This Policy provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act .
18 Clause 6 places an obligation on the applicant to show why, through a written objection, that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of that particular case and specifying the reasons
19 Ms Lee's objection addresses why the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary at p 7 in the SEPP 1 objection and is further addressed in her joint statement and her oral evidence. While it would have been more helpful if the SEPP 1 objection addressed the aims of SEPP 1 rather than the objectives of Zone No 2 (Residential Zone), I am satisfied that it is not fatal to the application, providing the aims of the SEPP 1 are addressed in determining whether the application is well founded, as required by cl 7.
The objectives
20 The SEPP 1 objection addresses the variation to the development standard through the first test in Wehbe, that is:
The proposed development proffers an alternate means of achieving the objectives. Strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonably (no purpose would be served).
Objective (d)(ii)
21 Objective (d)(ii) provides that allotments have a minimum size so as to provide landscaped areas that are suitable for tree planting. I did not understand there to be any dispute over this objective. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that was not raised as a contention in the proceedings.
Objective (d)(i)
22 Objective (d)(i) provides that the pattern of subdivision in residential areas is retained as reflected in lot size, orientation and shape. Ms Bizimis states that the proposal is inconsistent with this objective as it will result in two lots that are not consistent in size or width to the existing pattern of subdivision in Carrington Avenue.
23 Ms Lee states that the proposal will achieve the objective as the proposed design of the subdivision will continue to maintain the orientation and shape of allotments within the vicinity of the site. The appearance, particularly from the streetscape, will be of a rectangular nature in a uniform manner, consistent with properties that are adjoining the site. In terms of the allotment size being smaller than other allotments, once subdivided, the architectural outcome of the proposed development will, through consistency of design, will appear as many others dwellings in the streetscape.
24 On objective (d)(i), I am satisfied that the proposal achieves the objective for a number of reasons; while Ms Bizimis sought to rely on the 36 lots in DP 8011, I do not accept that this is the appropriate test. The test of whether the subdivided lots retain the pattern of subdivision should be extended beyond this limited area. Importantly, the objective uses the words "residential area". I have taken this to mean land in the general area of the site and within the same zoning. The council helpfully provided a cadastral plan with a zoning overlay of an area around 150 m from the site. This plan is dated 4 August 2010, so I presume it is reasonably up-to-date in terms of subdivision. The plan reveals that the majority of the lots are around 600 sq m or more. However, there are a number of lots that have been subdivided in a similar form to that proposed in this application. For example, 121 Gloucester Road, 158 Gloucester Road and 209 Dora Street.
25 The fact that there has been no dual occupancies and subdivision in Carrington Avenue is not a determinative matter, in my view, given the same zoning as other streets in the area and the permissibility of dual occupancy developments in this zone. If the council were of the view that dual occupancy developments were inappropriate in Carrington Avenue, then the zoning of Carrington Avenue should reflect this fact.
26 I also do not accept Ms Bizimis's argument that the approval will create an unanticipated increase in density in Carrington Avenue. No evidence was produced to show that the additional density created by a single dual occupancy development would create any unacceptable impacts. This argument also needs to be seen in the light of the other uses such as multiple dwellings and residential flat buildings that are also permissible uses in Zone No 2 (Residential Zone).
Objective (d)(iii)
27 Objective (d)(iii) provides that the scale and density of development is compatible with the existing streetscape. Ms Bizimis states that Carrington Avenue is characterised by detached single dwelling houses. The proposed detached dual occupancy will result in a development that is not compatible with the existing streetscape in scale and density as the permissible floor space ratio of dual occupancy developments is higher than that permitted for single dwelling houses. As such, the proposed development is for a higher density than the single dwelling houses. The proposed development will also introduce to Carrington Avenue attached dwellings which are not compatible with the existing streetscape that consists of detached single dwellings.
28 Ms Lee states that the scale and density of the development on the site is compatible with the existing streetscape as the proposed architectural response combines both traditional and contemporary elements to achieve an appropriate balance in the streetscape. The design of the front facade of each dwelling, when presented to the streetscape, provides openings that are proportional to each dwelling. This is reinforced with the inclusion of balconies at first floor levels. Such features are common to the streetscape and provide opportunities for passive surveillance and interaction between neighbours. The overall balance and rhythm of the facades, along with the articulation provided to promote quality and character and accord with the general patterns prevalent within the streetscape, ensures that an aesthetically pleasing outcomes to the street is achieved. The proposed development also satisfies the DCP design standards with the exception of the minimum lot requirement.
29 On this objective, I am also satisfied that the proposed development achieves the objective. Again, any assessment should not necessarily relate strictly to the existing form of development in Carrington Avenue, but consideration must be given to the scale, density and form of development contemplated by the council's planning controls for the Zone No 2 (Residential Zone). In this regard, dual occupancies are a permissible use and have been approved by the council in surrounding streets. For reasons mentioned earlier, the zoning of Carrington Avenue does not provide any basis for the exclusion of dual occupancy development subject to an appropriate test against the requirements within the council's planning controls. As dual occupancy developments are a permissible use on the site and as the proposal satisfies all relevant development requirements with the exception of the minimum lot size requirement, I accept objective (d)(iii) is achieved.
30 For the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraphs, I accept that the development consent is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and that strict compliance with the development standard in cl 11A(2A) is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case. It follows that the SEPP 1 objection is well-founded.
Precedent
31 The potential precedent effect for others properties in Carrington Avenue was raised by Ms Bizimis. The Court was referred to the decision of Lloyd J in Golden and Anor v Minister for Transport 121 LGERA 101 where it was found that precedent is a valid planning consideration.
32 I am not, however, satisfied in this case that the issue of precedent would be a reason to refuse the application. Dual occupancy developments are a permissible use within the Zone No 2 (Residential Zone).and if an application is submitted on a lot less than 930 sq m, then it will need to be assessed through SEPP 1 and the merits considered under LEP 1994 and the DCP.
Privacy
33 The issue of privacy and overlooking is partially addressed through a condition, condition 15(c), requiring privacy screens to the north-western elevation of the verandah to unit 2, although Ms Bizimis maintained that unacceptable overlooking impacts occurred from the upper level rear balconies to each of the proposed rear yards and also the rear yard of the adjoining property at 167 Carrington Avenue.
34 Clause 4.2.8 of the DCP addresses privacy and overlooking. This clause seeks to protect residents from "excessive overlooking". In my view, the relevant Design Solutions and Guidelines in this clause are satisfied as the proposal has "balconies directed to the front and rear of the site". Given that the balconies are located off bedrooms, they are orientated towards the rear and do not result in excessive overlooking, there is no mandate to amend the design or refuse the application on the basis of overlooking or loss of privacy.
35 Ms Bizimis also raised the issue of the sliding door that adjoins the dining room on the ground floor and the potential overlooking impact. Condition 15(d) provides for the replacement of the door with translucent glazing. I accept that this is an acceptable response to the potential overlooking. While there were some suggestions that overlooking could potentially occur from the lounge room windows adjoining the side boundary, any attempts to address this issue in a similar manner to the sliding glass doors would, in my view, result in unacceptable and poor amenity for the occupants of the lounge room. On this basis, no further amendments could be justified.
Accessibility of the private open space
36 Ms Bizimis also raised the issue of the accessibility of the private open space from the dwelling. With an understanding of the plans, I do not accept that the accessibility is unacceptable. Principle (b) in cl 4.2.5 requires that private open space be "linked to living areas". In this case the verandah directly adjoins the kitchen, is some 4 m from the dining room and some 8 m from the lounge room. In my view, this is sufficiently linked to satisfy principle (b).
37 Pursuant to cl 8(3), I find that the proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives and, based on the findings in the previous paragraphs there are no reasons why consent should not be granted.