Non-compliance with the site requirements for multi dwelling housing development standard
- The site, with an area of 1054sqm and frontage of 18.29m, does not comply with the minimum site requirements for multi-dwelling housing development at cl 6.5 of LEP 2012 of 1200sqm and 24m.
- In order for development consent to be granted for a development that contravenes a development standard in LEP 2012, I must be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the zone (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of LEP 2012) and that the applicant's written request has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances (cl 4.6(3)(a) of LEP 2012) and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (cl 4.6(3)(b) of LEP 2012).
- The applicant's written requests for the contravention of the development standard in LEP 2012 justifies the numerical non-compliances with the development standard as follows:
- The proposal satisfies the objectives of the R4 zone by providing a variety of housing, because the townhouse style dwellings with courtyards are an alternative to the residential flat buildings in the R4 zone;
- The proposal ensures that this isolated and sterilised site can be developed, without isolating other sites;
- The proposal provides a transitional building form between the residential flat building to the west and the semi-detached dwellings to the east;
- The proposal is consistent with the character in the R4 zone; and
- The proposal achieves good residential amenity.
- I have considered the applicant's written request under cl 4.6 of LEP 2012 and I am not satisfied that the written request justifies that compliance with the development standard in cl 6.5 of LEP 2012 is unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances of the appeal, for the following reasons:
- For the reasons given above, I do not accept the site is necessarily isolated;
- The proposal does not achieve the strategic planning intention for areas identified as Area 5 in LEP 2012 to achieve higher density development;
- A transitional building form does not represent a better planning outcome in this location as the site is not in a location that transitions between higher and medium density;
- The internal amenity of units 1 and 3 is unnecessarily compromised by having a maximum internal width for the townhouse style dwellings of 3.7m.
- I accept that the proposal is broadly consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the zone. I am not, however, satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, as a reduced density on the site can only be justified if the amalgamation of the site and 10 and 10A Bruce Avenue is not feasible.
- I make the following observations in regard to the contentions raised under the Local Centres DCP:
- The proposal, with two dwellings 3.7m wide internally, does not meet the relevant objectives of 6C.6 to provide dwellings with well-proportioned and functional rooms of adequate dimensions, despite being north facing and opening onto courtyards.
- The objectives for building setbacks are met by the proposal. The broad planning goal in 6A.3 is for multi-dwelling housing developments orientated across a site, with their private open space to side boundaries, to have a 6m setback from the boundary; and for dwelling orientated along a site with their private open space either in the middle, front or rear of a site to have a side setback of 3m. This is demonstrated in Figure 6A.3-1. In my view, a hopper window above the kitchen bench (which directs the view downwards when standing at the kitchen bench) or highlight windows in living areas or even bedroom windows on upper levels, with a 3m predominantly landscaped setback to the boundary, do not erode the planning purpose in 6A.3 and do not necessarily compromise the amenity of neighbouring properties.
- The proposal achieves the deep soil landscaping requirement and number of canopy trees requirement under 6A.6. Therefore, the proposal is acceptable in terms of landscaped area and setbacks and number of canopy trees.
- The separation between the northern and southern buildings does not comply with the numerical requirement at 6A.4. I accept the Council's criticism of the treatment of the area between the two buildings, as the design is not well resolved. The transition in levels; the arrival point from the vertical circulation to the basement, the overlooking of the courtyards of the northern building; the proposed screens and the rear entry through the courtyards for visitors to the northern building are all aspects of the proposal that could be improved.
Findings
- I am not satisfied by the evidence before me that a reasonable offer has been made to the property owner of 10 and 10A Bruce Avenue and therefore I am not satisfied that it has been established that amalgamation of the site and 10 and 10A Bruce Avenue is not feasible.
- A variation of the minimum site area and frontage development standard in LEP 2012 is not unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances and the proposal cannot be granted consent.
Orders
- The orders of the Court are:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Development Application No. 0495/15 for the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing 5 dwellings with basement parking at 8A Bruce Avenue, Killara, is refused.
3. The exhibits, other than exhibits 1 and A, are returned.
Susan O'Neill
Commissioner of the Court