Council report from 13 July 2009

Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Council report from 13 July 2009

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Section 82A Review - 15 Virginia Street, Rosehill.
(Lot 19 Sec 1 DP 1775)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a proposed garage and the construction of a two storey dwelling to create a detached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/568/2008 - Submitted 8 August 2008 (Section 82A Review Submitted 13 February 2009)

APPLICANT/S J Frangieh

OWNERS J Frangieh

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR

REFERRAL TO

COUNCIL Section 82A Review

This item was deferred from the 9 June 2009 Council meeting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. This Section 82A Review application seeks Council’s reconsideration of its refusal to grant consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a proposed garage, and the construction of a two storey dwelling to the rear to create a detached dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision.

2. The Section 82A Review application has been amended to reposition the garage and driveway of Dwelling B (rear dwelling). A commitment has also been made by the applicant to seal the existing laneway located to the rear of the site at their expense.

3. The site has an area of 475.3m2 and is located between Rosehill Public School and a large undeveloped allotment at 5 Virginia Street. The size of the site and its location between 2 large allotments limits the development potential of the site. The applicant in their section 82A submission has indicated that negotiations with the owner of 5 Virginia Street to acquire part of the site have not been successful. It is on this basis that the current application has been prepared.

4. The constraints of the site are particularly highlighted by the large number of departures proposed to Council’s development standards and planning controls. Some of the controls that are to be varied include:

- Minimum allotment size of 600m2 that is required for dual occupancy

development under clause 29R(2)(b) of SREP 28.

- Minimum site width, building separation and open space controls in the Harris Park DCP.

5. While it is acknowledged that the site has limited development potential, the number of planning controls to be varied in the application and the level of variation proposed to the planning controls is significant.

6. No objections have been received in respect of this application.

7. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that Council not change its previous decision and refuse to grant consent to the Section 82 Review application.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant development consent to Development Application No. 568/2008 for alterations and additions to existing residence including a proposed garage and retention of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey dwelling to create a detached dual occupancy including Torrens title subdivision at 15 Virginia Street, Rosehill, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to comply with Clause 29R (2)(b) – Minimum allotment sizes of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta and a SEPP 1 objection cannot be supported as the departure of 124.7m2 from the minimum allotment size standard of 600m2 and results in a density, scale, bulk and form that is unsuitable given the site constraints and contrary to the objectives of the development standard.

2. The proposal fails to comply with Section 8.2 – Dual Occupancy of the Harris Park DCP. In particular the proposal does not comply with the minimum site width for dual occupancy developments with two street frontages.

3. The proposal fails to comply with Section 8.2 – Dual Occupancy of the Harris Park DCP. In particular the proposal does not comply with the minimum building separation for dual occupancy developments on sites with two street frontages.

4. The proposal fails to comply with Section 6.2 – Private Open Space of the Harris Park DCP as the proposal provides only 52m2 for Unit A and 41.m2 for Unit B which are substantial departures from the required 100m2 and result in inadequate provision of outdoor areas for active and passive recreation.

5. The proposal fails to comply with Section 5.7 – Roof Design of the Harris Park DCP as the roof design is inconsistent with the existing pitched roof patterns of adjoining developments.

6. The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1	Section 82A Assessment Report	15 Pages
2	Section 82A Plans and Elevations	21 Pages
3	Original Plans and Elevations	20 Pages
4	Locality Map	1 Page
5	Previous S79C Report	11 Pages
6	Notice of Determination	2 Pages
7	Pre-Lodgement Advice	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL