MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – 19 AUGUST 2020 THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
PRESENT:
Richard Pearson Chair Penny Holloway Expert
Marcia Doheny Expert
Alison Turner Community Representative
COUNCIL STAFF:
Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment
Ben Hawkins Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification Claro Patag Development Assessment Coordinator
Stuart Whale Development Assessment Coordinator Erin Roper Senior Biodiversity Officer
Mark Chidel Environment Coordinator Gannon Cuneo Senior Town Planner
MEETING COMMENCED:
12.00pm
MEETING FINISHED:
1.08pm
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:
Richard Pearson declared a conflict of interest for Item 2 having provided town planning consultancy for the applicant in 2015 but given the engagement was almost 5 years ago and limited in nature, not related to the subject site and as he has no ongoing relationship with the applicant, considered the matter to be minor and to not require him from standing down from considering the matter.
ITEM 1: DA 637/2020/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE TOWNHOUSES - LOT 13 DP 28286, 10 YVETTE PLACE, BAULKHAM HILLS
SPEAKERS
Jasmina Skoric – Objector Ugur Kovan – Objector Jeremy Stott – Objector
Peter Smith – Architect for applicant
Paul Osborne – Manager Development Assessment
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Development Application be approved subject to the conditions in the report.
PANEL’S DECISION
The Development Application be approved for the reasons outlined in the Council Officer’s report and subject to the following amendments to conditions;
1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended)
The development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent.
The amendments in red include: -
• Removal of Tree 1 (Jacaranda) in the front setback.
• Provision of privacy screening (i.e. translucent glass) on first floor side windows of Dwellings 2 and 3.
REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
DRAWING NUMBER DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE
19_019DA-A-100 Level C1 Carpark A 04/01/2020
19_019DA-A-101 Level G1 Street Level B 23/06/2020
19_019DA-A-102 Level 1 - 06/11/2019
19_019DA-A-103 Roof - 06/11/2019
19_019DA-A-200 Elevations SW, NE, SE B 24/06/2020
19_019DA-A-201 Elevations NW, SW A 14/01/2020
19_019DA-A-202 Sections AA BB a 14/01/2020
19_019DA-A-203 Sections CC, DD
19_019DA-A-800 Area Calculations B 24/06/2020
19_019DA-A-010 Site Plan/Numbering Plan - 06/11/2019 No work (including excavation, land fill or earth reshaping) shall be undertaken prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, where a Construction Certificate is required.
3. Compliance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Dwelling 2 is required to be dedicated to affordable rental housing:
The affordable housing component of the approved development is required to comply with the following requirements pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Housing) 2009 –
(a) The household / occupants have a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or
(b) The household occupants are eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.
(c) For 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:
i. the dwelling proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing (i.e. Dwelling 2) must be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and
ii. all accommodation that is used for affordable housing must be managed by a registered community housing provider.
57. Creation of Restrictions/ Positive Covenants
Before an Occupation Certificate is issued the following restrictions/ positive covenants must be registered on the title of the subject site via dealing/ request document or Section 88B instrument associated with a plan. Council’s standard recitals must be used for the terms:
a) Restriction/ Positive Covenant – Onsite Stormwater Detention
The subject site must be burdened with a restriction and a positive covenant using the
“onsite stormwater detention systems” terms included in the standard recitals.
b) Restriction – Affordable Rental Housing
Dwelling 2 on the subject site must be burdened with a restriction requiring that the dwelling be used for affordable housing for 10 years from the date of the issue of an occupation certificate. The covenant must be in the term required by the “SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009”.
REASONS
The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report. The panel noted the application was compliant with the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and that the height of the development was compliant with the Council’s Local Environmental Plan. (The Hills LEP 2019).
Condition 1 was amended to require translucent glass for side first floor windows serving bedrooms and landings within dwellings 2&3 to improve amenity and the interface with adjoining residences.
Condition 1 was also updated to reflect amended drawing numbers, descriptions, revisions and dates.
Condition 3 was amended to make clear that only dwelling 2 is required to be used for affordable housing as per the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.
Condition 57(b) was amended to clarify the requirements of the respective covenant for affordable housing.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The application was notified on two occasions. The first notification received ten (10) unique submissions which included a petition containing 21 signatures. The second notification received seven (7) submissions.
VOTING:
Unanimous
ITEM 2: DA 1057/2019/ZB - SUBDIVISION CREATING SIX COMMUNITY TITLE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOTS AND ONE ASSOCIATION LOT INCLUDING NEW ROAD - LOT 111 DP 1011305, 24-26 MILE END ROAD, ROUSE HILL
SPEAKERS
Andrew Wilson – Project Manager
Ben Hawkins – Manager Subdivision and Development Certification
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Development Application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The Development Application does not satisfactorily address Section 7.16(2) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 as the proposal is likely to have a serious and irreversible impact on the biodiversity values of the subject site.
2. The Development Application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the following information required under clause 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 has not been provided or the information provided is not satisfactory:
a) An amended plan of proposed subdivision removing the planned public drainage easement from proposed lot 2 and incorporating this area into the proposed association lot/ lot 1 so that all planned public drainage easements are clear of private land Road in accordance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012.
b) An amended concept engineering plan showing a 5 metre wide easement for drainage from the proposed road extending to Second Ponds Creek in accordance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 and Council’s Design Guidelines Subdivisions/ Development.
d) A landscaped setback area of 20 metres to Mile End Road in accordance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012.
3. The Development Application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions from Part B Section 7 – Industrial from The Hills
Development Control Plan 2012:
a) 2.3(c) Disturbance of natural site features.
b) 2.3(e) Minimum road frontage.
c) 2.15(a) Tree, shrub, groundcover and grass preservation.
d) 2.15(c) Maintenance of natural neighbourhood character.
e) 2.22 Stormwater management.
f) Map Sheet 6 (Landscape Setback).
4. The Development Application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has not
adequately considered the likely impacts of the development on the environment relating to ecology.
5. The Development Application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site is not suitable for the proposed development based on the development footprint proposed/ the impacts on ecology.
6. The Development Application is not satisfactory for the purposes of Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is not in the public interest.
PANEL’S DECISION
The Development Application be refused for the reasons outlined in the Council Officer’s report.
REASONS
The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report and the reasons for refusal.
The Panel gave consideration to the applicant’s request for deferral and considered the likely changes required to the conservation area and conservation management strategy were not able to be resolved promptly.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The application was advertised and notified and 27 unique submissions from 25 neighbouring or nearby residents were received.
VOTING:
Unanimous
ITEM-3 DA 1538/2020/LD - A TWO STOREY DWELLING AND RETAINING WALL - LOT 402 DP 1232194, 69 LEVADE AVENUE BOX HILL
SPEAKERS Nil
COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
The Development Application be approved subject to conditions in the report.
PANEL’S DECISION
The Development Application be approved subject to conditions in the report.
REASONS
The Panel generally agrees with the Council Officer’s report.
HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THE DECISION The development application was notified and no submissions were received.
VOTING:
Unanimous
