To confirm the minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Council meeting held on 22 October 2019. The existing rubbish bin roof will be demolished within 30 days from the date of determination of the Modification Application. Collection of waste and recycling must not cause a nuisance or interfere with the amenity of the surrounding area.
Waste collection vehicles performing development service are not allowed to be turned back in or out of the country. The proposed home business will be carried out in the existing rumpus room located at the front of the house. a) employment of more than 2 persons other than those residents, or. It is considered that the proposal will not cause pollution of the locality or interfere with the amenity of the area.
Compliance with The Hills DCP 2012 Part C Section 1 - Parking
In view of the above, the proposal meets the definition of a "home business" and is a permitted form of development on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under The Hills LEP 2012, subject to Council approval. To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the daily needs of residents. The proposal is considered to be in line with the stated objectives of the zone, in that it will provide services that meet the daily needs of residents in a low-density residential environment.
Issues Raised in Submissions
A condition of consent is recommended on the condition that consent is given that the site may not be used for sex services. A condition of consent is recommended on the condition that consent has been given for a maximum of two patients to be on site at a time. The business does not employ additional staff and must be run by one (1) resident of the property.
A condition of consent is recommended subject to consent being given for the development to provide three (3) off-street parking spaces (including two (2) parking spaces in the double carport).
Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans
The development application has been assessed against the relevant considerations under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered satisfactory. The questions raised in the submissions have been dealt with in the report and do not warrant rejection of the application. The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles, visions and objectives outlined in "Hills 2026 - Looking Towards the Future" as the proposed development provides for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or social amenity impacts and ensures that a consistent built form delivered with respect to the streetscape and the general location.
Plans submitted with the Construction Certificate must be amended to include the conditions of the Development Consent.
Separate application for other signs
Building Work to be in Accordance with BCA
Adherence to Waste Management Plan
Provision of Parking Spaces
Details and Signage - Principal Contractor and Principal Certifying Authority Details
A sign must be posted in accordance with Article 98A(2) of the Spatial Planning and Spatial Planning Regulations 2000. The sign must be placed in a conspicuous place and must state: a) the name, address and telephone number of the PCA for the work, .. b) the name and telephone number outside working hours of the main contractor/work manager.
Sydney Water Building Plan Approval
Critical Stage Inspections and Inspections Nominated by the PCA
Hours of Work
The yellow sharps container is required to be an Australian Standards (AS) approved yellow sharps container identified by the AS approval mark. Clinical and sharps waste must be collected and disposed of by an authorized contractor in accordance with Operation of the Environmental Protection (Waste) Regulations 2014. Receipts and receipts for the collection of sharps/clinical waste must be kept on site and presented to the Council if required.
Use of the Premise
Maximum number of patients on site
Work Within Building
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. § 4.55 (1A) The application relates to the extension of the size of the top floor of an approved three-storey dwelling. The unauthorized works to the upper floor area have resulted in a non-compliance with (SEPP) North Kellyville Growth Center Precincts Development Control Plan height requirements as the maximum height of the dwelling is 9.15 metres.
The works undertaken include additions to the approved upstairs bedroom area resulting in the increase in mass and scale of the dwelling represented by the variations detailed above. The Council's Certification Team was appointed as the original Certifier for the project, however, the applicant applied to change to a Private Certifier during the course of construction. During the assessment of the original proposal, the plans were amended to reduce the height, bulk and scale in order to result in a reasonable streetscape outcome and to reduce impacts on neighboring properties.
As an accepted variation due to the slope of the land, the ground floor was approved above 1.0 meters above natural ground. The amendment application § 4.55(1A) relates to the extension of the size of the upper floor level of an approved three-storey dwelling. These works include the extension of the approved master bedroom on the upper floor, resulting in an increase in the bulk and scale of the dwelling.
Other works include minor changes to some windows and to the parapet/façade of the house. If the change request is rejected, the matter will be referred to the Council's Development Monitoring Team for further action.
Section 4.55(1A) Modification of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
Compliance with the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Appendix 2 North Kellyville Precinct Plan
The North Kellyville DCP contains provisions to allow for the development of E4 Environmental Living zoned land to be run as a subdivision of the Community Title to reflect the front, side, and rear adversities, mass, and siting of residences, and landscape features of the adjacent area. to achieve a consistent streetscape character, regardless of the underlying zoning plan. In this case, the relevant DCP checks for plot widths >15m have been included in the assessment. The relevant objectives of the “Height of Buildings” standard in the SEPP are:. a) to maintain the amenity value of adjacent development in terms of solar access to housing, private open space, and bulk and scale.
The variance would not have been based on the original assessment as it unreasonably affects the extent and degree to which it affects the amenity of neighboring property owners. As described above, the applicant was asked to reduce height, mass and scale as part of the original assessment. Although the elevation change does not extend over a large portion of the roof surface, the bulk and resultant scale, shadows and potential impacts on privacy are significant.
The highest part of the dwelling is to the rear and there are properties around including two battle ax lots to the rear of the subject lot. Due to the slope of the land, these plots are at a lower level than the subject area. A balcony provided in lieu of the enclosed spaces as constructed will have a detrimental impact on the privacy of surrounding properties.
The dwelling currently has an approved first floor terraced area facing the rear boundary of the site. ii) Compliance with SEPP – Area Objectives. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the stated objectives of the site in that the height, bulk and scale exceed SEPP and DCP criteria, the proposal is inconsistent with surrounding development and the design has the potential to unreasonably impact on properties neighbor.
Compliance with the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018
We are not sure that the void area should be counted in this case or not. If it is counted, we can modify the plan to convert the extended bedroom area into balcony which is not counted. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in terms of site coverage and will have an unreasonable impact through bulk and scale on the amenity of adjoining property owners.
The proposed dwelling has the potential to unreasonably affect the streetscape as the additional works to the rear can be seen at an oblique angle, resulting in increased scale. The proposal is not considered to reflect a high quality in urban design and does not result in an appropriate building form result. The development application has been assessed against the relevant considerations under Section 4.15 and Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and the North Kellyville Precinct Development Control Plan 2018 and is considered unsatisfactory .
This matter may have a direct financial impact on Council's approved budget, as refusal of this matter may result in Council having to defend a Class 1 appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court. The development does not comply with Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the development is not considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved because it introduces non-compliance with height and site coverage, which provides a building. with unreasonable bulk and scale. The development's height does not comply with the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centre) 2006 height of building requirements and consequently has an impact on surrounding development through greater mass and scale, overshadowing and privacy (Section 4.15(1)(b) and (c) ) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
The bulk and scale of development, shading and impacts on privacy impact on neighboring properties and on the aesthetic values of the locality. The development does not comply with the site coverage of the Kellyville North Area Development Control Plan 2018 (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979). The development is not suitable for the site as it will not provide a satisfactory relationship between the built form and neighboring properties.
The development is considered not to be in the public interest as it contravenes the relevant DCP standard.
