ASSESSMENT UNIT

(1)

DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT UNIT

Tuesday, 08 May 2018

T O ST R IV E F O R B E T T ER T H IN G S

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

ITEM-2 DA 1880/2017/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF IN-FILL MULTI DWELLING HOUSING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEPP (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 – LOT 201 DP 1001460, NOS. 37- 39 CRANE ROAD, CASTLE HILL

4

(3)

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 1 MAY 2018

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Environment & Planning (Chair) Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Andrew Brooks Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Mark Colburt Manager – Environment & Health

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Stewart Seale Manager – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES

Nil.

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8:30am

TIME OF COMPLETION 8.35am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 24 April 2018 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 668/2018/HA -AN ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND STRATA SUBDIVISION - LOT 419 DP 1200566, NO. 15 TIMBARRA AVENUE, KELLYVILLE

RESOLUTION

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

(4)

ITEM-2 DA 1880/2017/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF IN-FILL MULTI DWELLING HOUSING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEPP (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 – LOT 201 DP 1001460, NOS. 37- 39 CRANE ROAD, CASTLE HILL

THEME: Balanced Urban Growth

OUTCOME: 7 Responsible planning facilitates a desirable living environment and meets growth targets.

STRATEGY: 7.2 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: 8 MAY 2018

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CO-ORDINATOR CLARO PATAG

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER KRISTINE MCKENZIE

Applicant Birch Properties Group Pty Ltd

Owner As above

Notification 14 days

Number Advised Two hundred sixty nine (269) Number of Submissions Nil

Zoning R3 Medium Density Residential

Site Area 1,866m²

List of all relevant

s79C(1)(a) matters Section 4.55 (EP&A Act) – Unsatisfactory.

LEP 2012 – Unsatisfactory.

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 – Unsatisfactory.

DCP Part B Section 4 - Multi Dwelling Housing - Unsatisfactory.

DCP Part C Section 1 - Parking – Unsatisfactory.

DCP Part C Section 3 – Landscaping – Unsatisfactory.

Section 7.12 Contribution: $51,445.71 Political Donation None Disclosed

Reason for Referral to DAU Variation to SEPP and DCP Recommendation Refusal

(5)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and ancillary structures and construction of a part 2 / part 3 storey multi dwelling housing development under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal comprises 18 x 2 bedroom dwellings which includes 6 dwellings containing study rooms. The proposed development is in the form of two separate buildings, with a communal basement car parking area containing 23 car parking spaces. The vehicular access to the site is from Crane Road.

Of the 18 dwellings proposed, four will be used for affordable housing, with the remaining 14 being available for sale or rent.

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is considered unsatisfactory.

The proposed density of 202.6 persons per hectare is considered excessive when assessed against the maximum density allowed for this type of residential development within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The development is not subject to a floor space ratio (FSR) bonus provided under Clause 13 of the SEPP which is available to development where the percentage of the gross floor area to be used as affordable rental housing is at least 20%. The combined floor area of the four dwellings nominated as affordable rental housing is only 17.1% of the development’s total gross floor area. In this regard, the proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the site as it exceeds the maximum density allowed for multi dwelling housing of 95 persons per hectare by 107.6 persons per hectare. This maximum density control when converted into FSR using the occupancy rates and minimum dwelling sizes prescribed in Council’s Multi Dwelling Housing DCP would be in the order of 0.47:1. The proposed FSR is 0.88:1.

The proposed side and rear setbacks and building separation do not comply with the Multi Dwelling Housing DCP controls and are considered unsatisfactory and unsympathetic to the surrounding residential properties. In addition, the extent of private and communal open space area provided is considered unsatisfactory and will provide a poor level of amenity for future residents.

Accordingly, the Development Application is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND

The Development Application was lodged on 9 June 2017 by the applicant despite the advice from Council’s Town Planning Customer Service Officer to book a pre-lodgement meeting with Council officers given the type and nature of the proposed development.

A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 June 2017 raising concerns in relation to stormwater drainage arrangement, vehicular access and parking, tree removal and landscaping.

On 17 July 2017, a further letter was sent to the applicant raising concerns regarding the non-compliances with the relevant standards prescribed in DCP 2012 Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing in relation to setbacks, density, building separation, building length, landscaped area, unit floor area, open space, car parking and storage. The applicant was advised that the proposed variations to the DCP standards was unlikely to be supported as it would set an undesirable precedent for future similar multi dwelling housing development within the locality. The applicant was requested to redesign the proposal to comply with the DCP.

(6)

A meeting was held with Council officers at the request of the applicant on 20 September 2017 to discuss the requested additional information. A follow-up email was sent to the applicant on 25 September 2017 forwarding Council’s Urban Designer’s comments that were discussed at the meeting.

Amended plans were received from the applicant on 13 November 2017 and supplementary information and further amended plans and updated tables of compliance with Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, Seniors Living Guidelines and Multi Dwelling Housing DCP was submitted on 30 November 2017.

A further meeting was held with Council officers at the request of the applicant on 6 March 2018 to discuss the comments raised by relevant Council officers in response to the amended plans submitted on 13 and 30 November 2018. Amended concept plans were tabled and discussed at the meeting with a reduced yield of 15 dwellings.

An email was received from the applicant on 7 March 2018 citing a few examples of approved multi dwelling housing sites with approved density similar to what they were proposing.

A letter was received from the applicant on 13 March 2018 requesting that the application be assessed and determined based on the amended plans submitted on 17 and 30 November 2017 which proposed 18 dwellings.

THE SITE

The subject site has a frontage of 30.89m to Crane Road and a depth of approximately 61m. The site tapers towards the rear on the eastern side, reducing the rear boundary to 27.33m. The site has a total site area of 1,866m².

The site is bounded to the north-west by a four storey residential flat building that forms part of a larger development comprising seven separate four storey buildings (known as Castlemount Estate (Nos. 23- 35 Crane Road). To the south-east of the site is a single storey brick and tile roof dwelling house and to the rear (north-east) is a 2 storey multi dwelling housing development that has frontage to Brisbane Road. Opposite the site are single storey dwelling houses. Within close proximity from the site is a wide mix of housing styles and densities which is a consequence of the more recent up-zoning of the area resulting in transition from the established low density residential neighbourhood to a higher density built form.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the demolition of an existing dwelling house, swimming pool and ancillary structures, removal of trees and construction of a part 2 / part 3 storey infill development pursuant to the provisions of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 in the form of multi dwelling housing comprising 18 x 2 bedroom dwellings which include 6 dwellings containing study rooms. A communal basement car parking is proposed to cater for 23 cars comprising 19 resident spaces and 4 visitor spaces.

The dwelling sizes range between 64.27m² to 104.45m². Unit 7 is nominated as an adaptable unit and allocated with two accessible parking spaces. Four dwellings are nominated as affordable rental housing units which have a combined gross floor area of 17.1% of the development’s total gross floor area. Vehicular access to the basement parking level is provided via a 5.5m wide driveway from Crane Road towards the centre of the site.

The proposed development has a gross floor area of 1,651.72m² which produces a floor space ratio of 0.88:1.

(7)

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

SEPP Affordable Rental Housing (SEPP ARH) 2009 was gazetted on 31 July 2009 with the following aims:

(a) To provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c) to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The Development Application is made under Part 2 Division 1 of the SEPP (In-fill Affordable Housing). This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument.

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan 2012 which permits multi dwelling housing with consent.

The SEPP also requires that for a land to be developed for purposes of in-fill affordable housing, all or part of the development must be within 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 6am and 9pm each day from Monday to Friday and between 8am and 6pm on each Saturday and Sunday. The subject site is approximately 350m to the east of the Castle Hill Town Centre. The closest bus stops are located on Crane Road, approximately 280m walking distance from the site which provides access to both east and west bound bus services.

As noted above, the Castle Hill Town Centre is within easy walking distance, where there is access to a number of bus stops serviced by buses providing express services to Sydney CBD, as well as Parramatta and nearby and surrounding suburbs.

The SEPP also provides incentives for the development of affordable rental housing, including relaxation of non-discretionary development standards and floor space ratio bonuses.

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant controls prescribed in the SEPP for in-fill affordable housing and the following table shows the development’s performance against the relevant controls of the Policy.

(8)

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (CLAUSE NO.)

SEPP (ARH) 2009

REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE Clause 10(1)

land to which this division applies

Applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument and is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

The proposal is permissible in the zone and the land does not contain a heritage item.

Yes

Clause 10(2)

Public transport Clause 10(1) does not apply to development on land in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within an accessible area.

Accessible area as defined in Clause 4 means land that is within:

(a) 800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf where a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or

(b) 400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or

(c) 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06:00 and 18:00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00

The subject site is located within an accessible area. The proposed

development is within 400 metres walking distance to a bus stop located to the east of the site on Crane Road used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger

Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 18.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each

Saturday and Sunday.

Yes

(9)

SEPP (ARH) 2009

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE and 18.00 on each Saturday

and Sunday.

Clause 13(1) Development to which Division applies

A floor space ratio incentive applies if the percentage of the gross floor area (GFA) of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20%.

17.1% of the development

(comprising 4 dwellings) is to be used for affordable rental housing.

This FSR incentive clause is therefore not applicable in this case as the nominated

affordable housing GFA is less than 20%.

If the GFA of the affordable housing units is at least 20%, a maximum FSR of 0.67:1 would be allowed.

The proposed FSR is 0.88:1.

Not applicable.

The proposal is not subject to a floor space ratio bonus.

Clause 13(2) Maximum floor space ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus: Y:1 (if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50%), under the following equation:

AH - % of gross floor area to be used as affordable housing Y = AH /100

There is no FSR control on the subject land under LEP 2012. A density control in terms of persons per hectare applies to this form of development under DCP Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing.

As stated above, the site is not entitled to a floor space ratio bonus.

If the proposal had at least 20% of the development’s GFA to be used for affordable housing purposes, using the bonus FSR formula,

N/A

(10)

SEPP (ARH) 2009

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE an equivalent

maximum FSR of 0.67:1 would be allowed utilising Council’s maximum allowed occupancy rates and minimum

unit size requirements for

multi-dwelling housing (i.e. 0.47:1 plus 0.20:1). The proposal has an FSR of 0.88:1.

Clause 16 Continued

application of SEPP 65

Nothing in this Policy affects the application of SEPP 65 to any development to which this Division applies.

The development is not defined as a

‘residential flat building’ and therefore SEPP 65 does not apply.

N/A

Clause 16A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

See below for detail No, see comments

below.

Clause 17 Must be used for affordable

housing for 10 years

(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that:

(a) for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

(i) the dwellings proposed to be used for the purpose of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

(ii) all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and

(b) a restriction will be registered before the date of

Condition is recommended to be

imposed if this application is to be approved.

Condition is recommended to be imposed

if this application is

to be approved.

(11)

SEPP (ARH) 2009

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE the issue of the occupation

certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met.

Clause 17(1)(b) – Restriction on Title

A restriction will be registered, before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, against the title of the property in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 to ensure the requirements of Clause 17(1)(a) are met.

Condition is recommended to be

imposed if this application is to be approved.

Condition is recommended to be imposed

if this application is

to be approved.

Clause 18 –

Subdivision Land on which development has been carried out under this Division may be subdivided with the consent of the consent authority.

Separate

application required for subdivision.

N/A

Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent (Clause 14)

The following table shows the proposal’s compliance with the relevant standards under Clause 14 of the SEPP (ARH) 2009, which provides that a consent authority must not refuse consent to an in-fill affordable housing (which in this case is in the form of multi dwelling housing development) on any of the following grounds:

Clause 14 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent Clause 14(1) –

Site and Solar Access

Requirements

Requirement Proposal Compliance

Cl. 14(1)(b) - Site

Area Min. 450m² 1,866m² Yes

Cl. 14(1)(c) -

Landscaped area 30% of site area 32.6% Yes Cl. 14(1)(d) - Deep

soil zones Greater than 15 per cent of site area Minimum dimension of 3 metres

The proposed development

includes a total deep soil zone (minimum

3m width) of

482.39m², which is equivalent to 25.8%

Yes

(12)

Two-thirds located at the rear of the site (if practicable)

of the site area.

Two thirds of deep soil (321.59m²)

however is

distributed around the perimeter of the site and not fully at the rear of the site.

Cl. 14(1)(e) - Solar

access Living rooms and

private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

At least 13 (70%) of the dwellings will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter, relying on the secondary yards available to dwellings 11 to 18.

Yes

Clause 14(2) –

General Requirement Proposal Compliance Cl. 14(2)(a) -

Parking At least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1

parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms.

The proposal comprises 18 x 2

bedroom dwellings and as such 18 resident spaces are required. A total of 23 car parking spaces comprising 19 resident spaces and 4 visitor spaces are provided within the basement level.

At least 1 car parking space is provided for each dwelling which exceeds the SEPP requirements.

Yes

Cl. 14(2) - Dwelling

size Bedsitter or studio - 35m²

1 bedroom unit – 50m²

2 bedroom unit – 70m²

3 or more bedroom unit – 95m²

The proposal comprises 18 x 2

bedroom dwellings.

Units 1 - 7 exceed 70m² in floor area, whilst Units 8 - 18 are below 70m² with floor areas ranging between 64.27m² to 65.2m².

No, see comments below.

(13)

As outlined above, the proposal complies with the requirements of the SEPP (ARH) 2009 with the exception of the required minimum floor area for 2 bedroom units and its design is not considered compatible with the character of the local area. The floor areas of 11 dwellings (Units 11-18) range between 64.27m² to 65.2m². This proposed variation is not accompanied by a SEPP 1 objection and therefore is unable to be assessed and considered in this regard. Further discussion with respect to the proposal’s compliance with the character compatibility test under Clause 16A is provided below.

Compatibility with the Character of the Local Area

Clause 16A of SEPP ARH 2009 stipulates that a consent authority must not consent to development to which this division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

The applicant has provided a brief character statement in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects as follows:

“It is considered that the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development is compatible with the anticipated character of the local area, having regard to the existing built form and new developments under construction or recently completed in the vicinity of the site.”

Comment:

The subject locality is characterised by a mix of high, medium and low density types of residential accommodation.

The neighbouring residential properties to the east and south of the site within the R3 Medium Density and R2 Low Density Residential zoned areas are characterised by generous front and rear setbacks with extensive landscaping and green zones to the rear. The proposed development conflicts with the pattern of surrounding development by way of basement car parking and reduced side and rear setbacks.

The proposed development is not aesthetically pleasing and it does not complement nor integrate with the existing and future character of the area. The proposed built form is not in character with the open form and design of existing residential development in the area and will not result in a satisfactory streetscape outcome.

The proposal features large blank walls of concrete, rendered and painted concrete, and a painted lightweight material with no articulation to the façade. The proposed design is not in keeping with the desired streetscape (See Attachment 7).

The application proposes a density of 202.6 persons per hectare which is more than double the maximum density of 95 persons per hectare allowed for multi dwelling housing. It will be out of character with the future medium density development in R3 zone.

Accordingly, the proposal is not considered satisfactory with regard to Clause 16A of SEPP (ARH) 2009.

2. Compliance with SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

Clause 7 (Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application) of SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, states:

(14)

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

The likelihood of encountering contaminated soils on the subject site is low given the site has been historically used for residential purposes. Potential land contaminated activities, such as those listed in Table 1 and Appendix A of the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines of SEPP 55, are unlikely to have been carried out on the site or adjoining properties. The site is not identified under the LEP as constituting contaminated land or land that must be subject to a site audit statement and is not subject to legal notice for a matter listed under Section 59(2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. Given the above factors, no further investigation of land contamination is warranted in this case. The site is suitable in its present state for the continued use of residential purposes.

3. Compliance with Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012.

Development for the purpose of multi-dwelling housing is permissible with consent within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The subject site exceeds the LEP’s minimum site area requirement of 1,800m² for a multi-dwelling housing development within the R3 zone and has a land area of 1,866m².

The Development Application is lodged pursuant to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The development is classified as ‘in-fill housing’ under the SEPP and is permitted on sites with a minimum area of 450m² that are within an ‘accessible area’ as defined by the SEPP. The subject site meets the accessible area requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

LEP 2012 does not set a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the subject site. The proposal complies with the maximum permitted building height of 9 metres.

The proposal however is considered unsatisfactory when assessed against the following aim of LEP 2012:

a) To guide the orderly and sustainable development of The Hills, balancing its economic, environmental and social needs.

It is considered that the proposal will contradict the desired orderly development of the locality, by providing unsatisfactory density, building setbacks and separation and inadequate provision of communal and private open space areas. In addition, the proposal is not consistent with the existing and future character of the locality particularly within the R3 Medium Density Residential and adjacent R2 Low Density Residential zoned areas and would not contribute to the sustainable development of the locality.

(15)

4. Compliance with DCP Part B Section 4 - Multi Dwelling Housing

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant standards in DCP Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing. These matters are silent in SEPP ARH 2009 and include setbacks, building separation, communal open space and private open space which should be taken into consideration in the assessment of the Development Application to the extent they provide a guide for the future character envisaged for the area.

The following table identifies the proposal’s non-compliance with these standards:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD DCP 2012

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE

Density Maximum 95

persons per hectare 202.6 persons per

hectare No.

Setbacks Primary Road

Frontage - 10m

Side/Rear Boundary

to Adjoining Property:

1.5m for a 5m single storey portion of the unit with remainder at 4.5m

Second storey component – 6m

A front setback of 10.18m is provided.

The side setbacks do not meet the required 6m, being 4.5m.

The rear setbacks do not meet the required 6m, being between 3.065m and 4.5m.

No. The proposed setbacks are considered

unsatisfactory and are unsympathetic to the surrounding residential

properties.

Building Separation 10 metres 5 metres No. Adequate

separation is not provided to maintain privacy and amenity.

Communal Open

Space Centrally located Minimum area of 180m² (10m² per unit) with minimum dimensions of 12m

67m² of communal

open space proposed No. Adequate common open space is not provided which will adversely impact on amenity of residents.

Private Open Space One continuous area of private open space equal to 50%

of the floor area of the dwelling shall be provided for each dwelling.

Private open space areas will be contiguous to the dwelling for which it is provided and have a minimum useable

POS varies between 25.5% and 31.4%.

None of the courtyards meet the required minimum useable area of 5m x 5m.

No. The proposed extent of private open space will not

provide a satisfactory level

of amenity to future residents.

No. Usable areas have not been provided.

(16)

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD DCP 2012

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE area of 5m x 5m.

80% of dwellings to have POS that receives direct sunlight to 50%

between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

Remaining 20% to receive 3 hours sunlight to 50% of POS between 9am and 3pm in mid- winter.

Only 4 units (20%) will receive direct solar access to 50%

of their POS between 9am and 3pm in mid- winter.

All 18 dwellings will achieve at least 3 hours sunlight to 50% of their POS between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

No. A reasonable level of solar access is not provided.

Yes.

The requirements of DCP 2012 Part B Section 4 – Multi Dwelling Housing have been used as a guide to determine the appropriateness of the setbacks. The required side and rear setbacks for Multi Dwelling Housing are generally 4.5m and 6m for ground floor and first floor components respectively. The side setbacks do not meet the required 6m, being 4.5m, while the rear setbacks do not meet the required 6m, being between 3.065m and 4.5m. No written justification was provided by the applicant to support this variation. It is considered that the deficiency in the setback controls demonstrates that it is an overdevelopment of the site which is further constrained by inadequate building separation.

One continuous area of private open space (POS) which is 50% of the floor area of the dwelling is required to be provided for each dwelling. In addition, each private open space area is required to have a minimum useable area of 5m x 5m. The POS varies between 25.5% and 31.4% and that none of the units meet the minimum 5m x 5m dimensions. The amount of communal open space is 67m² which is 3.7m² per unit, a shortfall of 6.3m² per unit. This is will result in a non-functional open space within the development and does not contribute to the overall amenity of the site.

The balcony to the rear of the units ranges from less than 2m to 3m from the rear boundary. The required rear setback is 6m. This adversely impacts upon the visual and acoustic privacy of the existing townhouse development to the immediate rear and precludes the planting of canopy trees to the rear of the property.

Whilst these controls in the Council’s DCP cannot be used as a statutory consideration, it serves as a guide as to the expected built form and scale of development in the locality.

The proposed development in its current form is an overdevelopment of the site and would be incompatible with the surrounding future multi dwelling housing development in the R3 zone.

5. Design/Amenity Impacts

The proposed development conflicts with the established character of the locality by proposing side and rear setbacks which are less than those on nearby similar multi dwelling housing development, inadequate building separation and insufficient communal and private open space areas.

(17)

The reduced setbacks proposed result in inadequate separation with adjoining properties and reduce the area available for landscape screening within the side and rear setbacks.

The subject site is located in a prominent position when viewed from Crane Road. The application presents a development street frontage which is not in character with the context of a residential streetscape with respect to materiality and fenestration of the façade.

The units face each other over a shared pedestrian access way of 5m. This provides inadequate building separation between individual dwellings which compromises internal amenity through overlooking causing privacy concerns.

The presentation to the street is poor and the placement of the windows does not adequately consider the overall composition of the façade and does not provide a pleasing and inviting appearance to the street. The size and proportion of the windows provided is that of service or utility rooms not windows reflective of habitable space.

Greater consideration towards the façade fenestration would have aided the architectural merit of this development.

The front elevation does not to respond contextually to the residential area in which it is located due to the lack of architectural articulation, lack of visual interest, the arrangement of the fenestration, material choice and massing.

The approach to the development and entryway is via a route which leads one directly past the garbage bins for the residences. No detail for the screening of the bins has been provided nor indicated, and the location of the bins requires the bins to be individually moved at a distance to the street.

The entry to the development proposes an overly large portion of the frontage containing concrete paths and ramps of varying slopes.

The internal site amenity is compromised by the overdevelopment of the site. This is demonstrated by the minimal size of 11 units which are non-compliant with the 70m² minimum standard in the SEPP.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal represents an unsatisfactory design and would result in significant amenity impacts.

6. Internal Referrals

The application was referred to following sections of Council:

• Forward Planning/Urban Design

• Engineering

• Environmental Health

• Resource Recovery

• Trees/Landscaping

Relevant comments are provided below:

Forward Planning/Urban Design:

• The density of the proposal is excessive and is in non-compliance with the objectives of the zone, DCP controls and surrounding neighbourhood context.

• The proposal fails to comply with solar access requirements.

(18)

• Poor street interface. The proposal does not present to Crane Road as an attractive, inviting nor desirable residential development.

• The development does not respond contextually to the neighbourhood.

• Poor internal residential amenity as a result of site overdevelopment.

Engineering:

• The control point length, width and gradient of the proposed driveway crossing do not comply with Council’s standards and the Australian Standards.

• Car parking space length is below the minimum requirement.

• Concurrence from the relevant service authority to relocate/ modify an existing Telstra pit within the driveway due to the proposed lowering of the ground levels should be obtained.

Resource Recovery:

• The garbage store area to be redesigned to a more traditional layout (square enclosure) and be of adequate size to comfortably store and manoeuvre the minimum required number of bins.

• Raised concerns regarding accessibility. It is unsure how the residents including collection drivers will access the bins within the garbage store area with no manual handling/wheeling of bins.

• The garbage storage enclosure should be relocated to the grassed area on right hand side of the letterboxes (facing Crane Road from the site), within 10m of the kerbside and to comply with the required path width and gradient.

Trees/Landscaping:

• The excavation for the additional proposed path to bin enclosure is too extensive to permit retention of a tree within the front setback area.

• Unsatisfactory landscape area due to location of bin enclosure and access ramp.

• Questions the inclusion of planters over basement within the Deep Soil calculations.

CONCLUSION

The Development Application has been assessed against the provisions of SEPP (ARH) 2009, Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan for Multi-Dwelling Housing and is considered unsatisfactory.

The proposal is not considered to be sympathetic to its surrounds and will impact upon surrounding properties and the locality as a whole.

The proposed density exceeds the maximum allowed population density for this type of development in R3 Medium Density Residential zone. As noted above the site is not entitled to a floor space ratio bonus provided in the SEPP as the gross floor area of affordable housing units proposed is less than 20%. Sixty one percent (61%) of the units have unit sizes that are below the SEPP’s minimum unit floor area requirement for 2 bedroom units.

The proposal does not comply with the Council’s DCP requirements on side and rear setbacks, building separation, private open space and communal open space. The variations to these controls are considered unsatisfactory and are unsympathetic to the surrounding residential properties and adjoining medium density residential development to the northeast of the site, and will provide a poor level of amenity for future residents.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

(19)

IMPACTS Financial

This matter may have a direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted 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 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 be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is not sympathetic to its surrounds and will impact upon surrounding properties and the character of the locality as a whole.

(Clause 16A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i), (b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

2. The proposed development conflicts with aim 1.2(2)(a) of Local Environmental Plan 2012, as it does not contribute to the orderly and sustainable development of the locality. The proposed development is not sympathetic to its surrounds and will impact upon surrounding properties and the locality as a whole.

(Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i), b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) 3. The proposed density, setbacks and building separation are not considered satisfactory and will not result in the development blending in with its surroundings or the immediate streetscape. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

(Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii), b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

4. The proposed built form will result in unsatisfactory impacts on the streetscape of the locality and does not provide a satisfactory communal open space and landscaped area, resulting in it being inconsistent with surrounding development.

(Section 4.15 (1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

5. The proposed development will result in a poor level of amenity for future residents, due to unsatisfactory unit size and layout and inadequate communal and private open space provision.

(Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i, iii), (b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

(20)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan (1 page) 2. Aerial Photograph (1 page) 3. Site Plan (1 page)

4. Basement Level Plan (1 page) 5. Elevations & Sections (3 Pages) 6. Shadow Diagrams (2 Pages) 7. Unit Floor Area Diagram (1 page) 8. Zoning Map (1 page)

(21)

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

(22)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

(23)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN

(24)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 4 – BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN

(25)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 5 – ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS (3 PAGES)

(26)

(27)

(28)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 6 – SHADOW DIAGRAMS (2 PAGES)

(29)

(30)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 7 – UNIT FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM

(31)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 08 MAY, 2018 ATTACHMENT 8 – ZONING MAP