Political Donation None Disclosed

Reason for Referral to DAU More than one submission received to a modification application.

Recommendation Approval subject to conditions.

(7)

PAGE 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development Application 576/2016/JP was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 23 December 2016. The approved works included the subdivision of the site into three lots, construction of York Road and Alessandra Drive extensions, and construction of four residential flat buildings and a child care centre.

The proposed Section 4.56 Modification Application is to introduce staging of the development. There are no changes to physical works which remain as approved. Proposed staging is as follows:

Stage 1 – Subdivision of the site and construction and dedication of Allessandra Drive and York Road

Stage 2 – Construction of the childcare centre on Lot 3 for 100 places

Stage 3 – Construction of one residential flat building on Lot 2 housing 70 units Stage 4 – Construction of three residential flat buildings on Lot 1, housing 77

residential units, 65 residential units and 90 residential units respectively.

The application was notified and 8 submissions were received. Issues raised relate to the development as originally approved, closure of the temporary public road from President Avenue to Hutchison Avenue, notification of the modification application, and traffic impacts during construction.

The site is split zoned R4 High Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential.

Childcare centres are permissible uses in each zone however residential flat buildings are only permissible in the R4 Zone. This matter was the focus of the court appeal for the original application and is not relevant to the scope of this modification application as there are no changes to the built form outcomes previously approved.

The proposed modification is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND

Development Application 576/2016/JP was refused by Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel on 19 May 2016. The application was amended on appeal to the Land and Environment Court and subsequently approved on 23 December 2016. The approved works included the subdivision of the site into three lots, construction of York Road and Alessandra Drive extensions, and construction of four residential flat buildings and a child care centre.

The subject modification application was lodged on 10 September 2019.

PROPOSAL

The Section 4.56 Modification Application is to introduce staging of the development which is shown on the Staging Plan submitted with application (Attachment 5). Proposed staging is as follows:

 Stage 1 – Subdivision of the site and construction and dedication of Allessandra Drive and York Road

 Stage 2 – Construction of the childcare centre on Lot 3 for 100 places

 Stage 3 – Construction of one residential flat building on Lot 2 housing 70 units

 Stage 4 – Construction of three residential flat buildings on Lot 1, housing 77 residential units, 65 residential units and 90 residential units respectively.

(8)

PAGE 8 There are no changes to physical works which remain as approved.

To facilitate staging of the development, the Applicant proposed to amend conditions:

 Condition 1 – Approved Plans

 Condition 2 – Construction Certificate

 Condition 19 – Subdivision Certificate Preliminary Review

 Condition 20 – Street Trees

 Condition 25 – Approved Subdivision – Final Plan Requirements

 Condition 32 – Section 94 Contribution

 Condition 40 – Works in Existing Easement

 Condition 41 – Works on Adjoining Land

 Condition 42 – Security Bond – Road Pavement and Public Asset Protection

 Condition 43 – Security Bond – External Works

 Condition 45 – Design Verification

Upon review of the application and the proposed amended conditions, Council staff determined that the insertion of the staging plan removed the need to amend the majority of the above listed conditions with the exception of Conditions 1, 32, and 45. The Applicant was advised and provided acknowledgement.

As a result the following conditions of consent are proposed to be amended:

a. Condition 1 – Approved Plans

The condition is to be amended to insert the staging plan.

b. Condition 32 – Section 94 Contribution

The condition is to be amended to allow for the staging of Section 94 (Section 7.11) Contributions with the payments to be deferred until the relevant applicable stage.

c. Condition 45 – Design Verification

The condition is to be amended to clarify the design verification statement is not required until the relevant Stage 3 or Stage 4 Construction Certificate which comprises the residential flat building components.

The Section 4.56 Modification Application is to a Land and Enviornment Court approved development that was originally refused by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel.

Issued Planning Circulars and Planning Panel Operational Procedures are silent on Section 4.56 modifications to regionally significant development. However, they do delegate to Councils the authority to determine Section 4.55(1) and Section 4.55(1A) applications to regionally significant development because of their minimal environmental impact. Section 4.56 (modifications to consents granted by the court) however does not distinguish between minor and major modifications like Section 4.55 does. In any event, if this modification application were made under Section 4.55 it would be considered a 4.55(1A) due to its minimal environmental impact and able to be determined by Council as the consent authority.

(9)

PAGE 9 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Under the provisions of Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

(1) A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the development consent if—

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b) it has notified the application in accordance with—

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, and

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(c) it has notified, or made reasonable attempts to notify, each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application of the proposed modification by sending written notice to the last address known to the consent authority of the objector or other person, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

(1A) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

The development to be modified includes the introduction of staging with no changes to physical works.

With respect to Section 4.56:

 The proposed development is considered substantially the same as originally approved;

 The application was notified for 14 days in accordance with The Hills Development Control Plan;

 Written notice of the modification application was sent to the last known address of each person who made a submission on the original application.

 The 8 submissions received during the notification period were considered as part of the application.

 The relevant matters referred to in section 4.15(1) of the Act; and,

(10)

PAGE 10

 The reasons given by the Land and Environment Court (consent authority) in

granting the original approval have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this modification application and are considered satisfactory.

2. Compliance with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 (i) Permissibility

The site is split zoned R4 High Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential.

Childcare centres are a permissible use in both zones however residential flat buildings are only permissible in the R4 Zone.

The original application relied on the provisions of Clause 5.3 Development near zone boundaries to enable a portion of the residential flat buildings to be located on land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential because the land was within 20 metres of the R4 High Density Residential Zone. This matter was the focus of the court appeal for the original application and is not considered relevant to the scope of this modification application as there are no changes to physical works.

The proposed modification application is considered satisfactory with respect to permissibility.

(ii) Compliance with The Hills LEP 2012 – Zone Objectives

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential under LEP 2012. The objectives of each zone are:

R4 High Density Residential Objectives

 To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

 To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

 To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 To encourage high density residential development in locations that are close to population centres and public transport routes.

R3 Medium Density Residential Objectives

 To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

 To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

 To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 To encourage medium density residential development in locations that are close to population centres and public transport routes.

Taking into consideration the findings of the Land and Environment Court in the original application, the proposed modification is considered to satisfy the stated objectives of the each zone.

(11)

PAGE 11 As such the proposal is considered satisfactory in respect to the LEP 2012 objectives.

(iii) The Hills LEP 2012 - Development Standards

The following addresses the principal development standards of the LEP relevant to the subject proposal:

CLAUSE REQUIRED PROVIDED COMPLIES

4.1A Minimum lot size for residential development in certain residential zones

R4 High Density Residential -

Residential Flat Building – 4,000m²

Minimum 6,124.4m² Yes

4.3 Height of buildings

16 metres 16m Yes

No changes are proposed under this modification application.

3. Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of The Hills Development Control Plan (THDCP) particularly:-

 Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing;

 Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings;

 Part B Section 6 – Business;

 Part B Section 8 – Shop Top Housing and Mixed Use Development

 Part C Section 1 – Parking;

 Part C Section 3 – Landscaping; and

 Part D Section 5 – Kellyville/Rouse Hill Release Area;

The original development contained DCP non-compliances with respect to density, residential flat building height, length, design and streetscape, and unit layout and design.

No changes are sought to previously approved non-compliances and no further non- compliances arise as a result of this modification application.

It is also noted the original development was determined prior to the introduction of Part B Section 8 of the DCP which relates to the overall site planning and design of mixed use developments. The provisions of this Section are not considered relevant to the scope of the proposed modification given there are no changes to approved works.

4. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was notified for 14 days and 8 submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below:

(12)

PAGE 12

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT

The majority of submissions raised issues with the original approved development including its density, size and scale, privacy, overshadowing, safety, childcare centre numbers, road widths, and impacts on the locality including noise and traffic generation.

The Section 4.56 modification application is to introduce staging of the development and does not involve any physical changes to approved works.

The amended proposal remains consistent with the built form approved by the Court.

I was not formally notified of the proposed modification application.

The Development Application was notified in accordance with Section 3.2 of The Hills Shire Development Control Plan 2012 Part A Introduction which outlines the notification procedure for local development. The modification application was notified as per the original DA to adjoining property owners. Objectors to the original application were also notified.

Opposition was raised to the closure of the temporary public road from President Avenue to Hutchison Avenue upon completion of Stage 1 which involves the Alessandra Drive and York Road extensions.

The temporary public road connecting President Road and Hutchinson Avenue was created as a condition of consent pursuant to DA 2745/2002/ZA to provide legal access to properties in Hutchinson Avenue and Alessandra Drive.

The Stage 1 works will create permanent public road access to these properties via York Road, removing the requirement for the temporary road which currently burdens private land. Therefore it would be appropriate upon the completion of Stage 1 that the temporary road be removed.

Nonetheless, there is no scope under this modification application to resolve the matter as it relates to a condition of consent for a separate application on another site. The closure of a temporary public road is required to undergo a separate formal process and be approved by Council at a Council meeting.

Concern was raised with the negative impact of construction activities on traffic movements along Alessandra Drive and York Road during the subsequent stages of the development which includes the four residential flat buildings and childcare centre.

Condition 58 of the original consent requires a traffic control plan to be prepared, approved and submitted to Council prior to work commencing onsite. With the introduction of staging this would be required for each stage of the development.

5. Internal Referrals

The application was referred to following sections of Council:

(13)

PAGE 13 Engineering

Engineering advised that the introduction of staging via insertion of the staging plan would not require amendment of individual engineering consent conditions. Engineering also advised that Condition 42 of the original consent would not be amended to only relate to Stage 1 as requested by the Applicant. This was because the condition is to guarantee the protection of the road pavement and other public assets in the vicinity of the site during construction works of the development in its entirety, not just during Stage 1. The Applicant was advised of this and provided acknowledgement.

Section 7.11 Contributions

Amended Section 7.11 Contributions were provided to incorporate staging of the development (refer Condition 32).

No objections were raised to the proposal subject to amended conditions.

CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory. The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report and does not warrant 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

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the modification be approved as follows:-

Conditions Nos. 1, 32, 45 be deleted and replaced as follows:

GENERAL MATTERS

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans

The development being carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details, stamped and returned with this consent except where amended by other conditions of consent.

(14)

PAGE 14 REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS

DWG NO./DESCRIPTION REV DATE

S34-000 - COVER SHEET J 04/12/2016

S34-010 - EXISTING / DEMOLITION SITE PLAN C 28/09/2016

S34-011 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN F 04/12/2016

S34-021 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - BASEMENT 02 R 28/09/2016 S34-022 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - BASEMENT 01 S 04/12/2016 S34-023 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - GROUND S 04/12/2016 S34-024 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - LEVEL 01 S 04/12/2016 S34-025 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - LEVEL 02 S 04/12/2016 S34-026 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - LEVEL 03 S 04/12/2016 S34-027 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - LEVEL 04 S 04/12/2016 S34-028 - PROPOSED SITE REFERENCE PLAN - ROOF S 04/12/2016 S34-101 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - BASEMENT

02 F 28/09/2016

S34-102 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - BASEMENT

01 F 28/09/2016

S34-103 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - GROUND G 28/09/2016 S34-104 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - LEVEL 01 H 04/12/2016 S34-105 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - LEVEL 02 H 04/12/2016 S34-106 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - LEVEL 03 H 04/12/2016 S34-107 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - LEVEL 04 H 04/12/2016 S34-108 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 EAST - ROOF H 04/12/2016 S34-112 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - BASEMENT

01 G 04/12/2016

S34-113 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - GROUND H 04/12/2016 S34-114 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - LEVEL 01 H 04/12/2016 S34-115 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - LEVEL 02 H 04/12/2016 S34-116 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - LEVEL 03 H 04/12/2016 S34-117 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - LEVEL 04 H 04/12/2016 S34-118 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 1 WEST - ROOF H 04/12/2016 S34-121 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - BASEMENT 02 F 28/09/2016 S34-122 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - BASEMENT 01 F 28/09/2016 S34-123 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - GROUND G 28/09/2016 S34-124 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - LEVEL 01 G 28/09/2016 S34-125 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - LEVEL 02 G 28/09/2016 S34-126 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - LEVEL 03 G 28/09/2016

(15)

PAGE 15 S34-127 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - LEVEL 04 G 28/09/2016 S34-128 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 2 - ROOF H 04/12/2016 S34-132 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 3 - BASEMENT 01 G 28/11/2016 S34-133 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 3 - GROUND F 24/11/2016 S34-134 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 3 - LEVEL 01 E 28/09/2016 S34-135 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LOT 3 - ROOF E 28/09/2016 S34-401 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 1 BLDG A H 04/12/2016 S34-402 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 1 BLDG B H 04/12/2016 S34-403 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 1 BLDG C H 04/12/2016 S34-404 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 2 J 04/12/2016 S34-405 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 3 E 24/11/2016 S34-411 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 1 BLDG A

COURTYARD E 04/12/2016

S34-413 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 1 BLDG C

COURTYARD F 04/12/2016

S34-414 - PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - LOT 2

COURTYARD F 04/12/2016

S34-421 - PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS - LOT 1 BLDG A H 04/12/2016 S34-423 - PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS - LOT 1 BLDG B H 04/12/2016 S34-424 - PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS - LOT 1 BLDG C J 04/12/2016 S34-425 - PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS - LOT 2 H 28/09/2016 S34-427 - PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS - LOT 3 C 28/09/2016 S34-510 - DIAGRAMS - SEP 2016 KEY DIMENSIONS A 28/09/2016

S34-800 - SHADOW DIAGRAMS - 21ST DECEMBER E 28/09/2016

S34-801 - SHADOW DIAGRAMS - 21ST JUNE E 28/09/2016

S34-927 - EXTERNAL FINISHES SCHEDULE C 28/09/2016

ARCADIA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE PLANS:

001 - Landscape Masterplan E 30/09/2016

101 - Landscape Detail Plan E 30/09/2016

(16)

PAGE 16 ARCADIA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE PLANS –

APPENDIX SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: E 30/09/2016

101 - Heritage + History E September 2016

102 - Landscape Principles E September 2016

103 - Landscape Strategy E September 2016

104 - Site Master Plan E September 2016

105 - Landscape Sections E September 2016

106 - Recreation Areas – Character + Principles E September 2016

107 - Landscape Precedents E September 2016

108 - Courtyards – Character + Principles E September 2016

109 - Courtyard and Access Precedents E September 2016

110 - Streetscape + Linear Entrance – Character + Principles E September 2016 111 - Streetscape + Linear Entrance Precedents E September 2016

112 - Indicative Planting Palette E September 2016

113 - Indicative Planting Palette E September 2016

114 - Landscape + Domain Furniture E September 2016

York Road Child Care Centre- Air Quality Assessment 19/08/2016 Design Verification Statement - SEPP 65 / Apartment Design Guide

Compliance Table 4 December 2016

Building Code of Australia Report - proposed residential

Development 4 4 October 2016

Waste Management Plan 29/09/2016

Subdivision Plan Reference 14430/204 00 01/10/2015

Statement of Environmental Effects dated October 2015 and Addendum Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbis Pty Ltd

18/10/2016

Amended Civil Hydraulics Plans 14 October 2016

Air Quality Report prepared by Pacific Environment Limited 24 November 2016 Acoustic Report prepared by Wood and Grieve providing acoustic

information

Updated Acoustic Report prepared by Wood and Grieve providing acoustic information and

17 February 2016 Acoustic Assessment and Report prepared by Wood and Grieve

Engineers, referenced as York Rd, Kellyville 13 October 2015 Staging Plan (4 Stages) (Reference S34-015) A 6 September 2019 No work (including excavation, land fill or earth reshaping) shall be undertaken prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, where a Construction Certificate is required.

(17)

PAGE 17 PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

32. Section 7.11 Contribution

The following monetary contributions must be paid to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to provide for the increased demand for public amenities and services resulting from the development.

Payments comprise of the following:- Stage 1

Stage 3

Stage 4

The contributions above are applicable at the time this consent was issued. Please be aware that Section 7.11 contributions are updated quarterly.

Prior to payment of the above contributions, the applicant is advised to contact Council’s Development Contributions Officer on 9843 0268. Payment must be made by cheque or credit/debit card. Cash payments will not be accepted.

This condition has been imposed in accordance with Contributions Plan No 8.

Council’s Contributions Plans can be viewed at www.thehills.nsw.gov.au or a copy may be inspected or purchased at Council’s Administration Centre.

45. Design Verification

Prior to the release of the relevant Stage 3 or Stage 4 Construction Certificate design verification is required from a qualified designer to confirm the development is in accordance with the approved plans and details and continues to satisfy the design quality principles in SEPP65.

(18)

PAGE 18 ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Approved Site Plan

4. Court Order (576/2016/JP) 5. Proposed Staging Plan

(19)

PAGE 19 ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

(20)

PAGE 20 ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL MAP

(21)

PAGE 21 ATTACHMENT 3 – APPROVED SITE PLAN

(22)

PAGE 22 ATTACHMENT 4 COURT ORDER (DA 576/2016/JP)

(23)

PAGE 23

(24)

PAGE 24

(25)

PAGE 25

(26)

PAGE 26

(27)

PAGE 27

(28)

PAGE 28

(29)

PAGE 29

(30)

PAGE 30

(31)

PAGE 31

(32)

PAGE 32

(33)

PAGE 33

(34)

PAGE 34

(35)

PAGE 35

(36)

PAGE 36

(37)

PAGE 37

(38)

PAGE 38

(39)

PAGE 39

(40)

PAGE 40

(41)

PAGE 41

(42)

PAGE 42

(43)

PAGE 43

(44)

PAGE 44

(45)

PAGE 45

(46)

PAGE 46

(47)

PAGE 47

(48)

PAGE 48

(49)

PAGE 49

(50)

PAGE 50 ATTACHMENT 5 STAGING PLAN

(51)

PAGE 51 ITEM-3 DA 1701/2017/ZD - SUBDIVISION CREATING 12 COMMUNITY TITLE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE ASSOCIATION LOT (RURAL CLUSTER) - LOTS 2 AND 3 DP 585842, 600-620 WISEMANS FERRY ROAD, SOUTH MAROOTA

THEME: Valuing our Surroundings OUTCOME:

Well planned and liveable neighbourhoods that meets growth targets and maintains amenity.

STRATEGY:

Manage new and existing development with a robust framework of policies, plans and processes that is in accordance with community needs and expectations.

MEETING DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2019

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

GANNON CUNEO

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:

MANAGER – SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION

BEN HAWKINS

Applicant Peter White Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner Mrs R J Carless-Giudice

Mr J J Giudice Mr J R Walmsley Mrs N E G Walmsley

Exhibition 31 days

Number Advised 21

Number of Submissions 3

Zoning RU2 Rural Landscape

Site Area 24.78 hectares

List of all relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters

Section 4.15 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory The Hills LEP 2012 – Satisfactory

SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land – Satisfactory

The Hills DCP – Part B Section 1 – Rural – Variation sought; see report

Section 7.12 Contribution – $5,090.00 Political Donation None Disclosed

Reason for Referral to DAU 1. Variations to DCP

2. Three submissions received Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

(52)

PAGE 52 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for a “rural cluster” community title subdivision creating 12 rural residential lots and one association lot. The proposed association lot has an area of 16.17 hectares (being 65% of the total site area) and contains a planned private access road along with the remnant vegetation and fauna habitat proposed to be retained and protected in an ongoing sense. The proposal has been designed to minimise the loss of remnant vegetation and fauna habitat by containing these within the association lot where they will be retained and managed subject to a Vegetation Management Plan required to be prepared, approved and implemented post consent.

The subject site is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape with a total area of 24.78 hectares. Clause 4.1AA of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 permits rural cluster subdivision within the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. The proposal complies with the required minimum site area and resultant lot yield development standards set by Clause 4.1AA. There are existing rural cluster subdivisions within close proximity of the subject site.

The proposal is Integrated Development under Section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it seeks to subdivide bushfire prone land and involves works within 40 metres of a mapped natural watercourse. The proposal was also referred to the Roads and Maritime Service as access is proposed to/ from Wisemans Ferry Road which is a State/ classified road. The Rural Fire Service has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority for the subdivision subject to conditions, the Natural Resources Access Regulator (formerly the Department of Primary Industries – Water) has issued their General Terms of Approval and the Roads and Maritime Service have raised no objection to the proposed access subject to conditions relating to the design and construction of these works.

The Development Application includes variations to The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 – Part B Section 1 – Rural which requires that lots be clustered and grouped together.

The subject site has frontage to both Wisemans Ferry Road and Charcoal Road. As a result of the two road frontages, the layout includes eight lots clustered at Wisemans Ferry Road with the remaining four lots having frontage to Charcoal Road. This is considered reasonable on merit as it results in a better outcome with respect to the need to respond to the site constraints in the design of the subdivision layout with respect to balancing ecology, bushfire and site slope, with the lots concentrated to the less sloping parts of the subject site so as to provide a suitably topography for future dwelling construction. The other variation relates to the volume of cut and fill required to accommodate the subdivision works and is considered reasonable on the basis that work is necessary to make the subdivision design feasible considering the constrained nature of the site with respect to topography.

The Development Application was advertised as nominated Integrated Development and notified locally and submissions from three neighbouring properties were received in response. The concerns raised in the submissions relate to the poor condition of Charcoal Road, road safety, bushfire access/ egress, future dwelling design and use of the association property. The concerns raised have been considered in this report and are addressed via the amendments made to the design or via recommended conditions of consent below.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

(53)

PAGE 53 BACKGROUND

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 20 September 2016 and the Development Application was lodged on 5 October 2017. The Development Application was the subject of a request for additional information relating to concerns with planning, engineering, ecology, environmental health, traffic and bushfire concerns.

There are two existing dwellings on the subject site (one on each of the existing lots that are the subject of the Development Application) which are proposed to be retained on separate lots within the subdivision. It was discussed during the pre-lodgement meeting that the lots are required to be clustered and located towards the front of the site (Wisemans Ferry Road) sufficiently clear of the remnant vegetation on the site.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for a “rural cluster” subdivision creating 12 community title rural residential lots and one association lot. The proposed plan of subdivision is provided in Attachment 5.

The community association lot (Lot 1) has an area of 16.17 hectares (being 65% of the total site area) and contains the planned access road (private) along with remnant vegetation and fauna habitat present on the site. Approximately 70% of the site is mapped under the Terrestrial Biodiversity Layer included with The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) as required by Clause 4.1AA. The Development Application is also supported by a flora and fauna report prepared by an ecologist confirming an acceptable biodiversity outcome is achieved post development. The subject site contains endangered ecological communities together with threatened flora and fauna. The Development Application has been designed to minimise the loss of native vegetation and impacts on fauna habitat by generally locating these within the association lot and by managing the biodiversity of the site though the preparation, implementation and enforcement of a Vegetation Management Plan post consent. This includes a smaller stand of Tetratheca glandulosa between the private road and proposed lot four as shown on the proposed plan of subdivision included as Attachment 5.

The proposed community title rural residential lots (Lots 2 to 13) range in size from 5,646 square metres to 9,921 square metres. Lots 2 to 9 are located at the front of the site (Wisemans Ferry Road) and are proposed to be accessed via a planned access road (private) designed to Council’s rural road standards, the requirements of the Rural Fire Service relating to access from a bushfire safety perspective and the Roads and Maritime Service with respect to access to/ from a State road. Lots 10 to 13 are located at the rear of the site and have frontage to (and directed access from) Charcoal Road.

The proposal seeks to vary The Hills Development Control 2012 – Part B Section 1 – Rural (DCP), which requires that “lots must be clustered and grouped” and limits the extent of cut and fill permitted as part of the associated works. The Development Application is constrained by the topography of the site and the remnant vegetation present on the site. To enable the applicant to achieve a better biodiversity outcome; the lots are unable to be clustered as required by the DCP. Except from this minor variation the development is able to meet all other controls required by the LEP and DCP.

(54)

PAGE 54 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 (i) Permissibility

The land is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under the LEP (refer to the zoning map in Attachment 3). Subdivision is permitted in the RU2 zone.

(ii) Zone Objectives

The objectives of the RU2 zone are:

 To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

 To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

 To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

 To encourage innovate and sustainable tourist development, sustainable agriculture and provision of farm produce directly to the public.

The proposal seeks to carry out a community title subdivision (rural cluster) creating 12 rural residential lots and one community association lot. The proposal meets the objectives of the zone as it creates a large association property which is intended to contain and preserve the endangered ecological communities and threatened species of flora and fauna present on the subject site.

The proposal includes large rural residential lots ranging from 5,646 square metres to 9,852 square metreswhich fit in with the existing and proposed surrounding rural character which will allow for suitable forms of development to occur.

The proposal is compliant with the RU2 zone objectives.

(iii) Development Standards

The following addresses the principal development standards of the LEP relevant to the subject proposal:

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Clause 4.1AA Minimum subdivision lot size for community title schemes

Clause 4.1 of the LEP establishes the minimum lot size applying to the site in conjunction with the associated lot size map. The minimum lot size applying to the site/ development is 10 hectares. Clause 4.1AA however relates to community title subdivisions and permits smaller lots ranging from 0.4 hectares to 1 hectare for RU2 and RU6 zoned land subject to certain criteria as set out under Clause 4.1AA(3A), as follows:

(a) The land to be subdivided under the community plan is not less than 10 hectares, and

(b) The land to be subdivided under the community plan includes land identified as

“Biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map or a suitably qualified professional has assessed the relevant land and certified that the development will provide a better biodiversity outcome; and

(55)

PAGE 55 (c) after the subdivision, there will be no more than 1 lot (other than a lot comprising association property within the meaning of the Community Land Development Act 1989) for each 2 hectares subdivided, and

(d) The size of any lot resulting from the subdivision (other than a lot comprising association property within the meaning of the Community Land Development Act 1989), is not less than 0.4 hectares or greater than 1 hectare.

With respect to point (a), the property in question has an existing area of 24.78 hectares according to the survey provided during the assessment of the Development Application which complies with the required minimum area standard required above.

With respect to point (b), the site is mapped as “biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map included with the LEP (refer to Attachment 4). The Development Application is accompanied by a flora and fauna report by an ecologist who has assessed the site and existing vegetation present and has established that the development will provide a better biodiversity outcome. The application is consistent with point (b) above as a result.

Point (c) controls the permissible lot yield for rural cluster subdivisions by maintaining a standard of one lot per two hectares of site area. Based on 24.78 hectares of RU2 zoned land the subject site is capable of being subdivided into a maximum of 12.39 lots. The proposal is for 12 lots and demonstrates compliance with this clause.

With respect to point (d), all of the proposed rural residential lots comprise an area larger than 0.4 hectares and less than 1 hectare. The proposal complies with this requirement.

Clause 4.1AA(3B) of the LEP includes the following additional requirements for rural cluster subdivisions:

a) appropriate management measures will be in place that will ensure the protection of the landscape, biodiversity and rural setting of the land, and

b) productive agricultural land will not be lost.

The vegetation communities contained to the association lot will be managed into the future in accordance with a Council approved Vegetation Management Plan required post consent.

The size of the proposed lots are capable of accommodating activities which are permitted and representative of the rural zone and which will not impact upon the productive agricultural nature of rural properties in the locality.

Clause 4.1AA of the LEP includes two objectives, the second of which relates to rural cluster subdivisions specifically and states:

To encourage rural cluster subdivision that will ensure the land is developed, managed and conserved in a holistic and sensitive manner where affected by biodiversity.

The Development Application is supported by a flora and fauna assessment. Council’s Environmental Health team are satisfied with the proposed subdivision layout and the ability for it to provide an acceptable biodiversity outcome preserving majority of the ecological communities with the association lot; which is conditioned to be managed and protected into the future by way of a Vegetation Management Plan which is to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Environmental Health team and approved by Council staff before a Subdivision Works Certificate is issued.

(56)

PAGE 56 2. The Hills Development Control Plan 2012

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP, specifically Part B Section 1 – Rural. The proposed development is generally compliant with the relevant requirements of the DCP as tabulated below with the exception of two variations.

CONTROL PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE

Site layout

Lots must be clustered and grouped.

A minimum of 3 development lots (excluding the association property) are to be provided.

Lot location and

arrangement must consider both ecological constraints and bushfire risk.

12 development lots are proposed.

The proposed subdivision does not demonstrate a clustered/ grouped layout and therefore is not compliant.

Four of the 12 development lots are grouped together at the rear of the lot whilst eight lots are clustered at Wisemans Ferry Road. This layout was chosen to address the topography and biodiversity significance of the site.

Variation sought; see below

Cut and fill

Cut shall not exceed 1m and fill shall not exceed 600mm.

Filling of land is to only be in conjunction with an approved land use or legitimate rural activity such as horse riding.

Fill shall be limited to the use of Virgin Excavated Material as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

The earthworks proposed exceed the maximum permitted by the DCP.

Variation sought; see below

Site Layout

The site layout requirement of the DCP is to ensure lots within a rural cluster subdivision are clustered to minimise any adverse environmental impacts and ensure existing environmental/ biodiversity values are maintained or improved. The proposed layout does not comply with this requirement as the lots are divided into two clusters rather than a single cluster. As noted in the table above, proposed lots 2 to 9 are clustered to the south of the site near Wisemans Ferry Road and proposed lots 10 to 13 are clustered to the north of the site along Charcoal Road.

(57)

PAGE 57 The lots located on the southern portion of the site are clustered on existing cleared land that is relatively flat. The lots fronting Charcoal Road are also clustered as four lots fronting that existing public road. Given the site has two lot frontages, this approach is considered suitable in this instance. Whilst the lots are not in one cluster, the proposal has taken into consideration the topography of the site and biodiversity values of particular areas contained to the planned association lot. As such it is considered the two fragmented clusters are suitable given the better biodiversity outcome and is supported in this instance.

Cut and Fill

The proposed development seeks to vary the DCP with respect to the earthworks required accommodate the subdivision work exceeding the maximum extents permitted by the DCP.

The DCP permits up to 1 metre of cut and 0.6 metres of fill. The proposal seeks consent for up to 1.875 metres of cut and 1.875 metres of fill as shown in Attachments 6 and 7 below.

The earthworks are required to ensure the proposed private road is designed and constructed to meet Council’s rural road requirements with respect to the maximum permitted vertical geometry to provide for compliant access (especially noting the road needs to accommodate fire-fighting and waste collection vehicles too). It is considered that the proposed levels are suitably justified in this instance. The road is appropriately located on the site respect to the constraints present and the proposed variation is supported in this instance.

3. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was exhibited as nominated Integrated Development for 31 days and notified locally. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

ISSUE/ OBJECTION COMMENT

Additional traffic generation and the impact of additional vehicles on Charcoal Road.

The additional traffic generated as a result of the development is not anticipated to create a significant impact on the condition of Charcoal Road. If the existing condition needs attention or repairs; Council should be made aware of these outside of the development assessment process. Any future damage caused to Charcoal Road as a result of the planned development should be reported to Council for repair.

The recommended conditions below include requirements relating to the need to widen Charcoal Road fronting the development site to provide for compliant carriageway widths and sightlines around bends. These works will have to be completed before the subdivision can be finalised.

(58)

PAGE 58 Impact on existing access via Charcoal Road

in the event of a bushfire.

The Rural Fire Service has undertaken an assessment of the proposed development including the bushfire report submitted in support of the same. No objection was raised to the proposed development by them subject to conditions/ a Bush Fire Safety Authority. The conditions/ Bush Fire Safety Authority includes a lot of requirements relating to access specifically but stops short of requiring the complete reconstruction/

upgrade of Charcoal Road and justifiably so.

A full upgrade of Charcoal Road would be onerous where there are only four additional lots proposed to be accessed to/ from Charcoal Road.

The applicant is required to carry out some work along Charcoal Road linked to providing for compliant carriageway widths and sightlines around bends as noted above.

Insufficient information provided/ made available for a proper assessment.

Additional information and amended plans were requested and received throughout the assessment process. Sufficient information has been submitted to Council to make a full and proper assessment. All documents and plans received from the applicant have been uploaded to Council’s application tracker which is accessible by members of the public.

Signage should be provided along Charcoal Road warning drivers of the road condition/

design.

Regulatory signage will be provided with the proposed development to Council’s requirements and the relevant standards.

This relates to the slow speed and narrowed road carriageway around the bends present though not to do with the existing road surface or geometry which cannot be reasonably placed on the applicant to address as part of this planned subdivision.

Question regarding the location of driveways on Charcoal Road and what has the developer done to overcome the potential dangerous situation?

The applicant has submitted a sight distance analysis showing signage and potential driveway locations to ensure access to the four planned lots along Charcoal Road complies with the relevant design standards/

requirements. The detailed design and final location of the planned driveways will be considered with future dwelling applications on these four lots. Should a driveway be proposed in a different spot to those nominated with the information provided with this subdivision application then it would

(59)

PAGE 59 need to be similarly justified and considered with respect to the same requirements as part of that later application.

Question regarding the design of dwellings and if there will be any restrictions relating to the same.

Private restrictions relating to design are not a matter for consideration by Council. Any future dwelling is required to comply with the DCP and importantly the Rural Fire Service with respect to bushfire safety.

The Rural Fire Service have recommended stringent conditions around the future design and construction of any dwellings on the lots being created including the need for an emergency plan, perimeter access, fire trails, restricting the planned buildings to a nominated area clear of the bushfire threat and building design and construction standards no less than BAL 40. These recommendations have been included with the recommended conditions and will be created on the title of the newly proposed lots so that future purchasers are well aware of the same early in the process.

Question regarding the size of the building envelopes and if future owners are able to build two storey dwellings or sheds. What will the visual impact be?

As above the Rural Fire Service have recommended stringent conditions around the future design and construction of any dwellings on the lots being created including the need for an emergency plan, perimeter access, fire trails, restricting the planned buildings to a nominated area clear of the bushfire threat and building design and construction standards no less than BAL 40.

These recommendations have been included with the recommended conditions and will be created on the title of the newly proposed lots so that future purchasers are well aware of the same early in the process.

The building height is set by the maximum height permitted by the associated map included with the LEP and will likely only be a design constraint later if the dwelling is proposed on a sloping part of the site (noting the maximum building height is measured from the existing ground level at any given location).

Notwithstanding the fact the building platforms will be nominated on the title it is feasible that a future owner may seek to vary this requirement/ locate a dwelling elsewhere

(60)

PAGE 60 on the property with a future development application and that variation is able to be considered on merit the same as any other variation. Any future dwelling will be required to be located such that bushfire safety (including the need for compliant bushfire setbacks/ Asset Protection Zones are provided), onsite wastewater disposal, site coverage and building setbacks as prescribed by the DCP are all addressed. If adjacent to the lot that is the subject of that future application the objector would be notified of that development and would be able to make a submission raising any concern with the design.

Question regarding the use of the association property and potential future uses.

The association property is required to be managed by a body corporate and is the subject to a community management statement. That management statement will include the Vegetation Management Plan required to be submitted to ensure the retention, protection and ongoing management of the remnant vegetation present on site. The association lot contains the remnant vegetation and the planned private road. There is no other development potential or use proposed (or permitted) by this planned development.

4. Internal Referrals

The Development Application was considered by the following sections of Council:

 Engineering (access/ roads and stormwater management)

 Certification (building)

 Environmental Health (contamination, onsite wastewater disposal, ecology and tree removal/ retention)

 Resource Recovery (onsite waste collection)

 Traffic (access/ roads)

No objection was raised to the proposal (as amended) subject to conditions as included below.

5. External Referrals

The Development Application is classified as nominated Integrated Development pursuant to Section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the development requires approval from the Natural Resources Access Regulator and Rural Fire Service. The proposal was also referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comment as the proposal involves construction of a private road with access from a classified road (Wisemans Ferry Road).