|
INSPECTION
COMMITTEE
|
|
|
3
MARCH 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Inspection Committee
at the Meeting 3 March
2007
30/01/2007 to Inspection Committee
Environmental Services Division Report No. 17
Subject: 38 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville
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and new double garage has been withdrawn by the applicant on 23 February 2007,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
|
|
INS030307ES_17.doc
***** End of Environmental Services Division
Report No. 17 *****
***** END OF AGENDA
*****
