Development Assessment Unit

(1)

Development Assessment Unit

Tuesday, 09 May 2017

THE HI LLS SHIR E C OUNCI L

(2)

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 09 MAY, 2017

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA NO. 1020/2017/HA - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING - LOT 2 DP 511198, NO. 4 PARSONAGE ROAD, CASTLE HILL

6

(3)

PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2017

PRESENT

Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment (Chair) Andrew Brooks Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Angelo Berios Environment Co-ordinator

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services Nicholas Carlton Acting Manager – Forward Planning Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Environment & Planning Mark Colburt Manager – Environment & Health

Janelle Atkins Principal Forward Planner

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT 8:30am

TIME OF COMPLETION 8:42am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 18 April 2017 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA NO. 1284/2017/LD - TWO STOREY DWELLING - LOT 27 DP 29071, NO. 18 CAROLE AVENUE, BAULKHAM HILLS

RESOLUTION

The application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report with the addition of the following condition:

(4)

PAGE 4 PRIOR TO ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

7a. (264) Section 94A Contribution

Pursuant to section 80A (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and The Hills Section 94A Contributions Plan, a contribution of $4,551.45 shall be paid to Council. This amount is to be adjusted at the time of the actual payment in accordance with the provisions of the Hills Section 94A Contributions Plan.

The contribution is to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or Complying Development Certificate.

You are advised that the maximum percentage of the levy for development under section 94A of the Act having a proposed construction cost is within the range specified in the table below;

Proposed cost of the development Maximum percentage of the levy

Up to $100,000 Nil

$100,001 - $200,000 0.5 %

More than $200,000 1%

ITEM-3 DA NO. 1070/2017/HA - SHOP TOP HOUSING - LOT 35 DP 1212326 NO. 1 ANFIELD STREET, KELLYVILLE

RESOLUTION

The Development Application be refused for the following grounds:

1. The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone under State Environmental Planning Policy Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006 as it is considered to be inappropriate given the residential context and nature of the existing and future residential uses. The proposal has the potential to have an adverse impact on the residential developments in proximity to the site.

(Section 79C 1(a)(i) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2. The proposed development is inconsistent with the State Environmental Planning Policy Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006 Draft Amendment (11/2015/PLP) which in part seeks to prohibit shop top housing in the R1 General Residential zone.

(Section 79C 1(a)(ii) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Clause 50 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, which requires the applicant to provide all the necessary and requested information to Council to allow for a proper assessment of the application, including the submission of information including a complete set of architectural plans, compliance with Australian Standards, vehicle parking and manoeuvring, landscaping, waste management, acoustic impacts and operational details for the shop/cafe.

(Section 79C 1(a)(iv) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

(5)

PAGE 5 4. The impacts on built environment in the locality are unacceptable in terms of bulk and scale of the proposed building which is not compatible with the future surrounding development and the overall streetscape. The development is not in keeping with the approved building envelope for a single dwelling.

(Section 79C 1(b) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

5. The proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site as it is an overdevelopment in terms of scale and intensity and results in unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbours.

(Section 79C 1(c) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

6. The proposed development fails to comply with Australian Standards in regards to parking and manoeuvring.

7. The proposed development fails to comply with the 88B Instrument restrictions on the site including the approved building envelope and the installation of a raingarden.

8. The proposed development is inappropriately located outside of the Hezlett Road Neighbourhood Centre.

9. The proposed development is considered not to be in the public interest.

(Section 79C 1(e) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

END MINUTES

(6)

PAGE 6 ITEM-2 DA NO. 1020/2017/HA - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING - LOT 2 DP 511198, NO. 4 PARSONAGE 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: 9 MAY 2017

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

HENRY BURNETT

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE PLANNER KRISTINE MCKENZIE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a five storey residential flat building containing eight residential units (4 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom) and one level of basement parking accommodating 15 car spaces.

The site does not comply with the 4,000m² minimum lot size for residential flat buildings prescribed under Clause 4.1A of LEP 2012. A lot size of 689m² is provided which is a shortfall of 3,311m² and represents a variation of 82.8%. The proposal is not considered to meet the requirements of Clause 4.1A(3) of the LEP (which allows development on smaller sites in some circumstances) as the design is not compatible with adjoining structures and the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties is not satisfactory. The proposal does not result in the orderly development of land.

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). Variations to the design criteria of the ADG are proposed in relation to building separation, natural ventilation, solar access, apartment layout and storage.

The variations result in a development that does not satisfy the design quality principles with specific regard to character, scale, density and landscaping.

The proposal has also been assessed against the requirements of DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings and variations have been identified in relation to site frontage, building setbacks, building heights, building separation, landscaped area, density, unit mix, open space, solar access, vehicular access, visitor parking and storage. The variations result in a development that is out of character and will adversely impact on adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale.

The Development Application was notified for 14 days and three submissions were received. The submissions principally relate to concerns with character and amenity of adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of its bulk, scale and relationship to adjoining property.

(7)

PAGE 7 On 13 March 2017 the applicant commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court appealing against the deemed refusal of the subject Development Application (Appeal No. 2017/77319).

The Development Application is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Applicant: Architecture

Design Studio 1. LEP 2012 – Unsatisfactory.

Owner: Jade Development

Pty Ltd 2. DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings – Unsatisfactory.

Zoning: R4 High Density

Residential 3. SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings - Unsatisfactory.

Area: 689m² 4. Apartment Design Guide –

Unsatisfactory.

Existing Development: Single Dwelling 5. SEPP Building Sustainability Index BASIX 2004 – Satisfactory.

6. SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land – Satisfactory.

7. Section 79C (EP&A Act) - Unsatisfactory.

8. Section 94 Contribution -

$17,003.47

SUBMISSIONS REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO DAU

1. Exhibition: Not required. 1. Recommended for refusal.

2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 14 days. 2. Court Appeal lodged.

3. Number Advised: 93. This includes The Hills Historic Society.

4. Submissions Received:

Three (two from the same

property)

POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed

HISTORY

19/08/2016 Pre-lodgement meeting held. Advice was provided by Council staff that the proposal was not appropriate for the site.

23/12/2016 Subject Development Application lodged.

(8)

PAGE 8 24/01/2017 Letter sent to the applicant requesting withdrawal of the

Development Application on the basis that the proposal is unsatisfactory in relation to minimum lot size, lot width, landscape area, building setbacks, building separation, number of storeys, density, apartment mix, visitor parking, open space, driveway location and tree impact.

24/02/2017 Further letter sent to the applicant requesting withdrawal of the Development Application within 14 days.

13/03/2017 The applicant commenced proceedings in the Land and Environmental Court appealing against the deemed refusal of the subject Development Application (Appeal No. 2017/77319).

14/03/2017 Further letter sent to the applicant requesting withdrawal of the Development Application within 7 days.

07/07/2017 Section 34 conference scheduled by the Land and Environment Court.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a five storey residential flat building containing eight residential units (4 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom) and one level of basement parking providing 15 car spaces.

The proposal seeks to remove two trees being a Pennantia cunninghamii (Brown Beech) which is 13 metres in height and a Tibouchina which is 4 metres in height. Replacement planting is proposed as part of the submitted landscape plan.

The site is adjoined by multi dwelling housing to the north, west and east and fronts Parsonage Road to the south. The wider locality is characterised by a mix of single detached dwellings, townhouse and residential flat building development.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Compliance with LEP 2012 a. Aims of LEP 2012

The aims of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 are:

i. to guide the orderly and sustainable development of The Hills, balancing its economic, environmental and social needs,

ii. to provide strategic direction and urban and rural land use management for the benefit of the community,

iii. to provide for the development of communities that are liveable, vibrant and safe and that have services and facilities that meet their needs,

(9)

PAGE 9 iv. to provide for balanced urban growth through efficient and safe transport infrastructure, a range of housing options, and a built environment that is compatible with the cultural and natural heritage of The Hills,

v. to preserve and protect the natural environment of The Hills and to identify environmentally significant land for the benefit of future generations,

vi. to contribute to the development of a modern local economy through the identification and management of land to promote employment opportunities and tourism.

Comment:

The proposal is not considered to provide for orderly development, the development of liveable and vibrant communities or a built environment that is compatible with the cultural and natural heritage of The Hills, as outlined in this report.

b. Permissibility

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under LEP 2012. Residential flat buildings are permissible with consent in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

c. Building Height

A maximum building height of 16 metres is required under LEP 2012. The proposed maximum height of the proposal is 15 metres.

d. Minimum Lot Size

Clause 4.1A of LEP 2012 prescribes a minimum lot size of 4,000m² for residential flat building development in the R4 High Density Residential zone. The subject site has a lot size of 689m² which is 17.2% of the prescribed minimum lot size.

Clause 4.1A(1) states:

The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.

Compliance with Clause 4.1A is not required if Council is satisfied that the development complies with the following criteria set out in Clause 4.1(A)(3):

i. the form of the proposed structures is compatible with adjoining structures in terms of their elevation to the street and building height, and

ii. the design and location of rooms, windows and balconies of the proposed structures, and the open space to be provided, ensures acceptable acoustic and visual privacy, and

iii. the dwellings are designed to minimise energy needs and utilise passive solar design principles, and

iv. significant existing vegetation will be retained and landscaping is incorporated within setbacks and open space areas.

(10)

PAGE 10 The applicant has sought to demonstrate with Clause 4.1A(3). The applicant’s specific response to each point of Clause 4.1(A)(3) is provided as follows:

a) The form of the proposed residential flat building is commensurate with other residential flat buildings in the locality, in particular the existing residential flat buildings to the west of the site at No. 1 Hume Avenue (corner of Parsonage Road). Although the site is adjoined by townhouses to the east and rear, the streetscape has a mixed built form scale, with both 2 and 4 storey buildings. The proposed building, unlike the adjoining townhouse developments, presents a built form scale that is in keeping with the zoning objective of achieving housing in a high density residential environment.

b) The siting of the proposed building, location of windows and open space areas, together with landscaping will provide a suitable acoustic and visual amenity for both the future residents and residents of the adjoining buildings.

c) In accordance with the BASIX Commitments, each apartment will incorporate energy and water saving measures, together with good levels of solar access and cross ventilation, ensuring that energy needs are minimised and passive solar design principles are achieved.

d) Despite the need to remove 2 trees from the front of the property, the landscape scheme for the site incorporates a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcovers that will provide an attractive landscape setting. As discussed in the Arboricultural Assessment, the significant trees on the adjoining sites will be retained and protected and the building design has been carefully considered and a range of protection measures will be implemented prior to the commencement of any work to ensure the retention of these trees.

Comment:

The applicant’s justification acknowledges that the adjoining structures (shared boundaries) are in the form of townhouses. The form of the proposal is not compatible with the existing townhouse structures in terms of building height. To the north and east, the five storey component of the proposed residential flat building interfaces with two storey townhouse developments. The height differential is up to three storeys.

The nearest existing residential flat building development is located at No. 1-7 Hume Avenue (the corner of Hume Avenue and Parsonage Road) to the west across the access point to No. 6 Parsonage Road (townhouses). There are some key differences between the subject proposal and the residential flat building at No. 1-7 Hume Avenue as follows:

 The residential flat building is a maximum of three storeys in height where the subject proposal is up to five storeys.

 The residential flat building has a building line setback of 10 metres to Parsonage Road where the subject proposal has a front building line setback of 4.95 metres.

 The residential flat building achieves building setbacks and separation in accordance with the Residential Flat Building DCP and the Apartment Design Guide where the subject proposal does not.

 The cumulative impact of the above results in a development that is not compatible with adjoining structures in terms of their elevation to the street and building height.

(11)

PAGE 11 Clause 4.1(A)(3)(ii) relates to the design ensuring acceptable acoustic and visual privacy. The proposal has not provided a detailed assessment of the impact on the adjoining developments. Detailed plans showing the location of adjoining private open space, common open space, primary living areas and building setbacks from common boundaries have not been provided. Whilst further detail would be required to complete an assessment, a preliminary review has raised concern that the design will not result in acceptable visual privacy impacts to the northern and eastern adjoining properties.

The submitted documentation does not provide sufficient detail to determine compliance with passive solar design principles. Further information would be required to demonstrate the proposal provides compliant solar access to both the subject site and adjoining property to the east.

The proposal seeks to remove two existing site trees. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and indicated there is an existing significant tree on site (Brown Beech) which is 13 metres in height. The tree removal is largely predicated on the proposed basement design and non-compliant building setback from the front boundary. If the proposed front setback was amended to be a minimum of 10 metres and the basement design was altered then the significant tree may be capable of retention. The applicant has sought to justify the removal of existing vegetation through the replacement planting scheme and the applicant’s arborist report which provides recommendations to retain all adjoining property trees. Whilst no objection is raised to the planting scheme, the arborist report is considered to be unsatisfactory and the excavation for the basement would likely adversely impact the health of two trees on adjoining properties.

The applicant has not adequately documented attempts to consolidate the subject site with adjoining properties to achieve the minimum lot size prescribed under Clause 4.1(A)(2) of LEP 2012. Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40 provides guidance on the minimum documentation/steps in consolidation negotiations. No documentation has been provided to date.

It is acknowledged that the site is isolated and some form of development is appropriate on the site. However, the current proposal does not result in a reasonable built form outcome.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 4.1(A)(3) of LEP 2012 and accordingly the application is not considered to satisfy Clause 4.1(A) as it does not meet the minimum lot size required for residential flat building development in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

2. Compliance with SEPP 65

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

a. Design Criteria

The proposal has been assessed against the design criteria within the Apartment Design Guide and the following non-compliances have been identified.

(12)

PAGE 12 Clause Design Criteria Proposed

Development Compliance Siting

Building

Separation For habitable rooms, 6 metres to the boundary for the first 4 storeys, and 9 metres at 5-8 storeys.

For non-habitable rooms, 3 metres to the boundary for the first 4 storeys and 4.5 metres at 5-8 storeys.

1^st to 4^th Storeys The proposal provides a minimum 4.5 metres to the boundary for habitable rooms to the north and east and a minimum of 5.465 metres to the west where 6 metres is required.

5^th Storey

The proposal provides a minimum 5.505 metres to the northern facing balcony and 6.049 metres to the east facing bedroom, where 9 metres is required; and

Provides a minimum 4.3 metres to the eastern stairwell where 4.5 metres is required.

No

Designing the Building Natural

Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

The number of high sill windows does not promote effective cross ventilation to 50% of apartments.

No

Apartment layout

Habitable rooms are limited to a maximum depth of 2.5 x the ceiling height.

In open plan layouts the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.

Room depths of 9 metres provided to four of the eight units where a maximum of 8 metres is permitted.

No

Storage Storage is to be provided as follows:

Studio – 4m³ 1 bedroom – 6m³ 2 bedroom – 8m³ 3+ bedrooms – 10m³

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

Storage areas not adequately

dimensioned, allocated or provided.

No

(13)

PAGE 13 i. Building Separation

The Apartment Design Guide states that building separation is to be provided to ensure reasonable levels of privacy. The proposal does not meet the requirements for habitable room or balcony separation on all elevations on all floors with the exception of the fifth storey setback to the western side boundary.

The relevant aims/objectives for building separation are provided within Part 2F and 3F of the ADG as follows:

 Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy. (Part 3F of ADG)

 Ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired future character with appropriate massing and spaces between buildings. (Part 2F of ADG)

 Assist in providing residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook. (Part 2F of ADG)

 Provide suitable areas for communal open spaces, deep soil zones and landscaping. (Part 2F of ADG)

The applicant has not submitted any written justification for the variation. The SEPP 65 Design Verification Report prepared by Architecture Design Studio Pty Ltd states as follows:

The proposal does comply with ADG setback with minimum encroachment for articulation.

Comment:

The applicant has not adequately quantified the variation or demonstrated compliance with the objectives or aims of the ADG.

The building separation does not result in appropriate massing and spaces between buildings. The building separation to the northern and eastern townhouses is inappropriate and does not adequately separate the different scales of development. The proposed five storey interface with a two storey townhouse should provide the minimum building separation.

The building separation is not considered satisfactory as it is inconsistent with the objectives of the ADG.

ii. Natural Ventilation

The Apartment Design Guide states that at least 60% of apartments are required to be naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys. The number of high sill windows provided does not promote effective cross ventilation of apartments to 50% of apartments in accordance with Figure 4B.3 of the ADG and therefore compliance with the Design Criteria is unlikely to be achieved.

The objective for natural ventilation is as follows:

The number of apartments with natural cross ventilation is maximised to create a comfortable indoor environment for residents.

(14)

PAGE 14 The applicant has not submitted any written justification for the variation. The SEPP 65 Design Verification Report prepared by Architecture Design Studio Pty Ltd states as follows:

All habitable rooms have been designed with a range of different windows including highlight, sliding glass doors or standard size windows to provide natural ventilation.

Comment:

The reduced building separation has resulted in increased privacy treatments including high-sill windows. Figure 4B.3 of the ADG indicates that the size of the inlet opening should have approximately the same area as the outlet opening. Concern is raised that the number of high-sill windows proposed will not facilitate effective cross ventilation from the balcony opening. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal provides effective cross-ventilation. The removal of high-sill windows to promote more effective cross ventilation will likely result in unsatisfactory visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties as the development does not provide an equitable share of building separation as detailed in Part 2(a)(i) of this report.

iii. Apartment Layout

The Apartment Design Guide states that in open plan layouts (where living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8 metres from a window.

Four out of eight proposed apartments provide a room depth of 9 metres to the rear of the kitchen.

The objective for room depth is as follows:

Environmental performance of the apartment is maximised.

The applicant has identified the departure from the control and provided the following statement:

The choice of open plan layouts and the incorporation of comfortable sized kitchen areas has resulted in the combined depth of the living room, dining room and kitchen total depth exceeding the control.

Comment:

The Design Guidance within Part 4D-2 of the Apartment Design Guide does not provide opportunities to consider greater habitable room depths. The flexible provisions in Part 4D-1 relates to minimum room dimensions only and are designed to ensure functionality and usability isn’t impacted by lesser room dimensions. The proposed room depth is unsatisfactory as it exceeds the maximum depth which will reduce the environmental performance of the apartment.

iv. Storage

The Apartment Design Guide states that storage is to be provided in addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms in accordance with the areas detailed in the above compliance table. At least 50% of the required storage area is to be provided within units. The submitted plans do not demonstrate compliance. For example, Unit 01-02 does not designate or provide storage areas in accordance with the ADG.

(15)

PAGE 15 The objective for storage is as follows:

Adequate, well designed storage is provided in each apartment.

The applicant has not identified a variation and provides the following statement of compliance:

All the apartment’s storage meets or exceeds the minimum standard, with most of the apartments containing at least 50% of the required storage area located within the apartment.

Comment:

The applicant has not adequately quantified the variation or demonstrated compliance with the objectives despite the numerical non-compliance. The plans may be capable of amendment to incorporate and designate the required storage areas within the apartments and basement car parking area however the plans submitted are not satisfactory.

b. Design Quality Principles

The proposal was accompanied by the required statement from a registered architect, being Pavlo Doroch, of Architecture Design Studio Pty Ltd, stating that they are a qualified designer within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and that the design is satisfactory with regard the design quality principles and the objectives of Part 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide.

The consent authority is also required to evaluate the design against the nine design quality principles. An assessment against each of the principles (italicised) is provided as follows:

Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well-designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

Comment:

The proposed design has not had satisfactory regard to the area and does not provide an adequate relationship to the existing natural and built features of the area.

A key natural feature of the area is landscaped building separation zones that progressively increase in width as building height and density of land use increases. The proposal does not positively contribute to this relationship between the natural and built features of the area as the provided building separation and landscaped area is insufficient.

A further key feature of the area is the established streetscape which is characterised by existing mature trees both within the road reserve area and on private property. The proposal seeks to remove the established tree within the front setback area and provide substantial hardstand areas forward of the building line.

(16)

PAGE 16 Principle 2: Built form and scale

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

Comment:

The reduced proximity to the street and adjoining properties has the effect of increasing the scale and bulk of the proposed residential flat building when viewed from these areas. Whilst the proposed building height is less than the maximum building height permitted under LEP 2012, the proximity of the building to boundaries does not result in an appropriate built form.

Principle 3: Density

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population.

Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

Comment:

The proposed density is not appropriate as discussed in Section 3(vi) of this report. The Residential Flat Building Development Control Plan sets out a planned density range of between 150 and 175 persons per hectare for the sites zoned R4 High Density Residential. The proposal exceeds the planned density, being 206 persons per hectare. It is noted that the site falls outside of the Castle Hill Station Precinct and accordingly is not subject to any publically exhibited strategic plans which would have the effect of increasing the envisaged density for the subject site.

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

Comment:

The design has not demonstrated that adequate natural ventilation and insulation is achieved. A natural ventilation report would be required to demonstrate the number of high sill windows do not compromise adequate ventilation being achieved. The achievement of these goals then contributes significantly to the reduction of energy consumption, resulting in a lower use of valuable resources and the reduction of costs.

The energy rating of the residential units has been assessed and the accompanying BASIX Certificate is satisfactory.

(17)

PAGE 17 Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well-designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

Comment:

The landscape plan does provide landscaping within the front setback area however the depth of the front setback is less than envisaged and the extent of hardstand areas within the front setback results in a landscape design that does not contribute to the landscaped character of the streetscape or neighbourhood as desired.

The non-compliant building separation results in landscape areas to the side and rear boundaries that do not provide the envisaged area for the provision of landscaping that maintains the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The landscape area provided (33.66%) is less than envisaged for residential flat building development in the locality by the DCP however it is noted that the landscape area complies with the ADG.

The proposal also includes the removal of all trees on the subject site. Further, the applicant’s arborist report has not adequately addressed tree retention on adjoining properties. The basement and driveway excavation is considered to adversely impact adjoining trees and the design in its current form cannot be supported on this basis. See further discussion in Section 6 of this report.

Principle 6: Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well-being.

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

Comment:

The unit size exceeds the minimum permitted by the Apartment Design Guide which positively influences internal amenity of the units.

Whilst the design has largely considered the amenity of neighbours in relation to design treatment and location of windows and balconies, the proximity of the habitable rooms to the boundaries does not adequately offset the non-compliance with building separation controls.

(18)

PAGE 18 The room depths of four out of the eight units exceed that permitted under the Apartment Design Guide and as such the internal amenity of residents has not been achieved for these units.

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

Comment:

The development has been designed with safety and security concerns in mind having regard to the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. No objection is raised to the proposal in relation to Principle 7: Safety.

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.

Well-designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

Comment:

The proposed mix of apartment size is unsatisfactory being over-reliant on one bedroom apartments as discussed in Section 3(vii) of this report.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

The visual appearance of a well-designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

Comment:

The architectural treatment of the building is considered satisfactory with regard to the proposed materials, colours and textures. However, the aesthetics of the building do not offset the non-compliant and unsatisfactory building envelope proposed, particularly with respect to bulk and scale.

3. Compliance with DCP 2012

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of DCP Part B Section 5 – Residential Flat Buildings and does not comply with the following development standards:

(19)

PAGE 19 DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD (CLAUSE NO.)

BHDCP

REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE

3.1 Site

Requirements

Min. road frontage – 30m 24.4 metres No

3.3 Setbacks –

Building Zones Where trees are located within the 10 front setback, 8m rear setback and 6m side setback, the building zone boundaries will be set so that all buildings are 5m from the trees or clear of the drip line of the trees whichever is the greater distance.

Front - 10m

Side – 6m Rear – 8m

Existing tree Nos.

1 and 2 proposed to be removed.

4.95 metres to building and 1.8

metres to

awning.

Minimum 3.973m Minimum 3.85m

No

No No 3.4 Building

Heights No buildings shall contain more than 4 storeys above natural ground level.

5 storey

proposed. No

3.5 Building Separation and Treatment

12 metres Insufficient detail. No

3.6 Landscaped Area

50% of site area 33.66% No

3.10 Density 150-175 persons per hectare 206 persons per

hectare. No

3.11 Unit Layout

and Design No more than 25% of units to

be 1 bedroom. 50% x 1 bedroom No

3.13 Open Space Above ground – min. 10m² with min. depth 2.5m

Depth does not comply (1.7 - 2 metres)

No

No 3.14 Solar Access Adjoining buildings / open

space areas – 4 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June

Insufficient detail. No

3.18 Vehicular

Access A centrally located driveway, a minimum of 10 metres from any side boundary or street.

Nil setback. No

(20)

PAGE 20 3.19 Car parking Rate per unit and visitor

parking:

1 space per 1 BR 2 spaces per 2 or 3 BR

Visitor – 2 spaces per 5 dwellings

2 metre landscaping strip adjacent to ground level parking areas.

3 visitor spaces provided, 4 required.

Not provided.

No

3.20 Storage 10m³ with an area 5m² and

dimension 2 metres Non-compliant. No

i. Site Frontage

The DCP requires a minimum 30 metre site frontage where the proposal provides a 24.4 metre frontage.

The relevant objective is as follows:

(i) To ensure development sites have sufficient areas to provide adequate access, parking, landscaping and building separation.

The variation is identified in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects, however no specific justification is provided in relation to this clause.

Comment:

The proposed site frontage is not considered satisfactory as the proposed design does not provide adequate areas for building separation and landscaping. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient planning merit for the variation.

ii. Building Setbacks

The DCP requires setbacks to protect trees in addition to a 10 metre building setback from the front boundary, 6 metre building setbacks from the side boundaries and a 8 metre rear setback.

The proposal does not provide allowances to retain the trees within the front setback, provides a 4.95 metre front setback, minimum 3.973m side setback and 3.85 metre rear setback.

The relevant objectives are as follows:

(i) To provide setbacks that complement the setting and contributes to the streetscape and character of the street while allowing flexibility in siting of buildings.

(ii) To ensure that the space in front of the building is sufficient to permit landscaping that will complement the building form and enhance the landscape character of the street.

(iii) Side and rear setbacks are to be proportioned to the slope of the site having regard to the height and relationship of the buildings on adjoining properties.

(21)

PAGE 21 (iii) The setbacks of proposed buildings are to minimise any adverse impacts such

as overshadowing and privacy on adjacent and adjoining properties.

(v) To ensure placement of buildings takes into account the retention and protection of existing trees.

The variation is identified in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects, however the applicant has not provided specific justification in relation to the proposed variation.

Comment:

The proposed building setbacks are not in keeping with the character of the street. The other residential flat building fronting Parsonage Road (to the west) provides a front building setback of approximately 10 metres. The reduced front setback substantially reduces opportunities for landscaping within the front setback and do not facilitate retention of existing trees. A 10 metre front building setback may enable the retention of existing trees on the site. The side and rear setbacks do not provide a satisfactory relationship to buildings on adjoining properties in particular to the north and east of the site where two storey townhouse developments are located. Reduced side and rear building setback are not considered warranted given the transition in scale to the adjoining properties. The building setbacks are not considered satisfactory.

iii. Building Height

The DCP requires a maximum of 4 storeys for residential flat building development. The proposal provides up to 5 storeys.

The relevant objectives are as follows:

(i) To ensure that buildings reflect the existing landform of the neighbourhood, including ridgelines and drainage depressions.

(ii) To protect privacy and amenity of surrounding allotments and residential development in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.

(iii) To minimise overshadowing of adjoining properties.

Comment:

It is acknowledged that the proposal complies with the building height limit within LEP 2012. Building height forms a component of a building envelope and cannot therefore be looked at in isolation. The proposed boundary setbacks and building separation are not considered satisfactory and result in a building envelope that does not have regard to the desired character of the area or adjoining properties. The breach in building height is in part a result of the density control being exceeded. As a result, the massing and location of the building height is not appropriate and a variation to the control is not considered to have merit in this instance.

iv. Building Separation

The DCP requires a building separation of 12 metres. The submitted plans do not identify the proposed building separation.

(22)

PAGE 22 The relevant objectives are as follows:

(i) To ensure privacy within buildings.

(ii) To avoid overlooking of living spaces and private open space.

(iii) To minimise the visual impact of residential flat building developments by minimising the bulk and scale of residential flat buildings and promoting suitable landscaping between buildings.

Comment:

The building separation to the northern and eastern adjoining townhouse developments is not satisfactory. The reduced building separation will result in an unreasonable visual impact on these properties. Refer to comments above in relation to ADG requirements for separation.

v. Landscape Area

The DCP stipulates a minimum 50% of the site is to be landscaped. The proposal provides landscaping to 33.66% of the site.

The relevant objectives are:

(i) To provide a satisfactory relationship between buildings, landscaping areas and adjoining developments.

(ii) To ensure a high standard of environmental quality of residential flat building developments and the overall visual amenity and character of the neighbourhood.

(iii) To ensure that existing trees are given every opportunity to be incorporated into the final design.

(iv) To ensure a satisfactory relationship between buildings and open spaces.

(v) To minimise bulk and scale of the development.

Comment:

The proposed landscaping is not considered satisfactory. The reduced area is the result of a small site area and not being able to achieve a building envelope that provides the envisaged areas for landscaping. This results in a design that does not have sufficient regard to the relationship with adjoining developments. The proposed design does not ensure a high standard of visual amenity or landscaped character to the neighbourhood and does not ensure existing trees are given every opportunity to be incorporated into the final design with all existing site trees proposed to be removed.

(23)

PAGE 23 vi. Density

The DCP requires a planned residential density of between 150-175 persons per hectare for residential flat building development. The proposed density is 206 persons per hectare.

(i) To ensure residential flat building development does not over-tax existing services and facilities.

(ii) To provide opportunities for a suitable density housing form that is compatible with the existing surrounding development.

Comment:

As discussed within Section 4 of this report, the site is located outside the North West Metro station precincts and is not subject to any planned changes to density. The density is considered excessive, is not planned, and is not supported by any substantive planning merits.

vii. Unit Mix

The DCP requires that a maximum of 25% of units are one bedroom. Four units (50%) are proposed to be one bedroom units.

(i) To provide a mix of residential flat types and sizes to accommodate a range of household types and to facilitate housing diversity.

(ii) Address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

Comment:

The proposal is not considered to provide a suitable range of unit types. The over- reliance on one bedroom units is likely predicated on the provision of a single level of basement parking which does not enable the provision of more parking spaces, and as such, restricts the number of two and three bedroom units. Further the design provides studies which have the potential to be converted to provide additional bedrooms. This is another mechanism to provide additional bedrooms whist negating the need to provide additional parking. The approach is not considered satisfactory.

viii. Open Space

The DCP requires balconies above ground floor are to have a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres. The minimum dimension proposed is 1.7 metres.

(24)

PAGE 24 The relevant objectives are:

(i) To provide private outdoor living space that is an extension of the dwelling for the enjoyment of residents.

(ii) To provide private outdoor living space that receives a reasonable quantity of sunshine during all months of the year.

The variation is not identified or addressed by the applicant.

Comment:

The proposed design does not provide outdoor living spaces that have the level of functionality/manoeuvrability as desired by the DCP. It is noted however that seven of the eight unit balconies comply with the ADG. The variations are not considered satisfactory in this instance.

ix. Solar Access

The applicant has not demonstrated that the residential buildings to the east receive solar access compliant with Clause 3.14(i) which states as follows:

Buildings must be designed to ensure that adjoining residential buildings and the major part of their landscape receive at least four hours of sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm on 21 June.

(i) To orient the development in a way that best allows for appropriate solar access and shading.

(ii) To maximise natural lighting to internal living and open space areas in winter and provide adequate shading to internal areas and private open space during summer to improve residential amenity.

(iii) To ensure no adverse overshadowing of adjoining allotments/developments.

The applicant has provided the following statement of compliance:

Shadow diagrams for the proposed development have been prepared that demonstrate that the adjoining buildings will receive the required amount of solar access.

Comment:

Hourly shadow diagrams have been provided. Concern is raised that the shadow diagrams do not accurately identify the location or function of structures to the east.

Accordingly, it cannot be determined if the adjoining property to the east receives compliant solar access.

x. Vehicular Access

The DCP requires driveways be located a minimum 10 metres from any side boundary.

The proposed driveway has a nil setback to the western boundary.

(25)

PAGE 25 The relevant objective is as follows:

(i) To ensure that vehicles may enter and exit residential flat building developments in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.

The variation is not identified or addressed by the applicant.

Comment:

The proposal does not provide sufficient separation of the driveway from the adjoining property. Whilst providing 10 metres is not always practicable, the driveway location minimises opportunities for landscaping.

xi. Car Parking

The DCP requires visitor parking be provided at a rate of 2 spaces per 5 units. The proposal is required to provide four spaces (rounded up from 3.2 spaces) where only three are provided.

(i) To ensure that all car-parking demands generated by the development are accommodated on the development site.

Comment:

Parking requirements are to be rounded up in accordance with DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking. The visitor parking provided therefore does not comply. The variation to visitor car parking has not been justified by the applicant.

xii. Storage

The DCP requires a minimum 10m³ of storage with a minimum area of 5m² and dimension of 2 metres.

(i) To ensure that each dwelling has reasonable private storage space (storage requirements include household items either within the dwelling or in secure garage areas).

Comment:

The proposed storage areas are non-compliant and not satisfactory in this instance. See comments above in regard to compliance with the ADG.

4. North West Rail Link and Corridor Strategy

The site is located outside the scope of the Study Area for the station precincts under the North West Rail Link Structure Plan. The site is also outside the Study Area for Council’s Corridor Strategy. The nearest station to the subject site is Castle Hill. The Castle Hill Station Precinct was defined using the following methodology:

(26)

PAGE 26 The boundary of the Study Area is based on the nearest road boundary within a radius of 800 metres from Castle Hill Station, which is a distance normally considered to reflect a 10 minute walking trip. The boundary has also been defined by taking into account the existing character, predominant land uses, built form and natural elements of the area.

Accordingly, there is no draft strategy that has been exhibited to the public to increase the existing planned density on the subject site as a result of the provision of the North West Rail Link.

Figure 1: Subject Site and Castle Hill Station Precinct (800m Radius in Yellow) 5. Issues Raised in Submission

The application was notified to adjoining properties and three submissions were received raising concerns with the proposal. The issues raised in the objections are addressed in the following table:

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME

Concern about shadowing of the heritage item and that no Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) was provided.

The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Forward Planning Section.

A HIS is not warranted in this instance due to the separation distance between the buildings and no overshadowing of the heritage item by the proposed residential flat building between 9:00am and 3:00pm mid-winter as detailed on the submitted shadow diagrams (See Attachment 5).

Issue addressed.

(27)

PAGE 27 The loss of trees will

reduce shade in the locality.

The loss of trees on the subject site is not considered satisfactory as outlined in the report.

Application

recommended for Refusal.

The proposal will worsen the existing traffic problem.

The proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse traffic impacts given the number of units proposed.

Issue addressed.

The development, if approved, will set a precedent for the development of similar small sites which collectively will ruin the character of the locality.

The proposal is a permissible use within the zone. Notwithstanding this the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory.

Application

The building is not in character with the current area.

The design is not considered satisfactory in relation to the existing and future desired character of the area and the Development Application is recommended for refusal.

Application

The development will impact privacy within our property as it will be overlooked by multiple neighbours.

The proposed building separation does not provide adequate privacy to adjoining developments.

Inadequate building separation is grounds for refusal of the Development Application.

Application

The development has the potential to devalue the adjacent properties.

This issue is not a planning consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979. In any event, no evidence is provided to substantiate this claim.

Application

There is a risk of structural damage to adjacent properties as a 5 storey apartment development will require deep foundation and the use of a pile driver during construction.

The concern is acknowledged and if the proposal was supported this matter could be conditioned.

However, the Development Application is recommended for refusal on other grounds.

Issue addressed.

The proposed construction will also impact quality of life for all residents due to noise, dust, ground vibration and general construction activities.

The concern is acknowledged and if the proposal was supported these matter could be conditioned.

However, the Development Application is recommended for refusal on other grounds.

Issue addressed.

(28)

PAGE 28 6. Court Appeal

On 13 March 2017 the applicant commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court appealing against the deemed refusal of the subject Development Application. A Section 34 Conference has been scheduled by the Court for 7 July 2017. The Section 34 process is guided by the Court Practice Note which states as follows:

The parties are to participate, in good faith, in the conciliation conference, including preparing to be able to fully and meaningfully participate, having authority or the ready means of obtaining authority to reach agreement and genuinely endeavouring to reach agreement at the conciliation conference.

In order for Council’s legal representatives to be in a position to reach agreement it is recommended that Council’s Corporate Lawyer be authorised to enter into a Section 34 Agreement with the applicant should the application be amended during the Court process to a point where it is regarded as being satisfactory.

Tree Management Comments

Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has reviewed the proposal and insufficient information has been provided in order to enable a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees.

Tree 6 is a mature tree within 6 Parsonage Road, which will be impacted by excavation for basement and driveway. An approximate 30% encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) will occur from the proposed excavation. This is classified as a major encroachment. Given the extent of the encroachment, root mapping is required to be undertaken to this tree and incorporated into Arborist report and recommendations. The current recommendation of driveway and basement excavation by hand, within the TPZ, is not viable due to quantity.

The proposed basement has a nil setback to the eastern side boundary. The acceptability of the impact to Tree 5 is not appropriately quantified.

Subdivision Comments

Council’s Subdivision Officer has reviewed the proposal and insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposed on-site stormwater detention, vehicle access and car parking.

Resource Recovery Comments

Council’s Resource Recovery Officer has reviewed the proposal and insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of on-going waste management.

Forward Planning Comments

The proposal was referred to Council’s Forward Planning Section to consider impacts on the heritage item at No. 210 Old Northern Road, Castle Hill. No objection was raised to the proposal on grounds of heritage impact.

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed against the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and is considered unsatisfactory. The proposal does not provide a satisfactory built form and has the potential to adversely impact on adjoining properties, streetscape and character.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.