Development Assessment Unit · 2020-03-11 · development assessment unit meeting 31 march, 2015...

Development Assessment

Unit

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

THE H

ILLS S

HIR

E C

OU

NC

IL

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

ITEM-2 DA NO. 725/2015/HB - ANIMAL BOARDING

ESTABLISHMENT FOR 60 DOGS - LOT 7 DP 32141

NO. 16 PITT TOWN ROAD, KENTHURST

6

ITEM-3 DA NO. 721/2015/MA - AN INGROUND

SWIMMING POOL, DECK, RETAINING WALL AND

PRIVACY SCREEN - LOT 49 DP 232705 - 9

ATTUNGA STREET, BAULKHAM HILLS

24

ITEM-4 DA NO. 1356/2014/LA - COVERED TIMBER DECK

AND SINGLE GARAGE - LOT 47 DP 239496 - 3

ROSEBANK AVENUE, DURAL

46

ITEM-5 DA NO. 587/2015/HA - DEMOLITION OF

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF

AN ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY - LOT 5 DP

216412 - 32 MERYLL AVENUE, BAULKHAM HILLS

63

ITEM-6 DA NO. 769/2015/HD - ADDITIONAL TEE AREA

FOR 16TH HOLE AND ERECTION OF A SAFETY

FENCE WITHIN MUIRFIELD GOLF COURSE - LOT 2

DP 568395, LOT 1 DP 555082, LOT 1 DP 651477

- MUIRFIELD GOLF COURSE, 58 BARCLAY ROAD,

NORTH ROCKS

88


PAGE 3

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, 24 MARCH 2015

PRESENT

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Environment & Planning (Chair)

Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Andrew Brooks Manager – Subdivision & Development Certification

Craig Bourke Acting Manager – Environment & Health

Craig Woods Manager – Regulatory Services

Stewart Seale Manager – Forward Planning

Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

APOLOGIES

Stewart Seale Manager – Forward Planning

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT

8:30am

TIME OF COMPLETION

8:36am

ITEM-1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RESOLUTION

The Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit Meeting of Council held on 27 March

2015 be confirmed.

ITEM-2 DA NO. 920/2014/HA/B - SECTION 96(2)

MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED INDOOR

RECREATION FACILITY - LOT 1 DP 566279 - NOS. 7-

9 KENTHURST ROAD, DURAL

RESOLUTION

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

amended and additional conditions of consent:

1. Condition No. 2 to be deleted and replaced as follows:


PAGE 4

2. Number of People Attending the Site

The use is limited to no greater than 18 clients and two employees at any one time

during classes. The one on one training sessions are to be restricted to a maximum of

one client per employee (maximum of two) at any one time.

Condition No. 11 to be deleted and replaced as follows:

11. Hours of Operation

The hours of operation for group classes being restricted to the following: -

Monday to Friday: 6:00am to 10:00am and 4:00pm to 7.30pm.

Saturday: 7.00am to 12midday.

The hours of operation for one on one personal training classes being restricted to the

following: -

Monday to Friday: 10:00am to 4:00pm and 7:30pm to 8.30pm.

Any alteration to the above hours of operation will require the further approval of

Council.

2. The addition of the following condition:

THE USE OF THE SITE

12A. Weightlifting

There is to be no use of heavy weights during one on one personal training classes.

ITEM-3 DA NO. 700/2014/HB/A - SECTION 96(1A)

MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SHOP TOP

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - LOTS 2 AND 3 DP

1108855, NO. 11-13 OLD NORTHERN RD,

BAULKHAM HILLS

RESOLUTION

The Section 96(1A) Modification Application be approved subject to the following

conditions of consent.

a) Condition Nos. 1 and 9 be deleted and replaced as follows:

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans

The development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details

returned with Development Consent 700/2014/HB, as amended by the plans returned

with this consent stamped 700/2014/HB/A. 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.


PAGE 5

REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS

DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE

A1200 Low Basement 02 A 20/01/2015

A1200 Upper Basement 02 & Lower Basement 01 A 20/01/2015

A1200 Upper Basement 01 A 20/01/2015

A1201 Ground Floor Plan A 10/02/2015

A1202 Level 01 Plan A 20/01/2015

A1203 Level 02 Plan A 20/01/2015

A1204 Level 03 Plan A 20/01/2015

A1205 Level 04 Plan A 20/01/2015

A1206 Level 05 Plan A 20/01/2015

A1207 Roof Plan A 20/01/2015

A1700 Section AA A 20/01/2015

A1500 East and West Elevation A 10/02/2015

A1501 North Elevation A 10/02/2015

A1502 South Elevation A 10/02/2015

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.

9. Conservation Management Plan

Works to Creasy’s shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the

Conservation Management Plan prepared by Ruth Daniell dated January 2014 and the

subsequent addendum dated January 2015. Plans of any proposed additions to the

heritage item such as a verandah and window hood are to be submitted to Council for

approval.

END MINUTES


PAGE 6

ITEM-2 DA NO. 725/2015/HB - ANIMAL BOARDING

ESTABLISHMENT FOR 60 DOGS - LOT 7 DP 32141

NO. 16 PITT TOWN ROAD, KENTHURST

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: 31 MARCH 2015

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT

AUTHOR: SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

SANDA WATTS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for an animal boarding establishment for 60 dogs. The

application includes the conversion of an existing shed for night kennelling, and the

construction of day exercise yards to the rear of the existing dwelling.

The application was advertised and notified and a total of 46 submissions were received.

The main issues raised in the submissions relate to the noise from barking dogs,

environmental impact and suitability of the site for the establishment.

It is considered that the proposal fails to meet the objectives of the RU6 Rural Transition

zone. It has not been demonstrated that the development is compatible with the rural /

residential amenity of the area. The scale of the subject proposal in particular the

intensity of the business catering for 60 dogs and its operational characteristics results in

a proposal that cannot comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Council staff do not

agree with the modelling assumption that only 30% of dogs will bark at any one time.

But even if this assumption was correct Council staff have calculated that the noise

emitted from the proposed development will not comply with the night time criteria of 30

dB(A).

In addition to the volume, the nature of the noise is likely to interfere unreasonably on

the amenity of nearby residents. The use therefore has had insufficient regard to

adjoining rural / residential land uses and site constraints and cannot be supported in its

current form.

The Development Application is recommended for refusal.


PAGE 7

BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Applicant: Mr B J and Mrs LG

Charles

1. The Hills LEP 2012 – Unsatisfactory,

refer to report.

Owner: Mr B J and Mrs LG

Charles

2. The Hills DCP 2012 - Unsatisfactory,

refer to report.

Zoning: RU6 Rural

Transition

3. Section 79C (EP&A Act) –

Unsatisfactory, refer to report.

Area: 2.23 hectares

Existing Development: Dwelling and shed

SUBMISSIONS REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO DAU

1. Exhibition:

Yes, 43 days 1. Recommended for refusal.

2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 43 days

2. Submissions received.

3. Number Advised: 25

4. Submissions

Received:

46 POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed.

HISTORY

27/11/2014 Subject Development Application lodged.

18/02/2015 Conciliation Conference held.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for an animal boarding establishment for 60 dogs. The

proposal seeks to fitout an existing colourbond shed to provide for overnight kennelling

for the dogs. Music is proposed to be piped within the shed to stimulate the dogs and

help eliminate barking during kennelling hours. The acoustic report provided with the

Development Application recommends noise attenuation measures, including lining the

internal walls and ceiling of the shed and acoustic fencing around the day exercise yards.

Outdoor exercise yards are proposed to the rear of the dwelling which are to be

sectioned off into four separate areas. The dogs are proposed to be in the exercise

yards from approximately 7:00am to 8:00pm daily. The dogs are to be grouped by size,

and temperament in the yards.

Landscape screening is proposed along the side and rear boundaries.

The proposed hours of operation for clients to come to the site are 8:00am to 5:00pm

Monday to Saturday, closed on Sundays and public holidays.

The Operational Management Plan indicated that the owners/occupiers of the site will be

the operators of the facility and kennel hands will be employed when required.


PAGE 8

CONCILIATION CONFERENCE

A Conciliation Conference was held on 18 February 2015 where acoustic impacts from

barking dogs, environmental impacts and suitability of the site for the proposed

development were the main issues discussed.

All of these issues were raised in the residents’ submissions which are addressed under

“Issues for Consideration” below.

The applicant was asked if they would consider reducing the amount of dogs for the

proposed establishment and they stated they would not.

No significant outcomes were achieved from the Conciliation Conference.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Compliance with The Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject is zone RU6 Rural Transition. The proposed animal boarding establishment

is permissible with consent in the RU6 zone.

While the development is permissible with consent, the objectives and intent of the zone

must also be satisfied. The objectives of the zone are:

To protect and maintain land that provides a transition between rural and other

land uses of varying intensity or environmental sensitivities.

To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within

adjoining zones.

To encourage innovation and sustainable tourist development, sustainable

agriculture and the provision of farm produce directly to the public.

Comment:

The development does not satisfy the objectives of the zone as it is inappropriately

located within close proximity to neighbouring dwellings and according to Council staff

calculations, does not comply with relevant noise policy criteria. The characteristic of the

noise emitted from the facility and its intrusiveness on the environment detrimentally

impacts on the amenity of the rural / residential area and results in a conflict of use.

The nearest residential dwelling to the existing shed which is proposed to be used to

house the dogs at night, is located 60 metres to the east, at No. 14 Pitt Town Road. The

dwelling at No. 18 Pitt Town Road is approximately 80 metres from the proposed day

exercise yards. Furthermore, the topography of the site may contribute to the

transmission of noise. The site has a fall of approximately 8 metres over the length of

the 100m long exercise yards which slope down to rear of the site. The noise has the

potential to travel over the 2.4m acoustic wall at the rear if the dogs are at the top of

the exercise yards. This would potentially impact properties on Sorbello Place, which are

at a lower elevation that the subject site.

The development does not comply the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Council staff have

calculated that the noise emitted from the proposed development will not comply with

the night time criteria of 30 dB(A).


PAGE 9

The proposed 60 dogs to be catered for on the site has insufficient regard to adjoining

and nearby rural/residential land uses.

The site is located just over 300 metres from land zoned E4 Environmental Living zoned

and approximately 600 metres to land zone R2 Low Density Residential, located to the

south-east of the site. Animal Boarding Establishments are prohibited in E4 and R2

zoned land.

On this basis, the application for a 60 dog animal boarding establishment results is not

supported.

2. Compliance with The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 - Rural

There are no specific controls for animal boarding, breeding and training establishments

under The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural. The relevant aims and objectives under

The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural are as follows:

“(ii) To protect, maintain and enhance the natural environment including bushland,

threatened species, river foreshore, wetlands, riparian corridors, ridgelines and

views;

(iii) To ensure that development is compatible with the capability of the land, does not

unreasonably increase demand for services and minimises risks from natural

hazards;

(iv) To encourage the use of the land for agriculture and rural uses, and minimise and

conflict between competing land uses.

(vi) To ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact on the natural

environment, scenic qualities of the area or amenity of surrounding residents, and

that it contributes to the rural character of the area.”

It is considered that the proposed development will have adversely impact upon the

natural environment and rural character of the area and results in adverse acoustic

amenity impacts.

The waste produced from the large number of dogs, if not managed appropriately may

have the potential to impact on the natural environment in terms of run off and odour

impacts. The proposed 2.4 and 3 metre acoustic wall proposed for the external exercise

yard, which has a length of 100 metres is not in keeping with the rural character of the

area and will potentially result in adverse visual impact from neighbouring residential

properties.

The noise from 60 barking dogs which can potentially occur 24 hours a day 7 days a

week is an unacceptable outcome and does not maintain the rural amenity of the area,

and does not comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

In view of the above, the proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with

the aims and objectives of The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural and is not supported.

3. Compliance with The Hills DCP Part C Section 1 - Parking

The Hills DCP Part C Section 1 – Parking prescribes that Development Applications for

animal boarding or training establishments are to be accompanied by a traffic and

parking study to ensure that parking demand generated by the activity is contained

within the subject site. The proposed development did not allocated any dedicated car

parking spaces within the site. A traffic and parking study was not submitted with the

Development Application.


PAGE 10

Council staff are satisfied that parking demand for the use can be contained within the

subject site. The existing driveway location provides appropriate sight distance for

vehicles entering and exiting the property consistent with the standards nominated in

the Austroad’s Guidelines. Furthermore, the traffic generation for this type and scale of

facility is not typically coincidental with the AM and PM road traffic peak and the potential

traffic impact on the surrounding road network and nearby intersections is not

considered significant. It is considered that a traffic and parking study would not be

required in this instance.

4. Acoustic Impact

The Development Application was accompanied by an acoustic report prepared by Day

Design Pty Ltd.

The acoustic consultant has measured ambient noise levels and has determined that the

day, evening and night time criteria following the methodology in the NSW Industrial

Noise Policy is as follows:

Day (7am-6pm) – 40 dB(A)

Evening (6pm-10pm) – 40 dB(A)

Night (10pm-7am) – 30 dB(A)

The acoustic consultant has also specified that the noise level from 1 dog barking is 86

dB(A), and assumes that only 30% (18 dogs) will bark simultaneously, resulting in a

combined noise level of 99 dB(A) at the night kennel.

The report has made a number of recommendations, including:

Acoustical treatment of the walls, roof and openings such as skylights/mechanical

ventilation of the proposed kennel.

The exercise yard to be provided with a 3 metre and 2.4 metre acoustic wall

constructed of corrugated steel, lapped and capped timber or masonry.

Management controls such as ensuring operators deal with prolonged barking.

The acoustic report predicted that the noise levels at 14 Pitt Town Road (being the

nearest affected received) from 30% (18) dogs barking at one time would result in the

following:

Day (from exercise yards with acoustic fence) – 40 dB(A)

Evening (until 8pm from exercise yards with acoustic fence) – 40dB(A)

Night (from the acoustically treated kennel) – 27 dB(A)

The report concludes that with the recommended noise attenuation measures and

management controls, the development will comply with the noise criteria during the

day, evening and night.

Comment:

There is no basis for the assumption that only a maximum of 18 dogs (30%) will bark at

one time. Dogs bark for a number of reasons, including separation anxiety, fear,

boredom or excitement. Therefore, there is the potential that in these circumstances, a

higher percentage of dogs would bark simultaneously.


PAGE 11

The acoustic report has predicted that the use of the exercise yards with acoustic walls

during the day and evening periods will comply with a noise level of 40 dB(A), with the

assumption of only 30% of dogs barking. We do not agree that only a maximum of 18

dogs will bark at any one time. Council staff have calculated that with 29 dogs barking

at the same time, the noise level is 41 dB(A), which does not comply with the day and

evening criteria of 40 dB(A).

The acoustic report has predicted a noise level of 43 dB(A) from the existing shed

(without further acoustic improvements) at 14 Pitt Town Road. Council staff have

calculated that the noise level will be 61 dB(A).

The acoustic report predicted that the noise levels at 14 Pitt Town Road, from the

enclosed acoustically treated kennels at night would be 27 dB(A). Council staff’s

assessment of the report predicts that the noise level of 18 dogs barking simultaneously

would be 41 dB(A) at the receiver even allowing for acoustic treatment.

Council staff are of the opinion that there will be an unreasonable acoustic impact upon

neighbouring premises and that the proposal, in its current form, will not comply with

the criteria.

Furthermore, in considering the proposal, the offensive noise test can be applied to

determine whether the proposal will be harmful or interfere unreasonably with the

repose of a person outside the premises. The Protection of the Environment Operations

Act 1997 defines offensive noise as:

offensive noise means noise:

a) that, by reason of its level, nature, character or quality, or the time at which it is

made, or any other circumstances:

(i) is harmful to (or is likely to be harmful to) a person who is outside the

premises from which it is emitted, or

(ii) interferes unreasonably with (or is likely to interfere unreasonably with) the

comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises from which it is

emitted, or

b) that is of a level, nature, character or quality prescribed by the regulations or that is

made at a time, or in other circumstances, prescribed by the regulations.

The Environmental Protection Authority has provided an offensive noise test in the Noise

Guide for Local Government (2013). The test considers a range of factors to determine

whether the noise is offensive. Details of this assessment are:

• The loudness of the noise, especially compared with other noise in the area;

Comment:

The area is rural and has a low background noise level in the day, evening and night

time periods. The loudness of a number of dogs barking at the same time would be

atypical for this area.

• The character of the noise;


PAGE 12

Comment:

The character of noise is unknown and depends on the breed of dogs residing at the

premises. Each breed of dog can present different subgroup barks with different

characters and tones. These different tones would likely contribute to the offensiveness

of the noise.

• The time and duration of the noise;

Comment:

The dogs could bark at various times including early morning or during the night time

period. The duration of the dogs barking will be variable.

• Whether the noise is typical for the area;

Comment:

Dogs barking would be typical for a rural area however a large number of dogs barking

at the same time from one location would not.

• How often the noise occurs;

Comment:

This is unknown and would depend upon the temperament of the dogs at the premises

and on management practices. However it is likely to occur intermittently 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week.

• The number of people affected by the noise;

Comment:

Given the number of residential properties in close proximity (10 dwellings within 250

metres of the shed), a number of people would be potentially affected by the noise.

It is considered that the proposal would result in offensive noise given its acoustic

nature, duration and the number of people affected by the noise.

Given the significant acoustic impacts of the proposal, it is recommended that the

application is not supported in its current form.

5. Suitability of the Site

The subject site, located on the southern side of Pitt Town Road contains a single

dwelling, shed and swimming pool. The site, having an area of 20,230m², a frontage of

86.2 metres to Pitt Town Road and minimum length of 306.5 metres and a rear

boundary of 44 metres. The site is long and narrow and tappers down to the rear. The

immediate locality is predominately rural residential properties, along with agricultural

uses. A wholesale nursery is located directly opposite the site.

The site slopes from the north (front) to the south (rear) and has a fall of approximately

14 metres, and as discussed above in Section 1, the topography of the site has the

potential to contribute to the noise transmission. The nearest residential properties are

to the east and west of the site, with the closest dwelling being No. 14 Pitt Town Road

which is 60 metres away from the existing shed proposed to be uses for night kennelling

of the dogs.


PAGE 13

Although the site has an area of over 20,000m², the long, narrow site is considered to

be unsuitable for the proposal, as 10 residential dwellings are within 250 metres of the

shed, as well as the rear of the site adjoining a cul-du sac which contains 7 dwellings.

Additionally, the fit-out of the existing shed for the recommended acoustic measures

may not necessarily be appropriate to reduce the noise levels sufficiently, and Council

staff’s calculations show that even with a reduced number of dogs and acoustic

treatment, the night time criteria will be exceeded.

A purpose built shed with appropriate acoustic measures strategically located the

furthest away from the nearest residential neighbour would result in a far better

outcome. Furthermore, the shed would be designed to cater for appropriate drainage,

ventilation, lighting, staff amenities, etc. for the use of the building an animal boarding

establishment.

The appropriateness of the proposed 2.4 and 3 metre high solid acoustic fence around

the day exercise yards required to attenuate noise from barking dogs in a rural area is

debated and its visual impact, being 100 metres in length. Furthermore, the height of

the proposed acoustic fence far exceeds the typical boundary fence height of 1.8 metres

which is typically open in nature in rural areas. Albeit that landscaping is proposed to

screen the fence and the facility, it likely that the proposal will still have some visibility

from adjoining properties.

Overall, the site is not suitable for the scale and intensity of the proposed animal

boarding establishment.

6. Issues Raised in Submissions

The proposal was notified to surrounding property owners for a period of 43 days. A total

of 46 submissions were received, 25 during the notification period and 21 submissions

after the notification period had ended. The submissions raised the following concerns:

ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME

The acoustic report

based their findings on

only 30% of dogs

barking for 15 minutes.

The report should be

based on the worst case

scenario with 60 dogs all

barking at once during

the day and at night.

Council staff’s calculations show the

development cannot comply with the

NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Council

staff have calculated that the noise

emitted from the proposed

development will not comply with the

night time criteria of 30 dB(A). The

proposal does not comply with the

relevant noise criteria of the Industrial

Noise Policy.

Reason for refusal.

Dogs barking from the

establishment will make

other dogs in the area

bark.

The acoustic report did not address

impacts of neighbouring dogs barking

as a result of the proposal.

Nevertheless, the development does

not comply with relevant noise criteria

and is not supported.

Reason for refusal.

The noise pollution from

barking dogs will impact

on our quality of life.

Refer to comment above. Reason for refusal.


PAGE 14

Noise will travel a long

distance due to the

topography of the area.

Refer to comment above. Reason for refusal.

Concern is raised

regarding the location of

the noise logger recorded

in the Acoustic Report.

The Rating Background

Level (RBL) (background

noise) is not

representative for RBL

levels for Sorbello Place

which is considered to be

lower.

It is considered that the recording of

the noise logger for the 8 day period

provided a fairly low background noise

level which is typical for a rural area.

The night time background noise

recorded was 30 dBA, where this is

the minimum noise level as

determined by the NSW Industrial

Noise Policy, which states that “where

the rating background level is found

to be less than 30 dBA, then it is set

at 30 dBA.”

Issued addressed.

The sounds power level

calculated for barking

dogs in the acoustic

report is equal to a male

taking in a ‘raised to loud

voice’. It is proposed

that barking dog noise is

much higher than this,

particularly when they

are under stress being in

a foreign place.

Council staff have researched this

claim, however there is no

information to verify this. The

acoustic consultant has stating that

this level was determined from

previous readings taken, and this is

considered to be satisfactory.

Issue addressed.

Accept that there are

businesses in the area

(i.e. nurseries, market

gardens etc), however

they are quiet outside of

working hours. This

establishment will

essentially operate 24

hours a day.

It is considered that the subject

application does not satisfy the

objectives of the zone or meet

relevant noise criteria. Refer to

comments above.

Reason for refusal.

60 dogs is too many, and

will result in adverse

amenity impacts.

It is considered that the intensity of

the development is excessive.

Reason for refusal.

There is no known

guarantee that dogs

won’t bark, particularly

when away from their

normal environment and

with other strange dogs.

Refer to acoustic comments above. Reason for refusal.

The proposal does not fit

the criteria of the zone,

as there are 65 houses

location within 500m of

the site which will be

impacted.

It is considered that the proposal fails

to meet the objectives of the zone

and results in adverse amenity

impacts for local residents.

Reason for refusal.

The most relevant

document at this point of

time is the EPA South

Australia Environmental

The document is not a statutory

document required to be referred to

as part of the subject application,

nevertheless Council staff have

Issue addressed.


PAGE 15

Assessment Guides for

Planners for Dog

Keeping/Dog Kennels.

This seems to be the

only report of its kind

available and surely must

take precedent in

assessing this

application. The

proposal fails to meet

these guidelines.

reviewed the document and it is noted

the proposal fails meet some of the

requirements.

A visit to a similar facility

on Terry Road, Box Hill

revealed significant noise

impacts from barking

dogs.

Council’s records show that approval

was given for the facility at 66 Terry

Road, Box Hill prior to 1978 for the

use of dog kennels. Its operation and

complaints received regarding the

facility have been taken into

consideration in the assessment of the

proposal.

Issue addressed.

The proposal is not in

keeping with the rural-

residential nature of the

area.

The proposal does not satisfy the

objectives of the zone or the relevant

DCP. It has not been demonstrated

that the development is compatible

with the rural / residential amenity of

the area.

Reason for refusal.

This type of development

is not appropriate for a 5

acre (2ha) block, and is

more suitable for larger

acreage blocks with

significant distances to

the nearest neighbour.

A larger site would likely result in the

nearest noise receptor being a greater

distance away from the proposal, with

the potential of complying with

relevant noise criteria.

Issue addressed.

Dog waste, cleaning

products, etc and run-off

into the creek will have

an impact on local

wildlife.

This issue could be addressed with

appropriate conditions.

Issue addressed.

Concern is raised in

regards to escaping

dogs/dangerous dogs.

This matter refers to the quality of

management of the facility and could

potentially be addressed with

appropriate condition.

Issue addressed.

The proposal would

potentially create health

issues (i.e. asthma), as

well as mental health

issues such as phobias

and fears due to the

large number of dogs.

No evidence has been provided to

substantiate this claim.

Issue addressed.

Capacity of the waste

water system to cater for

the additional volumes

associated with the

proposal.

This issue could potentially be

addressed with appropriate

conditions.

Issue of addressed.


PAGE 16

The use of domestic

waste services is

inappropriate for the use.

If this matter was recommended for

approval, the facility would have to

engage a commercial contractor for

waste removal and could be

conditioned accordingly.

Issue addressed.

No details have been

provided for waste

management (i.e. bin

locations, collection

frequency, odours, etc).

If this matter was recommended for

approval, waste management issues

could potentially be addressed with

appropriate conditions.

Issue addressed.

The proposal is adjacent

to vegetable growing

areas, and it is

considered that these

crops, which are

consumed raw are at a

very high risk of

becoming contaminated

from bacteria associated

with the proposal.



Issue addressed.

The establishment will

attract vermin.

If this application was recommended

for approval, details regarding dog

food storage, etc, could be sought

from the applicant, and conditioned

accordingly.

Issue addressed.

The dogs will scare off

local wildlife.



Issue addressed.

The proposal does not

address any external

lighting requirements,

particularly when the

dogs are moved to the

shed at 8:00pm during

winter time when it is

dark at 5:15pm.


for approval, these details could be

sought from the applicant, and


Issue addressed.

Concern is raised

regarding the retro-fit of

the existing shed for the

acoustic and ventilation

requirements.

Council staff have raised concerns

regarding the proposed noise

attenuation measures for the shed

and not meeting relevant noise policy

criteria.

Reason for Refusal.

Concern is raised

regarding the retro-fit of

the existing shed for

drainage requirements.





Issue addressed.

The shed size does not

meet the minimum size

requirement for

overnight boarding for

the number of dogs

proposed under the

Animal Welfare Code of

Practice Breeding dogs

and Cats prepared by the

NSW Government

Industry and Investment.

The document relates to the activity

of breeding dogs and cats, however it

does provide a guideline for the

welfare of the animals. The document

is not a statutory document required

to be referred to as part of the subject

application, nevertheless Council staff

have reviewed the document and the

proposal appears to fail to meet some

of the requirements in the document.

Issue addressed.


PAGE 17

Exercise yards will be

visually obtrusive.

Landscape screening is proposed

along the side and rear setback,

which would reduce the visibility of

proposed 2.4 and 3m high acoustic

walls from neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, concern is raised

regarding the height of these walls

and whether they are in keeping with

the rural character of the area. The

proposed exercise yards would not be

visible from the public domain.

Issue addressed.

Hours of operation are

inconsistent with the use

(i.e. closed Sundays and

public holidays), times

when the use would most

likely be the highest.

The applicant at the conciliation

conference confirmed that these were

the proposed hours of operation with

no clients visiting the site on Sundays

and public holidays.

Issue addressed.

Inconsistencies in the

Statement of

Environmental Effects

(i.e. states that the

property is on sewer

which is incorrect).

This issue is not considered to be a

reason for refusal, and if required, the

applicant can be requested to provide

an amended Statement of

Environmental Effects to rectify the

errors.

Issue addressed

The proposal will devalue

properties in the area.

This issue is a planning issue nor has

any evidence been provided to

substantiate the claim.

Issue addressed.

The facility will result in

adverse odour impacts.

Given the amount of dogs, the

proposal has the potential of creating

adverse odour impacts, however it is

considered that dog waste can be

managed appropriately to mitigate

odour impacts.

Issue addressed.

The site is bushfire

prone. Concern is raised

regarding serious injury

or death of the animals

due to significant heat

and smoke in a serious

fire situation. It would be

near impossible to

satisfactorily evacuate

that number of animals

in time as a fire

approaches.

This issue was discussed during the

conciliation conference and if

required, the applicant was willing to

provide an amended Operational Plan

of Management to address the

evacuation of animals in the event of

a bushfire.

Issue addressed.

The proposal is not in the

public interest and

should therefore not be

supported by Council.

Council staff agree with this comment. Reason for refusal.

The owners have already

begun to modify the

shed in anticipation of a

DA approval.

Council staff have visited the site and

observed minor works being

undertaken in the shed and have

advised the owners to stop work.

Issue addressed.

It appears that the

owners have mislead

Council with their

This is not a relevant to the current

application. This issue can be

pursued separated by Council’s

Issue addressed.


PAGE 18

approval for alterations

and additions to the

dwelling, and intent to

create a dual occupancy

to be potentially used for

kennel staff.

Certification Department.

The proposed facility will

have adverse impact on

an approved fallow deer

breeding establishment

adjacent to the site.

It is considered that the proposal will

have adverse noise impacts.

Reason for refusal.

The owners are operating

a dog grooming business

from the site, does this

business have approval?

Council staff have questioned the

owners of the site, and they have

stated that they had a grooming

business at their former residence.

Nevertheless, the use of the premises

as a home activity/home business can

potentially be exempt development.

Issue addressed.

The driveway to the site

is in a dangerous position

and customers entering

and entering the site

create a potential traffic

hazard.

The existing driveway location

provides appropriate sight distance for

vehicles entering and exiting the

property consistent with the

standards nominated in the

Austroad’s Guidelines.

Issue addressed.

No shading or weather

protection is provided to

the dogs when they are

outside in the exercise

yards.





Issue addressed.

When the applicants

provide additional

information as discussed

at the conciliation

conference, it is

requested that residents

have 28 days to provide

comments.

Council staff did not request any

further additional information from

the applicant.

Issue addressed.

BUILDING SURVEYOR’S COMMENTS

Council’s Development Assessment Coordinator has reviewed the Development

Application in relation to compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and has

provided the following comments:

“The applicant proposes to convert the existing shed to a dog boarding facility (kennels)

with a commercial/business purpose.

The use of the building will change from a Class 10a structure to a Class 6 structure

being a building for the supply of services direct to the public.

If there are external employees (i.e. non-residents), the provision of facilities (toilets and

wash basin) will be required to meet BCA requirements.”


PAGE 19

TRAFFIC COMMENTS

Council’s Principal Coordinator – Road and Transport has reviewed the Development

Application and has provided the following comments:

“The existing driveway location provides appropriate sight distance for vehicles entering

and exiting the property consistent with the standards nominated in the Austroad’s

Guidelines. Similarly as the traffic generation for this type and scale of facility is not

typically coincidental with the AM and PM road traffic peak, the potential traffic impact on

the surrounding road network and nearby intersections is not considered significant.

In this regard there are no objections raised to the proposed development.”

ECOLOGY COMMENTS

Council’s Senior Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the Development Application and has

provided the following comments:

“The site is mapped as Shale Sandstone Transition Forest and site inspection has

confirmed the trees are remnant of this community. The understorey at the rear of the

shed is non-existent with the groundcover being dominated by exotic grasses.

Ground covers at the front of the property appear to be dominated by native species.

The creation of fences for the exercise yards and the presence of dogs is not considered

to constitute a significant impact on the remnant trees in the rear of the property.”

RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMENTS

Council’s Waste Management Team has reviewed the Development Application and

raised no objection to the proposal subject to animal boarding establishment using a

private waste contractor for waste management, rather than the development utilising

Council’s domestic waste services.

CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act, 1979. The

proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the RU6 Rural Transition zone and well as the

aims and objectives of The Hills DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural. A total of 46

submissions were received and the main issues raised have been assessed within this

report.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

IMPACTS

Financial

This matter may have a direct financial impact upon Council’s adopted budget as refusal

of this matter may result in Council having to defend a Class 1 Appeal in the NSW Land

and Environment Court.


PAGE 20

The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan

The proposal is considered unsatisfactory and would adversely impact on the amenity of

neighbouring residential properties.

RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for refusal on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the RU6 Rural

Transition zone under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 resulting in a conflict

with adjoining land uses (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the NSW Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act, 1979).

2. The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of The Hills

DCP Part B Section 1 – Rural. The development is inappropriately located within

close proximity to neighbouring dwellings and results in a conflict between land uses

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

1979).

3. The proposal will result in adverse noise impacts and does not comply with the NSW

Industrial Noise Policy. The noise emitted from barking dogs will not comply with the

night time noise criteria of 30dB(A) for this site nor does the proposal meet the

offensive noise test under the EPA Guide for Local Government (Section 79C 1(b) of

the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

4. The site is not suitable for a development of this scale and intensity due to its

proximity to neighbouring dwellings (Section 79C 1(c) of the NSW Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan

2. Aerial Photograph

3. Site Plan


PAGE 21

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN


PAGE 22

ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH


PAGE 23

ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN


PAGE 24

ITEM-3 DA NO. 721/2015/MA - AN INGROUND SWIMMING

POOL, DECK, RETAINING WALL AND PRIVACY

SCREEN - LOT 49 DP 232705 - 9 ATTUNGA STREET,

BAULKHAM HILLS




STRATEGY:






AUTHOR: SENIOR HEALTH & BUILDING SURVEYOR

AMANDA BURKE


PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for a partly in-ground swimming pool with associated

retaining walls and an ancillary elevated deck surround at the pool coping level.

The application has been assessed against the requirements of Development Control

Plan Part B Section 2 - Residential. The proposal complies with the relevant controls with

the exception of the pool being located within the secondary street setback of Akora

Avenue. The proposed variation is considered satisfactory as it will have minimal impact

on streetscape and the amenity of adjoining properties.

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and one submission was

received. The issues raised in the submission relate to amenity impacts resulting from

the pool location and noise associated with the filtration unit and general use of the pool.

The proposal is considered satisfactory given that the original design has been amended

to lower the out of ground section of the pool and privacy screening is proposed adjacent

to the common boundary. An acoustic enclosure has been proposed to enclose the pool

filter.

The amended plans were reviewed by the objector who provided a further submission

reiterating concerns previously raised. The amended design of the pool is considered to

be in keeping with the existing character of the residential area.

The Development Application is recommended for approval.


PAGE 25


Applicant: Jade Pools Pty Ltd 1. LEP 2012 – Permissible with

consent.

Owner: Mr P Galaz & Mrs C

Galaz

2. THDCP Part B Section 2 - Variation

required, see report.

Zoning: Zone R2 Low

Density Residential

3. Section 79C (EP&A Act) -

Satisfactory

Area: 973.0sqm 4. Section 94 Contribution – Not

required.

Existing Development: Dwelling, Deck and

Retaining Walls.

5. Building Code – Complies.


1. Exhibition: Not required.

1. Variation to DCP.

2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 14 days.

2. Submission received.

3. Number Advised: Five.

4. Submissions

Received:

One. POLITICAL DONATION - No

HISTORY


27/11/2014

09/12/2014

08/01/2015

27/01/2015

09/02/2015

16/02/2015

19/02/2015

26/02/2015

Notification to affected properties commenced.

One submission received.

Email to applicant requesting additional information in respect

to Basix certificate compliance.

Additional information submitted.

Deferral Letter sent to applicant in respect to impact from

height of pool and to clarify incorrect plans.

Site meeting held with owner, applicant and Council Officers to

discuss required amendments to pool design in order to

address height and site suitability.

Preliminary pool design amendments submitted for review and

comments returned to applicant.

Amended plans submitted.


PAGE 26

04/03/2015

05/03/2015

11/03/2015

Objector provided with copy of plans to consider changes.

Further submission received by phone.

Further submission from objector.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool,

retaining walls and elevated deck to the rear of the existing dwelling. The existing slope

of the site results in the swimming pool being excavated up to 1.2m into the site at one

end and partly out-of-ground by 600mm at the other end.

The retaining walls, up to 1.2m in height, are required as a result of the pool excavation

into the existing embankment. The proposed deck is in addition to the existing deck on

site. The new deck will extend the current deck level by approximately 1.2m, whilst a

deck at the pool coping level, 850mm below the existing deck, will provide a safe and

manageable access surrounding the out-of-ground section of the pool. A free standing

2.4m high timber privacy screen will be provided adjacent to the out-of-ground section

of the pool and deck area.


1. Compliance with Development Control Plan Part B Section 2 – Residential

The proposal has been assessed against the following provisions of Development Control

Plan (DCP) Part B Section 2 – Residential. The proposed development achieves

compliance with the relevant requirements of the DCP with the exception of the

following:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE

Clause 2.18

Swimming Pools

Swimming pools are

not to be located

within the front or

secondary boundary

setback.

Swimming pool

setback at 2.2m to

secondary street

boundary.

No – required

building setbacks

for residential

corner lots in

existing urban

areas is 4.0m.

(i) Swimming Pools

The DCP requires that swimming pools are not located within the front or secondary

boundary setbacks. The objectives of Clause 2.18 are:

(i) To ensure swimming pools are located so that they are not visually prominent

from the street.

(ii) To ensure that the amenity of adjoining owners is considered when siting and

designing swimming pools.


PAGE 27

Comment:

The proposed development will result in the swimming pool being located at 2.2m from

the secondary street boundary in lieu of the required 4.0m. The controls under Part 2.14

for secondary setbacks are applicable to dwellings, having regard to the streetscape of

both street frontages. The swimming pool will be located at least 1.2m below the level of

the secondary street boundary, thus minimising any potential impact to the streetscape

from walls or bulky structures.

The orientation of the site results in the proposed pool being located along the side

boundary and adjacent to the front yard of the adjoining site. The proposal has no

impact to the existing private open space at the rear of the adjoining sites. A 1.8m high

boundary fence will be located along the secondary street frontage and will form part of

the swimming pool barrier. This fence will screen the pool from the street.

2. Issues Raised in Submission


The proposed location of

the pool will deprive

privacy within the front

garden.

The orientation of the site results in

the proposed pool being located along

the side boundary and adjacent to the

front yard of the adjoining site. The

front yard of the objector’s property is

currently fenced by a 1.8m high brush

fence along Akora Ave (secondary

street). The front setback consists of

manicured garden beds and treed

areas. The objector’s dwelling is

setback approximately 10m from

Akora Ave.

The proposed pool is primarily located

adjacent to the front yard of the

objector’s property and has no impact

on the private open space to the rear

of the dwelling.

The objector’s dwelling is offset from

the common boundary ranging from

approximately 6.5m to 3.8m. This in

conjunction with the proposed pool

coping setback of between 900mm

and 1.5m will provide adequate

spatial separation of the structures.

The out-of-ground section of the pool

and associated deck has been reduced

to 600mm in line with the maximum

fill requirements for residential areas,

with a 2.4m high free standing

privacy screen to further reduce

overlooking potential.

In direct comparison to the

development, it is attainable that a

Complying Development pool setback

Issue addressed.


PAGE 28


at 1m (to water) and 600mm out of

ground could be approved. Similarly,

a deck could be built as Exempt

Development up to 25m², 900mm off

the boundary and at 1m high from

natural ground. It is considered that

the DA proposal is a better outcome

for the site than the allowable

parameters of Exempt and Complying

Development.

The objector was given the

opportunity to have the existing

dilapidated (approx. 1.5m high)

boundary fence replaced with a new

1.8m high fence inclusive of a 600mm

privacy screen on top, completed by

and at cost to the owner of 9 Attunga

Street. This was not accepted.

Instead a 2.4m free-standing screen

adjacent to the boundary but within

the subject property is now proposed.

Impact from seepage and

water as a result of

excavation works.

Excavation of the pool area will result

in the re-shaping of the existing

embankment and slope on the subject

site.

Subsequently it is considered that

water shed from street level will be

reduced across the face of the

embankment and will subsequently be

collected by sub-surface ag-lines and

disposed of to the existing ‘P’ trap

under the deck. The overflow from the

rainwater tank will also be disposed of

to the trap. The trap disposes of the

water to the street, away from the

objectors’ property.

The ag-lines will be constructed in

conjunction with the pool and will be

inspected by Council’s Officer to

ensure that the connection is

satisfactory.

Issue addressed.

General use of pool and

reflective swimming pool

lights will affect existing

use of bedroom areas

and cause sleep

deprivation.

The proposed pool will be located

adjacent to the side boundary of the

objector’s site. The pool will be

setback approximately 1.5m to 1.8m

from the existing boundary fence to

the water. This in conjunction with the

side setback of the objectors dwelling

results in an overall setback of

approximately 7 metres between the

pool deck and objectors dwelling.

Issue addressed.


PAGE 29


Such separation is generous in a

residential context as the minimum

setbacks permitted are 900mm for a

dwelling wall and 1m for a pool water

edge.

The perceived impact of noise and

lighting has been raised with regard

to the objectors’ bedroom windows

facing the common boundary. As a

general planning principle, where

there is conflict between a noise

source and a sensitive receptor,

preference should be given to the

attenuation of any noise from the

source.

It is noted that the proposed pool is

for ancillary residential use,

presumably within the warmer

months of the year. The associated

noise generated from the use would

be common in urban areas. The use

of the pool outside the scope of

‘general use’ and any associated noise

disturbances would be a matter that

could be dealt with at the time of the

occurrence by other parties such as

the Police. This would be no different

to other scenarios where excessive

and undue noise causes a

disturbance.

The filtration equipment is proposed

to be enclosed in an acoustic

enclosure to ensure that pump noise

will not unduly impact on the

neighbour’s amenity.

The applicant has proposed a 2.4m

high privacy screen for the length of

the pool, located between the pool

edge and the common boundary. This

will aid in attenuating any noise or

light spill towards the objectors’

property. It is expected that the

proposed pool lights will have an

illumination effect at the source rather

than a directional impact towards the

objectors’ bedroom windows.


PAGE 30

TREE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

No objection is raised to tree removal subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of

consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,

1979, The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan

2012 and is considered satisfactory.

The proposal includes a variation to the secondary street setback which is considered to

be reasonable in this instance. One submission was received and the issues raised in the

submission have been addressed in the body of this report.

Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

IMPACTS

Financial

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

estimates.


The proposed development is consistent with the planning principles, vision and

objectives outlined within “Hills 2026 – Looking Towards the Future” as the proposed

development provides for satisfactory urban growth without adverse environmental or

social amenity impacts and ensures a consistent built form is provided with respect to

the streetscape and general locality.

RECOMMENDATION

The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions of consent:

GENERAL MATTERS


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



DRAWING NO DESCRIPTION SHEET REVISION DATE

14HYT336 Site plan and Pool details 1/5 B NOV 14

4/5 A NOV 14

5/5 - NOV 14

14HYT336 Site analysis plan 1 A NOV 14

14HYT336 Elevations 1 A NOV 14


PAGE 31



2. Building Work to be in Accordance with BCA

All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building

Code of Australia.

3. Separate Construction Certificate Required for Deck

A separate Construction Certificate Application is required for the deck shown on the

approved plans.

4. Adherence to Waste Management Plan

All requirements of the Waste Management Plan submitted to and approved by Council

must be implemented during the construction and/ or demolition phases of the

development, as well as the ongoing management phase. The information submitted can

change provided that the same or a greater level of reuse and recycling is achieved as

detailed in the plan. Any material moved offsite is to be transported in accordance with

the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a

place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility. Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping

must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a legible form to any authorised officer

of the Council who asks to see them.

5. Management of Construction and/ or Demolition Waste

Waste materials must be appropriately stored and secured within a designated waste

area onsite at all times, prior to its reuse onsite or being sent offsite. This includes waste

materials such as paper and containers which must not litter the site or leave the site

onto neighbouring public or private property. A separate dedicated bin must be provided

onsite by the builder for the disposal of waste materials such as paper, containers and

food scraps generated by all workers. Building waste containers are not permitted to be

placed on public property at any time unless a separate application is approved by

Council to locate a building waste container in a public place. Any material moved offsite

is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a place that can lawfully be used as a

waste facility. The separation and recycling of the following waste materials is required:

metals, timber, masonry products and clean waste plasterboard. This can be achieved by

source separation onsite, that is, a bin for metal waste, a bin for timber, a bin for bricks

and so on. Alternatively, mixed waste may be stored in one or more bins and sent to a

waste contractor or transfer/ sorting station that will sort the waste on their premises for

recycling. Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and

produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them

6. Surplus Excavated Material

The disposal of surplus excavated material, other than to a licenced waste facility, is not

permitted without the formal approval of Council prior to works commencing onsite. Any

unauthorized disposal of waste, which includes excavated material, is a breach of the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and subject to substantial penalties.

Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a

legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them.

7. Tree Removal

Approval is granted for the removal of four (4) trees as marked on the site plan prepared

by jade pools dated November 2014.

All other trees are to remain and are to be protected during all works. Suitable

replacement trees are to be planted upon completion of construction.

8. Replacement Planting Requirements

To maintain the treed environment of the Shire (2) advanced (25 litres) replacement

trees from the following list are to be planted elsewhere within the property.


PAGE 32

Banksia serrata Old Man Banksia

Ceratopetalum gummiferum NSW Christmas Bush

Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash

Glochidion ferdinandii Cheese Tree

Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum

PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE

9. Council as Principal Certifying Authority

A sign is to be erected displaying the following information;-

Principal Certifying Authority

The Hills Shire Council

P.O. Box 75

CASTLE HILL NSW 1765

Ph 9843 0555

The name of the person in charge of the work, a contact phone number outside of work

hours and a statement that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited. Such sign

be maintained while the building work is carried out and removed on completion.

10. Erosion and Sedimentation Controls

Erosion and sedimentation controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of site

works; and maintained throughout construction activities until the site is landscaped

and/or suitably revegetated. The controls shall be in accordance with the details

approved by Council and/or as directed by Council Officers. These requirements shall be

in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction produced by

the NSW Department of Housing (Blue Book).

11. Stabilised Access Point

A stabilised all weather access point is to be provided prior to commencement of site

works, and maintained throughout construction activities until the site is stabilised. The

controls shall be in accordance with the requirements with the details approved by

Council and/or as directed by Council Officers. These requirements shall be in

accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction produced by the

NSW Department of Housing (Blue Book).

12. Approved Plans to be Submitted to Sydney Water

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent to

determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water wastewater and water

mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if any requirements need to be met.

Plans will be appropriately stamped.

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for:

Quick Check agents details - See building and Developing then Quick Check

and

Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to /Sydney Water Assets - see Building and

Developing then Building and Renovating.

or telephone 13 20 92.

13. Protection of Existing Trees

The trees that are to be retained are to be protected during all works strictly in

accordance with AS4970- 2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.


PAGE 33

At a minimum a 1.8m high chain-wire fence is to be erected at least three (3) metres

from the base of each tree and is to be in place prior to works commencing to restrict

the following occurring:

Stockpiling of materials within the root protection zone,

Placement of fill within the root protection zone,

Parking of vehicles within the root protection zone,

Compaction of soil within the root protection zone.

All areas within the root protection zone are to be mulched with composted leaf mulch to

a depth of not less than 100mm.

A sign is to be erected indicating the trees are protected.

The installation of services within the root protection zone is not to be undertaken

without prior consent from Council.

14. Trenching within Tree Protection Zone

Any trenching for installation of drainage, sewerage, irrigation or any other services shall

not occur within the Tree Protection Zone of trees identified for retention without prior

notification to Council (72 hours notice) or under supervision of a project arborist.

If supervision by a project arborist is selected, certification of supervision must be

provided to the Certifying Authority within 14 days of completion of trenching works.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

15. Hours of Work

Work on the project to be limited to the following hours: -

Monday to Saturday - 7.00am to 5.00pm;

No work to be carried out on Sunday or Public Holidays.

The builder/contractor shall be responsible to instruct and control sub-contractors

regarding the hours of work. Council will exercise its powers under the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act, in the event that the building operations cause noise to

emanate from the property on Sunday or Public Holidays or otherwise than between the

hours detailed above.

16. Privacy Screen

A free standing 2.4m high timber privacy screen is to be provided along the western

boundary as indicated on the site plan. The screen is to be provided prior to the

occupation or use of the structure at the expense of the subject property owner.

17. Compliance with BASIX Certificate

Under clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a

condition of this Development Consent that all commitments listed in BASIX Certificate

No A205532 be complied with. Any subsequent version of this BASIX Certificate will

supersede all previous versions of the certificate.

A Section 96 Application may be required should the subsequent version of this BASIX

Certificate necessitate design changes to the development. However, a Section 96

Application will be required for a BASIX Certificate with a new number.

18. Compliance with Critical Stage Inspections and Other Inspections

Nominated by the Principal Certifying Authority

Section 109E(d) of the Act requires certain specific inspections (prescribed by Clause

162A of the Regulations) and known as “Critical Stage Inspections” to be carried out for


PAGE 34

building work. Prior to permitting commencement of the work, your Principal Certifying

Authority is required to give notice of these inspections pursuant to Clause 103A of the

Regulations.

N.B. An Occupation Certificate cannot be issued and the building may not be able to be

used or occupied where any mandatory critical stage inspections or other inspections

required by the Principal Certifying Authority are not carried out.

Where Council is nominated as Principal Certifying Authority, notification of all

inspections required is provided with the Construction Certificate approval.

NOTE: You are advised that inspections may only be carried out by the PCA

unless by prior agreement of the PCA and subject to that person being an

accredited certifier.

19. Filtration Motor

The swimming pool filter and pump shall be fully enclosed in a purpose built acoustic

enclosure to attenuate noise emitted by the swimming pool equipment. The acoustic

enclosure shall reduce the sound pressure level of the swimming pool filter and pump

equipment to a level not greater than 5dB (A) above the background noise level in

accordance with Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997.

20. Pool Discharge Water

Discharge and/or overflow pipe from the swimming pool and filtration unit to be

connected to the sewer where available.

All backwash water from the filtration unit is to be similarly disposed, or alternatively,

must be piped to an absorption trench.

The pool excavations not to conflict with the position of household drainage trenches or

lines, the position of which must be ascertained before pool excavation commences.

21. Pool Concourse – Grades

Pool concourse to be graded and drained so as to prevent pool water splash flowing

onto, or causing a nuisance to the neighbouring property.

22. Swimming Pool Safety Fencing

All pools and safety barriers are to comply with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, the

Swimming Pools Regulation 2008 and Australian Standard 1926.1-2012. A fact sheet

titled Swimming Pool Fencing Requirements is available from www.thehills.nsw.gov.au.

23. Resuscitation Warning Notice

In accordance with the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, a Warning Notice is to be

displayed in a prominent position, in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool. The

notice is to contain a diagrammatic flow chart of resuscitation techniques, the words:

(i) "YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL",

and

(ii) "POOL GATES MUST BE KEPT CLOSED AT ALL TIMES", and

(iii) "KEEP ARTICLES, OBJECTS AND STRUCTURES AT LEAST 900 MILLIMETRES CLEAR

OF THE POOL FENCE AT ALL TIMES",

and all other details required by the Regulation.


PAGE 35

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION AND/OR SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

24. Registration of Swimming Pool/Spa

Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate the swimming pool/spa is to be registered on

the NSW state register of swimming pools and spas. To register the swimming pool/spa

you are to log onto www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au and follow the prompts. A

copy of the registration certificate is to be submitted to the PCA to confirm the

registration.

25. Safety Glazing for Pool Fencing

If glazing is chosen to be incorporated into the pool safety fencing system, a safety

glazing certificate is to be provided to Council, or the Principal Certifying Authority,

indicating all materials and installation are in accordance with AS 1288.

26. Retaining Walls

All retaining walls shown on the approved plans shall be completed prior to the issue of a

Final Occupation Certificate.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan


3. Site Plan

4. Elevations

5. Pool Plan

6. Photographs of site

7. Illustrative diagrams


PAGE 36



PAGE 37



PAGE 38



PAGE 39

ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS


PAGE 40

ATTACHMENT 5 – POOL PLAN


PAGE 41

ATTACHMENT 6 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE

Secondary Street Boundary – Akora Ave

View to pool location on subject site from Akora Ave


PAGE 42


View from top of existing embankment to objectors’ front yard

View from pool location to objectors’ side boundary


PAGE 43


Existing deck area on subject site


PAGE 44

ATTACHMENT 7 – ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS


PAGE 45

ATTACHMENT 7 – ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS


PAGE 46

ITEM-4 DA NO. 1356/2014/LA - COVERED TIMBER DECK

AND SINGLE GARAGE - LOT 47 DP 239496 - 3

ROSEBANK AVENUE, DURAL




STRATEGY:




MEETING DATE 31 MARCH 2015



AMANDA HAWKINS

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application originally sought consent for a covered timber deck at the

rear of the existing dwelling, new driveway and parking space in the front setback,

demolition of the existing driveway and removal of one tree.

As a result of concerns raised in the neighbours submissions, the proposal was amended

and consent is now sought for a new driveway and a single detached garage, demolition

of the existing driveway and a covered timber deck at the rear of the existing dwelling

which has a floor to ceiling lattice privacy screen along two sides.

The proposal complies with the requirements of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012

Part B Section 2 - Residential with two exceptions, the front setback for the garage and

rear setback for the timber deck. The timber deck is set back a minimum of 2.62 metres

from the rear property boundary and the detached garage is set back 3.8 metres from

the front property boundary at the closest point. The variations are considered

satisfactory due to the irregular shape of the lot, the location of the lot on the bend of

Rosebank Avenue and that the proposal is still considered to satisfy the relevant DCP

objectives.

The original proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and two submissions

were received. The concerns raised in the submissions relate to privacy and overlooking

for the proposed deck and safety concerns with the proposed parking space. Upon

receipt of the amended plans, the proposal was renotified to adjoining property owners

and one further submission was received. The submission reiterated previously raised

privacy and overlooking concerns with the timber deck.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.


PAGE 47


Applicant: Chesterfield

Constructions

1. LEP 2012 – Permissible with

consent.

Owner: C & D Downes 2. The Hills DCP Part B Section 2 –

Residential – Variations proposed –

See report.

Zoning: R2 Low Density

Residential


Satisfactory.

Area: 695.6m2

Existing Development: Dwelling



1. Non-compliances with DCP.



3. Number Advised: 11 (both

notifications)

4. Submissions

Received:

1st Notification: 2

2nd Notification: 1

POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed

HISTORY


20/05/2014 Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information

and amendments.

27/05/2014 Email sent to an adjoining property owner updating them on

the issues raised in their submission and of the DA process.

04/08/2014 Amended plans and additional information submitted.

20/08/2014 Letter sent to the applicant requesting further amendments to

the proposal.

03/12/2014 Letter sent to the applicant seeking a response to previous

correspondence.

03/02/2015 Letter sent to the applicant advising that the Development

Application will be determined in its current form unless the

requested information is submitted.

11/02/2015 Amended plans submitted.


PAGE 48

PROPOSAL

The Development Application originally sought consent for a covered timber deck at the

rear of the existing dwelling, new driveway and parking space in the front setback,

demolition of the existing driveway and removal of one tree.

As a result of concerns raised in the neighbours submissions, the proposal was amended

and consent is now sought for a new driveway and a single detached garage, demolition

of the existing driveway and a covered timber deck at the rear of the existing dwelling

which has a floor to ceiling lattice privacy screen along two sides.


1. Compliance with The Hills Development Control Plan Part B Section 2 –

Residential

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant sections of the DCP and the

following non-compliances have been identified:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENT

PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE

Front Setback

(Clause 2.14.1(b))

10m The detached single

garage is set back

between 3.8 and 6.8

metres from the front

property boundary.

No, refer below.

Rear Setback

(Clause 2.14.1(h))

4m The proposed deck is

set back 2.628m

from the property

boundary which is

considered to be the

rear given the

unusual shape of the

lot.

No, refer below.

The objectives of this clause of the DCP are:

(i) To provide setbacks that complements the streetscape and protects the privacy

and sunlight to adjacent dwellings in accordance with ESD Objective 7.

(ii) To ensure that new development is sensitive to the landscape setting, site

constraints and established character of the street and locality.

(iii) To ensure that the appearance of new development is of a high visual quality and

enhances the streetscape.

a. Front Setback

Clause 2.14.1(b) of the DCP states that the minimum front setback required is 10

metres. The existing dwelling is set back 8 metres from the front property boundary at

the closest point and the proposed garage is set back between 3.8 and 6.8 metres from

the front property boundary.


PAGE 49

Comment:

The existing dwelling provides a varying front setback from 8 metres to 10 metres as a

result of the curved front property boundary which is on the bend of Rosebank Avenue.

The proposed detached single garage also provides a varying front setback of 3.8 metres

to 6.8 metres as a result of the curved front property boundary.

A site inspection and review of the approvals issued for the adjoining dwellings on

Rosebank Avenue and Martin Place has revealed the following front setbacks have been

approved:

- No. 5 Rosebank Avenue provides a front setback of approximately 8 metres; and

- No. 17 Martin Place has an approved dual occupancy which provides a varied

setback to Rosebank Avenue from 3.554 metres to 4.144 metres.

Given the approved setbacks of the adjoining dwellings, the proposed front setback is

considered satisfactory as it provides integration between the adjoining dwellings and

will provide a consistent setback. The addition of the garage to the property also ensures

sufficient vehicular parking is provided for occupants and visitors to the premises.

The subject lot is located at the bend in Rosebank Avenue. The proposed garage has

been designed to not adversely impact on the amenity of the subject lot or adjoining lots

and provides sufficient solar access to private open space areas and over 60% of the lot

is landscaped. The proposed garage will not impact adversely on the streetscape of

Rosebank Avenue.

As a result, the proposed front setback is considered to complement and enhance the

existing streetscape and is considered satisfactory.

b. Rear Setback

Clause 2.14.1(h) of the DCP states that the minimum rear boundary setback is 4 metres

for single storey dwellings.

The proposed covered timber deck is set back 2.628 metres from the site boundary

which is most reasonably considered to be the rear boundary of the lot given the

orientation of the dwelling.

Comment:

The variation is considered satisfactory as the proposed dwelling is still provided with

compliant private open space which receives adequate solar access. The proposed deck

is considered to be ancillary to the dwelling and is capable of being carried out as

exempt development under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy

(Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 except that it exceeds 3m in height

at its highest point above existing ground level (refer Attachment 4 – Dwelling and Deck

West Elevation). As a result, the proposed deck is considered to satisfy the objectives of

the DCP.

2. Issues Raised in Submission

The original proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and two submissions

were received. Upon receipt of the amended plans, the proposal was renotified to

adjoining property owners and one further submission was received. The issues raised in

the submissions are detailed below:


PAGE 50


The owner of the subject

property has replaced the

rear windows of the

dwelling with bi-fold doors.

As a result, overlooking

from the dwelling is

already possible into the

rear yard of the adjoining

property.

A retaining wall and high

fence previously existed in

the subject property to

provide screening,

however this has been

removed.

Three rear facing windows to the

family room of the dwelling will be

replaced with a sliding door to

facilitate access to the proposed

deck.

When potential overlooking and

noise transmission was raised

with the applicant, the proposal

was amended to include lattice

screening along two sides of the

proposed deck which will extend

from floor to ceiling to mitigate

this.

Issue addressed.

The proposed deck is

680mm above existing

ground level which will

permit overlooking into the

adjoining property.

The deck should be

lowered to be at the

existing ground level.

Alternatively, a higher

fence should be built.

The finished floor level of the

proposed deck is 680mm above

existing ground level at the

highest point (the north-western

corner).

Given the lot falls to the north-

west, fill is proposed to a

maximum of 380mm which will be

retained within the dwelling

footprint which complies with the

DCP.

Lattice screening is proposed

along the two sides of the deck to

provide screening.

Issue addressed.

It is assumed that the

proposed deck will be used

for entertaining which will

result in more people

overlooking and

transmitting noise into

adjoining properties.

There is a large aggressive

dog in the property which

barks whenever people are

in the back yard of the

adjoining property. The

deck will worsen this

situation.

As detailed above, lattice

screening is proposed to provide

screening and mitigate noise from

the proposed deck.

Issue addressed.

The new driveway and

parking space is so high

above existing ground

level it will result in light

spill into the adjoining

properties.

The proposal has been amended

and the driveway and parking

space have been removed.

Issue addressed.


PAGE 51


The height of the new

driveway and parking

space will obscure

sightlines for neighbours

exiting their driveways.

The proposal has been amended

and the driveway and parking

space have been removed.

Issue addressed.

The proposed deck will be

set back less than the

900mm setback stated on

the plans.

The submitted plans show that

the setback of the proposed deck

to the adjoining property to the

west is 900mm. It is the role of

the appointed certifying authority

to ensure the deck is built as per

the approved plans.

Issue addressed.

The lattice screening is not

adequate. It will not

mitigate overlooking or

noise transmission. A solid

wall should be built around

the deck.

Lattice screening is proposed

which extends from floor to

ceiling along two sides of the

deck. Solid wall screening of the

deck is not considered to be

warranted in this instance.

Issue addressed.


No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.


No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of Sections 79C of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, The Hills Local Environmental Plan

2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan Part B Section 2 – Residential and is

considered satisfactory.

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in the body of this report and

do not warrant further amendment to the proposal.

Accordingly, approval subject to conditions is recommended.

IMPACTS

Financial


estimates.


PAGE 52







RECOMMENDATION

The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions of consent.

GENERAL MATTERS

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended)


submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent.

The amendment in red is a notation on the Site Plan that the tree within 3

metres of the approved garage is to be removed.

REFERENCED PLANS

DESCRIPTION SHEET REVISION DATE

Site Plan 1 of 7 2 07/02/2015

Proposed Floor Plan 3 of 7 2 07/02/2015

Elevations 4 of 7 2 07/02/2015

Garage Elevations 5 of 7 2 07/02/2015

Landscape and Concept Stormwater Plan 6 of 7 2 07/02/2015

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 7 of 7 2 07/02/2015



2. External Finishes

External finishes and colours shall be in accordance with the details submitted with the

development application and approved with this consent.

3. Tree Removal

Approval is granted for the removal of one (1) tree as marked in red on the site plan

prepared by Diverse Drafting studio dated 07/02/2015 as it is within 3 metres of the

approved garage.



4. Replacement Planting Requirements

To maintain the treed environment of the Shire (1) advanced (25 litres) replacement

trees from the following list are to be planted elsewhere within the property.

Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash

Glochidion ferdinandii Cheese Tree

Melaleuca decora White Feather Honeymyrtle

Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum


PAGE 53

5. Construction Certificate

Prior to construction of the approved development, it is necessary to obtain a

Construction Certificate. A Construction Certificate may be issued by Council or an

Accredited Certifier. Plans submitted with the Construction Certificate are to be amended

to incorporate the conditions of the Development Consent.

6. Roof Sheeting

Metal roof sheeting to be pre-colour coated in accordance with the details submitted with

the development application and approved with this consent.



Code of Australia.

8. Management of Construction and Demolition Waste

Any waste generated as a result of construction or demolition for the development is to

be reused and recycled where possible, and any residual waste is to be disposed of at a

licenced waste facility. Waste materials must be appropriately stored and secured within

a designated waste area on site at all times, prior to its reuse on site or being sent off

site. Building waste containers are not permitted to be placed on the public way at any

time unless a separate application is approved by Council to locate a building waste

container in a public place. The separation and recycling of the following waste materials

is required: metals, timber, masonry products, clean waste plasterboard and mixed

plastics and cardboard. This can be achieved by source separation on site, that is, a bin

for metal waste, a bin for timber, a bin for bricks and so on. Alternatively, mixed waste

may be stored in one or more bins and sent to a waste contractor or transfer/ sorting

station that will sort the waste on their premises for recycling. Receipts of all waste/

recycling tipping must be kept on site at all times and produced in a legible form to any

authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE







Quick Check agents details – See building and Developing then Quick Check

and

Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to /Sydney Water Assets – see Building and





The trees that are to be retained are to be protected during all works.

The following is not to occur within the TPZ of trees proposed for retention:





PAGE 54


Cement washout and other chemical or fuel contaminants within the TPZ.

Damage to tree crown.






11. Management of Building Sites – Builder’s Details

The erection of suitable fencing or other measures to restrict public access to the site

and building works, materials or equipment when the building work is not in progress or

the site is otherwise unoccupied.

The erection of a sign, in a prominent position, stating that unauthorised entry to the

site is not permitted and giving an after hours contact name and telephone number. In

the case of a privately certified development, the name and contact number of the

Principal Certifying Authority.

12. Consultation with Service Authorities

Applicants are advised to consult with Telstra, NBN Co and Australia Post regarding the

installation of telephone conduits, broadband connections and letterboxes as required.

Unimpeded access must be available to the electricity supply authority, during and after

building, to the electricity meters and metering equipment.

The building plans must be submitted to the appropriate Sydney Water office to

determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains,

stormwater drains and/or easements. If the development complies with Sydney Water’s

requirements, the building plans will be stamped indicating that no further requirements

are necessary.

13. Principal Certifying Authority

A sign is to be erected in accordance with Clause 98 A (2) of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Regulations 2000.

14. Structural Certificate/Existing Building

Structural Engineer's Certificate regarding the adequacy of the existing building to

support additions to be submitted prior to work commencing.
















PAGE 55

DURING CONSTRUCTION

17. Hours of Work









18. Roof Water Drainage

Gutter and downpipes to be provided and connected to an approved drainage system

upon installation of the roof covering.

19. Dropped Edge Beam

All fill is to be contained within the dropped edge beam as shown on the approved plans.

The dropped edge beam is to extend to natural ground level. No fill is to be placed to the

exterior of the building unless otherwise shown on the approved plans.




No. A191513 be complied with. Any subsequent version of this BASIX Certificate will











Regulations.









ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan


3. Site Plan

4. Elevations

5. Site Photographs


PAGE 56



PAGE 57



PAGE 58



PAGE 59


Dwelling & Deck Elevations


PAGE 60

Detached Garage Elevations


PAGE 61

ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


PAGE 62


PAGE 63

ITEM-5 DA NO. 587/2015/HA - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING

STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN

ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY - LOT 5 DP 216412 -

32 MERYLL AVENUE, BAULKHAM HILLS




STRATEGY:




MEETING DATE:

31 MARCH 2015



SHANNON BUTLER


PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures and construction

of a two storey attached dual occupancy. Both dwellings are proposed to contain four

bedrooms and single garages. Both units are proposed to be provided with a second

uncovered car parking space. The building is proposed to be constructed of face bricks

with concrete tiled roofing.

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of Development Control Plan

(DCP) 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy and a variation has been identified in

relation to landscape screening adjacent to the driveway. A landscaping strip of 2 metres

in width is required to be provided and a 1 metre wide strip is proposed. The variation is

considered satisfactory as the site adjoins a Council owned open space reserve to the

east.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy and three submissions

were received. The issues raised in the submissions include flood impact, drainage

concerns, privacy, overshadowing, car parking, asbestos removal and landscaping

concerns. The issues have been addressed in the body of the report and do not warrant

refusal of the application.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.


PAGE 64


Applicant: Mr T Chand

1. LEP 2012 – Satisfactory

Owner: Mr T & Mrs R

Chand

2. DCP 2012 Part B Section 3 – Dual

Occupancy – Variation proposed, see

report.

Zoning: R2 Low Density

Residential


Satisfactory.

Area: 765m²

4. Section 94 Contribution - $4,507.02

Existing Development: Single storey

dwelling


1. Exhibition: Not required. 1. Variation to DCP 2012 Part B Section

3 – Dual Occupancy.



3. Number Advised: Nine

4. Submissions

Received:

Three POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed.

HISTORY

03/11/2014 Subject Development Application lodged with Council.

18/11/2014 Letter sent to the applicant in relation to compliance with DCP

2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy, engineering issues and

requesting amendments in response to issues raised by

objectors.

05/02/2015 Additional information and amended plans submitted by the

applicant in response to Council’s letter.

17/02/2015 Further letter sent to the applicant in relation to flooding/

drainage issues.

24/02/2015 Amended plans submitted in response to Council’s letter.

PROPOSAL

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures and construction

of a two storey attached dual occupancy. Both dwellings are proposed to contain four

bedrooms and single garages. Both units are proposed to be provided with a second

uncovered car parking space. The building is proposed to be constructed of face bricks

with concrete tiled roofing.


PAGE 65


1. Compliance with Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Local

Environmental Plan 2012. Development for the purpose of an attached dual occupancy is

permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The maximum permitted building height in the subject locality is 9 metres. The

maximum proposed height is 7.5 metres to the ridge.

LEP 2012 does not prescribe a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the subject site. The

applicable FSR is prescribed by DCP 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to LEP 2012.

2. Compliance with DCP 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of Development Control Plan

(DCP) 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy and the following variations were

identified:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD

DCP

REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

COMPLIANCE

Landscaped area Landscaped areas

created for the

purpose of screening

shall have a

minimum width of 2

metres.

The landscaping strip

on the eastern side

of the driveway is

only one metre in

width.

No, however, the

variation is

considered

satisfactory. The

eastern side of the

site adjoins a

Council owned

open space

reserve, therefore,

there will be no

significant amenity

impacts arising out

of the variation.

a) Landscaped Area

Part 2.4 of DCP 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy states the following in relation to

landscape screening:

c) Landscaped areas created for the purpose of screening shall have a minimum

width of 2 metres.

The landscaping strip on the eastern side of the driveway is only one metre in width for

its entire length.

Part 2.4 of DCP 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy is based on the following

objectives:


PAGE 66

(i) To ensure a high standard of environmental quality of dual occupancy

developments and the overall visual amenity and character of the

neighbourhood in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 7.

(ii) To ensure that landscaped areas can be efficiently maintained.

(iii) To provide useable outdoor open space for residents.

(iv) To provide a satisfactory relationship between buildings, landscaping areas

and adjoining developments.

(v) To ensure that existing trees are given every opportunity to be

incorporated into the final design.

(vi) To minimise stormwater runoff and provide the opportunity for on-site

groundwater recharge in accordance with Council’s ESD objective 3.

(vii) To ensure that vegetation removed as a part of the land development

process is replaced by suitable endemic species in accordance with

Council’s ESD objective 4.

The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed variation:

A reduced landscaping strip is proposed to allow for more open space adjacent to the

building. The one metre wide landscaping strip is considered to be satisfactory as it

allows for plantings with mature heights of between 1.2 metres and 2 metres. In

addition, the site adjoins a Council public open space property to the east, which was

acquired by Council due to flooding issues in the locality. The proposed landscaping strip

does not result in any significant privacy or amenity impacts.

Comment:

The proposed landscaping strip is considered satisfactory for the following reasons:

The site adjoins a Council owned open space reserve to the east and there will be

no privacy or amenity impacts that result from the variation.

Suitable plantings are proposed within the one metre wide landscaping strip with

mature heights of between 1.2 metres and 2 metres. These plantings will reduce

the visual impact of the driveway.

The driveway is splayed within the front setback area to prevent the appearance

of a straight ‘gun-barrel’ arrangement.

The proposed landscaping strip is therefore considered satisfactory.


The application was notified for 14 days in accordance with Council’s policy and three

submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as

follows:


PAGE 67


The area is subject to

flooding. The

construction of a dual

occupancy will result in

more impervious area on

the site which will reduce

stormwater infiltration.

It is acknowledged that the site is

subject to flooding and this has

been considered during the

assessment of the application. The

Finished Floor Levels will be

required to be 500mm higher than

the 1:100 year flood. There has

been an extensive review to ensure

here is no increase in flood impact

to adjoining properties as a result

of this proposal. An on-site

stormwater detention (OSD)

system is required to be

constructed for the development.

The OSD system will allow the

gradual release of stormwater from

the site to reduce the likelihood of

the stormwater network being

overwhelmed. DCP 2012 Part B

Section 3- Dual Occupancy requires

that 30% of the site be maintained

as permeable area. The proposed

permeable area is 32% of the site.

Issue addressed.

No. 36 Meryll Avenue

was previously flooded

and is now undergoing

renovations. It is

assumed that the

renovations have been

approved by Council.

The renovations to No. 36 Meryll

Avenue were approved by Council

and the flood impact was

considered as part of that

application.

Issue addressed.

Approval has been

granted for the

construction of a large

apartment development

on Windsor Road, which

backs onto Meryll Avenue

and there is another

application under

consideration for a

residential flat building

development at 10-18

Meryll Avenue. An

increase in the volume of

water which will be

experienced during rain

events in the open creek

may affect properties

previously impacted.

The development will be provided

with an on-site detention system

which will ensure the gradual

release of stormwater collected

from the site. Given the provision

of OSD, the post development

stormwater situation will be better

than the pre-development

situation.

Issue addressed.


PAGE 68

The elevations, while

stating how high the

construction will be, do

not show a floor level or

height in relation to the

objector’s residence.

The finished floor level of Unit 2 is

proposed to be RL 81.00. The level

at the rear boundary is RL 80.22,

therefore there is a level difference

of 780mm between the finished

floor level of Unit 2 and the rear

boundary. This is considered

satisfactory, given the 4.6 metre

rear setback and with provision of

300mm lattice screening on top of

the fence.

Issue addressed. See

Condition No. 1.

The objector requests a

1.8 metre high boundary

fence with a lattice

extension to be added to

the top to block out the

views from the windows

of the dual occupancy.

A 1.8 metre high lapped and

capped timber fence is proposed to

be constructed on the rear

boundary. A condition of consent is

recommended requiring that

300mm high lattice screening be

added to the top of the fence.


Condition No. 1

The shadow diagrams

show that the objector’s

property is directly

affected by

overshadowing. Can the

proposed building be

moved an extra metre

from the rear boundary?

The shadow diagram indicates that

the proposed building will partially

overshadow the property to the

rear on 21 June. The proposal

complies with the DCP which

requires that a minimum of 50%

the private open space on the

adjoining properties receives a

minimum of 3 hours of solar access

between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Issue addressed.

There are a number of

residential flat building

developments being

constructed in the area

and a dual occupancy

development will add to

parking problems in the

area.

The development is proposed to be

provided with four car parking

spaces (comprising two per unit).

The proposed extent of car parking

is adequate to cater for the demand

generated by the development.

Issue addressed.

It is important that there

be no fill added to

increase the level of the

site as this may impact

on the flow of water onto

the objector’s property.

There is no fill proposed external to

the building footprint, therefore, it

is not anticipated that there will be

any stormwater impacts on the

adjoining properties as a result of

the development.

Issue addressed.

The demolition of the

existing buildings on the

site must be properly

assessed as the age of

these buildings would

suggest the presence of

asbestos and there is a

need for the removal of

this material in a safe

manner.

All demolition works involving the

removal and disposal of asbestos

must only be undertaken by a

licenced asbestos removalist who is

licenced to carry out the work.

Asbestos removal must be carried

out in accordance with the

WorkCover, Environment Protection

Authority and Office of Environment

and Heritage requirements. A

condition of consent is

recommended in this regard.


Condition No. 34.


PAGE 69

It is noted that there

does not appear to be a

landscaping plan

submitted. There is

currently a dead tree and

other unsightly

overgrown vegetation

that would need to be

removed from the

property.

A landscaping plan was submitted

during the assessment phase of the

application. It is proposed that the

dead tree will be removed and that

suitable replacement plantings will

be provided across the site.

Issue addressed.

ENGINEERING COMMENTS

The application has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and no objection

is raised subject to conditions.


The application has been assessed by Council’s Tree Management Officer and no

objection is raised subject to conditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SUSTAINABILITY COMMENTS

The application has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and no

objection is raised subject to conditions.


The application has been assessed by Council’s Resource Recovery Projects Officer and

no objection is raised subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed against the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Local Environmental Plan 2012 and

Development Control Plan 2012 Part B Section 3- Dual Occupancy and is considered

satisfactory.

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of DCP 2012 Part B Section 3-

Dual Occupancy and is considered satisfactory. A variation is proposed in relation to

landscape screening of the driveway. A minimum two metre wide landscaping strip is

required and a one metre strip is proposed. The variation is considered satisfactory, as

the site adjoins a Council owned reserve to the east.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy and three submissions

were received. The issues raised in the submissions include flood impact, drainage

concerns, privacy, overshadowing, car parking, asbestos removal and landscaping

concerns. The issues have been addressed in the body of the report and do not warrant

refusal of the application.



PAGE 70

IMPACTS

Financial


estimates.







RECOMMENDATION


GENERAL MATTERS

1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended)


submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent. 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

The amendments in red include: -

Amendment of the landscaping plan to depict an external car parking space for

Unit 1 to be consistent with the site plan.

Amendment to site plan and landscaping plan to require 300mm high lattice

screening topping the rear boundary fencing.

REFERENCED PLANS

DRAWING NO DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE

1 Site Plan K 20/02/2015

2 Ground Floor Plan K 20/02/2015

3 First Floor Plan K 20/02/2015

4 Elevations K 20/02/2015

5 Elevations K 20/02/2015

6 BASIX Commitments K 20/02/2015

7 Sections K 20/02/2015

8 Roof Plan K 20/02/2015

L/01 Landscape Plan - 18/08/2014







PAGE 71

3. Provision of Parking Spaces

The development is required to be provided with four off-street car parking spaces.

These car parking spaces shall be available for off street parking at all times.



Code of Australia.

5. Tree Removal

Approval is granted for the removal of seven (7) trees located within the proposed

driveway.



6. Planting Requirements

All trees planted as part of the approved landscape plan are to be minimum 45 litre pot

size. All shrubs planted as part of the approved landscape plan are to be minimum

200mm pot size. Groundcovers are to be planted at 5/m2.

7. Retention of Trees

One jacaranda mimosifolia identified on the landscape plans for retention is to be

retained and protected during proposed works.

8. External Finishes

External finishes and colours shall be in accordance with the details submitted with the

development application and approved with this consent.

9. Property Numbering for Integrated Housing, Multi Unit Housing, Commercial

Developments and Industrial Developments

The responsibility for property numbering is vested solely in Council.

The property address for this development is:

Units 1&2/32 Meryll Avenue Baulkham Hills

Numbering is per submitted plans dated28 September 2014 and submitted with the

application. These numbers, unless otherwise approved by Council in writing, are to be

displayed clearly on all door entrances.

Clear and accurate external directional signage is to be erected on site at driveway entry

points and on buildings. It is essential that all numbering signage throughout the

complex is clear to assist emergency service providers locate a destination with ease and

speed.

10. Adherence to Waste Management Plan

All requirements of the Waste Management Plan submitted to and approved by Council

must be implemented during the construction and/ or demolition phases of the

development, as well as the ongoing management phase. The information submitted can

change provided that the same or a greater level of reuse and recycling is achieved as

detailed in the plan. Any material moved offsite is to be transported in accordance with

the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a

place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility. Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping

must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a legible form to any authorised officer

of the Council who asks to see them.


Waste materials must be appropriately stored and secured within a designated waste

area onsite at all times, prior to its reuse onsite or being sent offsite. This includes waste

materials such as paper and containers which must not litter the site or leave the site

onto neighbouring public or private property. A separate dedicated bin must be provided

onsite by the builder for the disposal of waste materials such as paper, containers and


PAGE 72

food scraps generated by all workers. Building waste containers are not permitted to be

placed on public property at any time unless a separate application is approved by

Council to locate a building waste container in a public place. Any material moved offsite

is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act 1997 and only to a place that can lawfully be used as a

waste facility. The separation and recycling of the following waste materials is required:

metals, timber, masonry products and clean waste plasterboard. This can be achieved by

source separation onsite, that is, a bin for metal waste, a bin for timber, a bin for bricks

and so on. Alternatively, mixed waste may be stored in one or more bins and sent to a

waste contractor or transfer/ sorting station that will sort the waste on their premises for

recycling. Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and

produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them

12. Surplus Excavated Material

The disposal of surplus excavated material, other than to a licenced waste facility, is not

permitted without the formal approval of Council prior to works commencing onsite. Any

unauthorized disposal of waste, which includes excavated material, is a breach of the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and subject to substantial penalties.

Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping must be kept onsite at all times and produced in a

legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks to see them.

13. Commencement of Domestic Waste Service

The property owner or agent acting for the owner must ensure to arrange the

commencement of a domestic waste service with Council. The service is to be arranged

no earlier than two days prior to occupancy and no later than two days after occupancy

of the development. All requirements of Council’s domestic collection service must be

complied with at all times. Please telephone Council on (02) 9843 0310 for the

commencement of waste services.

14. Provision of Domestic Waste Storage Area

Sufficient space must be allocated onsite to store a minimum of three 240 litre mobile

bins (for waste streams as determined by Council). The location is required to ensure

that the bins are not visible from any adjoining property or public place, are easily

accessible by future occupants and allow the bins to be wheeled to the street over flat or

ramped surfaces, grade not to exceed 1:14, and not over steps, kerbs, landscape edging

or through a habitable area of the dwelling.

15. Protection of Public Infrastructure

Council must be notified of any damage to public infrastructure caused by the

development. Adequate protection must be provided prior to work commencing and

maintained during building operations. Any damage caused must be made good, to the

satisfaction of Council, before an Occupation Certificate can be issued. Public

infrastructure includes the road pavement, kerb and gutter, concrete footpaths, drainage

structures, utilities and landscaping fronting the site.

16. Gutter and Footpath Crossing Application

Each driveway requires the lodgement of a separate gutter and footpath crossing

application, accompanied by the applicable fee as per Council’s Schedule of Fees and

Charges.

17. Minor Engineering Works

The design and construction of the engineering works listed below must be provided for

in accordance with the following documents and requirements:

a) Council’s Design Guidelines Subdivisions/ Developments

b) Council’s Works Specifications Subdivisions/ Developments

Any variance from these documents requires separate approval from Council.


PAGE 73

Works on existing public roads or any other land under the care and control of Council

must be approved and inspected by Council in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 or

the Local Government Act 1993. A separate minor engineering works application and

inspection fee is payable as per Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges.

i. Driveway Requirements

The driveway(s) arrangement for this development is to either have one driveway which

services both dwellings OR have two driveways which are separated by 8+m. In order to

provide for this separation the western driveway may need to incorporate a butterfly

typed grate to accommodate for the existing kerb inlet pit which is located at the front of

the property.

The design, finish, gradient and location of all driveway crossings must comply with the

above documents and Council’s Driveway Specifications.

- The proposed driveways must be built to Council’s residential standard (where two

separate driveways are used).

- The proposed driveways must be built to Council’s medium duty standard (where a

shared driveway is incorporated).

A separate driveway application fee is payable as per Council’s Schedule of Fees and

Charges.

ii. Disused Layback/ Driveway Removal

All disused laybacks and driveways must be removed and replaced with kerb and gutter

together with the restoration and turfing of the adjoining footpath verge area.

iii. Footpath Verge Formation

The grading, trimming, topsoiling and turfing of the footpath verge fronting the

development site is required to ensure a gradient between 2% and 4% falling from the

boundary to the top of kerb is provided. This work must include the construction of any

retaining walls necessary to ensure complying grades within the footpath verge area. All

retaining walls and associated footings must be contained wholly within the subject site.

Any necessary adjustment or relocation of services is also required, to the requirements

of the relevant service authority. All service pits and lids must match the finished surface

level.

iv. Stormwater Drainage – Connection To Infrastructure in Open Space Land

The outlet pipe from the OSD system and from any bypass areas are to be converged

into a single pipe and discharged at the existing headwall in the adjacent open space

land. The pipe across the park will become a public asset and is to meet Council asset

requirements for pipes (375mm diameter minimum and RCP). The connection to the

existing headwall is to be in accordance with Council Specifications and Guidelines.

v. Compliance with The Flood Controlled Land DCP (C6)

As per Council’s Flood Controlled DCP;

- All structures below FPL3 are to have flood compatible building components

- Service conduits below FPL3 to be fully flood compatible

- A statement is required from an engineer addressing Clause 4(f) of the ‘Flood

Controlled Land’ DCP regarding the structural soundness of the proposed

structures

vi. Earthworks/ Site Regrading

Earthworks are limited to that shown on the approved plans. Where earthworks are not

shown on the approved plan the topsoil within lots must not be disturbed.


PAGE 74

vii. Service Conduits

Service conduits to each of the proposed new dwellings, laid in strict accordance with the

relevant service authority’s requirements, are required. Services must be shown on the

engineering drawings.

viii. Flood Compatible Fencing

Flood compatible fencing is to be provided at the interface of the subject property and

the open space adjacent.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

18. Section 94 Contribution

The following monetary contributions must be paid to Council in accordance with Section

94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to provide for the

increased demand for public amenities and services resulting from the development.

Payments comprise of the following:-

The contributions above are applicable at the time this consent was issued. Please be

aware that Section 94 contributions are updated quarterly.

Prior to payment of the above contributions, the applicant is advised to contact Council’s

Development Contributions Officer on 9843 0268. Payment must be made by cheque or

credit/debit card. Cash payments will not be accepted.

This condition has been imposed in accordance with Contributions Plan No.7.

Council’s Contributions Plans can be viewed at www.thehills.nsw.gov.au or a copy may

be inspected or purchased at Council’s Administration Centre.







Quick Check agents details – See building and Developing then Quick Check

and

Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to /Sydney Water Assets – see Building and



20. Bank Guarantee Requirements

Any bank guarantee submitted in lieu of a cash bond must comply with the following:

a) Have no expiry date;

b) Be sent to Council direct from the bank;

c) Reference the development application, condition and matter to which it relates;


PAGE 75

d) The amount must match that required to be paid;

e) If a single bank guarantee is used for multiple bonds, it must be itemised.

f) Should Council need to uplift the bank guarantee, notice in writing will be

forwarded to the applicant 14 days beforehand.

21. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan

A sediment and erosion control plan prepared in accordance with Council’s Works

Specification Subdivision/ Developments must be submitted. The plan must include:

a) Allotment boundaries;

b) Adjoining roads;

c) Contours;

d) Existing vegetation;

e) Existing site drainage;

f) Critical natural areas;

g) Location of stockpiles;

h) Erosion control practices;

i) Sediment control practices; and

j) A maintenance program for the erosion and sediment controls.

22. Onsite Stormwater Detention – Upper Parramatta River Catchment Area

Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) is required in accordance with Council’s adopted

policy for the Upper Parramatta River catchment area, the Upper Parramatta River

Catchment Trust OSD Handbook.

The stormwater concept plan prepared by Diversi Consulting Drawings DA01 and DA02

Revision C and B (respectively) dated 30 January and 20 February 2015 (respectively) is

for development application purposes only and is not to be used for construction. The

detailed design must reflect the approved concept plan and the following necessary

changes:

a) Revised calculations are to be provided which account for the drowned outlet

condition in the various storm events. This drowned condition will increase the

storage capacity required.

b) The submitted calculations also require amending, as the extended detention

requires a raised orifice level and the standard detention calls to adopt a non-High-

Early Discharge outlet. These errors in the calculations are to be designed out –

possibly by using the Version 3 of the OSD Handbook or otherwise.

Comprehensive design plans showing full construction details must be prepared by an

accredited OSD designer and submitted with:

- A completed OSD Drainage Design Summary Sheet;

- Drainage calculations and details, including those for all weirs, overland flow paths

and diversion (catch) drains, catchment areas, times of concentration and estimated

peak run-off volumes;

- A completed OSD Detailed Design Checklist;

- A maintenance schedule.

The design and construction of the OSD system must be approved by either Council or

an accredited certifier. This certification must be included with the documentation

approved as part of any Construction Certificate.


PAGE 76

A Design Compliance Certificate (DCC) certifying the detailed design of the OSD system

can be issued by Council subject to the following being provided:

i. A completed application form;

ii. Four copies of the design plans and specifications;

iii. Payment of the applicable application and inspection fees.

23. Works on Adjoining Land

Where the engineering works included in the scope of this approval extend into adjoining

land, written consent from all affected adjoining property owners must be obtained and

submitted to Council before a Construction Certificate is issued.

24. Draft Legal Documents

Where an encumbrance on title is required to be created as part of this consent, draft

copies of all legal documents must be submitted to Council for checking before a

Construction Certificate is issued.

25. Security Bond – External Works

In accordance with Section 80A(6)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

1979, a security bond is required to be submitted to Council to guarantee the

construction, completion and performance of all works external to the site. The bonded

amount must be based on 150% of the tendered value of providing all such works. The

minimum bond amount is $10,000.00. The bond amount must be confirmed with Council

prior to payment.

The bond must be lodged with Council before a Construction Certificate is issued.

The bond is refundable upon written application to Council and is subject to all work

being completed to Council’s satisfaction.



The tree that is to be retained is to be protected during all works strictly in accordance

with AS4970- 2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

At a minimum a 1.8m high chain-wire fence is to be erected at least three (3) metres

from the base of each tree and is to be in place prior to works commencing to restrict

the following occurring:










27. Principal Certifying Authority

A sign is to be erected in accordance with Clause 98 A (2) of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Regulations 2000.


PAGE 77

28. Builder and PCA Details Required

Notification in writing of the builder’s name, address, telephone and fax numbers to be

submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to work commencing.

Two days before work commences, Council shall be notified of the Principal Certifying

Authority in accordance with the Regulations.

29. Management of Building Sites – Builder’s Details

The erection of suitable fencing or other measures to restrict public access to the site

and building works, materials or equipment when the building work is not in progress or

the site is otherwise unoccupied.

The erection of a sign, in a prominent position, stating that unauthorised entry to the

site is not permitted and giving an after hours contact name and telephone number. In

the case of a privately certified development, the name and contact number of the

Principal Certifying Authority.

30. Consultation with Service Authorities

Applicants are advised to consult with Telstra, NBN Co and Australia Post regarding the

installation of telephone conduits, broadband connections and letterboxes as required.

Unimpeded access must be available to the electricity supply authority, during and after

building, to the electricity meters and metering equipment.

The building plans must be submitted to the appropriate Sydney Water office to

determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains,

stormwater drains and/or easements. If the development complies with Sydney Water’s

requirements, the building plans will be stamped indicating that no further requirements

are necessary.

31. Approved Temporary Closet

An approved temporary closet connected to the sewers of Sydney Water, or alternatively

an approved chemical closet is to be provided on the land, prior to building operations

being commenced.















34. Demolition Works and Asbestos Management

The demolition of any structure is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational

Health and Safety Regulations 2001 Part 8 and AS 2601-2001. All vehicles transporting

demolition materials offsite are to have covered loads and are not to track any soil or

waste materials on the road. Should demolition works obstruct or inconvenience

pedestrian or vehicular traffic on adjoining public road or reserve, a separate application

is to be made to Council to enclose the public place with a hoard or fence. All demolition

works involving the removal and disposal of asbestos must only be undertaken by a

licenced asbestos removalist who is licenced to carry out the work. Asbestos removal

must be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover, Environment Protection Authority


PAGE 78

and Office of Environment and Heritage requirements. Asbestos to be disposed of must

only be transported to waste facilities licenced to accept asbestos. No asbestos products

are to be reused on the site.

35. Discontinuation of Domestic Waste Service

Prior to the commencement of any demolition works, and where the site ceases to be

occupied during works, the property owner or site manager must notify Council to

discontinue the domestic waste service and to collect any garbage and recycling bins

from any dwelling/ building that is to be demolished. Construction and/ or demolition

workers are not permitted to use Council’s domestic waste service for the disposal of any

waste. Please telephone Council on (02) 9843 0310 for the discontinuation of waste

services.

36. Demolition Waste Management Plan Required

Prior to the commencement of works, a Waste Management Plan for the demolition

phase of the development must be submitted to and approved by Council. The plan

should be prepared in accordance with The Hills Development Control Plan 2012

Appendix A. The plan must comply with the waste minimisation requirements in the

relevant Development Control Plan. All requirements of the approved plan must be

implemented during the demolition phase of the development. The plan must address

the following, but not limited to:

(1) The type and estimated quantity of waste material to be removed from the site;

(2) The location of waste disposal and recycling;

(3) The company name of the skip bin hire company or transport contractor(s); and

(4) The proposed reuse or recycling methods for waste remaining onsite.

37. Sediment and Erosion Control

The approved sediment and erosion control measures, including a stabilised all weather

access point, must be in place prior to works commencing and maintained during

construction and until the site is stabilised to ensure their effectiveness. For major

works, these measures must be maintained for a minimum period of six months

following the completion of all works.

38. Separate OSD Detailed Design Approval

No work is to commence until a detailed design for the OSD system has been approved

by either Council or an accredited certifier.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

39. Hours of Work









40. Dust Control

The emission of dust must be controlled to minimise nuisance to the occupants of the

surrounding premises. In the absence of any alternative measures, the following

measures must be taken to control the emission of dust:


PAGE 79

Dust screens must be erected around the perimeter of the site and be kept in good

repair for the duration of the construction work.

All dusty surfaces must be wet down and suppressed by means of a fine water

spray. Water used for dust suppression must not cause water pollution; and

All stockpiles of materials that are likely to generate dust must be kept damp of

covered.




No. 577144M be complied with. Any subsequent version of this BASIX Certificate will





42. Roof Water Drainage

Gutter and downpipes to be provided and connected to an approved drainage system

upon installation of the roof covering.







Regulations.









44. Contamination

Ground conditions are to be monitored and should evidence such as, but not limited to,

imported fill and/or inappropriate waste disposal indicate the likely presence of

contamination on site, works are to cease, Council’s Manager – Environment and Health

is to be notified and a site contamination investigation is to be carried out in accordance

with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land.

The report is to be submitted to Council’s Manager – Environment and Health for review

and comment prior to works recommencing on site.

45. Standard of Works

All work must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Works Specification

Subdivisions/ Developments and must include any necessary works required to make the

construction effective. All works, including public utility relocation, must incur no cost to

Council.


PAGE 80

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

46. Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying

Authority before the issuing of an Occupation Certificate

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained

from Sydney Water Corporation.

Make early application for the certificate, as there may be water and sewer pipes to be

built and this can take some time. This can also impact on other services and building,

driveway or landscape design.

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. For help

either visit www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your land

> water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying

Authority before occupation of the development/release of the plan of

subdivision.

47. Works as Executed Plans

Works as executed (WAE) plans prepared by a suitably qualified engineer or registered

surveyor must be submitted to Council when the subdivision works are completed. The

WAE plans must be prepared in accordance with Council’s Design Guidelines

Subdivisions/ Developments.

The plans must be accompanied by pavement density results, pavement certification,

concrete core test results, site fill results, structural certification, CCTV recording,

signage details and a public asset creation summary, where relevant.

48. Performance/ Maintenance Security Bond

A performance/ maintenance bond of 5% of the total cost of the engineering works is

required to be submitted to Council. The bond will be held for a minimum defect liability

period of one year and may be extended to allow for the completion of necessary

maintenance or in the case of outstanding/ bonded works. The minimum bond amount is

to be negotiated and approved by Council’s Construction Engineer. The bond is

refundable upon written application to Council and is subject to a final inspection.

49. Stormwater CCTV Recording

All piped stormwater drainage systems and ancillary structures which will become public

assets must be inspected by CCTV. A copy of the actual recording must be submitted

electronically for checking.

51. Public Asset Creation Summary

A public asset creation summary must be submitted with the WAE plans. A template is

available on Council’s website.

50. Completion of Engineering Works

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued prior to the completion of all engineering

works covered by this consent, in accordance with this consent.

51. OSD System Certification

The Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) system must be completed to the satisfaction of

the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

The following documentation is required to be submitted upon completion of the OSD

system and prior to a final inspection:

a) Works as executed plans prepared on a copy of the approved plans;

b) A certificate of hydraulic compliance (Form B.11) from a suitably qualified engineer

or surveyor verifying that the constructed OSD system will function hydraulically;


PAGE 81

c) A certificate of structural adequacy from a suitably qualified structural engineer

verifying that the structures associated with the constructed OSD system are

structurally adequate and capable of withstanding all loads likely to be imposed on

them during their lifetime.

Where Council is not the PCA a copy of the above documentation must be submitted to

Council.

52. 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 a request document, Section 88B

instrument associated with a plan or the like. Council’s standard recitals must be used

where applicable.

i. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan


3. Site Plan

4. Elevations

5. Shadow Diagram

6. Landscaping Plan


PAGE 82



PAGE 83



PAGE 84



PAGE 85



PAGE 86

ATTACHMENT 5 – SHADOW DIAGRAM


PAGE 87

ATTACHMENT 6 – LANDSCAPING PLAN


PAGE 88

ITEM-6 DA NO. 769/2015/HD - ADDITIONAL TEE AREA FOR

16TH HOLE AND ERECTION OF A SAFETY FENCE

WITHIN MUIRFIELD GOLF COURSE - LOT 2 DP

568395, LOT 1 DP 555082, LOT 1 DP 651477 -

MUIRFIELD GOLF COURSE, 58 BARCLAY ROAD,

NORTH ROCKS




STRATEGY:







SHANNON BUTLER


PAUL OSBORNE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application is for the construction of an additional tee area for the 16th

hole and the erection of safety fencing adjacent to the tee area (in the north-eastern

corner of the site). The purpose of the additional tee area is to increase the difficulty of

the hole for competition play. The proposed safety fencing is 40 metres in length and 5

metres in height and will resemble existing fencing on the golf course fronting Perry

Street. The purpose of the fencing is to prevent miss-hit golf balls entering the adjoining

residential properties from both the existing and proposed 16th hole tee areas. The

additional tee area is proposed to be used for competitions only and will not be available

for use outside of competitions.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy and four submissions

were received. The issues raised in the submissions include poor communication from

golf course management, concerns that the plans were of poor quality as they did not

accurately show the location of trees and the size of the safety fencing and concerns in

relation to the times of use of the additional tee area. These issues are addressed in the

body of the report and do not warrant refusal of the application.

As the site is zoned RE2 Private Recreation under the provisions of LEP 2012, there are

no provisions in Development Control Plan 2012 that are applicable to the proposal.

Hence a merit assessment has been undertaken. The proposed works are considered to

be satisfactory in relation to the amenity of the adjoining residential properties. It is

noted that the additional tee area is proposed to be used for competitions only and will

not be available for general play. The proposed earthworks are consistent with those

elsewhere on the course and suitable screening vegetation is proposed to mitigate any

increased impact.



PAGE 89


Applicant: Guy Gibson

1. LEP 2012 – Satisfactory

Owner: Muirfield Golf Club

P/L


Satisfactory.

Zoning: RE2 Private

Recreation

Area: 36.56Ha

Existing Development: Golf Course

SUBMISSIONS REASON FOR REFERRAL TO DAU



2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 41 days (due

to Christmas

period).

3. Number Advised: 18

4. Submissions

Received:

Four POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed.

HISTORY


15/12/2014 Email sent to the applicant requesting that the plans be

certified by a practising structural engineer (for the safety

fencing component), given that the application is a combined

Development Application/ Construction Certificate.

18/12/2014 Engineer certified plans submitted by the applicant in response

to Council’s request.

05/01/2015 Further email sent to the applicant in relation to cut and fill (to

ascertain any drainage impacts) and requesting additional

information to improve the clarity of the proposal for adjoining

residents.

12/02/2015 Amended plans and additional information submitted in

response to Council’s email.

17/02/2015 Email sent to objectors providing additional information in

response to queries.


PAGE 90

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the construction of an additional tee area for the 16th hole and the

erection of safety fencing adjacent to the tee area (in the north-eastern corner of the

site). The purpose of the additional tee area is to increase the difficulty of the hole for

competition play. The proposed safety fencing is 40 metres in length and 5 metres in

height and will resemble existing fencing on the golf course fronting Perry Street. The

purpose of the fencing is to prevent miss-hit golf balls entering the adjoining residential

properties from both the existing and proposed 16th hole tee areas.

The additional tee area is proposed to be used for competitions only and will not be

available for use outside of competitions.


1. Compliance with Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned RE2 Private Recreation under the provisions of Local

Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. Development for the purpose of a ‘Recreation Facility

(Outdoor)’ is permissible within the RE2 Private Recreation zone. The proposal

constitutes ancillary works to the existing golf course and is considered satisfactory with

regard to LEP 2012.


The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy and four submissions

were received. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:


When Muirfield Golf

Course advised residents

of the proposal, there was

no mention of the erection

of a safety fence.

This concern is noted, however, it is

possible that the safety fencing was

not part of the proposal when the

residents were briefed. It is noted

that Council’s notification letter

refers to the safety fencing as being

a key element of the proposal and

residents were given 14 days to

make submissions.

Issue addressed.

The submitted plans are

insufficient in detail and do

not accurately show the

location of existing trees.

It is noted that the plans originally

submitted did not provide adequate

detail and were inaccurate in some

areas. Amended plans were

requested to improve the accuracy

of depicting the proposed works in

relation to the existing features of

the site. These plans were forwarded

to the objector for review and no

further objection was received.

Issue addressed.

The length and proposed

location of the safety

fencing is not clear from

the plans.

Amended plans were submitted as

requested during the assessment of

the application, which show the

length and location of the fencing.

Issue addressed.


PAGE 91


The golf course

management advised

residents that the

additional tee area would

be used by professional

golfers in competitions

only a couple of times per

year. Professional golfers

would not normally need a

safety fence

erected. Residents were

then advised by members

of the golf club that a

competition would be

every Sunday and there

would be nothing to stop

golfers using the longer

tee when so desired any

time of the week.

The golf course General Manager has

advised that the intention for the

use of the additional tee is for

particular competitions only. It is

envisaged this will be for monthly

medal rounds, championships and

interclub pennant events. The tee

will not be available for use outside

of competition nor is it intended for

use for normal weekly events. A

condition of consent has been

recommended requiring that signage

be erected stating that the additional

tee shall only be used for

competition play. It is noted that the

proposed safety fence will also

protect adjoining properties from

miss-hit golf balls originating from

both the existing and proposed 16th

hole tee areas.

Issue addressed.

3. Merit Assessment

As the site is zoned RE2 Private Recreation under the provisions of LEP 2012, there are

no provisions in Development Control Plan 2012 that are applicable to the proposal.

Hence a merit assessment has been undertaken. The additional tee area is

approximately 12 metres x 5 metres in size and is located in the north-eastern corner of

the golf course. The proposed safety fencing is located between the 16th hole tee areas

and the northern boundary.

The proposed works are considered to be satisfactory in relation to the amenity of the

adjoining residential properties. It is noted that the additional tee area is proposed to be

used for competitions only and will not be available for general play. The proposed

earthworks are consistent with those elsewhere on the course and suitable screening

vegetation is proposed to mitigate any increased impact. The design of the safety

fencing is similar to that of the existing fencing on the Perry Street frontage of the site

and is considered satisfactory with regard to the function of the site and will assist in

public safety and the protection of assets. Accordingly, the proposal is considered

satisfactory on merit.

CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Local Environmental Plan (LEP)

2012 and is considered satisfactory.


IMPACTS

Financial


estimates.


PAGE 92







RECOMMENDATION


GENERAL MATTERS


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



DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE

0303-03-12 Proposed Tee Reconstruction Works C 04/02/2015

N-B2094.00 Golf Course Net- Plan and Elevation 1 02/12/2014

N-B2094.00 Golf Course Net- Typical Details 1 02/12/2014








3. Use of Additional Tee Area

The tee area approved via this consent shall only be used during competition play. A sign

shall be erected (advising no use of the area for general play) and the area cordoned off

outside competition play.


Any waste generated as a result of construction and/ or demolition for the development

is to be reused and recycled where possible, and any residual waste is to be disposed of

at a licenced waste facility. Waste materials must be appropriately stored and secured

within a designated waste area onsite at all times, prior to its reuse onsite or being sent

offsite. Building waste containers are not permitted to be placed on public property at

any time unless a separate application is approved by Council to locate a building waste

container in a public place. Receipts of all waste/ recycling tipping must be kept onsite at

all times and produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the Council who asks

to see them.



Code of Australia.


PAGE 93

6. Minor Engineering Works

The design and construction of the engineering works listed below must be provided for

in accordance with the following documents and requirements:

a) Council’s Design Guidelines Subdivisions/ Developments

b) Council’s Works Specifications Subdivisions/ Developments

Any variance from these documents requires separate approval from Council.

Works on existing public roads or any other land under the care and control of Council

must be approved and inspected by Council in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 or

the Local Government Act 1993. A separate minor engineering works application and

inspection fee is payable as per Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges.

i. Site Stormwater Drainage

Adequate drainage measures must be provided to ensure that stormwater runoff from

the development is managed within the site. At all phases of the development including

construction and occupation stormwater runoff should not be redirected over the

adjoining properties.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

7. Hours of Work









PRIOR TO ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

8. Final Inspection

A final inspection shall be carried out to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions

of the Development Consent, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Such

certificate shall be issued prior to the occupation/use of the safety screen.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan


3. Site Plan

4. Plan of Works

5. Elevation of Safety Fence

6. Photograph of Existing Safety Fence on Course


PAGE 94



PAGE 95

ATTACHMENT 2 –AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH


PAGE 96



PAGE 97

ATTACHMENT 4 – PLAN OF WORKS


PAGE 98

ATTACHMENT 5 – ELEVATION OF SAFETY FENCE


PAGE 99

ATTACHMENT 6 – PHOTOGRAPH OF SAFETY

FENCING ON GOLF COURSE

This photograph depicts the existing safety fencing on the Perry Street frontage of the

golf course. The proposed fencing will resemble this existing fencing.

Development Assessment Unit · 2020-03-11 · development assessment unit meeting 31 march, 2015...

Documents

Transcript of Development Assessment Unit · 2020-03-11 · development assessment unit meeting 31 march, 2015...