Hornsby Shire
Council |
Attachment to Report
No. PL12/12 Page 0 |
TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT'S REPORT - NEXUS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PTY LTD
Development
Application No: 34/2012.
Description
of Proposal: Erection of a two storey
dwelling house.
Property
Description:
Applicant: Mr
B C and Mrs V H Batuwitage.
Owner: Mr
B C and Mrs V H Batuwitage.
Statutory
Provisions: Hornsby Shire LEP - Residential A
(Low Density).
Estimated
Value: $311,113.
Ward: B.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Development Application No.34/2012 for the erection of a two storey
dwelling house at
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The application proposes the erection
of a two storey dwelling house.
2. The proposal does not comply with the
0.4:1 floor space ratio development standard contained in the Hornsby Shire
Local Environmental Plan 1994.
Consequently, the application has been supported by an objection under
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) seeking approval of a
variation to this development standard.
3. Seven (7) submissions have been
received during the exhibition of the proposed development.
4. It is recommended that the application
be approved.
THE SITE
The site is located on the northern side of Pretoria Parade, Hornsby.
The site has area of 500.1m2, is currently vacant, and has
access by way of a right of carriageway over No.82 Pretoria Parade.
Hornsby Shire
Council |
Attachment to Report
No. PL12/12 Page 0 |
THE PROPOSAL
The proposal is for the erection of a two storey dwelling house.
ASSESSMENT
The development application has been assessed having regard to the '2005
City of
1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
1.1 Metropolitan Strategy - (Draft) North
Subregional Strategy
The Metropolitan Strategy is a broad framework to secure
The draft Subregional Strategy sets the following targets for the
Hornsby LGA by 2031:
- Employment capacity to increase by
9,000 jobs, and
- Housing stock to increase by 11,000
dwellings.
The proposed development would be consistent with this draft Strategy by
providing an additional dwelling and would contribute towards housing choice in
the locality, thus being consistent with the draft Strategy.
2. STATUTORY CONTROLS
Section 79C(1)(a) requires Council to consider any relevant
environmental planning instruments, draft environmental planning instruments,
development control plans, planning agreements and other prescribed matters.
2.1 Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan
1994
The subject land is zoned Residential A (Low Density) under Hornsby
Shire Local Environmental Plan 1994 (HSLEP). The objectives of the zone are:
(a) to provide for the housing needs of the
population of the Hornsby area;
(b) to promote a variety of housing types
and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment; and
Hornsby Shire
Council |
Attachment to Report
No. PL12/12 Page 0 |
(c) to
provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a low
density residential environment.
The proposed development is defined as "dwelling-house" under
the HSLEP and is permissible in the zone with Council's consent.
Clause 15 of the HSLEP prescribes that the maximum floor space ratio
(FSR) of development within the Low Density Residential zone is 0.4:1. The development has an FSR of 0.42:1 which
does not comply with this development standard.
To address this matter, the applicant has submitted an objection to the
development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 -
Development Standards (SEPP 1).
Sub-clause 18(1) of the HSLEP requires Council to consider the likely
effect of the proposed development on a heritage conservation area. The site is located within the Pretoria
Parade Precinct Hornsby West Side Heritage Conservation Area pursuant to
Schedule E of the HSLEP. The Statement of
Environmental Effects submitted with the development application contains a Heritage
Impact Statement which was considered as part of the following assessment.
2.2 Draft Hornsby Local Environmental Plan
At its meeting on 7 March 2012, Council resolved to endorse the draft
Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (DHLEP).
The draft plan is currently on exhibition. Under the DHLEP, the subject land would be
zoned R2 - Low Density Residential and dwelling houses would be permissible
within the R2 - Low Density Residential zone with Council's consent.
2.3 State Environmental
Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development)
On 27 February 2009, SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes)
commenced operation. Under the SEPP, the
NSW Housing Code outlines how residential developments, including detached one
and two storey dwelling houses, home extensions and other ancillary
development, such as swimming pools, can proceed on lots of greater than 450m2
in size as complying development with Council or accredited certifier approval.
The site is located within the Pretoria Parade Precinct Hornsby West
Side Heritage Conservation Area pursuant to Schedule E of the HSLEP. Pursuant to sub-clause 1.19(6)(a), the SEPP
does not apply to land contained within a Heritage Conservation Area. Notwithstanding, if the site were not located
in the Heritage Conservation Area, the proposed development would be
permissible as complying development.
2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1
B Development Standards
The proposal would have a floor space ratio of 0.42:1, which does not
comply with the 0.4:1 development standard as contained within Clause 15 of the
HSLEP. To address this matter, the
applicant has submitted an objection to the standard under State Environmental
Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1).
Hornsby Shire
Council |
Attachment to Report
No. PL12/12 Page 0 |
The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP
1. This Policy provides flexibility in the application of development
standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would,
in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary, or tend to hinder the
attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979.
The
1. The objectives of the standard are
achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;
2. The underlying objective or purpose of
the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is
unnecessary;
3. The underlying object or purpose would
be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is
unreasonable;
4. The development standard has been
virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting
consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is
unnecessary and unreasonable;
5. The zoning of the particular land is
unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for
that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and
compliance with the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That
is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the
particular zone.
In regard to whether the objection may be well founded, the applicant
contends as follows:
In our opinion the objection is well founded
and worthy of support. We feel that the
requirement to restrict the overall size of our proposal is unreasonable having
regard to the size of the property, the fact that the proposed dwelling meets
the objectives of the Hornsby HSLEP 1994 and complies with Council's
standards. By today's standards where
the trend for theatre rooms, multiple living areas and large void areas, the
proposed dwelling is modest in size for a family in today's society.
The applicant's SEPP 1 objection does not address either the objective
of the floor space ratio development standard or the requirements of SEPP 1 for
the objection to the development standard to be considered well founded. Indeed, the SEPP 1 objection does not provide
any planning reason as to why application of the 0.4:1 floor space ratio
development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances
of this application.
Notwithstanding, the degree of non compliance of the proposed development
with the floor space ratio development standard is considered to be minor and,
as such, that it would result in little, if any, impact compared to a compliant
development. The additional floor space
would not impinge on either the environmental or amenity aspects of the site,
and the underlying objectives of the zone would be achieved notwithstanding the
additional floor area.
It is considered that there is not sufficient reason to refuse the
application based on the non compliance of the proposal with the floor space
ratio development standard.
2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55
- Remediation of Land
Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55- Remediation
of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to consider whether land is contaminated
prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land.
Should the land be contaminated, Council must be satisfied that the land
is suitable in a contaminated state for the proposed use. If the land requires remediation to be
undertaken to make the land suitable for the proposed use, Council must be
satisfied that the land would be remediated before the land is used for that
purpose.
The application has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 55.
The site is within a residential zone and has not been used for a
purpose which would be likely to result in the site being contaminated.
2.6 Dwelling House Development Control Plan
The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the relevant
performance criteria and prescriptive design standards within Council's
Dwelling House Development Control Plan (Dwelling House DCP). The following table sets out the proposal's
compliance with the prescriptive standards of the plan:
Dwelling House Development Control Plan |
|||
Control |
Proposal |
Requirement |
Compliance |
Site Area |
500.1m2 |
N/A |
N/A |
Floor Area |
214.01m2 |
225m2 |
N/A |
Floor Space Ratio |
0.42:1 |
0.4:1 |
No |
Site Cover |
31% |
max 40% |
Yes |
Dwelling Height |
8.43m |
9m (2 storey) |
Yes |
No. of Storeys |
2 |
1 |
No |
Length of Building |
16.93m |
24m |
Yes |
Unbroken Wall Length |
16.93m |
10m |
No |
Private Open Space |
196m2 |
120m2 |
Yes |
Landscaping |
50% |
45% |
Yes |
Car Parking |
2 spaces |
2 spaces |
Yes |
Cut and Fill |
< 1m |
1m |
Yes |
BASIX Certificate |
405100S |
|
Yes |
Setbacks: -
Front -
Side -
Side - Rear |
N/A 1.3m 6.595m 3m |
6m 1m 1m 3m |
Yes Yes Yes Yes |
As detailed in the above table, the proposed development does not comply
with the floor space ratio, height, and 10m unbroken wall length standards
within Council's Dwelling House DCP. The
non-compliances are detailed below.
2.6.1 Floor Space Ratio
Pursuant to clause 15 of the HSLEP, the maximum floor space ratio is
0.4:1. The proposed development has a
floor space ratio of 0.42:1. The
applicant has submitted an objection to the 0.4:1 development standard pursuant
to SEPP 1. As discussed above, notwithstanding
a lack of adequate planning argument in the SEPP 1 objection as to why the
development standard should be varied in the circumstances of this application,
it is considered that a variation to the development standard is warranted.
2.6.2 Unbroken Wall Length
The wall of the proposed dwelling facing the western boundary of the
site at ground floor level is 16.93m in length without any architectural
break. The proposed development contains
windows to the dining room and kitchen in this elevation and the elevation is a
side elevation. It is considered that
there would be no adverse impact resulting from the non compliance with this
standard and variation to the 10m prescriptive measure is warranted.
2.6.3 Height
The proposal to erect a two storey dwelling house does not comply with
the prescriptive measures of the Height element which states that dwelling
houses on battle-axe allotments should not exceed single storey in height. Whilst the Dwelling House DCP favours single
storey development on battle-axe allotments, it does not preclude two storey
developments. Indeed, it could be argued
that the site is not a battle-axe lot for the purposes of this control element.
The purpose of this control is to ensure that buildings are designed and
located so that they do not cause unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring
properties. In this instance, the 8.43m
height of the proposal complies with the 9m prescriptive measure and the
proposal would allow for reasonable solar access and privacy to the neighbour
properties.
As indicated elsewhere in this report, were the site not contained in a
Heritage Conservation Area, then the proposed development would meet the
requirements of the Housing Code and, hence, be permissible as complying
development.
Indeed, the proposed development complies with the height requirement of
draft Hornsby Shire Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Draft Hornsby Shire
Development Control Plan 2012 in terms of the height of a dwelling house.
A variation to the single storey height control is considered warranted.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section 79C(1)(b) of the Act requires Council to consider "the
likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the
natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the
locality".
3.1 Natural Environment
The proposed development would not be located close to significant
trees.
The proposed development would have no impact on the natural environment.
3.2 Built Environment
3.2.1 Heritage
The Hornsby Shire Heritage Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed
development and concluded:
The proposal was previously considered by the
Heritage Advisory Committee at its meeting on 1 May 2012. The Committee raised objections to the
proposal on heritage grounds as the development is inconsistent with the
Siting, Design and Streetscape elements of the Heritage DCP and would have an
adverse impact on the character of the adjacent heritage item and surrounding
HCA.
The Committee considered the amended plans
presented at the meeting (copy attached) responding to the issues raised
previously by the Committee. The
Committee noted that there are a number of other two storey dwellings of
similar bulk and scale to the proposed dwelling that are located in the
immediate locality.
The Committee noted the amendments to reduce
the gross floor area and width of the upper level to the rear of the
dwelling. The Committee also noted that
the rear part of the upper level will be clad in light-weight material, the
roof form has been amended and landscape plans have been submitted to provide
landscape screening along the rear property boundary. The Committee generally agreed that the
amendments presented an improvement to those previously considered by the
Committee.
No objections raised to the amended proposal on
heritage grounds.
3.3 Social Impacts
There are no significant social impacts resulting from the proposed
development.
3.4 Economic Impacts
There would be no significant economic impacts resulting from the
proposed development.
4. SITE SUITABILITY
Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act requires Council to consider "the
suitability of the site for the development".
4.1 Site Selection
The site is a lot which has been created by the subdivision of the
parent lot into two allotments. The site
is suitable for the proposed development.
4.2 Flora & Fauna
There would be no impact to flora or fauna as a result of the proposed
development.
4.3 Traffic and Parking
The proposed development would not generate traffic volumes above the
capacity of the local road network and would have little impact on the level of
service of the local road network. Two
car parking spaces would be provided in accordance with the requirements of the
Council.
4.4 Solar Access
The shadows cast by the proposed development would overshadow part of
the principal open space of the adjoining dwelling at No.84A Pretoria Parade at
9am in mid winter. By noon in mid
winter, the proposed development would not cast a shadow onto the private open
space of that adjoining dwelling. It is
considered that the solar access to the private open space of the adjoining
dwelling at No.84A Pretoria Parade would meet the solar access control of the
Dwelling House Development Control Plan.
Some shadow from the proposed development would be cast onto the rear
yard of No.82 Pretoria Parade at 12 noon and 3pm in mid winter. The shadow cast at 12 noon is minor and would
not prevent the proposal meeting the solar access requirements of the Dwelling
House Development Control Plan. The
shadow cast at 3pm would be to the concrete vehicle turning area of No.82
Pretoria Parade and would be acceptable.
4.5 Privacy
The primary living and entertaining areas of the proposed development
have been located on the ground floor and are generally oriented towards the
rear of the site. The formal living area
has no windows on its western side and the dining area has two windows facing
the dividing fence on the western side of the site. As a consequence, no privacy impacts would
result from these windows. The first
floor of the proposed development comprises bedrooms and an associated
bathroom. No windows are to be contained
in the western elevation at the first floor level other than the bathroom
window. As such, no privacy impacts
would result from the first floor of the proposed development.
4.6 Bushfire Risk
The site has been identified as being bushfire prone land.
A recent amendment to Section 79BA of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council, or a person
accredited by the NSW Rural Fire Service, to certify that a development located
on bushfire prone land would conform to the specifications and requirements of
the document entitled Planning for Bush Fire Protection, ISBN-0-9751033-2-6. The certification would identify the
applicable Bush Fire Attack Levels (BAL) and the relevant Asset Protection
Zones (APZ) that would apply to the development.
Pursuant to Section 79BA of the Act, a bushfire
risk assessment submitted with the development application contains a bushfire
attack level (BAL) risk assessment, based on the proposed siting of the
building works, and certifies that the development has a bushfire behaviour
exposure level equivalent to BAL 12.5.
Appropriate conditions have been included in this consent requiring the
development comply with Australian Standard AS3959 - 2009 Construction of
buildings in bushfire-prone areas for BAL 12.5.
The bushfire risk assessment also concludes
that the entire site should be maintained as an Inner Protection Zone.
A referral to the Rural Fire Service is not
required in this instance.
5. PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Section 79C(1)(d) of the Act requires Council
to consider "any submissions made in accordance with this Act".
5.1 Community
Consultation
The proposed development was placed on public
exhibition and notified to adjoining and nearby landowners in accordance with
Council's Notification and Exhibition Development Control Plan. During this period, Council received seven
submissions.
The submissions objected to the development,
generally on the grounds that the development would result in unacceptable
impacts in terms of height, solar access, scale, privacy and heritage impact.
The merits of the matters raised in submission have been addressed in
Section 2 of this report.
6. PUBLIC INTEREST
Section 79C(1)(e) of the Act requires Council to consider "the
public interest".
The public interest is an overarching requirement, which includes the
consideration of matters discussed in this report. Implicit to the public interest is the
achievement of future built outcomes adequately responding to and respecting
the future desired outcomes expressed in environmental planning instruments and
development control plans.
The application is considered to have satisfactorily addressed Council's
criteria and would provide a development outcome that, on balance, would result
in a positive impact for the community in that an additional dwelling would be
provided which would have little impact on the environment. Accordingly, it is considered that the
approval of the proposed facility would be in the public interest.
7. CONCLUSION
The application proposes the erection of a two storey dwelling house on
a vacant lot.
The proposal is does not comply with the 0.4:1 floor space ratio
development standard contained within the Hornsby Shire Local Environmental
Plan 1994, however, in the circumstances of this application, a variation to
the development standard is considered warranted.
The proposed facility is not considered to be visually intrusive in its
setting, and the amenity of the immediate locality would be maintained.
The proposal would provide additional housing stock and, with variation
to the non compliances with the control elements of the Dwelling House
Development Control Plan, warrants approval.
It is recommended that the Council approve the development subject to
the conditions of consent detailed in Schedule 1 of this report.