Microsoft word - submission 110 penrith city council.doc

Planning Reforms Department of Planning GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Sir or Madam Submission to exhibition of NSW Housing Code for
Exempt and Complying Development

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft NSW Housing Code for exempt
and complying development. The overall purpose behind the introduction of the Code –
to increase the range of exempt development and the proportion of simple development
applications being submitted as complying development certificates – is supported.
Council is, however, concerned that the limited range of activities included within the
Code and the complexity of the standards will not be conducive to achieving this aim.
Council has a number of general comments to make, plus some specific concerns both of
which are outlined in this letter. Attached to this letter are two tables, which include
detailed comments on the proposed standards for exempt and complying devleopment.
The tables include variations and suggestions that will address many of the issues raised
and, in Council’s view, increase the number of applications that will conform with both
the exempt and complying development criteria.
Exempt Development

The range of exempt development permitted by the Code is substantially less than that
proposed by Council’s draft LEP, and some critical standards are missing. This
combination means that many things currently proposed to be exempt development will
require a DA, and the impact of exempt development on adjoining properties and the
streetscape may well increase. Neither of these are desireable scenarios.
Detailed comments on the proposed exempt development provisions are included as
Appendix 1 to this submission. The main issues of concern include the height and style
of fencing; size and separation of pigeon cages and lofts; consistency between
requirements for fences, retaining walls and cut and fill; height of signs and inclusion of
boundary adjustments.
Complying Development

The controls for complying development in the Code are also much more limiting when
compared to those in Council’s draft comprehensive LEP. Council assessed fifteen
applications for single dwellings and ten applications for rural sheds against both the
draft Code and Schedule 3 – Complying Development of draft Penrith LEP 2008. Of the
fifteen single dwellings, one would have qualified as complying development under the
code, compared to seven under Council’s draft LEP. These figures demonstrate that the
imposition of the draft Code as it currently stands will significantly hamper Council’s
attempts to increase complying development applications for single dwellings
Of the rural sheds, five would have complied under the draft Code, compared with one
under Council’s draft LEP. These additional compliances are at the expense of Council’s
controls which relate to height and size of sheds and which serve to maintain rural
landscape and amenity, and reduce the impact of complying development on
neighbouring properties. This is not, in Council’s view, a reasonable trade off.
Penrith had approximately 11% CDCs last year, despite a more liberal range of
development being eligible to be submitted as a CDC than would be possible under the
Code. Although the Code has no discussion of the reasons behind the low take up of
complying development, experience suggests that a lack of understanding of the benefits,
apparently complex controls and wanting the security of a Council issued development
consent are all contributing factors. Council is concerned that the Code in its current
form does not address these issues and will thus have limited success in increasing the
number of CDCs issued.
It is critical that the assessment of the draft Code and its implications take the project
home market into consideration. A large proportion of single dwellings are project
homes, and the cost of varying a project home design is frequently exorbitant. Faced
with the prospect of paying a significantly higher price to fit within complying
development provisions, or submit a Development Application, most applicants will
choose a DA. Minimising the need to vary standard designs, therefore, will be a key part
of increasing the take up of complying development certificates.
Finally, the expression of some of the standards within the draft Code is highly
confusing. The intention of the draft Code is to simplify the complying development
process, yet it will be difficult in some circumstances to determine whether or not
development fits within the standards. If controls are not easy to understand, applicants
will be tempted to simply submit a Development Application instead.
Detailed comments on individual provisions are attached as Appendix 2 to this
submission. A summary of the main issues appears below. The variations and
suggestions in the tables are based on increasing the proportion of applications that
comply with the provisions.
Ceiling heights – The draft Code requires that the ceiling height for living areas with a
width of over 4.5 m is 2.7 m, compared to 2.4 m for areas with a width of less than 4.5 m.
In practice, given the structural difficulty of varying ceiling heights across a single storey
dwelling, this will mean that any dwelling with a living area wider than 4.5 m will either
be forced to have a universal ceiling height of 2.7 m, or will need to modify the design to
reduce the width of the living area. It is unlikely that these modifications will be made,
so a DA will be submitted.
The Building Code of Australia requires a ceiling height of 2.4m for all habitable rooms.
Council requests a variation to the Code’s requirements for ceiling heights, to require that
ceiling heights need only comply with the 2.4m prescribed by the BCA. This standard
does not preclude applicants from applying for a CDC with an increased ceiling height if
they wish to aim for a superior design outcome. It will also cater for more flexible
designs such a sloping or cathedral ceilings.

Offset windows – The draft Code currently requires that windows of living areas in
adjacent dwellings are offset by 0.5m. Given that single storey dwellings are low to the
ground, and that the width of windows to living areas often exceeds 2 m, the privacy
gains from an offset of 0.5 m seem minimal, yet compliance with the requirement may
well lead to the need to modify a project home design. A simpler solution would be to
impose a standard condition requiring that a 1.8 m fence be erected between living area
windows that are offset by less than 1m. This will be a more effective way of securing
privacy, without requiring modification standard housing design.
Front Setbacks – The draft Code proposes a minimum front setback of 4.5m where there
are no dwellings existing on adjoining properties.
Council DCP’s contain controls for front setbacks which have been identified as
appropriate to maintain local character of neighbourhoods. The existing setback
requirement where there are no adjoining dwellings is a minimum of 5.5m. To apply a
generic 4.5m setback where there are no existing adjoining dwellings, and then allow
articulations of 1.2m into this setback will have significant impacts undermining the
desired character of localities which have been identified as appropriate on a LGA or
locality basis.
Corner setbacks – the proposed setback of 1.5 meters to a secondary frontage is half
that currently required by Council’s DCP. A setback of 1.5 meters is considered too
little, and could have significant impact on streetscape and neighbourhood character.
Side and rear setbacks – Under the provisions of the draft Code the same standards are
set for side and rear setbacks. Council’s current provisions require a minimum rear
setback of 4m aiming to provide an uninterrupted separation between developments and
providing for a significant continuous area in which soil disturbance is minimised and
healthy growth of trees and shrubs is encouraged. The draft Code will allow
developments up to 900mm from both the side and rear boundaries. The smaller setback
will significantly erode the opportunity to have large scale trees or landscaping to the rear
of dwellings.
Other controls in the draft Code relate to maximum permissible site coverage and
provision of Principal Private Open Space, however these do not require that the
undeveloped area of the site be located to the rear and are not likely to discourage
development up to the rear boundary. The Code does also not include any controls to
limit the maximum permitted length of a wall, which could prevent development
occurring along the full length of the site.
Setbacks in rural areas – provisions within part 3.3 apply to rural zones, however the
setbacks included are only really appropriate for urban areas. An additional table should
be inserted which includes setbacks appropriate for rural areas.
Cut and fill – The draft Code currently permits maximum cut and fill of 1m, to be
maintained as an unprotected (or unretained) embankment. This standard exists in
conjunction with a minimum side or rear setback of 1m. A cut or fill of 1m, within 1m of
the boundary gives a batter gradient of 1:1, which is unstable, cannot be walked upon and
cannot be maintained, creating a hazardous, unusable area along the side of a dwelling.
This will be exacerbated along the side of a hill where several dwellings in a row may
have the same situation.
The proposed maximum cut and fill under Council’s draft LEP 2008 and draft DCP 2008
is 0.5m. This allows for a more reasonable batter gradient. Cut and fill in excess of this
must be retained by a retaining wall for which structural engineers details are required. It
should be noted that in the trial of the Code mentioned earlier, only three (3) of the of the
fifteen (15) dwellings analysed would have failed to meet Councils draft LEP on the
basis of exceeding a 500mm cut and fill. This statistic demonstrates that to achieve a high
uptake of Complying Development, it is not necessary to include such a height tolerance
for excavation and filling of building sites.
Fencing – the draft Code is inconsistent in that it indicates that front fencing should be
low, to allow outlook onto the street, yet permits fencing forward of the building line up
to 1.8 m high. This not only has safety implications, but could also have a significant
impact on streetscape. Front fencing should have a maximum height of 1.2 meters, and
be of an open design.
Landscaped areas – The draft Code includes guidelines for reducing runoff by including
permeable open space. This is supported, however the present controls are unlikely to
achieve significant success. Table 2.2.2 should include standards for deep soil area and
landscaped area to ensure that a sufficient area of the site is left unpaved to achive a
reduction in run off.
Tree preservation – approvals to remove trees or other vegetation should be obtained
prior to lodging the complying development application, rather than prior to starting
work as is currently proposed. This will avoid a situation where time and money is spent
lodging an application which cannot go ahead if vegetation removal is not approved.
Salinity – the draft Code makes no provision for considering salinity issues when
determining development. Salinity is a growing issue and will become more of a
problem if not addressed. The Code needs to include provisions which address the
impact of development on ground water and the impact of saline ground water and soils
on buildings.
Agricultural outbuildings – It is misleading for a Code which focuses on single storey
residential development to include standards for agricultural outbuildings. It is unlikely
that anyone looking to determine the standards for agricultural outbuildings would look
in this draft Code, particularly as the standards are within Part 3 – Single Storey
alterations and additions. The Code is also focused on residential development in an
urban setting, and does not appear to adequately consider the implications of
development of any form in a rural setting.
In addition to the fact that they are inappropriately located, the standards themselves raise
some concerns. There are no standards included within the streetscape provisions,
despite the fact that agricultural outbuildings have significant potential to impact on
streetscape. There are also no limitations on the size of the outbuilding that can be
constructed as complying development. There is a limitation on site coverage, but this is
not really an effective control for building size on larger rural allotments as the current
controls would allow a shed of up to 5000 square metres on a 2 hectare block. The
minimum side and rear setbacks do not appear to have taken the context of larger rural
lots into account, as the maximum setback required is 2.2m. Under the Code outbuildings
can also be located between the dwelling and the street frontage, which is not
appropriate.
In contrast, draft DCP 2008 requires that dwellings and outbuildings be set back a
minimum of 5.0m if the lot is under 2 hectares in area, and 10.0m if the lot is over 2
hectares in area. Although the higher standards for setbacks and the limitations on size
proposed Councils draft controls mean that fewer outbuildings will be in accordance with
the complying development provisions, it is felt that this is offset by the improvements in
amenity and the much lesser chance that this type of development will have a negative
impact on the street and on surrounding properties.
The expression of the standards is also a concern. The tables that determine setbacks, for
example, does not have a column for wall heights above 3m. This could be read to mean
either that buildings with a external wall height greater than 3m are not included in the
code (although elsewhere the code permits a wall height of six meters) and must
therefore submit a development application, or it could be taken to mean that the
standards for a 3m external wall height apply to wall heights above 3 metres as well.
This sort of ambiguity occurs in a number of places in the draft Code and must be
corrected.
The Code does not consider, or condition, the use to which these buildings may be put,
and may result in the introduction of uses which are not permissible, or are incompatible
with the agricultural and scenic objectives for development in the rural lands. This would
be likely to result in the need for a marked increase in compliance action in these areas.
The above points raise the key issues of concern that Council has with the draft Code.
More detailed comments are provided in the attached tables. Council is willing to
discuss any of the issues raised further if this would be helpful in reviewing the Code and
increasing the likelihood that it will raise the proportion of applications considered under
complying development provisions. If you have any questions regarding the points
raised, please contact Julie Condon on 4732 7513 or Allegra Zakis on 4732 8054 or
0416049475.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Lemm
Manager, Development Services

Appendix 1 to Submission – Assessment of Parts 5 of the Draft NSW Housing Code – Exempt Development. Noise levels must not exceed 5dB(A) above the ambient background noise level measured at the property boundary during the hours of use. Must be provided with a label clearly showing the maximum “Sound Power Level”. May be attached to an external wall or mounted on the ground. Installation must not affect the structural integrity or reduce the fire-rating of the building. Finishes must be non-reflective and should complement materials and colours of dwelling or other buildings on the land. Structure must have at least 1.2m unobstructed separation from a pool safety fence Minimum setback. to other property boundary of: Maximum overall height of 3.3m (with posts 2.7m). Storm water to be connected to existing system Not constructed from second hand materials Finishes must be non-reflective and should complement materials and colours of dwelling or other buildings on the land. Structure must have at least 1.2m unobstructed separation from a pool safety fence Minimum fill embankment height 3m – should that be maximum 3m is too high to guarantee the wall wont fail without and Engineering design or supervision. Roof framing – shouldn’t be any for a deck or patio (see second point above) Deck or patio should be more than 500mm from boundary (maybe 1.5m) be any for a deck or patio (see second point above) Minimum fill embankment height 3m – should that be maximum (and 3m is too high anyway) or can it be 1.8m on top of the height of the wall. The first requirement states 1.8m from ground, the last point says sloping sites are allowed 20% (i.e. 360mm) extra fence height and must be stepped – This conflicts with the requirement in this section on retaining walls of up to 1m (or 600mm elsewhere). What is the limit on filling/retaining for a fence (width or area) retaining walls are part of this section does maximum fence height include the retaining wall or can it be 1.2m on top of the height of the wall. The first requirement states 1.2m maximum, the last point says sloping sites are allowed 20% (i.e. 240mm) extra fence height and must be stepped – This conflicts with the requirement in this section on retaining walls of up to 1m (or 600mm elsewhere). What is the limit on filling/retaining for a fence (width or area) What is the limit on filling/retaining for a fence (width or area) Should not be used for advertising • Must not be used for advertising The flagpole should be clear of any overhead wires. Structurally adequate and installed to manufacturer’s specifications. Alterations must be to a previously completed building, and must not: affect the overall structural performance or fire resistance qualities of the building, change the configuration of the rooms, either through the removal of structural walls or other means of structural support, cause either an increase or reduction in window arrangements for light and ventilation needs, cause a reduction in doorways for egress purposes, or 9m to habitable building is less than the 10m required for a small bird aviary or 15m for small poultry house Number of birds in a residential area is too many buildings than for small bird aviaries or pigeon lofts. Should indicate no roosters in residential areas Floor must be paved – is that the whole of the enclosure or just under the perch / roost lattice. Not to be a solid panel preventing passage of light and air. Structure to have at least 1.2m unobstructed separation from a pool safety fence. Screens should be freestanding and should not be attached to the boundary fence without the consent of the adjoining owner. If the building is under strata title, the Body Corporate should be consulted about the location and design of the privacy screen, and where appropriate, consent obtained. attached to roof (only above eave gutter line) boundary when attached to roof (or say wholly within boundary) Should just use the same requirements as in SEPP4 instead of theses Replacement materials and colours to be similar to existing colours and materials (other than asbestos cement). Non reflective materials are to be used. Works involving asbestos must comply with the WorkCover Authority’s “Guidelines for Practices involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”. Not to affect overall structural performance or fire resistance qualities of the building Retaining Walls On sloping sites it says the fence must intended purpose and landuse and not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Not to obstruct or interfere with any overland flowpaths, or result in the natural flow of water to be impeded or re-directed Must be constructed to manufacturer’s details or, alternatively, to a structural engineer’s design. Maximum height above existing ground level is 500mm May be constructed as two 500mm terraces with 1m Minimum setback to property boundary of 900mm. Privacy of adjoining properties not to be compromised Minimum setback to property boundary of 10m Maximum height above existing ground level is 800mm. Must not be constructed from second hand materials. All stormwater is to be connected to existing system. Areas between solid walls and roof to be enclosed only with open screen mesh material. Non reflective finishes to complement materials and colours of dwelling or other buildings on the land. of building) – does this includes all buildings on the site (e.g. garages, other awnings, patios, etc) either attached or detached point on tree removal is not required if structural integrity of the building or involve structural alterations. Any opening created by the installation is to be adequately Installed by a licensed tradesperson in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications Must be wholly within boundaries statement not required – covered by other point for front, side and rear setbacks 50m from a dwelling or water course is ok, but 50m from an easement? Applies only to a rural property with site area greater than 1 hectare. Located behind building line to any street frontage. Minimum setback to other property boundary of 10m. No lighting shall be installed for the tennis court. Not to interfere with any approved on-site effluent treatment/ disposal systems. Maximum total 800mm of excavation or filling. No fill shall be imported to make the site level. All tennis court drainage is to be disposed of to the existing property’s rainwater drainage system and not onto adjoining land. Fencing installed to surround the tennis court to be a maximum of 5m high, black or green cyclone mesh. Area between tennis court and property boundaries to have screen landscape planting would be better to say not be capable of being filled with water to a depth of 300mm or more (including freeboard) Must be maintained (mosquito requirements) requirements as in SEPP4 instead of these, but maybe larger capacity in rural zones is ok (with greater setback to boundaries etc) Could be in front of behind building line have different (lower) heights depending on the sign i.e. a single dwelling should not have an 8m high sign, maybe only 2m Does not say the sign must not project over a public road or kept wholly within the property boundary or if Illuminated or not exempt (only Home Activity or Occupation) Should not include bed and breakfast accommodation (separately defined), or home occupation (sex services) Home Activity should not employ any person other than the resident(s) of the dwelling Should not involve customers or clients visiting the premises at any Should not interfere with the amenities in the area i.e. not generate noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, dust, waste products, or traffic exceed 7 (including children related to the carer or licensee), under 12 years of age. This includes no more than 5 children who do not ordinarily attend school. securely fenced in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, compliance with existing buildings • Complies with minimum setback contravening the deemed to satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia eg egress, fire rating, fire fighting facilities Does not result in a requirement to alter infrastructure such as services or drainage required as part of an existing swimming pool safety barrier Appendix 2 to Submission – Assessment of Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Draft NSW Housing Code. Reference Attempting to enforce this “best practice” in the code may result in reduced uptake of Complying Development. Reference should be made back to the underlying principle for reform of complying development which is to increase its uptake, reduce complexity and limit obstacles to approvals for minor developments. Adherence to this control will almost certainly reduce uptake of Complying Development in the Penrith LGA as single storey project home dwellings comprise a significant percentage of applications suitable for conversion to complying development. The housing market in this LGA would be more likely to select to submit an application for a Local Approval than to bear the cost of design amendments and construction of a more complex development. of compatibility. How will this be controlled as complying development? Section 3.12 permits fencing forward of the building alignment up to a height of 1.8m. this is not consistent with the above guideline and is also likely to undermine the comprehensive streetscape, character and amenity controls elsewhere in the Code. owner builders permit prior to lodging their application? SINGLE STOREY 2. Single Storey Complying development (d) then disappointed if the vegetation removal is not approved. If this (SREP 20) and Section 68 approvals. complying development dependant on the limitations to on site sewerage management, these approvals should be required to be obtained up front. interpreted that a double garage door of 6m and a single door of 3m may be permitted. basements. It would not be possible clause (c) and delete clause for an external access to be constructed and comply with cut and fill provisions. Development. Reference should be made back to the underlying principle for reform of complying development which is to increase its uptake, reduce complexity and limit obstacles to approvals for minor developments. Adherence to this control will almost certainly reduce uptake of Complying Development in the Penrith LGA as single storey project home dwellings comprise a significant percentage of applications suitable for conversion to complying development. The housing market in this LGA would be more likely to select to submit an application for a Local Approval than to bear the cost of design amendments and construction of a structurally more complex or expensive development. recognition or provisions for future outbuildings etc. Site area requirements could be reworded to advise of minimum areas which are to be retained as soft surface or deep soil areas and allow for the provision of landscaping. and then allow articulations of 1.2m • a minimum of 3m behind into this setback will have The proposed setback of 1.5m from the secondary street frontage contravenes Council’s DCP controls of 3.0m and would be likely to impact significantly on existing development and established neighbourhood character. Rear Boundary reduced to 500mm, there is no separated by a 1.8m dividing fence to 500mm). (see comments on Sloping Sites). It is likely that this control will reduce uptake of complying development as it will necessitate modification of standard designs in nearly every instance. 2) Concern is raised regarding rear setback and preservation of local amenity. criteria limit height above existing ground to 1m. There is an inconsistency between window sill heights and screen heights. Both should be 1.7m. There is no need for this clause if cut and fill is limited to 500mm. reflective. External finishes are to compliment existing development in the locality 1:10. Terracing may result in significant additional site works and/or tree removal. and Driveways Standard – should be AS 2890 - (b) The requirement to maintain excavated and filled areas as unrestrained embankments at a setback of up to 1m from a property boundary is also of significant concern as; Batter slopes of 1:1 are not stable and are susceptible to slip. Self supporting batters need to be a minimum of 1:2 and preferentially 1:3 to ensure engineering stability for the embankment. The unrestrained embankment will lead to complaints and the requirement for compliance action due to erosion Safety issues relating to pedestrian access down the side of the house and the potential for expensive redesigns to relocate utility rooms within the building. (d) The document referred to is not now known as the Blue Book, but as “Soils and Construction – Managing Urban Stormwater”. would not work as the water is not able to percolate through the soil. (b) Due to possible site constraints and complexities, Section 68 approvals should be obtained prior to the lodgement of the Complying Development Application. This will prevent delays and expense involved in varying the approval. Salinity, landscaping, deep soil areas. such this requirement seems too onerous if compliance with PFBP and the RFS Attack Assessor can be readily achieved. If not - a more in depth merit assessment and referral to the RFS is certainly warranted through the Local Approvals process. with PFBP. Any deviations to the PFBP requirements would result in undue risk to the development without proper assessment by the RFS and would leave the certifier open to liability. apply to this part as the corresponding ones in the previous part. The following additional comments are also made. 3.0 Application This table does not specify a without compromising the agricultural and scenic objectives for development in the rural lands. consideration the scenic character, dwellings in residential area it is streetscape or landscape qualities Please refer to the attached excerpt from Council’s LEP 2008 schedule 3 for examples of criteria which may be more suitable to this kind of development in rural areas without compromising the agricultural and scenic objectives for development in the rural lands. impacts of such developments and the required associated fencing is likely to have significant impacts on character and amenity. and would require merit assessment pool is no more than 600mm adjoining properties. In Council’s trial of 12 swimming pool applications against the NSW Housing Code, no applications proposed a pool at this height above ground level. Additionally, only 1 out of 12 applications proposed decking above 800mm above ground level. Thus indicating that such criteria is unnecessary to promote complying development. An above ground swimming pool constructed on a sloping site with coping or decking at 1.5m above ground would leave a boundary fence with an effective height for privacy and retention of amenity of only 300mm. This would lead to regular and strong complaints from adjoining owners. The impacts of such a development between a dwelling and the primary street frontage would be completely unacceptable for the community. wall and overall heights for different dwellings in residential area it is types of structures. While it may be objectives for development in the rural lands. Table 3.2.3 Site This table should clarify that it schedule 3 for examples of criteria which may be more suitable to this kind of development in rural areas without compromising the agricultural and scenic objectives for development in the rural lands. as residential zones, it is critical that most rural areas to be less than 15m and in some, a setback of 30 or Rear Boundary of up to 6m but this table outlines buildings need to be more carefully suggested that a separate Outbuildings in considered based on their size, development without using controls which will significantly impact on agricultural and scenic objectives for development in the rural lands. buildings need to be more carefully suggested that a separate Outbuildings in considered based on their size, development without using controls which will significantly impact on the amenity of these areas. fencing which is 1.8m high, forward fences seeking approval as of the front building line is not d) Timber post and wire and rail fencing, gates wire and/ or entrances, should be either unpainted, or painted in with earth- tone colours or white. non-reflective finish. e) Entrance gates may be decorated iron, steel or timber gates. f) Masonry entrances must be: * 1.8m maximum height, * maximum length of 3.0m from either side of the entrance, * constructed of brickwork, sandstone, rendered or painted brickwork, and * reflect the existing materials and colours of the building on the land. Amend subsection (f) to say 500mm above or below the existing ground level. Excerpt from Council’s LEP 2008 schedule 3 (1) Rural Sheds/Farm buildings, or outbuildings associated with an existing rural purpose (apples to RU1, RU2, RU4 and E4 zones only) Includes Farm sheds, stables, chicken coops, hay stores, etc Total of one only of any type per property Located behind building line of dwelling to any street frontage Minimum setback to other property boundary of 10m (iii) Located within 40m of detached dwelling house (iv) Minimum setback to other watercourse or riparian corridor 40m Maximum height of floor above natural ground level of 500mm Maximum wall height of 3.6m above natural ground level (iii) Maximum overall height of 4.5m at any point above natural ground level (iv) Roof pitch between 10 and 25 degrees (excluding attached skillions) (v) External building materials to be of a non-reflective finish, and in neutral earthy tones consistent with the setting and compatible with surrounding development. Dense screen planting of native species to be provided to elevations facing adjoining properties to the side and rear of the shed Maximum excavation 500mm (to be stabilised or retained and drained) Maximum filling 500mm (to be stabilised or retained and drained) (iii) Adequate erosion and sedimentation control measures to be installed One vehicular access point only to the property Driveway crossings not to exceed 3m in width or interfere with existing trees or stormwater drainage in road reserve Not to be used, or adapted for use for any habitable, industrial or commercial purpose Not to be used for the parking of any truck or plant not associated with a rural use carried out on the property Roof and surface water (including overflow from rainwater tanks) to be disposed of via gravity, to a piped stormwater drainage system discharging to the street gutter, an approved inter-allotment drainage system, or via a level spreader system. Flows are not to be concentrated or directed toward adjoining properties.

Source: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning_reforms/p/submission_110_penrith_city_council.pdf