Development Assessment Unit

(1)

Development Assessment Unit

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

THE HI LLS SHIR E C OUNCI L

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 19 JULY, 2016

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA 1541/2011/HA/A - SECTION 96(2) MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 30 DP 603385 NO. 196 ANNANGROVE ROAD, ANNANGROVE

4

(3)

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016

PRESENT

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

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

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES

Stewart Seale Manager – Forward Planning 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 21 June 2016 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA 1997/2016/HD – CONSTRUCTION OF A VETERINARY HOSPITAL – LOT 1 DP 536802, NO. 45 BLUE GUM ROAD,

KENTHURST

RESOLUTION

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

END MINUTES

(4)

PAGE 4 ITEM-2 DA 1541/2011/HA/A - SECTION 96(2) MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 30 DP 603385 NO. 196 ANNANGROVE ROAD, ANNANGROVE THEME: Balanced Urban Growth

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

STRATEGY: 7.1 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: 19 JULY 2016

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER KRISTINE MCKENZIE

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The original Development Application was for alterations and additions to an existing place of worship. The works included a new entry from the eastern side boundary (off the adjoining battle-axe handle), reconfiguration of the carpark and provision of 14 additional car spaces (resulting in a total of 36 formal spaces on the site) and a new kitchen and toilet facilities. The Section 96(2) modification seeks to relocate the additional 14 car spaces towards the rear of the site and to relocate the gate that services the kitchen area with associated amendment to the turning area.

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to DCP Part B Section 1 Rural, however a variation is proposed to DCP Part C Section 1 Parking. The DCP requires that a two metre wide landscape strip be provided every 10 parking spaces. The proposal does not provide the required landscape strip. The variation is considered satisfactory and will not adversely impact on streetscape or rural character.

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and two submissions were received.

The concerns raised relate to impact, safety and maintenance due to use of the battle-axe handle and drainage in respect to an existing dam. The property owner benefits from the use of the battle-axe handle based on the Deposited Plan. The proposed modifications will not adversely impact on the battle-axe handle. The proposal reduces hard stand area and any water run-off will drain across the site and be absorbed.

The proposed modification is recommended for approval.

(5)

PAGE 5

BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Applicant: X. Karai 1. LEP 2012 – Permissible with

consent.

Owner: Australian

Zoroastrian Association of NSW Inc.

2.

3.

SREP 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River – Satisfactory.

DCP Part B Section 1 Rural – Satisfactory.

Zoning: RU6 Transition 4. DCP Part C Section 1 Parking – Variation required, see report.

Area: 2.023 hectares 5. Section 79C (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.

Existing Development: Place of Worship 6. Section 96 (EP&A Act) – Satisfactory.

7. Section 94A Contribution –NA as the plan was not in force at the time of the original approval.

SUBMISSIONS REASON FOR REFERRAL TO DAU

1. Exhibition: Not required. 1. Further variation to DCP and two submissions received.

2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 14 days.

3. Number Advised: 16. This includes the Annangrove Progress

Association.

4. Submissions

Received: Two POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed

HISTORY

02/12/1992 Approval granted for the erection of a Place of Public Worship by Development Control Unit (DA 285/1992/HA).

22/05/2003 Refusal by Council for a Section 96(1)A modification to an approved place of worship to increase the number of social activities held per year and the hours of operation of use of the amplified music/loudspeaker system (DA 285/1992/HA/A).

14/05/2004 Approval granted under Delegated Authority for a pergola (2746/2004/HD).

09/03/2006 Approval granted by DAU for Section 96 (1A) to an approved place of worship to increase the number of social activities held per year and the hours of operation of use of the amplified music/loudspeaker system (DA 285/1992/HA/B).

(6)

PAGE 6 05/01/2009 Approval granted under Delegated Authority for an extension to

an existing awning (732/2009/MA).

01/11/2011 Development Application 1541/2011/HA approved by DAU for alterations and additions to the existing place of worship.

20/05/2016 Subject Section 96(2) modification application lodged.

25/05/2016 Email sent to the applicant requesting additional information regarding setbacks, landscape area, site coverage, driveway works, tree retention and occupation of the previous stage works.

02/06/2016 Additional information submitted by the applicant.

09/06/2016 Email sent to the applicant requesting additional information regarding manoeuvring and sept turning paths.

22/06/2016 Additional information submitted by the applicant.

PROPOSAL

The original Development Application was for alterations and additions to an existing place of worship. The works included a new entry from the eastern side boundary (off the adjoining battle-axe handle), reconfiguration of the carpark and provision of 14 additional car spaces (resulting in a total of 36 formal spaces on the site) and a new kitchen and toilet facilities.

The proposed works were to be constructed in two stages as follows:

Stage 1 – kitchen and toilet facilities;

Stage 2 – parking area modification.

The applicant has advised that the Stage 1 works have been completed and an Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 21 December 2015.

The Section 96(2) modification is for the following amendments:

a. Relocate the additional 14 car spaces towards the rear of the site; and

b. Relocate the gate that services the kitchen area with associated amendment to the turning area.

The relocation of the car spaces will allow the retention of an existing tree which required removal under the approved parking layout.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Compliance with DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural

There are currently no specific provisions within the DCP relating to a place of worship with the exception of site coverage. The site coverage limit under the DCP is 2500m². The approved site coverage is 2376m², and the proposed site coverage is 2072m². The reduction is a result of the reduced turning area adjacent to the kitchen area and the use of a permeable all- weather finish.

(7)

PAGE 7 In regard to the aim of the Rural DCP, the proposal is considered to be compatible with the capability of the land and is satisfactory in regard to rural character. The place of worship was originally approved in 1992. There have been no recent complaints regarding the operation of the church or activities undertaken on the site.

The proposal is considered satisfactory in regard to the provisions of the rural DCP.

2. Draft DCP Requirements

On 14 June 2016 Council considered a report which reviewed the RU6 Transition zone objectives and permitted land uses and resolved that Council publicly exhibit draft amendments to The Hills Development Control Plan. The report outlined that certain uses may have a ‘higher impact’ with increased potential to result in land use conflict and impact on lifestyle. The report identified that place of worship are one of the potential higher impacts uses. The report outlined new DCP requirements for places of worship.

The Draft DCP requirements are currently on exhibition from 28 June 2016 to 5 August 2016.

The application was lodged on the 20 May 2016. Notwithstanding this, the following table outlines the draft requirements:

Draft DCP Requirement Comment

Proposals must demonstrate they will not give rise to offensive noise as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and shall comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

The proposed modification does not seek to amend any operational characteristics of the approved place of worship. It is noted that a condition was imposed upon the original consent which states that the proposal is not to create offensive noise, and if a verified complaint is received, an acoustic assessment will be required to be undertaken and appropriate action taken.

Development shall comply with the objectives and controls of Clause 2.22 Waste Management – Storage and Facilities in Part B Section 6 - Business of this DCP.

The proposed modification does not seek to amend the waste management of the approved place of worship. It is noted that a condition was imposed upon the original consent which required compliance with the approved waste management plan which covered construction and on-going waste management.

Dense landscape screening with a minimum depth of 3 metres must be incorporated into side and rear setbacks to effectively screen the development from adjoining property boundaries.

The current DCP setback requirement for landscape works is 2 metres. The proposed new parking spaces will be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the western boundary.

Proponents must provide detailed information with respect to the proposed hours of operation. This should include every day activities as well as the frequency of special events including any proposed bell ringing and maximum number of people attending these events.

The proposed modification does not seek to amend any operational characteristics of the approved place of worship. It is noted that a condition was imposed upon the original consent which requires compliance with the operational conditions imposed upon DA 285/1992/HA (as amended by 285/1992/HA/B).

3. Compliance with DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking

(8)

PAGE 8 The Parking DCP requires that proposed parking spaces be set back a minimum of 2 metres from boundaries to allow for landscape screening and that in rows of parking spaces, that a 2 metre wide landscape bay be provided every 10 spaces. The proposed relocated parking spaces are set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the western boundary. However four of the relocated parking spaces are located adjacent to the existing sealed parking spaces which results in a row of spaces which comprises 21 existing spaces and four new spaces.

The applicant has justified the proposal as follows:



The location of the new 14 car parking spaces will provide continuity to the already existing spaces.

 The new location of carparking spaces would cause less disruption to neighbours both during and after construction

 The reduction in hard paved area would eliminate the need for additional storm water disposal by maintaining the permeable area.

 Trees that would have to be pruned or removed can be maintained due to the new proposal.

Comment:

The objectives of the DCP are:

(i) To provide appropriate landscaping for external and uncovered car parks so that they do not detract from the surrounding area.

(ii) To provide shade and improve amenity of loading, service and parking areas and to provide a buffer to neighbouring properties.

(iii) To utilise landscaping to provide amenity to neighbouring properties in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.

The proposed parking spaces are set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the western boundary. There is existing landscape screen planting between the proposed spaces and the western boundary which provides a reasonable landscape screen.

The proposed spaces are also located at the side of the existing building which limits visibility from Annangrove Road. In this respect the works are set back approximately 79 metres from the front boundary.

The proposed parking spaces are considered to be adequately screened and the proposed variation is reasonable.

4. Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Council may, in response to an application, modify a consent if the development, as modified, is substantially the same development as originally approved.

The modifications relate to the proposed levels of the development. In summary the following comments are relevant:

(9)

PAGE 9

 The proposal does not adversely impact on the built areas of the site;

 The proposal does not adversely impact on rural character;

 The proposed changes do not substantially change the approved uses and function of the development or the circumstances under which the consent was granted.

The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as approved, and no objection is raised to the proposed amendments under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

5. Access from Battle-Axe Handle

The original proposal included the provision of a vehicle access point from the existing battle- axe handle adjacent to the eastern boundary. The proposal seeks to maintain this access point however proposes to amend the gate access point and the internal turning area. The Deposited Plan indicates that two rights-of-carriageway 4.57 wide are located which provide access to No. 196A and 196B Annangrove Road (Lots 31 and 32 DP 603385). The subject site is Lot 30. The 88B Instrument indicates that Lot 30 benefits from the use of the rights-of- carriageway. As such Lot 30 has the benefit of the use of the battle-axe handle.

This matter was detailed within the original report where the applicant indicated that the battle-axe handle would be used as follows:

It is envisaged that the service entry will be used mainly by

- the working bees to carry out maintenance works and cleaning of the kitchen area:

- by senior members for their seniors day, for loading and unloading of food.

- by caterers on other occasions during birthday parties and other functions.

In all it is envisaged that it will be used not more than 6 times a month by members or caterers to access the kitchen area.

In order to address the proposed use of the battle-axe handle, Condition 5 was imposed as follows:

5. Use of the Battle-axe Handle

All care and consideration is to be given to residents during the construction period and on an on-going basis to ensure that residential access along the battle-axe handle is not impeded.

In addition, the matter of maintenance of the battle-axe handle was raised in the original proposal which was addressed as follows:

This is a civil matter between those property owners the subject of the right-of-carriageway and is not a matter for consideration with this application. However, in general terms if maintenance is disputed the Court will have regard to the terms of the 88B instrument and to who is the dominant and servient tenant of the easement.

Given that the subject site benefits from the right-of-carriageway there is no objection raised to the proposal to utilise the existing right-of-carriageway in the manner outlined by the applicant.

6. Issues raised in Submission

The proposal was notified to the adjoining property owners and one submission was received.

The issues raised in the submission (summarised) are detailed below:

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME

(10)

PAGE 10

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME

Safety and wellbeing of children due to traffic and strangers accessing the battle-axe handle.

See comments in Section 5

above. Issue addressed.

The proposed gate is of a size that is not necessary.

The proposed gate is appropriate in size to allow access to vehicles to enter the site.

Issue addressed.

Catering trucks or other trucks will not be able to turn on the driveway and will need to drive the length of the battle-axe handle into a front yard area to turn round.

The applicant has advised that when deliveries are expected, a committee member attends the site to take the delivery. This will ensure that the truck can enter the site, turn and leave the site without travelling the length of the battle-axe handle.

Issue addressed.

Children play on the driveway and concerns that use of the driveway may result in injury.

The church does not maintain the driveway and they have already caused damage to the tarmac on the driveway when they were building their new kitchen. The owners were not compensated and would like a guarantee from Council that any damage caused by any vehicle to our

driveway will be

compensated.

See comments in Section 5 above.

Issue addressed.

Request that access be provided to a 24 hour phone number to allow contact to Council staff should any vehicles block the driveway.

This is a civil matter and a 24

hour number is not required. Issue addressed.

Residents do not wish to see large machinery on our driveway for the purposes of the installation of these new car park spaces.

The applicant has advised that vehicles and machinery used in the construction of the car spaces will access to site from the main access driveway and will not use the battle-axe handle.

Issue addressed.

Increased traffic on the battle-axe handle due to the church use.

(11)

PAGE 11 One of the congregation has

already caused malicious damage to a letterbox by kicking it over. We never received an apology but an admittance of guilt and an offer to replace it.

This is a private matter between the property owners. However should malicious damage occur, this is a matter for the Police.

Issue addressed.

The hard surfaces drain to an existing dam which is always full. The site has no water retention or discharge facilities. This is an environmental issue and causes problems.

Any water run-off will drain across the rear of the site and be absorbed. It is also noted that the previously approved hard paved areas are reduced in the current proposal. There will no adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

Issue addressed.

ENGINEERING COMMENTS

No objection raised to the proposed modification and no additional or amended conditions.

CONCLUSION

The proposal has been considered having regard to the provisions of Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, LEP 2012 and Development Control Plan Part B Section 1 – Rural and Part C Section 1 – Parking and is satisfactory. One submission was received and the issues raised have been addressed within the report and do not warrant refusal of the application.

The proposed modification is recommended for approval.

IMPACTS Financial

This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward estimates.

The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan

The social and environmental impacts have been identified and addressed in the report. The proposal allows the on-going use of the site for a place of worship and is considered satisfactory.

RECOMMENDATION

The Section 96 Modification Application be approved subject to the following:

1. Condition 1 be deleted and replaced with

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.

REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS – 1541/2011/HA

(12)

PAGE 12

DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DA001 Site Analysis Plan 07/04/2011 Rev. A

DA002 Ground Floor Plan 07/04/2011 Rev. A

DA003 Roof Plan/ Site Plan 07/04/2011 Rev. A

DA004 Sections/ Elevations and Kitchen

Details 07/04/2011 Rev. A

DA05 Finishes 07/04/2011

REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS – 1541/2011/HA/A

DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

CC-01 External Works Plan 20-06-16 Issue E

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.

2. The deletion of Condition 8.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Part Approved Site Plan 4. Proposed Site Plan

5. Development Consent 1541/2011/HA

(13)

PAGE 13 ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

(14)

PAGE 14 ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

(15)

PAGE 15 ATTACHMENT 3 – PART APPROVED SITE PLAN

(16)

PAGE 16 ATTACHMENT 4 – SITE PLAN

(17)

PAGE 17 ATTACHMENT 5 – DEVELOPMENT CONSENT 1541/2011/HA

(18)

PAGE 18

(19)

PAGE 19

(20)

PAGE 20

(21)

PAGE 21

(22)

PAGE 22

(23)

PAGE 23