Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council

 

 

 

LATE AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:          5 March 2007

 

LOCATION:                          Council Chambers

 

TIME:                                     6.30pm.  Note. If members of the public are not interested in any business recommended by the General Manager to be considered in Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

Lane Cove Council business papers and minutes are available on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

5 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

ITEM                                                  REPORT CONTENT                                                PAGE

 

 

Reports Of Committees

 

1.       Report Of Committees No. 4

SUBJECT: Minutes of Inspection Committee 3 March 2007

 

Referred Reports

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 17

SUBJECT: 38 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville

  

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

***** END OF AGENDA *****

 

    


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

REPORT OF COMMITTEES NO. 4

 

5 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 5 March 2007

28/02/2007 to Ordinary Council

Report Of Committees No. 4

Subject:           Minutes of Inspection Committee 3 March 2007     

Record No:     DA06/283-01 - 4538/07

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Present:                      Clr I Longbottom (Mayor), Clr W Gaffney, Clr K Freedman, Clr R Tudge, Clr T Lawson, Mr  M Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services and Sam Pratt, Manager, Development Assessment

 

Apologies:                  Clr A Smith, Clr F Teirney and Clr J Hassarati

 

Item 1                         38 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville (DA283/06)

                                    Owner:  Mr & Mrs McQuillan

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and Additions to first and ground floor of a heritage dwelling.

 

The Mayor welcomed all attending the inspection and introduced Councillors before calling upon Mr Mason to provide an overview of issues.

 

Councillors heard from the applicant and other consultants prior to inspecting the site and dwelling.  The applicant’s architect highlighted the proposed alterations and amendments aimed at preserving amenity to the adjoining neighbour.

 

Notwithstanding the report’s recommendation that the first floor window cavity be reduced, the applicant has requested that Council give consideration to the opening remaining as proposed with the addition of window treatment that would ensure visual privacy to the adjoining dwelling.

 

Councillors moved to the adjoining property (36 Lucretia Avenue) to hear from Professor Katelaris.

 

The neighbour provided an overview of his concerns which included:

 

·    the need to retain the existing form of the heritage dwelling

·    the anticipated loss of amenity if Council approves the application as proposed

·    called into question the need to alter the dwelling

·    the need to reject the application on merit

 

Resulting from general on-site discussion Councillors requested the Executive Manager to prepare draft conditions for consideration that address the following concerns:

 

1.         That materials used in the proposed alterations and additions match the existing given the heritage nature of the existing dwelling.

 

2.         That a photographic record of the existing and finished works be prepared by the architect (including plans) should Council approve the application.  Such record would be presented to Council and the Lane Cove Historical Society.

 

3.         That the ground floor kitchen window be treated to ensure visual privacy is maintained to the adjoining property.

 

The Mayor thanked all people attending for their input and advised that the matter will be determined at Council’s full Council meeting on 5 March.

 

Councillor Tudge moved the motion, Clr Freedman seconded.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Minutes of the Inspection Committee held 3 March 2007 be received and noted and the following additional draft conditions be included in the development consent:

 

24.       The applicant is to submit to and have approved by Council a schedule of the colour scheme and the proposed finished materials PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

25.       The applicant is to undertake a photographic record of the existing dwelling and submit 2 copies to Council for placement in the Local Studies Collection at Lane Cove Library.   Details to be submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

26.       To provide privacy to 36 Lucretia Avenue, the proposed kitchen window to the western elevation shall be amended to provide a sill height of 1.7m or alternatively being of fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.7m above FFL.  Plans being altered to comply PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL050307RC_4.doc

*****   End of Report Of Committees No. 4   *****

   


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

5 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 5 March 2007

30/01/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 17

Subject:           38 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville

Inspection Committee at its meeting on 03 March 2007 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 05 March 2007. Record No:     DA06/283-01 - 2041/07

Author(s):       Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                                  38 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville

 

DA No:                                    D283/06

 

Date Lodged:                           29.9.06

 

Cost of Work:                          $385,000

 

Owner :                                   J.M. & S.K. McQuillan

 

Author:                         Stan Raymont

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations and additions to first floor and ground floor infill to residence

ZONE

2(a2)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Yes, heritage listed item of municipal significance

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

Yes, adjoins bushland

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

 

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                               29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38A, 40, 42 Lucretia Avenue were notified of the original proposal and 36, 38A, 40 Lucretia Avenue were notified of the amended proposal

Ward Councillors                     Central Ward

Progress Association                Longueville Residents’ Association

Other Interest Groups               Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

Called to Council by the Planning and Building Committee on the 18th December 2006.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

Council at it’s Planning and Building Committee meeting of 18 December 2006 resolved that DA131/06 for a garage conversion to a studio and new double garage:

 

            “… be referred to the Inspection Committee on 3 February 2007, and in the interim mediation facilitated by staff  take place between the applicant and objectors giving consideration to development of the site as a whole.”

 

A meeting was held with the applicant and owner of the site to ascertain the need/desire for the two Development Applications and whether they, (the applications) were mutually exclusive ie. The owner wished to progress each application or whether an approval of the office/garage application would render the dwelling additions redundant.

 

Initially the applicant advised that each application was necessary to the family needs and requested determination, however DA131/06 for the garage conversion to a studio and new double garage has been withdrawn by the applicant on 23 February 2007, owing to issues and concerns raised by the neighbours.  Only DA283/06 for the first floor additions is to be considered in this report.

 

The  proposal is to carry out alterations and additions to the western side of the existing dwelling to provide a new larger mostly two storey but also part single storey wing to the existing dwelling.  The proposed tiled roof is to be pitched with its ridge being 800mm below the main ridge height.

 

The original plans showed the proposed ridge of the tiled roof of the additions at the same height as the ridge of the main roof of the dwelling.  As the property is heritage listed the proposal was referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser who recommended that the ridge height of the new wing be lowered (approx. 800mm) to match the ridge height of the east wing.  Amended plans have been submitted showing this and Council’s Heritage Adviser advised that the amended plans with his recommendations incorporated into the revised submission, results in a much improved design solution which minimises impact on the heritage residence.

 

The current proposal complies with Council’s Code for Dwellings with the exception of the maximum ridge height which is 10m (Code requirement 9.5m) and the maximum ceiling height of 7.7m (Code requirement 7m).   The applicant’s architect has also lowered the springing height of the new roof by approximately 400mm by forming a coffered ceiling within.  This reduces the wall height by 400mm.  The uppermost ceiling height is considered to be satisfactory and maintain the architectural integrity of the heritage dwelling.

 

A submission has been received from the owners of No.36 Lucretia Avenue and also from Brian McDonald and Associates Pty. Ltd. acting on their behalf and the issues raised were:

 

            a)         an unacceptable major impact on the amenity of their home

            b)         privacy issues

            c)         non-compliance with Council’s Code for Dwellings

            d)         adverse effects on heritage property

            e)         adversely affects the streetscape and skyline of the neighbourhood

 

The issues raised in the two submissions have been dealt with in the report and privacy conditions have been imposed to the first floor bedroom windows in western elevation.  The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

SITE:

 

The site is located on the northern side of Lucretia Avenue and overlooks Woodford Bay.  The property is identified as being a heritage listed property of municipal significance item number B147.  The site is a battleaxe allotment with vehicular access from the road between 38A and 36 Lucretia Avenue.  The existing development on the property is a two storey brick and tile heritage dwelling with a detached garage at the front and a swimming pool and shed at the rear.  The legal description of the property is Lot A, DP417305, No.38 Lucretia Avenue.  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The amended proposal is to carry out alterations and additions to the western side of the existing dwelling to provide a new larger mostly two storey but also part single storey wing to the existing dwelling.  The ground floor level includes a new laundry and enlarged kitchen and the upper level comprises bedrooms 3 with balcony, bedroom 4 and bathroom with W.C. and a small hall.  The external walls are proposed of brick construction and the roof of the two storey section is proposed to be pitched, covered with tiles, with its ridge being 800mm below the main ridge.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

The original plans as submitted showed a part two storey addition to the western side with a pitched tiled roof with its ridge at the same height as the ridge of the main roof to the existing dwelling.  As the property is heritage listed, the proposal was referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser who advised as follows, inter alia:

 

            “The major concern is the height and volume of the roof and large expanse of extended wall area, which has the greatest impact on the south and west elevations.  This may be considerably relieved by lowering the ridge height of the new wing to match the ridge to the east wing (approx 800mm).  The height of the eaves will be lower, greatly reducing the massing at the prominent southwest corner.  Some internal replanning will be necessary in the vicinity of Bedroom 4, the store and bathroom.  The lowering of the ridge line will improve the composition of the north elevation by increasing the symmetry of the roof forms.”

 

This was conveyed to the applicant who submitted amended plans with the following covering letter:

 

            “We are responding to your letter of 10.11.2006, noting the comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor and requesting design changes to the Southwestern corner and ridge height.

 

            We have attached our amended plans which show:-

 

            -           Reduction of ridge height of the extension to match that of the existing East Wing.

 

            -           Reduction of wall height and mass to Southwestern corner.

 

The essential differences between the amended plans and the original D.A. plans are summarized as follows:-

 

1.         Ridge height of extension has been lowered to 24.45 AHD ( a reduction of 800 mm).

 

2.         Springing height of the new roof has been lowered by approximately 400mm by forming a coffered ceiling within.

 

3.         Height of Southwestern corner has been lowered by 1.9m to reduce the apparent bulk.

 

4.         First Floor plan has been reduced by 7.0m2, again to reduce the apparent bulk.

 

5.         Western elevation windows have been reduced in size and are designed to replicate windows found in the existing building with multi-panes to sashes.

 

We note that the reduction in bulk of the first floor Southwestern corner, will have the additional benefit of:

 

-           Preserving the dominance of the existing Southern Elevation, gable section.

 

-           Forming a convenient junction for the change of bricks from old to new.

 

Finally, we note that the occupants of 36 Lucretia Avenue have objected to the original D.A. and our response is covered separately.

 

            We will be pleased to have your Heritage Advisor’s comment on the amended plans.”

 

The amended plans are the subject of this application.

 


PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

Site Area (1230.48m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio        (max)

0.33:1 (includes additions proposed in DA131/06)

0.5:1

yes

Soft Landscaped Area  (min)

47%

35%

yes

Side Boundary Setback  (min)

2m

1.5m

yes

Overall Height (m)        (max)

10m

9.5m

no

Ceiling Height (m)         (max)

7.7m

7.0m

no

No of Storeys

2

2

yes

Building Line     (max)

unchanged

7.5m

n/a

Foreshore Building Line (min)

n/a

n/a

n/a

Cut and Fill       (max)

zero

1m

yes

Deck/Balcony width     (max)

1.4m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

yes

Solar Access    (min)

3 hours to north elevation

3 hours to north elevation

yes

NaTHERs Rating          (min)

n/a

Min 3.5 stars

n/a

 

REFERRALS:

 

Development Engineer

 

The comments of the Development Engineer were requested and conditions of consent are listed which are included in the recommendation in this report.

 

Manager, Bushland

 

The comments of the Manager, Bushland were requested as the land is adjacent to bushland.  The Manager, Bushland advises as follows:-

 

            “The proposed development consists of an extension to the western side of the house.  There are no bushland issues.”

 

Conditions of consent are listed which are included in the recommendation in this report.

 

Other (Heritage, Traffic, Waterways, Rural Fire Service)

 

The premises are heritage listed (municipal significance) and the original plans were referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who requested, inter alia, the ridge height of the new wing be lowered to match the ridge of the east wing (approx. 800mm).  The applicant submitted amended plans showing the ridge height of the new wing lowered by 800mm and Council’s Heritage Adviser advises as follows:-

 

            “I refer to the amended proposal, in response to my comments of 2/11/06.

 

            The recommendations of my report have been incorporated into the revised submission, resulting in a much improved design solution which minimizes impact on the heritage residence.

 

            I have no requirement for any further modifications.”

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

The amended proposal is permissible within the 2(a2) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP No.55 – Contaminated Land – Clause 7 of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated.  Notwithstanding the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and adjoining sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination.  Accordingly, there is considered to be no contamination issue given the circumstances of the case.

 

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways area specified in SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and Part 2 of the SREP sets out planning principles for land within the Sydney Harbour Catchment.  The additions do not extend towards the foreshore past the line of the existing dwelling and are considered to comply with the planning principles contained within Part 2 of the SREP.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The proposal involves some demolition work.  Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must take into consideration Australian Standard (AS2601-1991):  The Demolition of Structures, as in force July 1993.  The matter may be addressed by a condition of consent and has been addressed by a condition in the recommendation section of this report.

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each of the departures is discussed below.

 

1.         Height - Council’s Code for Dwellings under Height states, inter alia:

 

“Objectives

 

            a.         Control the height, bulk and scale of new dwellings and additions to existing dwellings so that they are in harmony with the surrounding buildings.

 

            b.         Minimise disruption to existing views or to achieve reasonable view sharing from adjacent developments with the height and bulk of the development.

 

            c.          Maintain reasonable solar access and minimise overshadowing of adjacent properties.

 

            Standards:

 

            a.         No dwelling is to exceed a height of:

 

                        i.          7.0m to any point on the uppermost ceiling;

                        ii.         9.5m to the highest point of the roof;

 

                        above natural ground level.

 

            Height shall be measured vertically from the natural ground level at any point.”

 

a.         Ridge Height – The maximum ridge height as proposed is 10m which exceeds the 9.5m maximum ridge height specified in the Code for Dwellings.  The ridge height of the main roof of the existing heritage dwelling is higher than this and Council’s Heritage Advisor requested the ridge height of the proposed additions to the western side of the dwelling be lowered to 800mm below the ridge height of the existing dwelling which matches the ridge height of the eastern wing of the existing dwelling.  The ridge height as proposed is considered necessary to maintain the architectural integrity of the heritage listed dwelling.

 

b.         Uppermost Ceiling Height – The maximum uppermost ceiling height of the additions is 7m on the southern side but due to the fall in the land, is 7.7m on the northern side which exceeds the 7m maximum specified in the code.

 

In support of the uppermost ceiling height as proposed the applicant’s architect states that the:-

 

            “Springing height of the new roof has been lowered by approximately 400mm by forming a coffered ceiling within.”

 

This effectively reduces the height of the external walls by approximately 400mm.

 

The uppermost ceiling height as proposed is considered reasonable and not likely to adversely affect the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

 

One submission was received from the adjoining owners of No.36 Lucretia Avenue in respect of the original proposal objecting to that proposal.

 

This letter was viewed by the applicants of the subject property who have replied to the issues raised in this submission.

 

A submission has also been received from the owners of No.36 Lucretia Avenue in respect of the amended proposal and Development Application No.D131/06 in respect of the garage alterations to a studio/living area and the erection of a new garage and front fence.

 

They state in part:-

 

            “Please find enclosed our strong objection to these two DAs (D283/06 and D131/06).  We have already submitted individual objections to each DA but we understand we are required to resubmit now that both DAs are to be considered together.  We believe that the combined effect of both proposals will have an even greater adverse effect than each proposal considered individually, due to the combined effect of bulk, scale and crowding, impaired amenity and reduced privacy.  We believe there are Building Code issues also as well as significant heritage values at stake.

 

            We enclose an independent report from a town planner, architect and heritage consultant that we hope you will weigh when considering the application.  It presents a well considered alternative expert opinion to that obtained by the applicant.

 

            Council comprehensively rejected DA 131/2006 on multiple grounds.  In our objection to the revised garage DA (October 22nd 2006), we highlighted the minor revisions made and the major unresolved and new problems inherent in the revised proposal.

 

            There are viable alternatives available to the applicant that need not greatly diminish the amenity of neighbours’ homes, degrade heritage values or contravene the Building Code.  We urge our neighbours to consider these alternatives that are discussed in their own commissioned heritage report and in ours.  We have personally invited Mr Figgis to visit our property to properly assess the impact of the plans.  We regret that he has not accepted this invitation to date.

 

            We look to Council to protect the amenity of our neighbourhood and of our home and to preserve heritage values by declining this application in its current form.”

 

Their objections to Development Application No.D283/06 are:

 

            “1.       An unacceptable major adverse impact on the amenity of our home

 

            The proposal will have a major effect on the amenity of our home as:

 

            i)          Blocks in our street are long and relatively narrow for the size of the homes.  This means that boundaries are close.  Our western boundary, created in 1915 when the core of our home and No 34 were built, would not be permitted today.  We are obliged to keep our windows on that side closed because of that proximity.  The boundary with the applicant in No 38 is also close so that any extension particularly one of the bulk and height as proposed here, will have an overbearing impact on our home.  When that house was built there were no neighbours and the house fitted the scale of the site.  Whereas before subdivision, increased height and bulk could be accommodated by the surrounding space, now there are neighbours on three sides, two of whom are very close including a battleaxe.  Such a large, high extension is overscale for the tight fit between these three houses.

 

            Thus, proximity of neighbours now means that the height, bulk and scale of these additions are not ‘in harmony with the surrounding dwellings’ and will diminish our amenity unacceptably.

 

            ii)         In our earlier correspondence we described how existing structures and landscaping of No 38 have a marked walling in effect along nearly all our 70m long common border.  Building a large, bulky extension with a height in excess of the Code just 2m from the boundary, opposite our main entrance, main living rooms and bedrooms will exacerbate this effect (as will the garage proposal).

 

            iii)        The extension faces the main entrance to our home.  Since it was built more than 80 years ago the main entrance of our home has faced eastwards towards No 38.  Access to our front door is via a footpath along the eastern aspect of our home.  That passageway is already rendered dank, dim and slippery as the overshadowing of the existing dwelling by its closeness means that the angle allowing natural light and sunlight is limited and would be further limited by this extension.  This is not addressed by the shadowing diagrams contained in the plans.

 

            iv)        If built, our front door would open to a sheer brick wall in a manner reminiscent of an inner city apartment block.

 

            v)         The first floor extension is opposite the upstairs main bedrooms and living area windows which would face this sheer wall as well and three new windows opposite.

 

            vi)        The high, bulky extension would be a high visual barrier to the north and east over the whole of our backyard when viewed from almost any point looking northward.  This is also the case when entering our home from the street.  It would markedly narrow the space between the two houses, blot out the sky and would physically tower over our home and grounds and unbalance the relative harmony of these close set dwellings.

 

            For each and all of these reasons, the proposal does not ‘have regard to the amenity of adjoining properties or the local environment as required in the Code and should be declined.”

 

Comment

 

The amended proposal is considered to be of good design and is set back 2m from the side boundary which exceeds the Code for Dwelling’s requirement of 1.5m.  The amended proposal is considered satisfactory and not likely to adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

 

            “2.       The design threatens a gross effect on our privacy

 

            Privacy has been maintained for 80 years by lack of windows on the western wall of both storeys of No.38 and the distance between the upper floors.  The proposal:

 

            a)         ignores constraints related to overlooking and privacy.  Two first floor windows are proposed that will reduce visual and auditory privacy of our upstairs living area, the bedroom of one daughter, the master bedroom, bathroom and the passageway between rooms for three school age girls.  These windows also allow views of our front and backyards and main entrance.  It would oblige us to keep these windows permanently shut, which is unreasonable.  There are pre-existing privacy problems with the proximity of first floor windows and that of neighbours.  This proposal will greatly and unacceptably compound these problems.  Any new windows would have to have sashes fixed shut.

 

            b)         A large kitchen window is proposed on the ground floor extension facing us on its western side.  This will directly overlook our main pathway to the front door of our home and will have views directly into our home.  It will have close and direct views along the main outdoor pathway between the front and backyard of our home, which contains the major entrance to our home and pathways around its exterior.  Even opening the front door could be observed from this window.”

 

Comment

 

It is considered that to provide privacy for No.36 Lucretia Avenue the proposed two bedroom windows in the western elevation at first floor level should be either highlights with a sill height of at least 1.7m above first floor level or alternatively being of fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.7m above first floor level.  Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a construction certificate.  This will be a condition.


The proposed kitchen window at ground floor level is considered reasonable.  There is existing planting along the western boundary near this window which is considered to provide adequate screening for privacy.

 

            “3.       Non-compliance with the Lane Cove Building Code

 

            a)         We believe the application fails to meet the objectives in 3.3 as it fails to,

 

                        a.         ‘control the height, bulk and scale of additions so that they are in harmony with the surrounding buildings’.

 

                        We believe the application also contravenes the intent of the Code in 3.1 as,

 

                        b.         it does not ‘have regard to the amenity of adjoining properties’.

 

                        These issues are visually demonstrated in Appendix 1.

 

                        The application contravenes the Code in 3.3 as,

 

                        (i)         the proposed addition exceeds the height to the highest point of the roof, permissible under the Code.

 

                        (ii)        the proposed additions exceeds the height on the uppermost ceiling permissible under the Code and the underfloor ceiling height.

 

                        The existing dwelling already exceeds the maximal height permitted now but was built more than 100 years ago.  This is no justification to vary the Code now.  At present the high point of the roof sits in the middle of the house well away from neighbours.  When the house was built there were no neighbours.  Now however, there are neighbours on three sides, two of whom are very close and this dwelling already towers over its neighbours.  Such an oversize structure extended square to within 2m of our boundary, with a brick wall facing our main entrance will greatly diminish our amenity.

 

                        The applicant argues that the excessive height of the extension is necessary to preserve the heritage design but this is refuted by the heritage opinion obtained by us (see enclosed report).  We seek enforcement of the Building Code as we believe there is no reason a variation”.

 

Comment

 

The maximum ridge height (RL 24.45) of the amended proposal is 10m above the adjoining ground level.  Whilst this exceeds the Code for Dwellings maximum ridge height of 9.5m it matches the reduced level of the ridge of the eastern wing of the dwelling which was the requirement of Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser.  The maximum ridge height of 10m is 5.5m away from the western boundary and the walls of the commenter’s dwelling (36 Lucretia Avenue) are another 3m away making a total of 8.5m between the maximum ridge height of the proposal and the walls of the commenter’s dwelling.  Further, the proposal complies with the solar access requirements of Council’s Code for Dwellings.  The ridge height of the addition as proposed is considered reasonable and not likely to adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

 

The maximum uppermost ceiling height is 7m at the southern end of the addition but due to the fall in the land is a maximum of 7.7m at the northern end.  The architect for the proposal advises that the springing height of the new roof has been lowered by approximately 400mm by forming a coffered ceiling within.  This is considered reasonable and the uppermost ceiling height as shown on the amended plans is considered reasonable and not likely to adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

            b.         We believe the application contravenes the objective in 3.6 as it is not,

 

                        b.         ‘designed so as the use will not significantly affect the privacy of the occupants of any adjoining site’.  It ignores ‘constraints related to overshadowing, overlooking and privacy’.

 

                        Specifically it contravenes the standards in 3.6 as it designed so that,

 

                        1.         windows are ‘situated directly opposite windows of the habitable rooms of adjoining dwellings’ and

 

                        2.         additions are not designed to avoid overlooking adjoining dwellings.

 

Comment

 

A condition will be imposed requiring the windows to be at least 1.7m high above first floor level or of fixed obscure glazing to a height of 1.7m above first floor level be provided to the two bedroom windows in the western elevation of the upper floor level.  The proposed ground floor kitchen window is considered reasonable (see earlier comments re privacy).

 

            “4.       Adverse effects on heritage values

 

            No 38 is a major heritage dwelling of our locality.  It was built around the turn of last century (1900-1902) and is an increasingly rare home, retaining well preserved, fine heritage (Federation) features.  It is listed as an item of Environmental Heritage within the Lane Cove LEP having local significance by several criteria and is also acknowledged on the State Heritage Register Database.  We believe the current plan will irrevocably alter and diminish these heritage values.

 

            The applicant has commissioned and paid for a heritage report which is offered in support of their application.  We have provided a formal report by an expert to provide an objective review (enclosed).  That opinion provides a clear indication that heritage values are irreversibly at risk with this development.  Many factors are raised but in particular the key period feature of an asymmetric design is highlighted, as this will be permanently lost.  Enclosed also is a copy of information from an adjoining Council that highlights the importance of such asymmetry to the heritage values of houses of this period.

 

            We believe that it is incumbent on the owners of such homes to exercise responsible stewardship to avoid irrevocable major degradation of heritage values that are inherent in this overscale, symmetric extension.  The owners would have been well aware of heritage constraints when the home was purchased.  If has stood intact and well preserved for over a century but now is at risk despite the reasonable alternatives available.

 

            The commissioned heritage report contains a detailed description of the important local history and significance of No 38, Reka Dom.  The writer in 5.0 describes, ‘the site’s manifold values’ (page 17) of this well conserved, notable building (p27) and describes the many criteria it meets for important heritage significance that must be preserved including:

 

            i)          ‘Aesthetic characteristics’ – which are under threat by this bulky and symmetric extension in the context of close neighbouring buildings.

 

            ii)         Its ‘possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW cultural history’ – which will be forever diminished.

 

            iii)        Its retention of ‘extensive fabric and form from its original design’ – which will be irretrievably altered and reduced.

 

            Impact on the setting and viable heritage alternatives

            In detailing the options available to the applicant (page 21) the applicant’s heritage report describes the current DAs for both garage and house extensions.  The writer, ‘considered the merits of…the option of a…low roofed (garage) form maintaining views,’ and also described, ‘the option of a new attic room within the existing roof voids’.  It is perhaps related to the commissioned nature of this report that the writer refrains from offering a detailed opinion as to the merits of either or both of these two viable alternatives from a heritage perspective.  Incomprehensively to us, the writer claims (in 7.2) that the major house extension was chosen over these two alternatives as it was, ‘assessed as having least impact upon the setting’ (italics are ours).  We do not believe this is correct.  We value the opinion of the independent review we have provided with the discussion of viable alternatives.

 

            The setting is not addressed in 8.0 where it is claimed that the additions, ‘maintain the relationship of the building to the site and setting’.  This may have been valid in 1905.  At this time, the photograph included in the report shows a majestic, large home dominating an entirely undeveloped and unsubdivided foreshore.  It is not the case in 2007 when the house is now on a battleaxe block with two storey dwelling surrounding it a few metres away on three sides.  We disagree with the writer who claims in 9.2, that the extension will, ‘enlarge the residence to a degree commensurate with its setting’.  We believe he may have been correct one hundred years ago, but not now.

 

            Inappropriateness of additions

            The design incorporates a larger, sheer two storey wall on the western side.  The house has no such feature, as it has verandahs on three sides and a sloping single storey on the western side.  Thus, the plan introduces a new, major modern design element which is unattractive for its height, form, bulk, scale, modernity and proximity to neighbours.  It certainly does not retain the site relationship as is claimed in 9.2 as the site is now much smaller.  We agree it, ‘removes elements of the original’ (9.2) and unbalances the original shape and scale of the house.  The writer here is alluding to, but does not elaborate on, the major impact on heritage values that loss of the original asymmetry will cause.

 

            We were dismayed by the conclusions of the commissioned heritage writer who opines (p27) that, ‘the works proposed will serve to enhance the overall significance of the site’ (out italics).  That is, the claim is that a large, high, overscale, symmetrical modern extension, close to neighbours and squeezed into a confined space on a battleaxe block will enhance the heritage significance of a rare, well preserved significant heritage dwelling.

 

            Further justification is offered as the additions, ‘ensure ongoing viability’ of the house.  We do not think there has been any threat to the ongoing ‘viability’ of this house for the last 106 years although it faces the most severe threat to its heritage significance now.

 

            This ‘viability’ is linked (p27ff) to a perceived, ‘reduced pressure for future and less sympathetic additions,’ with the suggestion that a future development proposal might seek to extend on the ‘waterfront side’!  This, despite the writer already mentioning attic renovations or a flat roofed carport well away at the rear of the house as alternatives that would have very little impact and reduce pressure for this current ‘less sympathetic’ proposal.”

 

Comment

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser had a major concern regarding the height and volume of the roof and large expanse of extended wall area and required the maximum ridge height of the original proposal which matched the maximum ridge height of the dwelling to be lowered to match the ridge of the east wing (approx. 800mm).  The amended plans show this and Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser advised that the recommendations of this report have been incorporated in the revised submission, resulting in a much improved design solution which minimises impact on the heritage residence.

 

The comments of Council’s Heritage Adviser were requested on the heritage issues raised in the submission from Brian McDonald and Associates Pty. Ltd. and are as follows:-

 

            “5.       It will adversely affect the streetscape and skyline of the neighbourhood

 

            From the footpath of Lucretia Avenue, looking north, there is a pleasant skyline of houses and a harmonious skyline towards Woodford Bay.  The height and bulk of the addition will adversely affect the neighbourhood by degrading the common views from the street of these houses and of the northern skyline.  It will wall off this section of the view and reduce the sense of balance, proportion and space as this house is so much higher and will become so much bulkier and closer to its neighbours.  The appearance of No 38 itself from the street will be degraded (which also affects heritage values) as shown in Appendix 1.

 

            Mature evergreen alder trees in the driveway will be lost.  Mature fiddlewoods trees that help maintain privacy between neighbours will need to be pruned severely to fit the house extension.”

 

Comment

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser is of the opinion that the proposal in the amended plans for the addition minimises impact on the heritage residence.   The heritage dwelling at No.38 Lucretia Avenue is over 3.6m from the front boundary and the amended proposal is considered to not adversely affect the streetscape or the skyline of the neighbourhood.

 

            “6.       Alternatives

 

            These are discussed in detail in the report we have provided by an independent expert.  Options includes not proceeding with the house extension or reducing its height bulk and degree of overlooking in compliance with the Code as well as proper consideration of a setback flat roofed carport.”

 

Comment

 

At a meeting between the owners of the subject property and Council’s officers, it was advised that the owners required the work shown in both Development Applications (DA D131/06 and DA D283/06) and both applications should be determined in that light.

 

The floor space ratio of the combined proposals is only .33:1, well below the .5:1 specified in the Code for Dwellings.  The overlooking is considered to be dealt with by conditions regarding privacy in the recommendation.

 

Regarding Development Application No.D131/06 they advise as follows, in part:-

 

            “Council rejected the original application on multiple grounds.  The revised application made minor changes and does not deal with the substantial issues that have been raised at length by us and Council previously.  It has already been assessed by Council with a recommendation that it is not approved on the fence line and that the Murraya hedge must be retained.

 

            We are grateful to Council for recognising how crucial an appropriate setback and retention of this screening native hedge are to our neighbouring privacy and amenity.

 

            Even with setbacks, we note the unusual design proposal of tandem high pitched outbuildings on a battleaxe driveway.  We could not find a single precedent in Longueville for such a design.  We did find 17 flat roofed car ports within a 5 minute walk around Lucretia Ave and Arabella St.  The independent architect review that we have provided outlines the problems of this aspect of the proposal in detail and discusses the suitability of the site for an alternative flat roofed option and we commend this to the Council assessors once more.

 

            We note also obvious potential for the ‘studio’ conversion to be used as a habitable independent dwelling and note that this is not an option favoured by Council.  We note also that the linking of this converted space to the house by a walkway is a device to circumvent exceeding the maximum allowed floor space for out buildings.

 

            Thus, the proposal in its current form proposes breaching the Building Code to site a high pitched bulky structure on the fenceline of a neighbour’s front garden, with destruction of an important screening native hedge, using a design without apparent local precedent, ignoring common local design elements of flat roofed structures, for the purpose of housing two cars.

 

            We object to this.”

 

They submit their reasons for their strong objection to this development application (D131/06).

 

Comment

 

It is considered that these objections have been adequately considered in the assessment of D131/06.

 

Submission from Brian McDonald and Associates Pty. Ltd. – Architects–Planners Heritage-Consultants.

 

It is stated in the letter from Brian McDonald and Associates Pty. Ltd.:-

 

            “I have been requested by Professor Peter Katelaris and Dr Janice Newton of 36 Lucretia Avenue Longueville to provide an independent review of proposed developments at No 38 Lucretia avenue:  DA131/2006 (revised) to convert an existing garage to offices and construct a new garage in the access handle to the property and a fence; and DA No 283/2006 (amended) for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

 

            Objections to the proposals by Professor Katelaris and Dr Newton are well set out in their submissions to Lane Cove Council, including their concerns about the impacts on their privacy and the overbearing effect of the bulk, scale and siting of the proposed new structures on their private garden area and the main entrance to their house.

 

            This submission addresses the impact of the proposed developments on the heritage significance of “Reka Dom” No 38 Lucretia Avenue, a listed property – item No B147.  The aspects of the proposals that affect the significance of the house and its setting also contribute to the bulk and scale that would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbours at No 36 Lucretia Avenue.

 

            I understand that the Council has not approved the application to construct a new brick and tile garage in the access handle, which was intended to be built to the western boundary and would necessitate removal of a well established row of Murrayas, that contribute significantly to the mutual privacy and visual amenity of both properties, in particular to the leafy setting of the garden of No 36 Lucretia Avenue.  The proposed new garage would have presented a large blank wall to the garden of the neighbouring property with a relatively steep tiled roof.  I also understand that Council officers have suggested to the applicant that the garage should be set off the boundary sufficient to retain the row of Murrayas, which would continue to act as a screen.  This requirement is consistent with Clause 3.8 of the Council’s Code and Development Application Checklist for a 1200mm setback from the side boundary, allowing detached garages on a nil boundary setback only “if there will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties and if objectives are achieved”.  Objective a) is to “achieve separation between dwellings for privacy and to enable areas for landscaping”.  The access handle is 8.535 metres wide, adequate to accommodate a double garage, pedestrian access to the house and to retain the row of Murrayas.  In my opinion there are other less visually intrusive options to house two cars, including a low pitched or flat roofed garage or carport.  A lightly framed structure would allow more room and would be less likely to impact on the root zones of the Murrayas.  Although a solution of this kind is briefly discussed in the heritage impact statement written by Colin Brady to accompany the application, it was dismissed because of a preference to replicate the form of the existing garage.

 

            It is proposed to construct two new bedrooms and a bathroom above the “service wing” as a seamless addition, matching the materials and details of the existing original building.  The effect will be to create a wider more symmetrical two storey house – very different from the original asymmetrical design intention, which has been kept intact up to now.  This may, if very carefully executed, produce a good architectural solution, but in my view it will be an unsatisfactory distortion of the historical and aesthetic values of this very important heritage item for the locality of Longueville.  To justify pacing the additional accommodation in this location because it will prevent a possible future attempt to develop on the “more significant” eastern side or northern side of the house is simply a self serving argument.  Under no circumstances would it be acceptable to destroy the intact details of verandas and windows presenting to Woodford Bay.  It should not be assumed that because the “service wing” is less important than the main frontages of the house it is available for such a substantial addition.  If this proposed addition that places additional building bulk of a height that does not comply with Clause 3.3 of the Council’s Code and Development Application Checklist with windows approximately 5 metres from the existing east facing windows and the main entrance of No 36 Lucretia Avenue.  The amended application proposes slightly narrower windows with obscure glass lower sashes, which would only be guaranteed to prevent overlooking if the sashes were to be fixed shut.

 

            The heritage impact statement, in discussing alternative solutions, dismisses the possibility of attic type accommodation because of the inconvenience of three storeys.  It does not contemplate an addition over the “service wing” of an attic type with much lower ceilings.  While this approach would still have adverse heritage implications it would create less impact on the adjacent property.  The recent design amendments reduce the height of the building by about 350mm and its length by 1535mm, which does little to minimise the effect of height and bulk – and the uppermost ceiling would still exceed to height control by 300mm.  It is not necessary to match the ridge height of the eastern side of the building and preferable not to.  The new bedrooms do not need to have 2980mm high ceilings, even if the amended design produces a narrow perimeter ceiling zone at 2630mm as a token effort to reduce height and bulk.  If the perimeter was reduced to 2250mm to satisfy window and door head heights, the main part of the ceiling could be 2600mm, which is satisfactory for bedrooms and bathrooms.  This would mean an overall reduction in height of about 730mm, which would show a more serious commitment to reducing the adverse impacts caused by the bulk of the building, with a secondary benefit of expressing the addition as a less competitive architectural element in its relationship to the existing house.  Although I do not believe even this solution is acceptable from a heritage point of view, if the Council is of a mind to approve some kind of additional upper floor addition to the house, it is demonstrated here that it can be done, with care and creative thinking, at a lower scale than presently proposed.

 

            To conclude, the proposed changes at No 38 Lucretia Avenue have not from the outset, based on my reading of the material available on the Council’s file, given proper attention to the heritage significance of the existing house and seek to make it a much grander residence than was originally intended by its first owner and the original architect.  At the same time a lack of appreciation of the context of the adjacent houses has resulted in adverse amenity impacts aggravated by the combined effect of both applications.  There are remedies to these adverse impacts which will allow the property owner to adapt the existing garage as an office and park two vehicles under cover, which the Council officers have indicated and which the owner and architect could achieve with a more flexible approach to the brief.  I urge the Council to continue to assess these applications with a critical eye to ensure that, in achieving their objectives, the owners of No 38 Lucretia Avenue do not do so to the detriment of their neighbours and in a way that permanently diminishes the heritage significance of “Reka Dom”.

 

            Attachment From the Canada Bay Council website

 

            Federation Houses (1896-1918)

            In some parts of Canada Bay, there are very fine examples of Federation Period houses, also known as Queen Anne Style or Edwardian houses.  These were built around the turn of the century and in the years leading up to World War 1.  These houses showed an interest in the use and expression of natural materials such as brick, timber, slate and tiles.  The design of the house was usually deliberately asymmetric with interest taken in creating interesting roof forms.  Generous verandahs are a typical feature of the period.

 

            These houses are significant in the area because they represent the first signs of coming middle class affluence and the growth of Australian nationalism in Canada Bay.  They are also the first indicators of the coming suburbanisation of Canada Bay.  These houses are extremely important to the heritage and period character of Canada Bay.”

 

Comment

 

Development Application No.D131/06 – alterations to existing garage for use as a studio/living area and erection of double garage and front fence.  It is considered that the issues raised have been adequately considered in the assessment of D131/06.  Development Application No.D283/06 – alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.  Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser was requested to comment on the original proposal which proposed the maximum ridge height of the additions be level with the top ridge of the existing dwelling.

 

His major concern was the height and volume of the roof and large expanse of extended wall area, which has the greatest impact on the south and west elevations.  This may be considerably relieved by lowering the ridge height of the new wing to match the ridge of the east wing (approx. 800mm).  The height of the eaves will be lower, greatly reducing the massing at the prominent south west corner.  Some internal replanning will be necessary in the vicinity of Bedroom 4, the store and bathroom.  The lowering of the ridgeline will improve the composition of the north elevation by increasing the symmetry of the roof forms.

 

As a result the architect submitted amended plans showing:

 

1.         The ridge height lowered by 800mm to match the ridge height of the eastern ridge.

 

2.         Springing height of the new roof lowered by approximately 400mm by forming a coffered ceiling within.

 

3.         First floor plan reduced by 7.0m2, again to reduce the apparent bulk.

 

4.         Western elevation windows reduced in size and are designed to replicate windows found in the existing building with multi-panes to sashes.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser was requested to comment on the amended plans and are as follows:

 

            “I refer to the letter by Brian McDonald, heritage consultant to the owners of the neighbouring property, No. 36 Lucretia Avenue, in response to my report of 2 November 2006.

 

            The major concern I had of the development in its original form was the matter of excessive height and volume.  The design has been modified accordingly, and the revised proposal offers an improved solution.

 

            Brian McDonald is critical of the proposal on the grounds of  ‘correctness’ of the design in expressing Federation principles.  I agree that ideally, the preferred option would be to leave the original building totally intact or allow alteration with minimal intervention.  In reality however, owners of heritage properties should be allowed to redevelop and alter their buildings within the constraints of sympathetic design and retaining heritage significance.

 

            The amended proposal, in my opinion, is sympathetic with the original structure and is acceptable in terms of retaining significance of the Federation building.”

 

The issues raised in the letter from Brian McDonald and Associates regarding height (maximum ridge height and uppermost ceiling height), bulk, scale, siting and privacy are considered to have been adequately addressed earlier in this assessment.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in the DUAP Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.  The amended proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the conditions in the recommendation and to maintain the architectural integrity of the heritage dwelling.

 

Executive Manager’s Comments

 

Notwithstanding the substantial compliance with Council’s codes and guidelines for dwellings and the conclusion and recommendation of the assessing officer, the owner has requested that, in light of the deeply held concerns and objections of the neighbour of 36 Lucretia Avenue, the application for the office and garage be withdrawn.  The letter requesting withdrawal is attached (AT3).

 

The recommendation for the building additions and alterations are fully supported in the terms of the amended proposal.  The recommended conditions of consent have been amended having regard to the withdrawal of the Development Application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the amended application to carry out alterations and additions be approved subject to:

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers 2891 DA041B, DA100, DA111B, DA112B, DA300B, DA050B, DA051B, DA052B dated 29/11/06 and DA110, DA200B, DA201B dated 4/12/06 by Figgis and Jefferson, A1 dated 22/9/06 by Warren F Cole – Registered Surveyor and AZM4858 dated 10/11/98 by M S Green and Associates Pty. Ltd, Registered Surveyors.

 

2.         To provide privacy for No.36 Lucretia Avenue the proposed two bedroom windows in the western elevation at first floor level being either highlights with a sill height of at least 1.7m above first floor level or alternatively being of fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.7m above first floor level.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

3.         (1) The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

4.         (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

5.         (137)  Lane Cove Council charges a fee of $30 for the registration of any Part 4A Certificates (compliance, construction, occupation or subdivision certificates) issued by an accredited certifier under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

6.         (300)  A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Lane Cove local government area. The Order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council, which must be strictly and fully complied with, and the penalty for contravention of this Order is up to one million, one hundred thousand ($1,100,000).  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Tree Preservation Order must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

7.         (301)  Prior to any works commencing on site a Tree Preservation Order Work Authority must be obtained to remove or prune those trees identified on the approved plans to be removed or pruned for construction.

 

8.         (302)  The protection on site, without damage, of all existing trees, excepting those shown in the approved plan to be removed or pruned.  Irrespective of this consent permission from Council must be obtained for the removal or pruning of any trees, including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

 

9.         (303)  There must be no stockpiling of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or any other construction material or building rubbish on any nature strip, footpath, road or public open space park or reserve.

 

10.       (305)  All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  If during the course of construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

11.       (306) All materials brought onto the site must be weed free.

 

12.       (307a)  Any weeds listed under the Noxious Weeds Act must be continually eradicated ensuring there is no re-establishment.  Refer to council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au for further information.

 

13.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a locked container / cage.  Any  building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

 

14.       (317) A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected around the two (2) street tree encompassing the entire grass nature strip.  The area and shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and the soil levels within the fenced area shall remain undisturbed.

 

            A waterproof sign must be placed on every second panel stating ‘NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION AREA – this fence and sign are not to be removed or relocated for the work duration.’  Minimum size of the sign is to be A3 portrait with NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE in capital Arial Font size 100, and the rest of the text in Arial font size 65.   Such fencing and signage shall be erected PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE including demolition or site preparation and remain in place for the duration of the construction work. 

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

15.       224   Drainage Plans. The plans and supporting calculations of the proposed drainage

system, are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

·    On the stormwater system, an Environmental Pollution Control Pit is to be provided, just prior to system discharging to the receiving system.

 

Where a Private Certifier issues the Construction Certificate a copy must be provided to Council, once the Construction Certificate is issued.

 

16.       200   Design and Construction Standards.  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements as outlined within Council’s publication Requirements for Engineering Works and relevant Development Control Plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior To Construction Certificate

 

17.       207    Footpath Damage Bond. The applicant shall lodge with Council a $600 cash bond or bank guarantee to cover damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

18.       228      Control of Stormwater Runoff. The stormwater runoff from the proposed development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s standards and specifications for stormwater      drainage.

 

Details of the location of the new stormwater line/s and the point of connection to the existing system, are to be provided on the documentation, which is to be submitted and approved at the Construction Certificate stage.

 

Any elements of the existing stormwater system, (which are to be utilised), are to be checked and documented by a suitably qualified, practicing, hydraulic engineer, and if found to be satisfactory, they can be certified, as being in good working order.

 

Where an existing element does not comply with current standards, or not in “good working order” then the subject element is to be replaced.

 

19.       246      Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction“ prepared by LANDCOM  ‘Fourth Edition 2004, Volume 1’.These devices shall be maintained during the construction works and replaced where considered necessary.

 

The following details are to be included in drawings accompanying the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan:

 

·        Location and design criteria of erosion and sediment control structures,

·        Site access point/s and means of limiting material leaving the site

·        Means of diversion of uncontaminated upper catchment around disturbed areas

·        Procedures for maintenance of erosion and sediment controls

·        Details and procedures for dust control.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Commencement of Construction

 

20.       201      Restoration.  Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed road and footway areas for the purpose of             connection to    public utilities will be carried out by Council following submission of a permit application and payment of appropriate fees.     Repairs of damage to any public  stormwater drainage facility will be carried out by Council following receipt of payment.

 

21.       222      Pedestrian Access Maintained. Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS 1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

22.       249      Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to any disturbance of the existing site. The devices are to be         installed in accordance with an approved plan. These devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced where considered necessary.  Suitable erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater runoff from the site.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate

                                                                          

23.       254a   Certificate of Satisfactory Completion.  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber, or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters.  The plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to (a) issue of any Occupation Certificate, or (b) Occupancy or use of the development.

 

            a)          Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in a satisfactory manner. Reference is to be made to the following:                             

                        (a) An Environmental Pollution Control Pit on the lowest point of the system. 

           

            b)         Confirming that all relevant sections of the existing drainage system are in good working order and complies with Council’s requirements and relevant codes and standards, and

 

            c)         Confirming that all new elements the site drainage servicing the development comply with the approved construction plan requirements and Lane Cove Council’s ‘standards and specification for stormwater drainage’.

 

            d)         Confirming all works have been completed in accordance with the issued Construction Certificate and other relevant approvals and in accordance with the Conditions of this determination.

 

            The Certificates are to state that the construction of the above items complies with the approved construction plan requirements and any relevant elements from Lane Cove Council’s ‘standards and specifications for stormwater drainage’.  (If Council is appointed the Principal Certifying Authority [PCA] then the          appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council with the subject documentation.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Letter of withdrawal from Figgis & Jefferson Pty Ltd

1 Page

 

 CNL050307ES_17.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 17   *****

             

***** END OF AGENDA *****