Statement of Environmental Effects - 51 Terry Road, Rouse Hill · Pre-application meeting response...

7

3 Background 3.1 Previous Development Application

SPP-17-00009

Development application SPP-17-00009 was lodged on 29 May 2017 for construction of 7 3-storey residential flat buildings above basement car parking at 51 Terry Road, Rouse Hill. The application has been withdrawn.

DA-18-00868

Development application DA-18-00868 was lodged on 25 May 2018 for subdivision of existing lot into 3 lots to facilitate future residential development and civil works including construction of 5 roads. The application has been withdrawn.

3.2 Ingenia Caravan Park The Ingenia Caravan Park has been vacated. There are no residents on the site. As such, this DA does not address in detail the social impacts associated with re-location of residents of the caravan park.

3.3 Pre-DA Meeting A pre-application meeting was held with Council on 30 May 2018. Items raised are discussed in the table below. A copy of the PAM minutes (PAM No. C18/23140) have been submitted with the application (refer to Appendix 3).

Pre-application meeting response

Issue discussed at PAM Response

General

Remediation of land

• Application to address SEPP 55 and submit Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation.

• On-site sewage system to be removed and disposed of appropriately.

• Stage 1 Contamination Report has been submitted with this DA.

• Noted re sewage. This can be included as a condition of consent.

Development on adjoining sites

• The proponent may wish to contact TfNSW regarding the Sydney Metro North West construction to the south.

The proponent has closely monitored the metro station construction and has not identified any particular aspects of the station project that would impede the proposed development.

Consultation with TfNSW

• The proponent is to consult with TfNSW regarding the residue land to the west.

Consultation has occurred with the Sydney Metro Delivery Office, who have advised that the current lot containing the triangular residue land will be subdivided to define the property and associated easements for the Second Ponds Creek railway viaduct. The subdivision may include definition of the new Terry Road extension underneath the viaduct, subject to agreement with Blacktown City Council. The triangular

8


residue land is likely to be surplus to ultimate requirements, but the exact definition of this will need to wait for the subdivision plan which will not occur until the end of this year. If the land is retained by TfNSW, then it will be managed by the facilities manager Knight Frank.

This DA proposes no works to the TfNSW surplus land. It is anticipated that the land can be acquired by the development proponent and included as front yards for the Block F dwellings. Depending upon the timing of the subdivision of the TfNSw land, this would occur either during the assessment of the subject or after the approval, subject to a separate development application.

Strategic planning

• The proponent is encouraged to consult with DP&E to confirm any plans to review current planning policy.

No relevant changes to planning policy have been identified.

Nearby public open space land

• The proponent is encouraged to contact Council regarding the timing, levels and alignment of the RE1 land to the west to ensure the proposed development is compatible.

No contact with Council has yet been made in this regard. This can occur during the assessment process if the need arises.

Planning

Sydney Planning Panel

• DA will go to the Panel if the CIV exceeds $30 million.

Noted.

SEPP 65

• Address clause 4 (Application of Policy) of SEPP 65

SEPP 65 does not apply, as the DA is neither for a residential flat building, shop top housing or residential accommodation component of a mixed use development. Refer to discussion at Section 5.1 of this SEE.

Removal of outbuildings and dam

• Dam needs to be filled as part of DA.

• Dam dewatering plan is to be provided.

• Plan of demolition is to be provided.

The dam will be filled as part of the development. A de-watering plan can be provided as a condition of development consent.

A plan of demolition accompanies the application.

Floor space ratio

• Maximum FSR is 1.75:1.

• Calculation methodology is clarified in clause 4.5 of Appendix 6 of the Growth Centres SEPP.

The proposed development complies with the maximum FSR. Refer to discussion at Section 5.5 of this SEE.

9


Residential development

• Minimum dwelling yield of 25 dwellings per hectare is required.

The proposed development achieves the minimum density. Refer to discussion at Section 5.5 of this SEE.

Current development applications

• Proponent is to review current development applications on the site.

• Owner’s consent is required for all affected properties.

There are no current applications on the site.

Owner’s consent has been submitted for the subject site. No other properties are affected.

Acoustic performance

• Acoustic report should accompany the DA to assess impacts from rail infrastructure.

An acoustic report which assesses rail noise impacts accompanies the DA.

Compliance with relevant planning policy

• The application is to demonstrate compliance with BCC Growth Centres Precinct DCP 2018 including Schedule 4 and associated ILP.

Refer to Section 5.5 of this SEE.

Land information

• GIS data content can be provided.

Noted.

Development Engineering

There is currently no support to alter the ILP road layout including substituting them with one-way private laneways, as these roads are designed to carry overland flows and enable circulation of the site.

This DA proposes a variation to the ILP road layout. Refer to discussion in Section 5.7.1 of this SEE.

R3 Zoning requires all local roads to be 18m wide.

All local roads are 18m wide.

Road adjacent to the railway needs to comply with the 18m wide local road and ensure the nexus with the proposed pedestrian access is not compromised.

New road adjacent the rail is 18m-wide.

Ensure the road identified as a local major street in Schedule 4 complies with the 20m wide road reserve with 5m landscape setback.

This road has been designed generally in accordance with Schedule 4 requirements; however, a variation to the landscape setback is proposed. Refer to discussion in Section 5.7.2 of this report.

Traffic Management Plan to address how the work details with the Bus Stop currently located outside the site on Terry Road.

This can be provided as a condition of consent if required.

If access cannot be granted from the current existing arrangement of Terry Road, the applicant can enter a Works in Kind agreement to construct part of Terry

Noted. It is expected that access will occur via the current existing Terry Road.

10


Road to gain sufficient access. Approval will be required of any property owners.

Any retaining walls must comply with the Growth Centres DCP.

Retaining walls have been designed to comply with the DCP.

All other engineering requirements must satisfy the Engineering Guide for Development 2005 and any relevant Australian Standards.

The submitted civil drawings demonstrate compliance with the relevant requirements.

Traffic Engineering

Traffic report with swept paths is to be provided. Design of car park and driveway must comply with relevant Australian Standards.

A traffic report with swept paths has been submitted with the DA.

Public roads are to be a minimum of 18m road reserve, except for the northern boundary road, which is to be 20m wide road reserve with 5m landscape setback.

The DA generally complies. A variation is proposed to the additional landscape setback for the northern boundary road. Refer to discussion in Section 5.7.2 of this report.

Interface between private and public road is to be a vehicular crossing.

Interfaces between private and public roads have been design as vehicular crossings.

Road connections for development consents adjoining the property are to be confirmed. The proposed relocation of the ILP road should be offset and/or adjusted in response and comply with relevant Australian Standards/Austroads Guide.

The proposed road layout is compatible with surrounding approved roads and complies with Australian Standards/Austroads Guide. Refer to submitted engineering drawings.

Pedestrian link onto Terry Road needs to be retained along the new local road on the southern boundary of the site.

Pedestrian access along the southern boundary road has been provided for the length of the site. The path can continue to Terry Road subject to TfNSW’s plans for the residue land.

Drainage Engineering

• On-site water quality

• Temporary water quality

• Site discharge

• Stream Erosion Index

Refer to submitted engineering plans.

Waste Management

Refer to pre-DA minutes. Refer to submitted waste management plan.

City Architect

Three full floors not supported. A number of dwellings feature a partial third floor. This is considered acceptable, as the third floors are well integrated into the

11


building design and are generally within the 8.5m height limit. The partial levels accommodate changes in site contours. Also, all dwellings have been designed to read as 2-storey dwellings from the frontage.

The proposed minor height breaches do not accommodate additional habitable floor space.

Basement waste collection is preferred configuration, but ground floor collection would be accepted provided that the turning bay and collection points are not within the required street setbacks.

On-site collection is proposed. Refer to discussion in Section 6.6 of this report.

Matters to be considered:

• Pedestrian access

• Change of pavement

• Safety

• Footpath

• Landscaping/street trees

These items have been considered in the design of the development and are discussed throughout this SEE.

Shade is to be provided for communal open space.

Shade is provided in the form of multiple canopy trees.

Steps should be minimised across the site. The number of steps has been minimised insofar as possible.

Rear yards facing north may not comply with solar access requirements.

All yards achieve solar access in accordance with DCP requirements.

Design should respond to objectives stated in the Medium Density Design Guide

Refer to discussion in Section 5.8 of this report.

Direct street address to be provided for all dwellings.

All dwellings directly address a street, footpath or communal open space

Ground floor of the dwellings should be generally not greater than 1m above or 1m below the footpath.

A number of dwellings have ground floors above the footpath due to the sloping nature of the site.

12

4 Proposed Development Approval is sought for the following:

• Demolition of existing structures on site and filling of existing dam;

• Tree clearing to make the site suitable for the residential development;

• Torrens title subdivision of 1 lot into 2, plus new public roads;

• Construction of 145 dwellings of multi dwelling housing and 12 secondary dwellings;

• Strata subdivision of multi dwelling housing; and

• Civil works including bulk earthworks and road construction.

These works are described in more detail in the following sections.

4.1 Demolition It is proposed to demolish all existing structures on the site and to fill the existing dam. A demolition plan by Hayball has been submitted with the DA.

Figure 8 – Demolition plan Source: Hayball

4.2 Subdivision and Road Layout This DA proposes Torrens title subdivision of the existing single lot into two new residential lots—Lot 1 containing the proposed Blocks A-E and Lot 2 containing Block F. Additionally, this DA proposes new public roads, as shown in the image below.

13

Figure 9 – Subdivision plan Source: Duncan John Sim

The following road construction is proposed:

• Full public local road: This road runs east-west along the southern boundary of the site, then north-south through the western end of the site. This road has a reserve width of 18m with 11m carriageway with 3.5m verge on either side.

• Two public local half-roads: One half-road runs east-west along the northern boundary. This half road includes a 5.5m-wide half carriageway and 4.5m verge, based on 20m total reserve width in accordance with the precinct-specific requirements for a collector road set out in Schedule 4 of the DCP.

The other half-road runs north-south along the eastern boundary. This half-road includes a 5.5m half carriageway and 3.5m verge, based on a total reserve width of 18m.

• Three internal one-way private roads (within proposed Lot 1): Three one-way private roads run north-south through the site. These have a reserve width of 7m with 3m carriageway and 2m verges.

4.3 Residential Development This DA proposes a total of 145 dwellings of multi dwelling housing plus 12 secondary dwellings.

It is proposed to strata subdivide the 145 dwellings. A strata subdivision plan by Craig and Rhodes accompanies the DA. The 12 secondary dwellings will not be subdivided but rather will form part of the same lot as the principal dwelling.

The dwellings are spread across six blocks—Blocks A through F.

The dwellings range in size from 3- to 4-bedroom, and they range in height from 2- to 3-storeys. Each has direct ground level access and direct access to basement parking, with the exception of Block F, which features at-grade parking.

All dwellings have frontage to a road or communal open space area, except for the Block F, which have frontage to a proposed pedestrian path bordering the residue land to the west. The Block F dwellings have a garage with upper level secondary dwelling designed to designed to address the street, resulting dual frontage dwellings.

14

Figure 10 – Ground level site plan Source: Hayball

4.4 Tree Clearing and Landscaping This DA proposes clearing of the entire site, with the exception four trees which are to be retained along the southern boundary. For details refer to the Aboricultural Report prepared by Redgum Horticultural.

The development has been designed with integrated landscaping including a central communal open space area with deep soil zone capable of accommodating multiple canopy trees (refer to Figure 6 below). Additionally, street tree planting is proposed along all proposed roads, including the private internal roads.

Figure 11 – Communal open space landscaping Source: Black Beetle

15

5 Planning Assessment This section provides an assessment of the proposed works against key relevant planning instruments and development control plans. Overall it has been found that the development is generally consistent with relevant controls, and any inconsistencies are sufficiently justified.

5.1 SEPP 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Clause 4 (Application of Policy) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) states:

4 Application of Policy

(1) This Policy applies to development for the purpose of a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation component if:

(a) the development consists of any of the following:

(i) the erection of a new building,

(ii) the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building,

(iii) the conversion of an existing building, and

(b) the building concerned is at least 3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level (existing) or levels that are less than 1.2 metres above ground level (existing) that provide for car parking), and

(c) the building concerned contains at least 4 or more dwellings.

The proposed development is not for a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation. Rather, it is for multi dwelling housing and secondary dwellings as per the Standard Instrument definitions. As such, SEPP 65 does not apply.

5.2 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 identifies matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to rail corridors. The proposed development for residential accommodation is located adjacent to the Sydney Metro North West rail corridor, and therefore under Clause 87 of the SEPP the consent authority is required to take into consideration the “Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads Interim Guideline” and must be satisfied that the following noise levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the residential accommodation—35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am,

(b) anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.

The Interim Guideline and SEPP noise levels are addressed in the Rail Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics and submitted with this DA. In summary, the assessment found that the development complies with the SEPP noise levels, subject to implementation of the acoustic treatments specified in the report.

16

5.3 SEPP No. 55—Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) stipulates that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated; and if so, whether the land is suitable in its contaminated state for the purpose of the development or whether remediation is required.

A Phase 1 Contamination and Salinity Assessment prepared by Ground Technologies has been submitted with this DA. The report concludes that the site is suitable for residential land use and that no further investigation or remediation is required.

Having regard to the above, the development complies with clause 7 of SEPP 55 and is suitable for the proposed residential development.

5.4 SEPP (BASIX) 2004 The application is accompanied by BASIX certificates, which confirm that the proposed dwellings will meet the NSW government’s requirements for sustainability if built in accordance with the commitments set out in the certificates.

5.5 SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP) is the primary environmental planning instrument applicable to the site and outlines the zoning and key development standards.

The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against the key provisions of the SEPP.

Growth Centres SEPP – Appendix 6 (Area 20 Precinct Plan)

Clause Provision Assessment

Zoning Zone Objectives

R3 – Medium Density Residential

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To support the well-being of the community by enabling educational, recreational, community, religious and other activities where compatible with the amenity of a medium density residential environment.

Complies

The proposed development falls under the following two categories of residential accommodation:

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building or a manor home.

secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b) is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and

(c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling.

17



Multi dwelling housing and secondary dwellings are permitted with consent in the R3 zone.

The proposed residential development is consistent with the R3 zone objectives. The housing needs of North West Sydney will be provided for through multi dwelling housing a medium density residential environment.

4.1AB Minimum lot sizes for residential development in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

(7) The minimum lot size for multi dwelling housing is:

(b) 375m2 if the dwelling density (per hectare) shown on the Residential Density Map in relation to the land is 25 or 45.

Complies

The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are 2.22ha and 2,711sqm, respectively, which are well above the minimum of 375sqm.

4.1AC Minimum lot sizes for secondary dwellings in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

(3) The minimum lot size for a secondary dwelling on land in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential is the minimum lot size for the principal dwelling in conjunction with which the secondary dwelling is established, determined in accordance with clause 4.1AB, 4.1AD or 4.1AF.

Complies

The lot size on which the secondary dwellings are proposed meet the minimum lot size for multi dwelling housing as noted in the row above.

4.1B Residential Density

The site is identified on the RDN Map as having a minimum residential density of 25 dwellings per hectare.

Complies

The site has a net developable area of 3.68ha and a dwelling yield of 157 dwellings. This equates to a density of 42.7 dwellings per hectare, which exceeds the minimum of 25 dwellings per hectare.

4.3 Height of buildings

The site is identified as having a maximum building height of 8.5m on the HOB Map.

Minor non-compliance

The proposed structures are generally below the 8.5m height plane. However, there are some small non-compliances (roof structure) ranging from 150mm to 300mm. A cl. 4.6 variation request has been submitted accordingly (refer to Appendix 1 of this SEE).

4.4 Floor space ratio

The site is identified as having a maximum FSR of 1.75:1 on the FSR Map.

Complies

The proposed development’s GFA is 27,407sqm, which equates to 0.74:1 FSR.

18



4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Variations to development standards must be justified by a written request.

Complies

A clause 4.6 variation request for the proposed height variations has been submitted with the DA. Refer to Appendix 1 of this SEE.

5.4 Controls related to miscellaneous permissible uses

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Precinct Plan, the total gross floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

(a) 110 square metres,

(b) 30% of the total gross floor area of both the self-contained dwelling and the principal dwelling.

Complies

The proposed 12 secondary dwellings in Block F are each approximately 35sqm in area.

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

(1) The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

(3) A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by:

(a) development consent, or

(b) a permit granted by the Council.

Complies

Consent for tree removal is being sought. An Aboricultural Report prepared by Redgum Horticultural has been submitted with this DA. The report identifies the health and condition of the site’s trees.

5.10 Heritage Conservation

The site is not identified as a heritage item under the Growth Centres SEPP and is not in the vicinity of any other identified heritage items.

Complies

The site is located within a view line associated with Rouse Hill House and Estate. Refer to Section 6.10 of this SEE.

Aboriginal cultural heritage is addressed in Section 6.4 of this SEE.

6.1 Public utility infrastructure

(1) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this Precinct Plan applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that any public utility infrastructure that is essential for the proposed development is available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make that infrastructure available when it is required.

Complies

The site is currently serviced by sewer, water and electricity.

19



6.3 Development controls – native vegetation retention areas

(2) This clause applies to land:

(a) within a native vegetation retention area as shown on the Native Vegetation Protection Map, or

(b) within a riparian protection area as shown on the Riparian Protection Area Map.

Not applicable

The site is not within a native vegetation retention area or on the Riparian Protection Area Map.

6.4 Development controls – existing native vegetation

(2) This clause applies to land within an existing native vegetation area as shown on the Native Vegetation Protection Map.

(4) The consent authority must not grant development consent for development on land to which this clause applies unless it is satisfied that the proposed development will not result in the clearing of any existing native vegetation (within the meaning of the relevant biodiversity measures under Part 7 of Schedule 7 to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995).

Not applicable

The site is not shown as an existing native vegetation area on the Native Vegetation Protection Map.

5.6 North West Draft Exhibition Package In May 2017 the DP&E exhibited the North West Exhibition Package, which includes a proposed amendment to the Growth Centres SEPP and DCP. Most notably, the amendments set maximum densities and provide new minimum subdivision lot sizes in all residential areas. Under the provisions, the subject site is identified with a minimum to maximum density range of 25 to 35 dwellings per hectare. The site has a net developable area of 3.68ha and therefore the accompanying dwelling range would be a minimum of 92 and a maximum of 129.

The subject development proposes a density of 42.7 dwellings per hectare (157 dwellings over 3.68ha) and is therefore outside of the density range. Nonetheless, it is considered that the proposed development provides a density that is appropriate to the site and consistent with a medium density environment. Each dwelling achieves a high level of amenity, and the dwelling layout is consistent with key built form controls, including FSR, setbacks, separation, site coverage and landscaped area.

5.7 Blacktown Priority Precincts Development Control Plan 2018 The Blacktown City Council Priority Precincts Development Control Plan (DCP) 2018 is the applicable DCP. The applicable precinct-specific controls are contained in Schedule 4 (Area 20 Precinct) of the DCP.

Key relevant DCP controls are addressed in the following sections.

20

Indicative Layout Plan The Indicative Layout Play (ILP) applicable to the site is identified in the figure below.

Figure 12 – Area 20 Precinct ILP Source: DP&E

This DA proposes to vary the ILP road layout as follows:

• The ILP’s north-south local road running through the western portion of the site is proposed to be slightly realigned so that it is parallel to the site boundary rather than parallel to Terry Road.

• The ILP’s north-south local road running through the middle of the site is proposed to be replaced by three one-way private roads.

The proposed road layout is shown in the image below.

Figure 13 – Road layout Source: Craig & Rhodes

These variations are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

• The development is consistent with the Precinct Planning Vision in that it would contribute to the precinct’s series of walkable residential neighbourhoods and would not hinder movement through the area.

• The continuing north-south road running through 49 Terry Road to the north has been off-set under the approved residential flat building DA for that site (SP-17-00003), which means that enforcing compliance with the ILP in the case of the subject DA would not achieve a continuous road.

• The variation would result in no net reduction in total on-street parking. The removal of the central local road removes 9 on-street spaces, but 9 on-street spaces are be provided along the proposed one-way private roads.

Site boundary

21

• The variation would not adversely affect flood behavior. For details, refer to the submitted Craig and Rhodes civil engineering overland flow analysis.

Road design Northern boundary public road

In accordance with the precinct-specific requirements in Schedule 4 of the DCP, the northern boundary half road has been designed based on the requirements for a collector road with reserve width of 20m comprising a 13m carriageway plus 4.5m verges.

Additional 5m landscaped setback

Schedule 4 also identifies a requirement for an additional 5m landscaped buffer on the southern side of the road. The proposed development does not provide the full 5m but instead provides a 5.2m total setback from the boundary to the building façade, which equates to an additional 700mm setback on top of the minimum required 4.5m. We believe this variation is justified for the following reasons:

• No significant impact on view lines: Based on correspondence from DP&E (which can be made available upon request), we understand that the additional 5m setback “was directly influenced by the consideration of heritage view lines from Rouse Hill House”. Given that Terry Road runs perpendicular to views lines from Rouse Hill House at this location, the additional setback would not function to widen an existing view line. Presumably, then, the purpose of the increased setback is to accommodate additional trees that would shield development on the site when seen from Ross Hill House. That is, the setback is intended to accommodate screen landscaping.

However, we do not believe the 5m is necessary for achieving effective screening. The proposed 5.2m setback is sufficient for accommodating canopy tree planting in addition to street tree planting (refer to submitted landscape plans), which will serve to soften the development’s appearance. A further area of tree planting would be excessive in the medium density urban context.

• No other notable impacts: The Public Domain Strategy suggests that the widened reserve will also benefit “local continuity” and help maintain “rural character” (p. 14). These benefits can be achieved as part of the proposed landscape strategy.

• Site length: The site comprises more than half of the Terry Road frontage along which the additional setback applies. In fact, the only other development along the road is the future Knoll Park to the east and a small piece of medium high density land on the opposite side of the park. Accordingly, not providing the full 5m setback would not disrupt any long, continuous setback.

Given the lack of view line and other impacts, we conclude that enforcement of the full 5m additional setback is unnecessary. The proposed 5.2m front setback from the building façade to boundary is sufficient for accommodating canopy trees and other landscaping that will help to shield the development when seen from Rouse Hill House and contribute to local continuity and rural character.

Eastern boundary public road

In accordance with the requirements for a medium density local road (i.e., 18m total reserve width), the proposed half road on the eastern boundary includes a 5.5m half carriageway plus 3.5m verge.

22

South boundary road/internal public local road

The proposed public local road running along the southern boundary and north-south through the site provides an 18m reserve width with 11m carriageway and 3.5m verges, in accordance with DCP requirements for a medium density local road.

Internal private roads

The private internal roads have been designed with a total width of 7m comprising a 4m carriageway and 1.5m verges. This design accommodates one-way traffic with on-street parking bays.

General controls The table below assesses the proposed development’s compliance with general controls found in parts 2 and 3 of the DCP. Controls related to specific dwelling types are discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found. to 5.7.4 below.

Blacktown DCP 2018 (General controls)

Section Provision Assessment

2. Precinct Planning Outcomes

2.2 Indicative layout plan

All development applications are to be generally in accordance with the Indicative Layout Plan.

Partially complies

A slight variation is proposed to the ILP Road Layout. Refer to discussion in Section 5.7.1 of this SEE.

Any proposed variations to the general arrangement of the Indicative Layout Plan must be demonstrated by the applicant, to Council’s satisfaction, to be consistent with the Precinct Planning vision in the relevant Precinct Schedule.

Complies

Refer to discussion in Section 5.7.1 of this SEE.

2.3.1 Flooding and water cycle management

No residential allotments are to be located at a level lower than the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood level plus a freeboard of 500mm (i.e. within the ‘flood planning area’).

Not applicable

The site is not located within the flood planning area.

Stormwater is to be managed primarily through the street network in accordance with Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Development Control Plan.

Complies

The proposed stormwater strategy is managed through the street network in accordance with Council’s Sensitive Urban Design Development Control Plan.

2.3.2 Salinity and soil management

Every subdivision development application for land identified in the Areas of potential salinity and soil aggressivity risk figure in the relevant Precinct Schedule as having a high risk of salinity or mildly to moderately aggressive soil is to be accompanied by a salinity report prepared by a suitably qualified person.

Complies

Refer to discussion in Section 6.1 of this SEE.

23



2.3.3 Aboriginal and European heritage

Development applications must identify any areas of Aboriginal heritage value that are within or adjoining the area of the proposed development, including any areas within the development site that are to be retained and protected (and identify the management protocols for these).

Complies


2.3.4 Native vegetation and ecology

Native trees and other vegetation are to be retained where possible by careful planning of subdivisions to incorporate trees into areas such as road reserves and private or communal open space.

Complies


2.3.5 Bushfire hazard management

The site is not identified as bush fire prone land.

Not applicable

2.3.6 Site contamination

All subdivision Development Applications shall be accompanied by a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation prepared in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land and the Contaminated Land Management Act, 1995.

Complies


3. Neighbourhood and Subdivision Design

3.1.1 Residential density

All applications for residential subdivision and the construction of residential buildings are to demonstrate that the proposal meets the minimum residential density requirements of the relevant Precinct Plan and contributes to meeting the overall dwelling target in the relevant Precinct.

Complies

The site is identified with a minimum density range of 25 dwellings per hectare. The site has a net developable area of 3.68ha, and therefore the minimum number of dwellings is 92 dwellings. The development proposes a density of 41 dwellings per hectare (149 dwellings over 3.68 hectares), which exceeds the minimum requirement.

3.1.2 Block and Lot Layout

Minimum lot sizes for each dwelling type will comply with the minimum lot size provisions permitted by the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP, summarised here as Table 3-2: Minimum lot size by density bands. In certain density bands, variations to some lot sizes may be possible subject to clauses in the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP.

Complies

The proposed Lot 1 has an area of 2.22ha, and the proposed Lot 2 has an area of 2,711sqm—both of which meet the minimum lot size.

Minimum lot frontages applying to each density band will comply with

Complies

24



Table 3-3: Minimum lot frontages by density bands. Lot frontage is measured at the street facing building line as indicated in Figure 3-3.

The lot achieves a width greater than 7.5m on all boundaries.

3.4.1 Street layout and design

The design of streets is to be consistent with the relevant typical designs in Figure 3-10 to Figure 3-15 and Council’s Engineering Guide for Development .

Partially complies

Refer to discussion below table.

Key controls for multi dwelling housing This DA proposes multi dwelling housing comprising 145 dwellings. The key controls for multi dwelling housing are found in Table 4-9 of the DCP. The proposed multi dwelling housing’s compliance with the controls in Table 4-9 is outlined in the following table.

Blacktown DCP 2018 (Table 4-9)

Item Provision Assessment

4. Development in Residential Zones

4.3.4 Multi dwelling housing

Multi dwelling housing sites are to have direct frontage to a public road (i.e. not on a battle-axe lots).

Generally complies

The development site has frontage to new public local roads on three of four sides and is not a battle axe allotment.

All dwellings have access either to a public road, private internal road or communal open space area. The dwellings not fronting a public road are considered acceptable because the layout ensures that these dwellings still have a prominent frontage to a road/open space.

Multi dwelling housing is to comply with the controls in Table 4-9.

Complies

See following section in table.

Controls for adaptable dwellings (requirement triggered by minimum number of dwellings in development, located elsewhere in DCP) also apply to multi-dwelling housing. Adaptable dwellings are preferably to be single level accommodation at ground level and be located on the street frontage.

Complies

The DCP requires 10% of dwellings to be adaptable. This results in a requirement of 15 adapatable dwellings.

The proposed development nominates 16 adaptable dwellings (entire Block F and Type E dwelling within Block E).

A landscape plan is to be submitted with every application for multi-dwelling housing.

Complies

A landscape plan has been submitted with the DA.

25



Where a multi dwelling housing development includes a studio dwelling with rear lane vehicle access, the controls for a studio dwelling shall apply.

Complies

No studio dwellings are proposed. However, 12 secondary dwellings are proposed. Refer to Table 7 below for compliance assessment.

Table 4-9 of DCP

Site coverage (maximum)

Maximum = 50% of site area

Applied to site:

Site area (excluding public roads) = 24,950sqm

Maximum = 12,475sqm

Complies

The proposed site coverage is 11,205sqm or 45%.

Landscaped area (minimum)

Minimum = 30% of site area

Applied to site:

Site area (excluding public roads) = 24,950sqm

Minimum = 7,485sqm

Complies

The proposed landscaped area is 7,494sqm or 30%.

Principal private open space

Minimum 16sqm with minimum dimension of 3m.

10sqm per dwelling if provided as balcony or rooftop with a minimum dimension of 2.5m.

Complies

Front setback (minimum)

4.5m to building facade lines; 3m to articulation zone.

Generally complies

All dwellings feature a front setback of at least 4.5m to the façade line and 3m to the articulation zone.

Dwellings with frontage to a private internal road feature a slightly reduced front setback of 3.5m. This is considered acceptable given these internal roads are private and are narrower than the public roads. A 3.5m setback provides an appropriate setback-to-road-width ratio.

Corner lots secondary street setback (min)

2m Complies

All corner dwellings are set back from the secondary street by at least 2m.

Side setback (minimum)

Ground floor 0.9m

Upper floor 0.9m

Not applicable

All dwellings are attached.

Rear setback (minimum)

4m Complies

26



Each dwelling achieves at least 4m setback from the adjoining dwelling to the rear.

Zero lot line (minimum)

Not permitted on adjacent lot boundaries

Not applicable

No zero lot line dwellings proposed.

Internal building separation distance (minimum)

5m (unless dwellings are attached by a common wall)

Complies

All buildings are separated from each other by at least 5m.

Car parking spaces

Minimum parking:

• 1 space per dwelling, plus

• 0.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling, plus

• 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings

Applied to the development, this results in the following requirements:

• 218 residential spaces

• 29 visitor spaces

Complies

The proposed development features 290 residential spaces and 29 visitor spaces, which meets the minimum requirements.

Garages and car parking dimensions (minimum)

Covered: 3m x 5.5m

Aisle widths must comply with AS 2890.1

1-2 bedroom dwelling swill provide at least 1 car space

3 bedroom or more dwellings will provide at least 2 car spaces.

Generally complies

Car space design and aisle widths comply with AS requirements. It is considered that the full 3m width is not required for the proposed basement dual-space parking.

Each dwelling is allocated two car parking spaces.

Key controls for secondary dwellings This DA proposes 12 secondary dwellings associated with multi dwelling housing at Block F. The key controls for secondary dwellings are found in Table 4-8 of the DCP. The proposed secondary dwellings’ compliance with the controls in Table 4-8 is outlined in the following table.


Item Provision for secondary dwelling Assessment

On-site car parking No additional car parking space required.

Complies

No additional car parking provided.

Principal private open space

No separate private open space required.

Complies

No separate private open space provided.

27


Item Provision for secondary dwelling Assessment

Subdivision Subdivision from principal dwelling not permitted.

Complies

No subdivision from principal dwelling proposed.

Access Separate direct access to a street, laneway or shared driveway not required.

Complies

Each secondary dwelling has direct access to the adjoining public road.

Service and facilities

No separate services or facilities required.

Complies

No separate services or facilities provided.

We note that Section 3.4.2 (Laneways) of the DCP states that a continuous run of secondary dwellings along laneways is to be avoided and that no more than 25% of dwelling with lots fronting a laneway are to have secondary dwellings. However, we do not believe this control is directly relevant to the secondary dwellings at Block F. Firstly, the control applies to laneways, while the road in this case is full width local road. Secondly, the dwellings have been carefully designed to address the street with articulated facades in order to avoid visual dominance of the streetscape.

5.8 Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide The Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide for Development Applications (the Guide) was published on 6 July 2018. Section 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires that the consent authority must consider the Guide when assessing applications for multi dwelling housing, but only if the consent authority is satisfied that there is not a development control plan that adequately addresses such development. The proposed multi dwelling housing is covered by the Blacktown City Council Growth Centres DCP, which contains controls for multi dwelling housing. As such, the consent authority can be satisfied that there is a development control that addresses the development, and therefore the Guide need not be considered.

Nonetheless, a compliance table has been provided at Appendix 1 demonstrating how the proposed multi dwelling housing is consistent with the objectives of the Guide. Overall it has been found that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives.

28

6 Environmental Assessment This section assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development. It should be read in conjunction with the various specialist reports submitted with the DA.

Overall, it has been found that the potential impacts are acceptable and manageable.

6.1 Salinity and Contamination A Stage 1 Contamination and Salinity Assessment prepared by Ground Technologies accompanies the DA. The assessment states that the Department of Land and Water Conservation has no record of acid sulfate soils in the region, and no alluvial or water logged soils were observed within the filed investigation. The assessment advises there is a very low risk of acid sulfate soils at the site.

Contamination is addressed in Section 5.3 above.

6.2 Aboriginal Heritage The site is not identified in the DCP as being in an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

An Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment by Extent Heritage Advisors has been submitted with the DA. The assessment found that no previously recorded sites were identified within, or near the subject area, and inspection of the subject area indicated that the site was heavily disturbed, including underground utilities, road earthworks and numerous residential buildings. In areas where the disturbance was not apparent, no Aboriginal objects or landscape features of archaeological interest were observed.

Based on these findings, the assessment provides a number of general recommendations in the case of unexpected isolate finds during construction. It is anticipated these recommendations would be applied as conditions in any future development consent.

6.3 Traffic and Parking A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by TPP has bene submitted with the DA. Key points from TPP’s assessment are outlined below.

Vehicular access

It is proposed to provide a two-way vehicular crossover off the proposed southern road into the two basement car parks. Additionally, separate crossovers are proposed for the 12 dwellings at Block F.

Waste collection and loading

Waste collection will occur on-street within the private laneways. These laneways have been designed to accommodate service vehicles up to a an 11m-long Council waste vehicle. Swept path analysis has been provided accordingly.

Based on the development type, it expected that the majority of the activities willbe carried out by a van/utility vehicle, which will be accommodated in the basement car park. Other loading carried out by large trucks will be conducted on-street as required.

The frequency of loading is expected to be low and irregular (except for waste collection).

29

Traffic generation

Based on rates in RMS’ Guide to Traffic Generating Development (2002), the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 73-94 peak hour vehicle trips or 725-943 daily vehicle trips.

New roads and infrastructure are being provided as part of the precinct planning for the Tallawong Precinct. Of particular note, the Rouse Road and Terry Road intersection will be upgraded into a roundabout. Based on the Area 20 Transport and access Strategy (Urban Horizon, 2010) prepared for DP&E to inform precinct planning, this roundabout will operate at an acceptable level service B during both morning and evening periods. Urban Horizon’s assessment included all known developments envisaged in the precinct including the that at the subject site.

The proposed development is consistent with precinct planning in terms of land use and density. In fact, the development’s density well under the maximum FSR (1.75:1 maximum vs 0.74:1 proposed). Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to conduct any further traffic impact assessment.

Parking

The proposed parking is outlined in the table below. Overall, the proposed development complies with the minimum requirements.

Parking summary

Control Quantity required Proposed

Multi dwelling housing:

• 1 space per dwelling, plus

• 0.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom dwelling, plus

• 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings

• 218 resident spaces

• 29 visitor spaces

• 266 resident spaces in basement carpark (Blocks A-E)

• 24 at-grade resident spaces (Block F)

• 29 visitor spaces (in basement carpark)

Secondary dwellings:

No parking required

• 0 spaces • 0 spaces

Total: 247 spaces 319 spaces

6.4 Arboriculture An Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Redgum Horticultural accompanies the DA. The assessment identifies the health and conditions of trees within and adjoining the site, assesses the potential impacts from proposed works, and provides recommendations relating to tree retention, protection and removal. relevant.

Redgum Horticultural inspected a total of 165 trees. All but four trees are proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed development. The four trees to be retained are located along the southern boundary, and the assessment provides measures for ensuring these trees’ protection.

6.5 Stormwater Management A Stormwater Management Report and Stormwater Concept Plan (Craig & Rhodes, April 2019) accompanies the DA. Key items are discussed below.

30

The site drains towards Second Ponds Creek. Flows from the site, including the future public roads, will be discharged via a connection to Council’s existing drainage system downstream of the development within Boolavogue Street and Terry Road. As such, no temporary on-site detention is required. This strategy was confirmed at a Pre-DA meeting with Blacktown City Council on the 30/05/2018 (PAM C18/23140).

The concept stormwater network for the development has been detailed on the associated Craig & Rhodes engineering drawings 046-18C-DA-0001– 0902 Revision B and modelled in DRAINS to confirm its capacity for the design storm event.

The proposed water quality stormwater treatment utilises a treatment train of rainwater tanks, pit inserts (Enviropods) and Stormfilter cartridges to meet Blacktown Council’s DCP and Engineering Guidelines for the development site. The proposed development has been designed to comply with and exceed Council’s minimum requirements.

6.6 Waste Management A Waste Management Plan prepared by TTM has been submitted with the DA. Key points from TTM’s report are outlined below.

Each residence will have its own waste and recycling bins stored within their property boundary.

Waste collection will occur on-site by Council. Residents in dwellings fronting public roads will place their bins immediately in front of their properties for servicing. Residents in dwellings fronting the park or private roads will place their bins on one of several bin pads dispersed throughout the development (identified at Appendix A of TTM’s report). These pads have been located to be serviced safely with minimal impediment to traffic flow during servicing.

6.7 Acoustic Amenity A Rail Noise Impact Assessment by RSA Acoustics accompanies the DA. The assessment addresses the rail noise impacts from the Sydney Metro North West railway on the amenity of the proposed residential development.

Transport for NSW carried out noise assessment for the Sydney Metro North West project. Details are presented in their “Noise and vibration technical paper of operations and additional construction works” dated 17 October 2012. The noise levels identified in the technical paper have been used to inform the RSA report.

The RSA report identifies that glazing for the development would need to achieve a minimum rating of “Rw30” all long the southern façade overlooking the rail track in order to meet the relevant criteria in the Infrastructure SEPP. Standard glazing may be installed on the remaining facades. Standard alumunium frames, quality seals and 6.38mm glass panes should be installed to maintain a good degree of noise insulation. Other thinner glazing systems may be used, but their Rw rating should be reviewed in accordance with Section 6.1 of the RSA Acoustics report prior to use. No further acoustic requirements are needed.

Based on the above, it is considered that the acoustic amenity of future residents of the development would be acceptable, subject to implementation of the specified acoustic measures.

Notes:

• RSA’s recommendations ensure that natural ventilation can be used while maintaining compliance.

• RSA’s recommended treatments are based on the following floor finishes:

31

- Bedrooms—carpet and underlay;

- Living room—hard flooring; and

- Kitchen/wet areas—tiles.

The treatments would need to be increased where the bedroom floor finishes are tiled or timber.

6.8 Geotechnical A Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Ground Technologies has been submitted with the DA. The report provides recommendations concerning batter slopes, retaining walls, basement excavation, footings and road construction. No abnormal or otherwise concerning geotechnical matters were identified during investigations.

6.9 CPTED The proposed development has been assessed against the four key principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Overall it has been found that the development achieves a design that minimises opportunity for crime and promotes a social interaction and passive surveillance.

• Surveillance: The development provides for natural surveillance opportunities throughout the site. All dwellings feature main living area windows and balconies facing towards either a road or communal open space area. Front doors are also plainly visible from the public domain/communal areas.

• Access control: The proposed development uses physical and symbolic barriers to attract, channel and restrict the movement of people. Individual dwelling entries are clearly defined by fencing, landscaping and design elements.

• Territorial reinforcement: The private and public areas of the development are clearly defined. Private residences are clearly defined by fencing, landscaping and design elements, while the central communal open space area is set back within the site and buffered by landscaping, which will help signal the communal (not public) nature of the facilities. It is anticipated signage/fencing will be provided at key portions of the communal area (e.g. pool) in order to identify that it is to be used by residents only.

• Space management: Space management strategies include activity coordination, site cleanliness, rapid repair of vandalism and graffiti, the replacement of burned out pedestrian and car park lighting and the removal or refurbishment of decayed physical elements. These would occur during the operation stage of the development.

6.10 Heritage View Impacts The site is positioned approximately 1.6km southeast of Rouse Hill House Estate (RHHE). Under the Area 20 Precinct Public Domain and Landscape Strategy, the site is located along the view line “Views to Horizon from Rouse Hill House Estate” (see figure below). The large majority of the site comprises land “not directly visible” from RHHE (being blocked by existing local tree canopy cover), while the far eastern edge comprises land “directly visible above tree canopy” from RHHE (see figure below).

32

Figure 14 – Key historic views Source: Area 20 Precinct Public Domain and Landscape Strategy

The proposed development will have no unacceptable impacts on views to and from RHHE for the following reasons:

• Distance, location and intervening tree cover: The proposed development’s distance from RHHE (approximately 1.6km) means that it will not be readily seen from RHHE. Also, as seen in the image above, the majority of the site is located to the east of a ridgeline (high point) and is obscured by local tree canopy. The small area in the eastern end of the site identified as directly visible from RHHE is minor in extent and will be obscured by the proposed street tree planting.

Site

33

• Consistency with statutory controls: The proposed development is generally consistent with key built form controls including building height, density and landscaped area. In fact, the development achieves an FSR well below the maximum (0.74:1 proposed vs. 1.75:1 allowed).

• Consistency with strategic planning: The site is located within a Growth Centre which is undergoing a transformation from rural to urban land uses. The proposed development is consistent with the vision for the site as forming part of a medium density residential area within the new Tallawong Precinct.

• Integrated landscaping: The development also includes significant canopy trees, including street trees within the front setback, which will help soften its appearance.

6.11 Social Impacts There are no notable social impacts resulting from the proposed development. The former Ingenia caravan park has been vacated, and all residents have been re-located.

34

7 Section 4.15 Assessment The table below provides a summary assessment of the proposal against all provisions under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act 1979.

Section 4.15 assessment summary

Clause No. Clause Assessment

(1) Matters for consideration—general

In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

(a)(i) The provision of:

Any environmental planning instrument, and

This SEE has considered and provided an assessment against: • SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; • SEPP No 55; • SEPP (Growth Centres) 2006; • SEPP (BASIX) 2004; and

The proposal has been shown to be compliant with the provisions of the above instruments.

(ii) Any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

The proposal has been considered against the Department of Planning and Environment’s proposed amendments to the Growth Centres SEPP. While the proposal is not consistent with the draft “density range”, it is considered the proposal provides for a density that is appropriate to the site and consistent with the surrounding future context.

Also, the making of the amendment to the SEPP is not certain and not imminent, and therefore little weight has been given to the making of the draft plan.

(iii) Any development control plan, and An assessment against the provisions of the Blacktown City Council Growth Centres Development Control Plan has been provided as part of this development application. It has been shown that the application meets the key controls and the relevant objectives.

(iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F, and

Not applicable.

(iv) The regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

The proposal is consistent with the regulations applying to development applications.

35

Section 4.15 assessment summary

Clause No. Clause Assessment

In regards to the new Low Rise Medium Density Housing Guide for Development Applications, it is noted that the Guide should not apply to the subject application because the site is already subject to a DCP which adequately addresses multi dwelling housing in the North West Growth Area.

(v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

Not applicable.

(b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

A number of potential impacts have been considered within this SEE, including drainage, contamination, salinity, acoustic impacts, and impact on surrounding land. The proposed development has been shown to be acceptable in these areas.

(c) The suitability of the site for the development,

The development is consistent with the relevant SEPP and DCP controls and has no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.

The site is therefore considered suitable for the development.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

This is a matter for to be addressed following the notification of the application.

(e) The public interest. The proposal is in the public interest as:

• It is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments;

• The environmental impacts have been considered and can be appropriately mitigated;

• The additional dwellings will be added to the Sydney housing market, providing much needed housing stock; and

• A range of lot dwelling types are proposed to cater for social mix.

36

8 Conclusion This SEE has been prepared on behalf of Poly Australia to support a development application to Blacktown City Council for residential development on the site at 51 Terry Road, Rouse Hill. This SEE has described the proposed works and provides an assessment of the works against the relevant heads of consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.

The assessment undertaken in this SEE, supported by additional consultant studies, shows that the proposal is compliant with the key relevant controls and that any environmental impacts are minimal and manageable. In summary:

• The development is compliant with the key provisions of the Growth Centres SEPP and the DCP;

• The development is considerate of environmental impacts, such as stormwater, salinity, heritage, acoustics and contamination;

• The site is suitable for the development; and

• The development is in the public interest.

Based on the above, the development is considered to be in the public interest, and therefore we recommend approval of the application.

37

APPENDIX 1: CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATION REQUEST (HEIGHT)

Clause 4.6 Variation Request Height of Buildings Development application for multi dwelling housing Prepared for Poly Australia April 2019

2

Introduction This Clause 4.6 Variation Request supports a development application (DA) submitted to Blacktown City Council for construction of multi dwelling housing on the land at 51 Terry Road, Homebush (the site).

This report has been prepared to request a variation to the maximum height of building standard under clause 4.3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP), Appendix 6: Area 20 Precinct Plan.

The request is being made pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Growth Centres SEPP, Appendix 6.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards Clause 4.6 of the LEP enables an exception to the height standard subject to consideration of a written request from the applicant justifying the contravention. Clause 4.6 reads as follows:

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular

3

standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.

Development standards to be varied The development standard, to be varied is cl 4.3 Height of buildings in the Growth Centres SEPP, Appendix 6.

As identified on the Height of Building Map at Figure 1, the site is subject to a maximum building height of part 16m and part 32m. Pursuant to cl 4.3A, the northern portion of the site is eligible for a maximum height of 32m given it comprises Key Site 70 (identified in green outline in the figure below).

Figure 1 – Height of buildings map Source: Growth Centres SEPP

4

Extent of variation to the development standard The proposed development results in the following breaches of the height limit:

• Block C: 1 dwelling roof breaches the height plane by 150mm (1.8% variation).

• Block D: 7 dwelling roofs breach the height plane, with the maximum breach being 300mm (3.5% variation).

• Block E: 7 dwelling roofs breach the height plane, with the maximum breach being 200mm (2.4% variation).

Figure 2 – Height plane breaches Source: Hayball

Assessment Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

Compliance with the height standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary given the following circumstances of this case:

• The variations are minor in extent, occurring over only a small portion of the site area and varying from the standard by a maximum of 3.5%.

• The variations would result in no adverse environmental impacts that could otherwise be avoided through a compliant form (refer to environmental planning grounds discussion below).

• The proposed development, despite the non-compliance, is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone (refer to environmental planning grounds discussion below).

5

• The proposed development, despite the non-compliance, is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard (refer to environmental planning grounds discussion below).

Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

There are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the height of building standard, as outlined below:

• Given their minor extent, it is evident that the variations would cast no unreasonable additional shadow.

• Given their minor extent, the variations would be imperceptible and result in no adverse visual impacts. In fact, forcing compliance would disrupt continuity of the building forms and result in adverse visual impact.

• The sloping nature of the site makes it difficult to achieve strict compliance. The minor breaches help provide consistent levels and preserve the architectural intent of the design.

• On average, the development would be well below the height limit. Only three discrete areas breach the limit. The proposed variation essentially seeks a minor redistribution of height across the site to enable consistent building form and to preserve architectural intent.

• Further to the above point, the development features a large central communal open space area, providing an improved amenity outcome for residents and the development as a whole is well below the maximum FSR (maximum 1.75:1 vs 0.74:1 proposed). That is, the site has not been developed to its maximum extent. The proponent has instead opted for a moderate built form outcome with minor incidental height variations.

• The variations would help deliver a variety of dwelling typologies in the area.

• The breaches are limited to the very tops of roofs and do not include habitable space.

Overall, it is evident that the proposed development would not result in any significant environmental impacts that could be avoided through a compliant form. It is also evident that the proposed development would result in an overall superior built form than a strictly compliant development would.

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) - Is the proposed development in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

In the court case Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, Commissioner Pearson stipulates that the consent authority is to be satisfied the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with:

a) the objectives of the particular standard, and

b) the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

In Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 7, the Chief Judge observed in his judgement at [39] that 4.6(4) of the Standard instrument

6

does not require the consent authority to be satisfied directly that compliance with each development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, but only indirectly be satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed those matters.

Consistency with development standard objectives

The particular development standard is clause 4.3 of Appendix 6 of the Growth Centres SEPP. The relevant objectives are addressed in the table below.

Objective Consistency

(a) to establish the maximum height of buildings on land within the Area 20 Precinct,

The proposed maximum heights are considered appropriate for the reasons discussed throughout this report and result only in minor and incidental height breaches.

(b) to minimise visual impact and protect the amenity of adjoining development and land in terms of solar access to buildings and open space,

Given their extremely minor extent, the variations would result in no adverse visual or unreasonable overshadowing impacts.

(c) to facilitate higher density development in and around commercial centres and major transport routes.

The variations allow for construction of a medium density development in close proximity to Rouse Hill centre and the future Tallawong Road Station.

Consistency with R3 Medium Density Residential zone objectives

The proposed development’s consistency with the R3 Medium Density Residential objectives is outlined in the table below.

Objective Consistency

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

The proposed development provides for housing for the community in the form of multi dwelling housing. The proposed variation does not obstruct the development from achieving this objective.

To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

The proposed development provides for a variety of dwelling sizes and types in a medium density environment. The proposed variation does not obstruct the development from achieving this objective.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

Not applicable

To support the well-being of the community by enabling educational, recreational, community, religious and other activities where compatible with the amenity of a medium density residential environment.

Not applicable

7

Matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning The variations to the height standard do not raise any matter of State or regional planning significance.

Conclusion This written request justifies the proposed height variation in the terms required under clause 4.6 of Appendix 6 of the Growth Centres SEPP and in particular demonstrates that the proposal provides a better planning outcome with no significant adverse environmental impacts. In summary, the variation is justified in that:

• Compliance with the height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the contravention.

• The proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the objectives of zone R3 Medium Density Residential.

• There are no matters of State or regional planning significance and no notable public benefits in maintaining the height standard in this case.

38

APPENDIX 2: MEDIUM DENSITY GUIDE COMPLIANCE TABLE

Low Rise Medium Density Housing Guide

Objective Comment

2.1A Building Envelopes

Objective 2.4A-1 The building height is consistent with the desired scale and character of the street and locality and provides an acceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

Heights generally comply with Growth Centres SEPP.

Objective 2.4A-2 The development provides a setback from the front boundary or public space that: • defines the street edge; • creates a clear threshold and transition from public to private

space; • assists in achieving visual privacy to ground floor dwellings

from the street; • contributes to the streetscape character and landscape;

and • relates to the existing streetscape and setback pattern or the

desired future streetscape pattern if different to the existing.

Front setbacks generally comply with the Growth Centres DCP.

Objective 2.4A-3 The development provides side boundary setbacks that reflect the character and form intent of the area where is characterised by the separation of buildings.

Side setbacks comply with the Growth Centres DCP.

Objective 2.4A-4 The development provides a rear boundary setback that provides opportunity to retain and protect or establish significant landscape trees in deep planting areas.

Rear setbacks comply with the Growth Centres DCP.

2.3B Gross Floor Area/Floor Space Ratio

Objective 2.4B-1 To ensure that the bulk and scale is appropriate for the context, minimises impacts on surrounding properties and allows for articulation of the built form.

Height, density and setbacks generally comply with Growth Centres SEPP and DCP.

2,4C Landscaped Area

Objective 2.4C-1 To provide adequate opportunities for the retention of existing and provision of new vegetation that: • contributes to biodiversity; • enhances tree canopy; and • minimises urban runoff.

Landscaped area complies with Growth Centres DCP.

Objective 2.4C-2 Landscape design supports healthy plant and tree growth and provides sufficient space for the growth of medium sized trees.

Landscape design allows sufficient space for medium sized trees. Refer to landscape plan for details.

Objective 2.4C-3 Retain existing natural features of the site that contribute to neighbourhood character, and reduce visual and privacy impacts on existing neighbouring dwellings.

The site is proposed to be cleared with the exception of four trees along the southern boundary.

Objective 2.4C-4 Landscape design contributes to a local sense of place and creates a micro climate.

The landscape plans includes a suitable mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and groundcover.

2.4D Local Character and Context

Objective 2.4D-1 The built form, articulation and scale relates to the local character of the area and the context.

The design is consistent with the desired medium density character of the R3 zone.

2.4E Public Domain Interface

Objective 2.4E-1 Provide activation and passive surveillance to the public streets.

All dwellings address either a road or communal open space.

Objective 2.4E-2 Front fences and walls do not dominate the Front fences and walls do not dominate


Objective Comment public domain instead they respond to and compliment the context and character of the area (including internal streets).

streetscape.

Objective 2.4E-3 The secondary frontage of a development positively contributes to the public domain by providing an active edge and semi-transparency to the boundary treatment

Corner dwellings positively address the secondary frontage with habitable windows and other design/articulation elements.

2.4F Pedestrian and Vehicle Circulation

Objective 2.4F-1 Internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation should function like a street, minimise the dominance of the driveway, and minimise impact on habitable spaces.

Internal roads and pathways function like streets, with direct address for dwellings.

Objective 2.4F-2 Provide safe, connected environment for pedestrians.

The design provides for an integrated pedestrian network that is overlooked by habitable windows and front entries.

Objective 2.4F-3 Visual and environmental impacts of car parking are minimised

All parking associated with the multi dwelling housing is located below ground.

2.4G Orientation, Siting and Subdivision

Objective 2.4G-1 To ensure that the development site area will have sufficient area for the dwelling, vehicle access, landscaping, parking and amenity and are consistent with the desired future character of the area.

Minimum lot sizes are consistent with the Growth Centres SEPP.

Objective 2.4G-2 The development responds to the streetscape and respect the privacy of adjoining single dwelling houses.

Dwelling frontage is at least 5m wide, providing for a streetscape appropriate to the desired medium density environment. There are no adjoining single dwelling houses.

Objective 2.4G-3 Reasonable solar access is provided to the living rooms and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.

The development will not affect solar access of any adjoining lots.

Objective 2.4G-4 The development responds to the natural landform of the site, reducing the visual impact and avoiding large amounts of cut and fill and minimise the impacts of retaining walls.

The development generally follows the slope of land, avoiding excessive excavation.

Objective 2.3G-5 Independent services and utilities are available to service each lot.

Each lot will be serviced by independent services and utilities.

Objective 2.4G-6 To minimise impacts to vegetation on adjoining properties and allow for vegetation within the setbacks.

The design allows for ample deep soil areas in the central area of the site. The setbacks are capable of accommodating vegetation as per the submitted landscape plan.

Objective 2.4G-7 Provide adequate space between buildings to allow for landscape, provide visual separation, reduce visual bulk and daylight access between buildings.

The design achieves 5m building separation as required by the Growth Centres DCP.

2.4H Solar and Daylight Access

Objective 2.4H-1 To optimise sunlight received to habitable rooms and private open spaces. Solar access enables passive solar heating in winter and provides a healthy indoor environment

The design optimizes solar access to habitable rooms and private open spaces.

Objective 2.4H-2 To provide good access to daylight suited to the function of the room and to minimise reliance on artificial lighting and improve amenity

Dwellings have been designed to ensure adequate sunlight access to each room.

2.4I Natural Ventilation

Objective 2.4J-1 All habitable rooms are naturally ventilated. All habitable rooms are naturally ventilated.

2.4J Ceiling Height


Objective Comment

Objective 2.4J-1 Ceiling height achieves sufficient natural ventilation and daylight access and provides spatial quality.

The development achieves floor-to-floor heights of 3m, which can accommodate appropriate ceiling heights.

2.4K Dwelling Size and Layout

Objective 2.4K-1 The dwelling has a sufficient area to ensure the layout of rooms are functional, well organised and provide a high standard of amenity

All dwellings are of a sufficient size to ensure they are function and well organised with a high level of amenity.

Objective 2.4K-2 Room sizes are appropriately sized for the intended purpose and number of occupants.

Room sizes are appropriately sized for the intended purpose and market demand.

2.4L Principal Private Open Spaces

Objective 2.4L-1 Dwellings provide appropriately sized private open space and balconies to enhance residential amenity.

Private open space complies with Growth Centres DCP requirements.

Objective 2.4L-2 Principal private open space and balconies are appropriately located to enhance liveability for residents.

Principal private open spaces are located directly off main living rooms.

2.4M Storage

Objective 2.4M-1 Adequate, well designed storage is provided in each dwelling.

Adequate storage is provided in each dwelling.

2.4N Car and Bicycle Parking

Objective 2.4N-1 Car parking is provided appropriate for the scale of the development

Car pakring complies with Growth Centres DCP requirements.

Objective 2.4N-2 Parking facilities are provided for bicycles.

Objective 2.4N-3 Visual and environmental impacts of car parking and garages do not dominate the streetscape and have an appropriate scale relationship with the dwelling

All parking is below ground, except for the parking associated with the row of dwellings at the far western end of the site. This at-grade parking has been architecturally designed with an appropriate scale and relationship to the dwelling.

2.4O Visual Privacy

Objective 2.4O-1 The separation of windows and terraces, decks and balconies within a site and to adjoining existing or future buildings provide a degree of visual privacy without the reliance on fixed screening.

Building separation complies with Growth Centres DCP requirements. Living room windows and private open space are generally oriented to the front or rear.

Objective 2.4O-2 Site and building design elements increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space.

The dwellings have been designed and oriented to provide adequate privacy without the need for privacy screens.

2.4P Acoustic Privacy

Objective 2.4P-1 Noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout.

Electrical mechanical, hydraulic and air conditioning equipment will be housed in order not to create an “offensive noise” as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997.

2.4Q Noise and Pollution

Objective 2.4Q-1 Ensure outside noise levels are controlled to acceptable levels in living and bedrooms of dwellings.

An Acoustic Report has been submitted with the DA confirming the dwellings would comply with the relevant criteria subject to implementation of glazing recommendations.


Objective Comment

2.4R Architectural Form and Roof Design

Objective 2.4R-1 The architectural form is defined by a balanced composition of elements. It responds to internal layouts and desirable elements in the streetscape.

The design features a balanced composition of elements that will contribute positively to the future medium density urban streetscape.

Objective 2.4R-2 The roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street

Roof design is integrated with the overall building form.

2.4S Visual Appearance and Articulation

Objective 2.4S-1 To promote well designed buildings of high architectural quality that contribute to the local character

Skylights and ventilation systems are integrated into the roof design.

2.4T Pools and Detached Development

Objective 2.1T-1 The location of the swimming pools and spas minimise the impacts of adjoining properties.

A pool is proposed in the central communal open space area and will have no adverse impacts on surrounding dwellings.

Objective 2.1T-2 The location of the detached development minimise the impacts of adjoining properties.

No detached dwelling is proposed.

2.4U Energy Efficiency

Objective 2.4U.1 Development incorporates passive environmental design.

Each dwelling includes ample rear outdoor space screened from public view that can be used for clothes drying.

2.4V Water Management and Conservation

Objective 2.4V-1 Urban stormwater is treated on site before being discharged to receiving waters.

Stormwater management system is consistent with Council’s requirements.

Objective 2.1V-2 Flood management systems are integrated into site design.

Flood management systems are integrated into the design. Refer to submitted concept stormwater plans.

2.4W Waste Management

Objective 2.4W-1 Waste storage facilities meet the needs of the residents, are easy to use and access and enable efficient collection of waste.

Waste storage facilities are consistent with Council’s requirements.

Objective 2.4W-2 Waste storage facilities are designed to minimise impacts on the streetscape, building entry and amenity of residents.

Waste bins will be stored discreetly within the boundaries of each dwelling

2.4X Universal Design

Objective 2.4X-1 Universal design features are included in dwelling design to promote flexible housing for all community members.

Accessible dwellings have been provided in accordance with Growth Centres DCP requirements.

2.4Y Communal Areas and Open Space

Objective 2.4Y-1 Adequate area for communal open space is provided that enhances residential amenity.

A large communal open space area is provided in the centre of the site.

Objective 2.4Y-2 Communal areas are designed to enhance residential amenity and maximise safety and connectivity to the dwelling and promote social interaction between residents.

The communal open space area is fronted by and visible from surrounding dwellings, and can be accessed via footpaths.

Objective 2.4Y-3 Common circulation spaces achieve good amenity with access to daylight and ventilation.

Roads, footpaths and communal open space area achieve ample sunlight.

39

APPENDIX 3: PAM MINUTES

Statement of Environmental Effects - 51 Terry Road, Rouse Hill · Pre-application meeting response...

Documents

Transcript of Statement of Environmental Effects - 51 Terry Road, Rouse Hill · Pre-application meeting response...