15 February 2024 - HLPP

In terms of the Privacy and Personal Freedom Protection Act, personal information provided at the meeting will be recorded. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. Any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel. For the benefit of those people who will be addressing the panel, it's expected that you will refrain from making any insults, allegations or personal reflections against any person present or not at the meeting. Under the panel's Code of Conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda, and each panellist has completed a disclosure form. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's agenda and ask for panel members whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare. John Brunton.

I have no conflicts of interest.

Deputy Sutherland. No conflict of interest. Graham

No conflict of interest.

Thank you.

The panel will deal with items in agenda order. The panel members visited the site at their discretion, read the assessment reports prepared by council officers, and read any written submissions. As we progress through the agenda, only those people who have registered to speak are admitted to address the panel. Those making submissions are given three minutes to speak, but may permit extra time where appropriate to do so. At the end of your submission, please remain in the meeting to permit the panel to ask questions. For each item on the agenda, once all submitters have addressed the panel, the panel may adjourn into closed session to deliberate. This may take some time. Generally, the panel will resume the meeting .

Chair announces decision in public. The determinations will be confirmed in the official minutes, which will be available on the council website. On today's agenda, we have three items, so I'll go through in order. The first item is DA 0204/23, alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house and construction of an outbuilding at number 270 Terrace Road, North Richmond. Registered to speak on this item, I have Darrell Ryan, no relation, who I understand is speaking against the recommendation on behalf of the applicant. Mr Ryan, are you there?

I am, yes. Darrell Ryan from Ryan Planning and Development. We're the engaged town planner assisting the applicant on this one and speaking on their behalf today. Thank you. If you wish to

Proceed with your presentation, please.

No worries. Look, at this point, we should have a relatively short and sweet— I'd just like to quickly acknowledge and thank the panel for their time and the opportunity to speak today. We've had some discussions with the applicant, and note as per the agenda, the primary contention on this one was understandably the turret that exceeds the maximum height limit under clause 4.3. Subsequent to this, we've had some discussion with the applicant and explained the complexities around clause 4.6 and some of the difficulties in achieving the required test satisfactions in this case, to the point with that, essentially their intention is to remove that turret from the application. Today, we're hoping to— Ideally seek a deferral of the determination on that point and wanted to rehome in on the variation to the front setback of the outbuilding.

It's acknowledged that under Table 2, I think it was Part D8 of the DCP, there is a front setback applicable of approximately about 15 metres. That particular point, we've acknowledged the, in terms of the viability of that, we do feel that there are planning grounds to justify further consideration of that outbuilding, and can see that obviously and understandably Council's assessment has been focused on that height variation being quite a significant part of it. So with that removed, we're hoping a moment of deferral to be able to present some refined information on that proposal to the assessing officer for consideration and seek further determination after that. If I could, I'd just like to offer some of the justifications around that structure to aid the panel in that decision, if possible.

In short, just get to my correct part of my notes here. The primary part in terms of statutory pathways, we're noting the pathway under Section 4.15.3AB that essentially stipulates a requirement to consider suitable flexibility where the objectives of a standard within a DCP are met regardless of the variation. In this regard, there's three objectives for the subject DCP section. Of those three, only Objective A is seen to be relevant. That is to ensure that the bulk of farm buildings and outbuildings do not visually dominate the streetscape and the landscape. Respectfully to the assessing officer and everyone else, we would contend that it's not a reasonable position that this structure is visually dominant of the streetscape, regardless of the shortfall in the setback.

We do have some material we feel demonstrates that that's available now, but hasn't been. Before the assessing officer at this stage. In short, it's a relatively small structure. It's an outbuilding essentially for a workshop and storage of garden and maintenance material. Yes, it is situated relatively close to the front setback, but it's behind a two metre wall that was approved. The 3Ds that I've got here show it to be relatively minimal. It's of the same material as the wall and does sort of blend into it somewhat. We are willing to put forward some expanded forward landscaping essentially that would further soften that if necessary, and ultimately I feel would provide ameliorated outcomes for the streetscape either way.

That's probably our primary position. There are sort of flow-on points we would sort of, without going into the case law of it, just certain sort of determinations around applying the rigidity to which we apply DCP standard being relative to the consistency to which it's applied. The immediately adjoining sites are noted to be setback in accordance with the DCP, but a broader look down the sort of southern side of Terrace Road there does exhibit examples of variations to how consistency that DCP has been applied. Not that that's our intention to sort of push through that sort of avenue, but more as a representation that there is flexibility in the character of the locality, and that southern side of Terrace Road, just based on the lot size and the topographic circumstances, seem to be somewhat variable to what would normally be applied in these rural zones, to our mind warranting a bit of a closer look at how suitable that setback may be.

Broader than that, essentially from the applicant's perspective too, we just wanted to stress that the site is essentially developed already, that all of this has been approved. There's really minimal opportunity that they have to place this structure elsewhere. Their intention, for the most part, has been to consciously put the broader structures right towards the rear of the site. That's acknowledged in the agenda there, that most of that is retreated to the rear and that does soften any impact of bulk to the streetscape. Essentially, yeah, they're seeking this variation, which is seen to be considerate. One other point I did want to make that I feel was warranted was the approved tennis court there.

The 3Ds we have showed the tennis court fence, which hasn't been installed yet just due to the ongoing works. Essentially with that, it just kind of puts that structure in context. We're really talking about maybe a metre sort of visual pitch of the roof that comes up above that fence. Respectfully, yeah, we were hoping just to have a deferral to present some of that information in more refined context for Council to consider. Analysts, any

Questions, Mr. O ? Start with— Yeah. Yes, I've got a few

Questions. Sorry, I didn't get your first

Name. Daryl. Daryl Wright

Daryl.

Daryl, a few questions . That front fence approval, when was that and who approved the two metre fence on the front boundary?

Off the top of my head, I'm not certain. Bear with me, there was an— I'm just checking the agenda. I think there was an approval list in there. I didn't— I didn't see it in the list

Of what was approved.

Yeah, I would have to take note. Again, this one was quite— it's been on file for some time. My initial engagement on it was some years ago in relation to a development order in relation to the slab around this cabana, sort of outbuilding structure. My point there is that I know the compliance officers have had a close eye on this property, so my assumption, just not having those records on hand, would be that if that fence was not approved, it would have been raised in those contentions as well. But I'll have to take note to confirm that detail, sorry.

Yeah, because you're relying on that to at least screen it from the outbuilding. Definitely, yeah. Why does it have so many penetrations of infrastructure in that slab? What's the intention of that? Why would it need that many if it was just going to be an outbuilding?

That was part of the original history. So when I was on board, essentially council had picked up on that as well. Again, forgive me, the original approval was sort of pushing back past 2019, but to that point, council nominated those protrusions in the slab and essentially identified them as potential services for a secondary dwelling, and that was their primary concern. Exactly

Exactly.

Yeah. So that's essential residual from that. They'll be closed up, essentially, as part of the construction certificate works for this one.

So why was the decision made to put the outbuilding so close to the front fence?

From the applicant's perspective, it's just a bit tight down the rest of the property. From the satellites, you can sort of see the extent of built form on there. Having been there personally, I know there's some other spots, but they're actually utilised for things like the effluent management system. There's a couple of large trees, so they're relatively constrained in terms of where they can place this.

Now , have you done a calculation of how much hard surface this site has as a percentage of the site?

I haven't personally. It didn't come up as any sort of statutory assessment for this one in particular, though I believe council, the assessing officer, did make comment on that. It was relatively high , but again, I'm not certain that there's any sort of particular maximums on this site.

No, but it's in terms of the character of the area.

Yeah,

Rural setting.

Oh, 100%. On that, I think a large portion of it's largely , you know, hardstand that's not perceptible from the public domain. Things like the tennis court and things like them, for example, would add to that calculation quite significantly. Exactly. From my regulation of the, the gender minutes there, the assessing officer has nominated that, for the most part, the built form on the site, in terms of streetscape character, being recessed back and specifically maintaining that fence again, it really is not very observable. This is considered to be one of the main elements, noting, of course, with that turret removed, that turret did change the circumstance. And in my mind, exacerbate the stress and the issue with that front setback concern.

If we were pushing that structure to the front and we had this observable structure then penetrating high in the background, that would present a more dominant built form. But, yeah , ultimately, to the point of your question, there's site coverage, but the perceptible streetscape character items are really not there.

Yeah. So you're saying in your defence, one of the things, that it will inhibit confidence in the relation to the expectations of further investment in the area by established precedent for any unreasonable absence of flexibility to such standards. Do you want to comment on that?

Yeah, look, personally, it's being in the private sector, a battle we're quite often having is compliance simply for numerical compliance, which is not necessarily what I'm making any accusations of here at all. The assessing officer's been great to deal with entirely. It is just a matter from our end, we do deal with quite a lot of stress and heartbreak, to be frank, with people dealing with council sort of assessments and things like that. And that's just the nature of the system. But... When we have situations like this where we feel the site is very variable to what that DCP was meant to be applied to, there is an absence, we feel, of the outcomes, and there's essentially standards there to say, to talk about when flexibility should be applied in terms of those objectives.

My personal view is you should be able to read the DCP and, if you have an understanding of those systems and what's observable in the locality around you, have an idea of what's there. A lot of people we work with, by the time I give my feasibility advice on something quite early in the piece, which is how we prefer to do it, people just walk away. It's just a difficult, stressful process. So, you know, we like to make sure things follow the statutory pathways they should. That's one reason I happen to know the reference 4.15.3AB off by heart. It's in nearly every response we do. So, yeah, it's just a matter of bringing everyone onto the same playing field, basically.

And talking about both the tower and the outbuilding now, you've got one of the objectives of Council is to, of the LEP , I suppose it is, is to protect privacy and the use of public open, private open space on adjoining land. Yes. There is a concern that the tower would overshadow and also impact on the privacy of the neighbours and potentially the outbuilding as well. Yeah, I

Can.

In terms of also the bulk and scale, are there any other buildings , other developments on adjoining sites of this scale that's, you know, the full proposal?

The full proposal, I contend probably not, especially in terms of the turret. But again, we don't refute that at all at this stage. Equally, in terms of overshadowing, view loss impacts and things like that, I feel if we move away from the turret and look at that outbuilding in isolation, not expecting a determination on this today, although we can make demonstrations, I suppose is what I want to say, in terms of the absence of any impacts of those primary considerations with the outbuilding. It's not going to be associable with any overshadowing or overlooking potential with its location. A single-storey structure, I would contend not associable with any adverse imposition of bulk and scale.

It doesn't consist of any large massing elements. The materials are that, but they're cohesive with the material of the front fence. Again, assuming we will make demonstrations to confirm that was approved. And ultimately, again, I feel as a trade-off to that, like for example, one of the 3Ds that we have prepared shows existing tree in the road reserve, and you can't see the structure behind it. So one thing that I was looking to put forward was some more streetscape planting potentially, which ultimately enhances that rural character and is a bit of a trade-off to just ameliorate any concerns that may remain around the visual impact of that structure.

And I mean, the other clause is to nominate heights. This is to do with 4.3.

Yeah,

To nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity. It's not on the edge of a zone, is it? It's sort of slap bang in the middle.

You've got a, I think it's RU1 zone on the northern side of the road, and this is the RU4 zone from memory, but it's... To your point there, I don't personally feel I could make a strong case that there was a transitional element there. You know, in terms of the turret anyway, that's on the rear end of the RU4 zone. It's, yeah, not really a transition point in my mind.

So no landscape plan's been submitted suggesting that, you know, endemic species planting be proposed or anything that support the biodiversity on the identified biodiversity of the site.

Yeah,

And there's no bushfire report.

Yeah, I need to double check that one was obtained. This just come to my attention in the agenda minutes yesterday, so I'll double check whether that was uploaded correctly or what's happened there, but that has been arranged , I'm sure of that. It would be largely inconsequential respectfully, I'd say. Like, it's obviously going to apply above level in terms of construction. The vegetation on the site is not imagined to be affected. There's not much there in terms of actual sort of ecological communities. There are some significant trees which we can't touch anyway. But one of the things in terms of the amended material I was hoping to put forward to just help with this assessment moving forward, if we're given that opportunity, was a more detailed landscape plan to what you said there, showing endemic species, just general enhancements around the site, in particular around the frontage.

We do have a bit of a landscape strip at the front of the property between the fence and the front boundary to play with. But again, if Council was open to it, I'm sure a couple of streetscape trees, sorry, can't get that out, would be of benefit to both parties as well.

And what is the exact front setback?

It's about 2.7. It looks smaller because you've got that front fence, which is set back about a metre off the boundary. But yeah, they're about 2.7.

Okay, so from the fence it's about a metre

Yeah, about a metre and a half sort of thing, yeah.

Which is not a really big space to plant anything. Anyway, okay, thank you

Yeah, it'd kind of be more in front of the fence would be the game plan. But yeah, we'd get a landscape person to look at that and advise.

Thank you. Thanks. Graham, do you have any questions?

Yeah, thanks, David. Look, I think Deborah's actually asked quite a few that I would have asked as well. I just wonder, are you — to name Darrell — Yes. You mentioned just in that last discussion that you were proposing streetscape planting

And outside the fence, I gather. Is that correct?

Yeah, it hasn't been put forward formally yet, just to be clear, sort of thing. Yeah, we've been a bit behind the ball on this one, to be honest. So this would be part of, okay, an amended proposal. We're moving the tower, focusing in our discussion on that outbuilding and seeing, yeah, what else we can offer to ameliorate any concern.

Okay. So I gather the owner has no intention of actually complying with removal of the concrete slab. They just want to build on it in whatever way they are proposing. Is that correct?

Essentially, yeah, they want to utilise that space. Yeah, they said they'd had original intentions from memory — again, forgive me, it was sort of that particular focus of the issue was some time ago now — where those openings were put in there. There was sort of things around having some wash spaces and stuff like that. They were quite adamant to me that it wasn't to be an occupiable space, just a bit more of a recreation, I think, as well, like dual-purpose storage, but also, you know, if you wanted to have a wash after playing tennis and stuff like that. Subsequent to that, our initial advice and feedback from Council, you know, that was seen not to be acceptable. There was, I think from memory, just a persistent concern about the later utilisation of it as habitable without consent.

So now it's simply about going, okay, well, let's just revert it to the pure focus as a workshop and storage for the property.

Now, considering that use, would you consider whether the owner would actually consider relocating that slab or moving part of it so that you actually gained a better setback from the street?

I'd have to discuss with them. I know there is complexities there just in terms of some of the approved development on the site that's not actually there. I think there's a big pond stipulated behind it, and there are some relatively complex effluent management systems there throughout different pockets of the site. Naturally , there's a cost implication to demoing the slab and doing all that as well, which I understand is not necessarily the panel's concern. But yeah, look, I couldn't speak to that on their behalf at this stage. I'd have to run the concept by them.

Okay. I guess from my point of view, the history of this site, it doesn't actually—well, it certainly doesn't give me, I don't know about the other panel members, raised confidence that the actual owner would comply with whatever he may get approval for.

If I could speak to that, we do have this quite a lot on our end as well, and I fully respect that position as well. From a legal standpoint, we sort of go down the pathway of clarifying that we— I'm trying to think of a way to say this respectfully, sorry without sounding sort of divisive . Essentially assessing what we put forward. If the client or the applicant, rather, is not to utilise that structure in the way it's intended, Council can inspect, they can enforce, and they can order it to be removed. We get this a lot now, sort of things, a lot of structures we look at as well. And our thing is often to give upfront advice. We don't like wasting Council's time and try to maintain our own integrity in the process.

Things come across our table all the time that they look like dual occupancies, they look like secondary dwellings, and we have to sort of contend that they're not and ultimately move down that pathway of sort of, yeah, saying the consent is the consent. If they vary from that, then orders can be issued to demolish. But again, Graham, yeah, but that's with full respect to your position on that.

David, I think that's probably all from me at this point. Thanks.

Thanks, Graham. John, any questions for Mr. Rowe?

Yeah, I only have one question, one additional question anyway, and it's a procedural one. You've asked for the panel to defer a determination to allow you time to submit additional material. Another option would be for the panel to determine the application and then for the applicant to submit a review. Yes. And in that process, you would then have the reasons for the determination, which can be then addressed in the review.

Yes.

Why would you prefer the first option rather than the second option?

It's just a psychological thing, I think. I've detailed both those pathways to the client and a potential expectation that the determination would be refusal today anyway, and we would move to do the review or a new application, whichever it may be. Yeah, it's just a psychological thing clients have with having a refusal on an application, just a negative framework. There's always a push from our end to keep an application live and going as long as we can, but I think procedurally... There's not much different in the outcome potentially. We are ready and primed to provide that material pretty quickly. I have most of it already. So I think it's obviously just naturally what probably makes more sense from your end, John. Yeah, we're open to that.

Thanks, John. Thanks. I don't have any questions. Thanks, Mr Ryan, for your presentation. Appreciate that, and certainly take on board your request for deferral.

I believe that we don't have any other speakers for this matter, but I might just check with Council to ensure that there's no one else wishing to speak on this item.

No more speakers there, David. Okay

Well, my intention is to then close this open session of the meeting for the panel to deliberate

In camera . And sorry, I should have just checked with Council. We have two other agenda items. Could I just confirm with Council that neither of those items there are people wishing to address the panel?

No other speakers registered on those items there, David.

Just for the record, I'll read out the item matters whilst we're in open session. So the second agenda item is DA 001423 signage, removal of existing signage and construction of a digital advertising structure at Number 9 Industry Road, Vineyard. And item three is a procedural matter, delegation of specific functions from Hawkesbury City Council local planning panel to the general manager, director of city planning and general counsel. So, as I say, I will close the public session of the meeting for the panel to deliberate. Mr Ryan, are you likely to be hanging around online waiting for our determination, or would you be comfortable in waiting for the minutes to appear once the panel's made its decision?

What's the timeframe? Would it be on the minutes to show up?

Council, that's within the week, is that right?

Yeah, usually that is the case, Panel Chair. That's right. Look, I might just stay online and drop off the camera and sort of work away as I wait for that, if that suits you guys.

Okay. Just be aware that I can't tell you how long that might be.

I understand. That's fine.

Okay. In that case, we will close the open session, Council.

Assessment Act, it's recommended that it's decided that the variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the maximum height of building under 4.3 the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 is not supported, and that the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel exercise its functions, consent authority refuses development consent DA 204/23 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and construction of an outbuilding on 270 Terrace Road, North Richmond, for the reasons outlined in the planning report.

Item

1.2, DA

014/ 23, signage removal of existing signage and construction of a digital advertising structure at number 9 Industry Road, Vineyard. Panel pursuant to section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act exercises its functions as consent authority grants development consent to the DA for removal of the signage and construction of digital advertising structure on the site for the following reasons: the proposed signage meets the objectives of the zone and relevant controls under the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development generally complies with controls under the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2012, but the proposed development remains in the public interest.

The proposed development remains in the public interest and will result in the replacement of an unsightly dilapidated sign in a prominent location in Vineyard, and I think Council staff may be able to just tidy that wording up a little bit. So the conditions of approval are as outlined in the Council report, subject to one additional condition.

Go to that additional condition. In

Condition 15, the final design of the proposed structure shall be submitted to and endorsed by Council, Manager Development Assessment, and Council's Heritage Officer prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Item 3.

Delegations of specific functions of the Hawkesbury City Council Local Planning Panel to Council's General Manager, Director of City Planning and General Counsel.

The functions of the Panel under Section 8.5, brackets 4, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, relating to planning appeals, be delegated by the Panel to the General Manager and Director of City Planning and General Counsel in accordance with the attached instrument of delegations. Functions as panel under 8 . 5, Practice 4 of the Act, in relation to planning appeal subject to Council providing the panel with notice of the planning appeal within 28 days of service of the planning appeal. Definitions and otherwise are as spelled out in the attached draft instrument of delegation.

So that brings the proceedings to a close. Today's meeting. Thank everyone for their participation in the meeting, Council staff , members of the public who presented, and panelists. So I hereby declare the meeting of the panel closed at 11.18 a.m. Thank you all. Thank you.