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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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).
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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;
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
No evidence has been provided to
substantiate this claim.
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.
No evidence has been provided to
substantiate this claim.
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.
If this application was recommended
for approval, these details could be
sought from the applicant, and
conditioned accordingly.
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.
If this application was recommended
for approval, these details could be
sought from the applicant, and
conditioned accordingly.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
If this application was recommended
for approval, these details could be
sought from the applicant, and
conditioned accordingly.
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.”
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 21
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 22
ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 23
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
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 HEALTH & BUILDING SURVEYOR
AMANDA BURKE
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 25
BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
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.
SUBMISSIONS REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO DAU
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
26/11/2014 Subject Development Application lodged.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 28
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 29
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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 Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
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
1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans
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
conditions of consent.
REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 31
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.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Site Plan
4. Elevations
5. Pool Plan
6. Photographs of site
7. Illustrative diagrams
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 36
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 37
ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 38
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 39
ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 40
ATTACHMENT 5 – POOL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 41
ATTACHMENT 6 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE
Secondary Street Boundary – Akora Ave
View to pool location on subject site from Akora Ave
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 42
ATTACHMENT 6 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE
View from top of existing embankment to objectors’ front yard
View from pool location to objectors’ side boundary
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 43
ATTACHMENT 6 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE
Existing deck area on subject site
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 44
ATTACHMENT 7 – ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 45
ATTACHMENT 7 – ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 46
ITEM-4 DA NO. 1356/2014/LA - COVERED TIMBER DECK
AND SINGLE GARAGE - LOT 47 DP 239496 - 3
ROSEBANK AVENUE, DURAL
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
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 47
BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
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
3. Section 79C (EP&A Act) –
Satisfactory.
Area: 695.6m2
Existing Development: Dwelling
SUBMISSIONS REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO DAU
1. Exhibition: Not required.
1. Non-compliances with DCP.
2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 14 days.
2. Submissions received.
3. Number Advised: 11 (both
notifications)
4. Submissions
Received:
1st Notification: 2
2nd Notification: 1
POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed
HISTORY
07/05/2014 Subject Development Application lodged.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 50
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 51
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
TREE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
No objection is raised to the proposal subject to conditions.
RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMENTS
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
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward
estimates.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 52
The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
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
1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended)
The development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details
submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent.
The 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
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.
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.
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.
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
7. 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.
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
9. 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.
PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE
10. Protection of Existing Trees
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:
Stockpiling of materials within the root protection zone,
Placement of fill within the root protection zone,
Parking of vehicles within the root protection zone,
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 54
Compaction of soil within the root protection zone.
Cement washout and other chemical or fuel contaminants within the TPZ.
Damage to tree crown.
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.
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.
15. 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).
16. 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).
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 55
DURING CONSTRUCTION
17. 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.
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.
20. 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. A191513 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.
21. 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
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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locality Plan
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Site Plan
4. Elevations
5. Site Photographs
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 56
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 57
ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 58
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 59
ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS
Dwelling & Deck Elevations
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 60
Detached Garage Elevations
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 61
ATTACHMENT 5 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 62
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
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
SHANNON BUTLER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 64
BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
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
3. Section 79C (EP&A Act) –
Satisfactory.
Area: 765m²
4. Section 94 Contribution - $4,507.02
Existing Development: Single storey
dwelling
SUBMISSIONS REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO DAU
1. Exhibition: Not required. 1. Variation to DCP 2012 Part B Section
3 – Dual Occupancy.
2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 14 days.
2. Submissions received.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 65
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
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:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
3. Issues Raised in Submissions
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:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 67
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
Issue addressed. See
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.
Issue addressed. See
Condition No. 34.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
TREE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
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.
RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMENTS
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.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 70
IMPACTS
Financial
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward
estimates.
The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
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
1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended)
The development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details
submitted to Council, as amended in red, stamped and returned with this consent. 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
2. 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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
4. 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.
5. Tree Removal
Approval is granted for the removal of seven (7) trees located within the proposed
driveway.
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.
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.
11. 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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
19. 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.
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;
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE
26. Protection of Existing Trees
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:
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.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
32. 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).
33. 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).
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
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
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.
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:
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
41. 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. 577144M 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.
42. Roof Water Drainage
Gutter and downpipes to be provided and connected to an approved drainage system
upon installation of the roof covering.
43. 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
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.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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;
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Site Plan
4. Elevations
5. Shadow Diagram
6. Landscaping Plan
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 82
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 83
ATTACHMENT 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 84
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 85
ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 86
ATTACHMENT 5 – SHADOW DIAGRAM
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 87
ATTACHMENT 6 – LANDSCAPING PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
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
SHANNON BUTLER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
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.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 89
BACKGROUND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
Applicant: Guy Gibson
1. LEP 2012 – Satisfactory
Owner: Muirfield Golf Club
P/L
2. Section 79C (EP&A Act) –
Satisfactory.
Zoning: RE2 Private
Recreation
Area: 36.56Ha
Existing Development: Golf Course
SUBMISSIONS REASON FOR REFERRAL TO DAU
1. Exhibition: Not required.
1. Submissions received.
2. Notice Adj Owners: Yes, 41 days (due
to Christmas
period).
3. Number Advised: 18
4. Submissions
Received:
Four POLITICAL DONATION – None disclosed.
HISTORY
05/12/2014 Subject Development Application lodged.
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
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.
2. Issues Raised in Submissions
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:
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 91
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT OUTCOME
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.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
IMPACTS
Financial
This matter has no direct financial impact upon Council's adopted budget or forward
estimates.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 92
The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
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
1. Development in Accordance with Submitted Plans
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
conditions of consent.
REFERENCED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
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
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.
2. 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.
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.
4. Management of Construction and/ or Demolition Waste
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.
5. 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.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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
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.
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
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Site Plan
4. Plan of Works
5. Elevation of Safety Fence
6. Photograph of Existing Safety Fence on Course
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 94
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 95
ATTACHMENT 2 –AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 96
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 97
ATTACHMENT 4 – PLAN OF WORKS
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
PAGE 98
ATTACHMENT 5 – ELEVATION OF SAFETY FENCE
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 31 MARCH, 2015
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.