Casey v The Hills Shire Council - [2010] NSWLEC 1198

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Casey v The Hills Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1198

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Steven and Lisa Casey
RESPONDENT
The Hills Shire Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10345 of 2010

CORAM: Hussey C

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Residential subdivision, compatible with character of area, streetscape, public interest, private covenants precedent.

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005

DATES OF HEARING: 19 July 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
30 July 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr G McKee (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
McKees Legal Solutions
RESPONDENT
Mr C Winn (solicitor)
of Baulkham Hills Shire Council

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

30 July 2010

10345 of 2010 Steven and Lisa Casey v The Hills Shire Council
JUDGMENT

Background.

1 This appeal was lodged against council’s refusal of a development application for the demolition of structures on the property and a 2 – lot residential subdivision at 54 George Mobbs Drive, Castle Hill. The proposed subdivision is to create 2 lots, each with an area of 702 sq m and a frontage of 17.02 m.

2 The issues identified for the appeal are summarised as follows:

Inconsistent with the objectives of the LEP in terms of maintaining and complementing the existing environmental character of the area.
Unacceptable streetscape impacts.
Potential detrimental impact on the built environment.
Public interest considerations.

The site

3 The site is described as Lot 25 DP 238803 and it has an area of 1404 sq m and a frontage of 34.119m. There is a partially re-constructed dwelling centrally located across the width of the site with an existing cabana and pool in the rear portion.

4 The subject site is located in the suburb of Castle Hill with the immediate locality being an established urban residential neighbourhood with diverse housing stock. The estate and the majority of homes were built in the 1970's-80's with alterations, additions, renovations and some "knock-down, rebuild" occurring over subsequent years.

5 The original subdivision pattern of the estate is intact and George Mobbs Drive has a unique dress-circle identity within the estate and an openness of streetscape. It is a wide street with notable street trees, generous building setbacks, homes that utilise lot width rather than depth resulting in a wide street presentation.

6 The original deposited plans contained restrictions (covenant) as to user regarding the form of development in this neighbourhood.

Planning controls

7 The following controls are applicable in the assessment of the development application:

a) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979;

b) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

c) Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005 ("BHLEP"); under which the land is zoned Residential 2(b) and the subdivision is permissible with consent.

d) Baulkham Hills Development Control Plan - Part C Section 3 - Residential (January 2009) ("BHDCP")

The evidence

8 Mr C Young (consulting planner for council) and Mr N Kennan (consulting planner for the applicant undertook a detailed joint planning assessment of the proposal (Exhibit 7). A number of the neighbours expressed their concerns at the view and these have been considered together with the written objections in council’s bundle.

9 With respect to the streetscape issue, the planners agreed that George Mobbs Drive could be classified in 3 distinct sections. On this basis, the subject land is in the middle section, which is noticeably different to the other two sections. It features undulating topography with large remnant vegetation on the western side, with no significant plantings on the eastern side.

10 In this section the lot sizes range from 986.4 sq m to 1555 sq m and principal frontages from 24.38 m to 36.91 m, as shown on the plan – Attachment A1. Some lots at the southern end of this section are subject to a transmission line easement.

BLEP controls

11 Clause 13 of the BLEP provides that consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development:

(a) is consistent with the one or more of the aims of this plan and any relevant objectives for development, and

(b) is not contrary to achieving the objectives of the zone within which it will be carried out.

12 Clause 2(1) contains the following aims:

(a) with respect to the natural and built environment of the Baulkham Hills local government area, to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment of Baulkham Hills for present and future generations, and

(b) with respect to the community of that area, to encourage a strong sense of community identity and economic well being throughout Baulkham Hills through the development of local communities that are safe, liveable and offer a diversity of land use and economic opportunity, and

(c) with respect to use of resources within that area, to promote the efficient utilisation of land, services and support facilities in existing urban areas and to provide for the orderly growth of new urban areas that promote a high level of residential amenity, and

(d) with respect to flexibility, to create a broad framework of controls and allow the opportunity for more detailed provisions relating to matters of lo

13 Clause 2(2) contains the following objectives:

(a) with respect to the natural and built environment of the Baulkham Hills local government area, that development should:

(i) recognise and implement the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and

(ii) protect and enhance the area’s biodiversity, and

(iii) ensure that environmentally sensitive areas are suitably protected, and

(iv) address all natural hazard concerns, including flooding, landslip, subsidence, salinity, tidal inundation, land contamination and acid sulfate soils, and

(v) respect, improve and integrate with the local character of the locality in which it is carried out, and

(vi) rehabilitate the natural environment where damaged by previous activities, and

(vii) have regard to the land uses that form the rural and urban environment of the Shire, and

(viii) minimise the use of non-renewable resources and maximise the use of renewable resources, and

(ix) incorporate energy saving mechanisms and water saving mechanisms, and

(x) minimise waste and pollution, and

(xi) promote buildings designed for adaptive re-use, and

(xii) conserve the heritage significance of existing significant fabric, relics, settings and views associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, and

(xiii) conserve and enhance the natural, cultural and environmental heritage of the area, and

(xiv) positively contribute to the retention and maintenance of items of indigenous and non-indigenous heritage, and

(b) with respect to the community of that area, that development should:

(i) integrate land use and improve access to open space, employment opportunities, public transport, community facilities and commercial services, and

(ii) reinforce the retail and commercial centres hierarchy within the area, and

(iii) provide opportunities for tourism and recreational development in appropriate locations, and

(iv) provide for home-based activities that are compatible with the character and amenity of the neighbourhood or place in which they are to be located, and

(v) maximise positive social impacts and minimise potentially detrimental social impacts, and

(vi) provide informal surveillance of public spaces, and

(vii) optimise the shared use of streets and parking facilities, while improving or creating an efficient pedestrian environment, and

(c) with respect to use of resources within that area, development should:

(i) protect localities from inappropriate development and ensure that local amenity is maintained and enhanced, and

(ii) provide choice in housing for residents, and

(iii) ensure that urban housing type varies and is designed and constructed in a manner that can accommodate (or be adapted to the needs of) a variety of household types, and

(iv) contribute to the synergy between land use activities.

14 Clause 11 contains the following provisions for suspension of covenants:

11

Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments

(1) For the purpose of enabling development on land within any zone to be carried out in accordance with this plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.

(2) Nothing in subclause (1) affects the rights or interests of any public authority under any registered instrument.

(3) Pursuant to section 28 of the Act, before the making of this clause, the Governor approved of subclauses (1) and (2).

15 The Residential 2(b) zone objectives are:

(a) to identify residential areas of a predominantly single dwelling, low-density character, and to maintain that character, and

(b) to ensure that new housing respects and complements the heritage and environmental character of surrounding low-density development, and

(c) to allow people to carry out a reasonable range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the living environment of neighbours, and

(d) to allow a range of development, ancillary to residential uses, that:

(i) is visually integrated with development carried out on the land and in the surrounding area, and

(ii) serves the needs of the surrounding population without conflicting with the residential intent of the zone, and

(iii) does not place excessive demand on services.

16 Part 3 contains special provisions relating to subdivision and demolition whereby land in the Zone 2 (b1) may be subdivided into lots with a minimum area of 700 sq m.

Baulkham Hills DCP

17 Part C Section 3 applies to all activities permissible in the residential zones and it contains detailed development controls to achieve the stated objectives. The relevant objectives are:

(i) encourage a high standard of aesthetically pleasing and functional residential developments that sympathetically relate to adjoining and nearby developments to create consistent streetscape and character.

(ii) Ensure that development will not detrimentally affect the environment of any adjoining lands and ensure that satisfactory measures are incorporated to ameliorate any impacts arising from the proposed development.

(iv) Provide high levels of amenity for future residents of any residential development.

(vi) To facilitate the implementation of the aims and objectives of residential development as set out in

Baulkham Hills LEP 2005.

18 Section 2.5 contains the streetscape and character controls, which are based on the following objective:

(i) To ensure that the appearance of new development is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and complements surrounding development.

19 Section 2.13 contains the controls for subdivision.

Minimum Allotment Size and dimensions for Single Dwellings

Zone
Area

Classified road frontage

Other road frontage

Depth

2(a),
2(a1),
2(a2),
2(a3),
2(a4)
700m ²

27m

18m

27m

2(b)
700m2

27m

18m

27m

2(c)
700m2

27m

18m

27m

2(d)*
2000m2
To
4000m2

27m

23m

50m

2(e) Refer Clause 33 of BHLEP 2005

20 Accordingly, the minimum dimensions for subdivision are an area of 700 sq m and frontage of 18m. In the joint planning report, the experts agree that:

Joint planning evidence

21 The planners initially agreed that cl 11 of the BLEP can negate the provisions of any restrictive covenant such as exists on the subject land Furthermore, in consideration of the issues, they referred to the following table that identifies the geometric characteristics in this middle section.

Dimension

Value

Proposal

Variation

Mean (average) frontage width

27.17m

17.036m

37.2%

Median frontage width

27.43m

17.06m

37.8%

Mean (average) lot area

1,006m ²

702m ²

30.2%

Median lot area

945m ²

702m ²

25.7%

22 Mr Young says that as no other lot in this middle section of George Mobbs Drive has a frontage in the order of 17.06 m, the proposal would therefore be out of character with the existing broad frontages with houses presenting their greatest dimension to the street. Accordingly, the introduction of lots with areas of 702 sq m and 17.06m frontages will be both different and out of character to this section and subsequent houses constructed on those sites will be different to and not in harmony with the existing character.

23 However Mr Young acknowledged that there would be no objection in principle to an additional dwelling on the site, as permitted by the controls, providing the character is maintained.

24 Against this, Mr Kennan says that the objective (a) of the 2(b) zone is identify low – density residential areas and maintain that character. According to aim 1(d) of the BLEP, this is to be achieved by compliance with the DCP controls i.e. a minimum area of 700 sq m and minimum frontage of 18 m.

25 He then says that the development controls do not indicate any particular characteristics of this section of this street, which would lead to the refusal of the application. Such controls could have included heritage controls or a conservation area zone, which would have given more weight to the retention of the existing lot sizes and street presentation. But council did not adopt this approach.

26 Instead, he considers the effect of the controls is to provide a flexible approach to new housing development, which allows for some changes without adversely affecting the fundamental character of the area. This opinion is supported by the fact that the controls allow both suitable detached and detached housing on this land. Such development would apparently lead to acceptable outcomes in terms of the controls. Therefore he does not consider there would be any significant difference with 2 Torrens Title lots when compared to a dual occupancy development.

27 In response to the s 2.5 DCP controls, Mr Young says that the proposed narrower frontages will be an anomaly and inconsistent with both the streetscape and character of this area. Furthermore, that it would not relate well to its neighbours.

28 According to Mr Kennan, the relevant DCP controls should apply to this area and he refers to the other requirement that new sites should be capable of providing a 20 x 15 m building platform, which he says the proposal also complies with.

Objections

29 A considerable number of written objections to the development were submitted and these have been considered along with the oral evidence given at the view. The objections are summarised as follows:

History of the area; many of the residents have lived in this area since its development over 40 years ago. They chose this area because of its attractive environment, which they consider would be destroyed by the approval of this development.
Character of the area; This attractive environment is characterised by the larger lots, which have wider frontages. These lots have resulted in larger homes being built in a landscaped setting providing a high level of spaciousness and visual amenity.
Streetscape; this section of George Mobbs Drive is different to other sections because of the characteristic wider frontages and the subdivision would destroy the existing attractive streetscape quality. The development would result in 2 driveways to the separate dwellings.
Best Residential Street Award; The street won this award in 1988 and the residents consider the qualities that achieved it would be depreciated by the development.
Protective covenants; As there are covenants which restrict the size and scale of building, these should be given determining weight.
Non – compliance with DCP; the 17.06m frontage does not comply.
Loss of privacy;
Traffic impacts.
Intentions of applicant to sell one lot.
Precedence.

Conclusions

30 Having considered the evidence, the submissions and undertaken a view, I am satisfied that a proper application of the current council planning controls allows the conditional approval of this 2 – lot subdivision.

31 Firstly, the land is zoned Residential 2(b) under the BLEP and the subdivision of this land is permissible because it exceeds the minimum area requirement of 700 sq m. As compliance with this development control apparently achieves the predominantly single dwelling, low density character, then there is general compliance by the development with this and the associated objectives for this zone

32 The BHDCP also provides the complementary detailed development controls to achieve the desired character outcomes. The development has been assessed by the planners who agree that the proposal is compliant except for a deficit of approximately 900mm in the frontage of each new lot. As this represents a non – compliance in the order of 5%, they agree that this is not of significant magnitude to warrant refusal of the application.

33 Insofar as there then is substantial numeric compliance with the controls to enable approval, I nevertheless accept that there should also be substantial qualitative compliance with the intent of the controls. In this case, this attractive middle section of George Mobbs Drive, the existing development is characterised by the generally larger lots with wider frontages, which allows for front landscaping and generous side set backs.

34 According to Mr Kennan’s evidence, Aim 1(d) of the BLEP allows council to prepare development control plans, which incorporate matters of local significance. The resultant controls adopted are the minimum 700 sq m lot area and 18 m frontage, which presumably satisfy objective (c)

encourage a high standard of aesthetically pleasing and functional development that sympathetically relate to adjoining and nearby developments…

35 Mr Kennan was unable to find any reference in the planning controls, which specifically relate to restrictions in the 2(b) zone or special considerations for George Mobbs Drive. He says that in particular circumstances, conservation areas or heritage areas can be designated in order to retain aspects of existing development.

36 In fact this approach has been adopted by council with the specific identification on Sheet No 14 of a designated area in nearby Clarissa Place, where the minimum lot sizes are 2000 sq m. Then on Sheet 15, areas in Knight Place also have 2000 sq m lots. Sheet 34 shows areas where council has decided differentiate and specify areas minimum building setbacks of 6m and 9m.

37 In the circumstances then, I rely this evidence and accordingly do not consider there is any specific reference in the controls that would impose some form of conservation on this site, as submitted by the residents.

38 Notwithstanding this, the planners have considered the merits of the 2 – lot subdivision on the basis that its purpose is to enable 2 suitable dwellings on the proposed new lots. They agree that suitably designed dwellings can be designed for the lots. Such designs will maintain the existing front set backs, the landscaping character along with the mature turpentines and comply with the side set back controls. The designs can also satisfy the 15m x 20m building footprint control that applies to the site.

39 The main difference would be a “gap” between the future dwellings along the common boundary setback. However, I am satisfied that a good design of any new dwellings can be prepared, which achieves satisfactory streetscape and amenity outcomes. Consequently, I am satisfied these matters support the approval of the development.

40 Apart from this, I note that the existing controls allow for either detached or attached dwellings on the site. This possibility would inevitably result in some changes to the character of this immediate neighbourhood. But this is a change clearly envisaged by the controls.

41 One of the issues raised by the objector’s concerns precedential effects. The planners addressed this by reference to the lot geometry analysis in Exhibit 4, which shows the lot areas and frontages for some 42 nearby lots. It is obvious from this that there are very few lots with sufficient area to allow subdivision. Also, some of the larger lots are constrained by transmission line easements, which restricts subdivision opportunities. Therefore I do not consider the approval of the subject application is likely to set a precedent, which would significantly change the character of the area.

42 In summary then, I am satisfied that the proposal demonstrates compliance with the current controls, in particular it is consistent with the aims in cl 2 (1) (a) and is not contrary to the zone objectives, so as to merit consent. The 900mm frontage non – compliance is minimal and I rely on the expert planners agreement that this is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

43 I have carefully considered the considerable number of objections, but consider that determining weight should be given to the implementation of the planning controls, which I consider this application reasonably complies with. These controls are contained in the DCP, which has presumably been adopted in the usual course following community consultation so as to represent the broader public interest.

44 The approval of the 2 – lot subdivision would enable future development applications for dwellings, which would then be subject to assessment on merit, relative to the current controls at the time.

45 The Court orders:

R Hussey

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure ‘A’

Conditions of Consent

Casey v The Hills Shire Council

GENERAL MATTERS

Prior to the submission of an application for the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, a final plan pre-lodgement meeting is required.

Street trees and tree guards must be provided at a rate of two (2) trees per allotment frontage. The location of street trees must compliment driveway locations. The species and size of all street trees must comply with Council's requirements.

Street trees are required to be provided at the time of subdivision construction unless otherwise approved.

NOTE:

Council requires twenty four (24) hours notice for inspections. Please ring Development Certification on 9843 0555 before 3.30pm to book an inspection for the following day.

The proposed demolition works must be inspected by Council at the following key stages:-

a) Pre-demolition including sediment controls and site fencing / signage; and

Any bank guarantee required in order to facilitate release of the Subdivision Certificate shall:
a) Have no expiry date;

b) Be forwarded direct from the issuing bank with a suitable cover letter that refers to Development Consent No. DA 844/2010/ZA;

c) Specifically reference the item(s) and amounts being guaranteed. If a single bank guarantee is submitted for multiple items it must be itemised.

Should it become necessary for Council to uplift the bank guarantee, notice in writing will be forwarded to the applicant fourteen (14) days prior to such action being taken.

NOTE:

The reuse and recycling of waste materials must be maximised during construction and demolition. The separation and recycling of the following waste materials is required:

a) Masonry products (bricks, concrete, concrete roof tiles) to be sent for crushing/recycling;

b) Timber waste to be separated and sent for recycling;

c) Metals to be separated and sent for recycling;

d) Clean waste plasterboard to be returned to the supplier for recycling (excluding plasterboard from demolition); and

The disposal / landfill of surplus excavated material, other than to a DECC licensed facility, is not permitted without formal approval from Council prior to the commencement of works. 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. Unless Council approves an alternate site, then all surplus excavated material must be disposed of at a licensed waste facility. Copies of actual weighbridge receipts verifying recycling/disposal must be kept and presented to Council when required.

dust screens must be erected around the perimeter of the site and be kept in good repair for the duration of the work;
all dusty surfaces must be wet down and any dust created must be suppressed by means of a fine water spray. Water used for dust suppression must not be allowed to enter the street or stormwater system;
all stockpiles of materials that are likely to generate dust must be kept damp or covered.

PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE

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.

Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001 Part 8

Australian Standard AS 2601-1991:

^-

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.

Prior to commencement of any demolition works, Council must be notified to collect any garbage or recycling bins from any dwelling/building that is to be demolished and to discontinue the waste service (where the site ceases to be occupied during works). Construction or demolition workers must not use Council's domestic and garbage and recycling service for the disposal of waste. Please contact Council's Domestic Waste Hotline on 1800 623 895 for the discontinuation of waste services.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

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.

PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. A list can be found by following this link:

" aterserv_ext_print. htm"

NOTE:

Submission of a compliance certificate confirming satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of electrical services. This includes the under-grounding of electrical services where directed by the relevant service provider. This must include street lighting for newly proposed roads and the provision of a hinged lighting column in any proposed pedestrian pathway links.

Submission of a compliance certificate issued by the relevant telecommunications provider authorised under the Telecommunications Act confirming satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision (or relocation) of telecommunication services including telecommunications cables and associated infrastructure. This includes the under-grounding of aerial telecommunications lines and cables where directed by the relevant telecommunications carrier.

The submission of a Subdivision Certificate application accompanied by the following:

a) The original final plan and administration sheet(s);

b) Ten (10) copies of the final plan and administration sheet(s);

c) The original plus one (1) copy of the 88B Instrument creating all necessary easements, positive covenants and restrictions (where required);

d) All certificates and supplementary information as required by this consent;

e) The completed checklist confirming compliance with all consent conditions (a blank checklist is attached);

f) An electronic copy of the final plan of subdivision on disk in AutoCAD

NOTE:

Submission of a lot, classification report prepared by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer following the completion of the subdivision works confirming that all allotments are compliant with AS2870 Residential slabs and footings - Construction (1996) and are suitable for residential development.

29. Delete

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:-

Purpose	Per Lot	No. of lots: 2	No. of credits: 1	Total
Roads & Traffic - Capital	$ 105.55	$ 211.10	$ 105.55	$ 105.55
Open Space - Land	$ 3,830.66	$ 7,661.32	$ 3,830.66	$ 3,830.66
Open Space - Capital	$ 282.67	$ 565.34	$ 282.67	$ 282.67
Community Facilities - Land	$ 17.11	$ 34.22	$ 17.11	$ 17.11
Community Facilities - Capital	$ 198.95	$ 397.90	$ 198.95	$ 198.95
Total	$ 4,434.94	$ 8,869.88	$ 4,434.94	$ 4,434.94

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 or a copy may b e inspected or purchased at Council’s Administration Centre.

R Hussey

Commissioner of the Court

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Casey v The Hills Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1198

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

2

CITATION:	Casey v The Hills Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1198
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Steven and Lisa Casey RESPONDENT The Hills Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10345 of 2010
CORAM:	Hussey C
KEY ISSUES:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Residential subdivision, compatible with character of area, streetscape, public interest, private covenants precedent.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 2005
DATES OF HEARING:	19 July 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr G McKee (solicitor) SOLICITOR McKees Legal Solutions RESPONDENT Mr C Winn (solicitor) of Baulkham Hills Shire Council

Minimum Allotment Size and dimensions for Single Dwellings
Zone	Area	Classified road frontage	Other road frontage	Depth
2(a), 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(a4)	700m ²	27m	18m	27m
2(b)	700m2	27m	18m	27m
2(c)	700m2	27m	18m	27m
2(d)*	2000m2 To 4000m2	27m	23m	50m
2(e) Refer Clause 33 of BHLEP 2005

*Dimension*	*Value*	*Proposal*	*Variation*
Mean (average) frontage width	27.17m	17.036m	37.2%
Median frontage width	27.43m	17.06m	37.8%
Mean (average) lot area	1,006m ²	702m ²	30.2%
Median lot area	945m ²	702m ²	25.7%