Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Planning and Building Committee

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:          19 March 2007

 

LOCATION:                          Council Chambers

 

TIME:                                    8:00PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 


PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

ITEM                                                  REPORT CONTENT                                                PAGE

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING – 19 FEBRUARY 2007

 

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 68

SUBJECT: 16 Private Road, Northwood

  

 

 

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

 

               


PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Planning and Building Committee at the Meeting 19 March 2007

6/03/2007 to Planning and Building Committee

Environmental Services Division Report No. 68

Subject:           16 Private Road, Northwood    

Record No:     DA05/357-01 - 4946/07

Author(s):       Sam Pratt 

 

 

Property:                      Construction of a new two storey dwelling, separate two car garage and swimming pool on vacant lot

 

DA No:                        DA357/05

 

Date Lodged:               15 November 2005, amended plans 20 July 2006

 

Cost of Work:              $950,000

 

Owner :                       Mr and Mrs R Webber

 

Author:             Connor Siwak and Associates

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Construction of a new two storey dwelling, separate two car garage and swimming pool on vacant lot.

ZONE

Residential 2(a2)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes from 23.2.06 – 13.7.06; 2.8.06 – 30.8.06 and 24.11.06 – 13.3.07

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   12, 13, 14 Private Road. 74, 74A, 76, 78, 80A Northwood Road. 53 Cliff Road.

Ward Councillors         A Smith, K. Freedman and J Hassarati

Other Interest Groups   Northwood Resident Action Group

 

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

This application has been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Clr Freedman and Clr Smith.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

The proposal is for the erection of a two storey dwelling. The proposal also includes a separate garage for the parking of 2 vehicles and the erection of a swimming pool.

 

The subject land is currently vacant and is the result of an approved subdivision. The subdivision was created from part of the rear sections of two adjoining parcels of land.  In approving the subdivision Council had regard to indicative designs that sought to minimise anticipated impacts that a future dwelling might create.  This proposal does not sufficiently have regard to resolving issues identified at the subdivision stage.

 

Whilst the proposed amended development satisfies Council’s Code in terms of the numerical requirements (except for the separate garage) the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to its affect on adjoining properties in relation to solar access and overshadowing. Further, the proposed design does not allow for reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and the private open space areas within the subject site during the winter solstice. The proposed design will also have an affect on the significant trees on site. Further, it is considered that the design layout would have an affect in terms of privacy and amenity loss to adjoining properties together with the bulk and scale of the proposal on those adjoining properties. A number of objections were received to the amended proposal.

 

The proposal is unable to be supported in its current form and refusal is recommended.

 

SITE:

 

The subject land is located on the southern side of Private Road and is a battle axe allotment. The legal description of the land is Lot 2 DP 1041458 and has a total area of 653.5 square metres.

 

The site falls from the road level to the rear and is vacant land with trees along the rear and eastern boundary. The site is effectively two levels with the access handle being one level and the internal area of the site at another level. A significant tree is located at the end of the access handle at the commencement of the site proper. A number of significant trees are within or adjoin the site. A large palm tree is near the western boundary on the lower level of the site.  Copy of Site Plan and Notification Plan is attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

 

The site is a result of an approved subdivision created from the rear yard areas of 2 existing lots.

 

Recent site inspections reveal the subject site is vacant with some existing improvements such as rock/sandstone walls, garden areas and the like from past residential use, however the overall site has run into disrepair and is now extensively overgrown.

 

 

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The dominant form of development in the locality is of a residential nature and comprises of a mixture of single and two storey detached dwelling houses.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The subject site is currently vacant.

 

The proposal is to construct a new two (2) storey dwelling. The proposal also includes a detached double garage and in ground swimming pool.

 

The dwelling proposes a sub floor storeroom with two levels of residential space above. The ground floor level consists of a family/living room, dining and kitchen areas with the main entry point and large deck areas surrounding that level. The lower floor level, with access by stairs, consists of a master bedroom with ensuite and deck area, a further two bedrooms and a separate guest bedroom, a bathroom, a TV room and a separate laundry.

 

The roof area provides a small roof terrace centrally located in the building and roof area with internal stair access. The roof design allows the terrace to be setback from the extremities of the building to reduce overlooking.

 

The ground floor level also provides access over paved (ramp) areas to the in ground swimming pool.

 

Ramped paved areas and stairs allow access to and from the double garage from within the site and dwelling. The proposed garage is separate from the dwelling and is proposed to be located on the upper level, the same level as the access handle area. A significant tree is located near/adjacent to the proposed garage location. The garage provides for the parking of two motor vehicles and a single turning bay for the garage is also provided.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

The subject site is the result of a subdivision approval by Council on 1 November 2001 (D193/00).

 

The site was originally part of No 14 Private Road and No 76 Northwood Road. The proposal was for the Torrens Title subdivision of 2 residential lots to create an additional lot”.

 

The proposal involved subdividing the rear portion from each property and consolidating the two portions to create a third Torrens Title residential lot.

 

During assessment and as part of the subdivision Development Application, Council requested the submission of a concept plan showing a proposed dwelling on the proposed subdivision lot.

 

The concept plan lodged with the subdivision provided a carport styled design and private open space area on the upper level within and adjacent to the access handle. A two level dwelling was proposed and set back into the rock face on the lower level. Entry to the dwelling was from the upper level adjacent to the car parking area.

 

The concept design dwelling comprised of 4 bedrooms and games room with bar on the lower level and kitchen, dining, living and formal dining together with the entry on the upper level. Calculations revealed that the proposed concept designed dwelling had an approximate Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.3:1 (approximately 165.0sq metres). It was considered to be more than adequate in terms of design, amenity both within the site and externally and addressed privacy issues and solar access.

 

With the concept dwelling setback into the rock wall on the lower level and with the design of the dwelling on this elevation it allowed a significant setback to the southern boundary of some 5 to 6 metres, which addressed privacy and overshadowing issues.

 

During the course of the subdivision application a number of submissions were received objecting to the proposal. One issue related to Overshadowing. The comment in reply within the Council report suggested that it would “be feasible to design a moderate sized dwelling which does not substantially alter the shadowing already affecting No 80A……”.

 

More importantly in terms of the Suitability of the site the report stated that “It would be feasible to include a small two storey building set against the cliff,………..”.

 

Further, a condition of consent required the retention of all trees (not including the Palm tree) on the site and that was indicated on an annexure plan lodged with Council and retained in the subdivision file.

 

Within the subdivision DA file and subsequent report to Council it was obvious that the submitted concept dwelling design plan assisted Council in the determination of the subdivision application.

 

The concept plan indicated that the modest two storey dwelling would not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of views, privacy and solar access.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

- Dwelling house

 

Site Area (551.9m2) excludes access handle of 101.6m2

 

 

        PROPOSED

             CODE

  COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio        (max)

         0.43 :1 ( m2)

               0.5:1

         Yes

Soft Landscaped Area  (min)

             39%

               35%

         Yes

Side Boundary Setback             (min)

          1.5m (West)

          1.5m (East)

      2.6m – 4.2m (rear)

             1500mm

             1500mm

           

         Yes

         Yes

Overall Height (m)          (max)

             8.0m

               9.5m

         Yes

Ceiling Height (m)           (max)

             6.9m

               7.0m

         Yes

No of Storeys

               2

                 2

         Yes

Building Line                   (max)

           17.04m        

        Battleaxe Lot

         Yes        

Foreshore Building Line (min)

             N/A

               N/A

         N/A

Cut and Fill                      (max)

  2.0m (swimming pool)

                1.0m                    

          No

Deck/Balcony width        (max)

            2.5m         

 

  3m (if elevated by >1m)

         Yes

Solar Access                   (min)

          

             3 hours

          No

 BASIX                          (min)

   Amended BASIX    report not submitted

        

          No

 

- Swimming pool

 

 

       PROPOSED

                 CODE

  COMPLIES

Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House  (min)

             5.4m    

 

                    3m

         Yes

Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level  (min)

            

             1.5m

       900mm from internal face of pool

      450mm from edge of concourse

         

         Yes

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level  (min)

             1.5m              

 

      900mm from edge of concourse

         Yes

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space   (min)

             N/A

  1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

         N/A

Height (max)

           3000mm

            1800mm

          No

Setback if height is >1800mm (min)

           2500mm

  1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

          No

Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?

      1.8m fence and landscaping

      Screening required

         Yes

 

 

- Outbuilding (garage)

 

 

       PROPOSED

                 CODE

  COMPLIES

Height

            2.45m         

 

                   3.6m               

         Yes

Storey

 

      Single storey

             Single storey

         Yes

Setback

 

           Nil (North)

           Nil (East)    

                900mm

                900mm

         No

         No

10% allotment size (55.0m2)

 

      41.68m2 (7.5%)

                 55.0m

         Yes

 Roof space

 

               Nil

        Loft or storage space

         N/A

Occupy not more than 2/3 of allotment

      Less than 2/3

                   2/3

         Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the hydraulic drawings and advises that:

 

“The following information is required before further assessment can be made:

 

·    Submittal of amended stormwater plans.

 

Required drainage plan amendments.  The drainage system must incorporate all of the following points:

 

a.   An Environmental Pollution Control Pit is to be provided, just prior to system discharging to the receiving system.

 

b.   Deletion of the OSD system.

 

c.   A reuse tank with a minimum effective capacity of 10000L.  An overflow from the reuse tank is to drain to the easement.

 

d.   The run-off from the “on ground” paved areas is NOT to be directed to the rainwater tank, but is to be directed to the pollution control pit before discharging to the easement.

 

e.   The reuse tank is to be “plumbed in” to all toilets in the development and one outdoor tap in proximity to the pool to allow for topping up.

 

f.    Stormwater pit P2 and  stormwater line L2 is to be relocated to have a minimum intrusion into tree protection zone of the brush box.”

 

Manager Open Space

 

Council’s Landscape Architect and Tree Preservation Officer have provided combined comment. Council’s Landscape Architect by memo, dated 22 February 2007, states, in part……

 

According to Council’s Significant Tree Policy

Council will give priority to the preservation of significant trees. The development must aim to maximise the preservation of trees or tree stands and the application must include strategies for the maintenance of their long term health.

The proposed development is of considerable scale in relation to the size and shape of the block of land. The future intent for this block when the subdivision was approved indicated and illustrated a modest dwelling house.

Therefore, based on our original concerns we do not support this application in its present state. The scale of construction works and  the associative site modifications required above and below the ground will have a direct and accumulative impact on the trees indicated to be retained, particularly the Significant Brushbox (Lophostemon confertus) on subject site.

In addition, there would be considerable crown loss and potential mechanical damage to the Brushbox on the adjoining property No 14 based on the proposed development.

The proposal and the associated construction works will affect the long term viability of the Brush Box and will be compromised as a result of:

· The impact of the construction process (mechanical damage to tree trunk and limbs, soil compaction and soil contamination)

 

· The close proximity of the garage, driveway and pool to the tree (root loss and change in hydrology).

The Brushbox  trees (Lophostemon confertus) at No 16 & 14 are Significant in terms of their health, potential life expectancy, canopy presence, backdrop and street visibility and amenity.”

 

Manager Bushland

 

Not applicable

 

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

 

Not applicable

 

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

 

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment At 1979, as amended, and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposed works involve the erection of a two storey dwelling house, swimming pool and separate two car garage and is permissible with Consent.

 

ACID SULFATE SOILS

In terms of Lane Cove Council’s ‘Draft’ LEP 2005 Acid Sulfate Soil map the subject site, in part, is not listed as being affected in terms of Acid Sulfate Soils.

Other Planning Instruments

[SEPPS, SREPS, REPS]

 

SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7 of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination. Accordingly, there is considered to be no contamination issue.

 

 

 

 

Applicable Regulations

 

The proposal involves the erection of a two storey dwelling house, swimming pool and separate two car garage within the subject site. Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must take into consideration Australian Standard (AS 2601-1991): The Demolition of Structures as in force July 1993.

 

 

VARIATIONS TO COUNCIL’S CODES/POLICIES

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

 

1.         Cut and Fill

Council’s Code for Dwellings specifies under Design, Density and Streetscape that,

 

              Objectives:

 

a.   Dwellings be designed with regard to site conditions so as to minimise their impact on the landform.

b.   Dwellings blend into the natural landscape.

c.   Dwelling designs have regard to the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

              Standards:

 

                   1.    A minimum of cut and fill on-site, limited to no more than 1m cut or 1m of fill at any point on the site.”

 

The proposal does not comply with this requirement in terms of a certain area of the proposed swimming pool. The lower portion of the eastern section and the southern section of the proposed pool does not comply with Council’s Cut and Fill requirements. Due to the slope of the land in that location and the construction of the pool the site requires 2.0m of Fill in order to create a level area for the pool. This is as a result of the site having existing upper (access handle and small level area) and lower levels (main section of site).

 

Comment:

 

Variation is considered reasonable in order to create levels conducive to residential living and amenity within the subject site. However, whilst this is reasonable it is considered that this non-compliance may adversely impact on the adjoining property at No 14 Private Road in terms of loss of amenity due to possible overlooking. Specific conditions of consent for fencing, screen planting and landscaping would address this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Solar Access

 

Objective

 

Provide reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas.

 

Standard

 

Building or additions shall be so designed and orientated so as to give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational areas of the adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22nd June. In particular, dwellings are to be so located and designed that a portion of north facing windows of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9am and 3pm on 22nd June.”  

 

Comment:

 

Assessment of the application in terms of the amended plans has revealed that the proposal would overshadow the principal private open space area/s and windows to habitable rooms of the property to the south of the subject site, No 80A Northwood Road.

 

In relation to Council’s requirements for reasonable solar access to adjoining recreational areas the proposed development overshadows the private open space area (north facing) of the property at No 80A Northwood Road and is considered unreasonable in the circumstances. 

 

In addition it should be noted that as part of any Planning Principle the design does not allow for reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and the private open space areas of the proposed design within the subject site and therefore the proposal would also be in constant shadow for most of the day on the 22 June. The lack of adequate solar access within the site would significantly impact on the amenity of the future occupants of the proposed dwelling.

 

3.         BASIX

 

Comment:

 

As part of the development application the applicant was required to submit an amended BASIX report. It should be noted that at the time of writing this report the amended report has not been submitted.

 

4.         Swimming pool

 

Height and Setback

 

“Objective

 

To promote good pool design which recognises site constraints and enhances the natural and built environment.

 

 

 

 

General Requirements

 

d.  The maximum height of the pool concourse shall not exceed 1800mm at any point above natural ground level (measured immediately below that section of the concourse). A concourse may exceed 1800mm if its edge is setback from the boundary at a ratio of 1:1.”

 

Comment:

 

This control for the proposed pool within the development does not comply with Council’s requirement, in that, the excessive height in the lower portion of the eastern section and the southern section of the proposed pool requires a 3.0m eastern boundary setback. The applicant is only proposing a 2.5m boundary setback.

 

A specific condition of consent for a 3.0m setback on the eastern boundary in the area of non compliance would address this issue and this may require a minor redesign of the pool.

 

5.         Outbuilding (garage)

 

Objective

 

Outbuildings (Class 10) to Dwelling houses shall be of a design and use, materials and colours that are compatible with the existing or proposed development and shall be in keeping with the amenity of the adjoining development.

 

Standard

 

A minimum setback of 900mm from the boundaries….” 

 

Comment:

 

The applicant has not provided any argument in the documentation submitted with the application in terms of the possible affect on adjoining properties of the free standing garage to be located on a nil boundary setback to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.

 

A variation (the nil boundary setback) to the Code requirement may be considered if there will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties.

 

The property to the north of the proposed garage (No 12 Private Road) has, on its southern elevation, a number of windows, in particular, windows for their main living/family and dining area. This living area to No 12 Private Road is where the owners/occupants have their meals and is their primary entertainment area. The distance from the main window to the proposed garage on the nil boundary setback is 1.5 metres. The sill height of the subject window is RL43.807 and the topmost height of the proposed garage is RL44.950, which, in effect would mean the occupants of No 12 Private will look ‘skyward’ rather then ‘outward’ to the views that they currently enjoy out over the site.

 

In addition, it is considered that the proposed location of the garage would adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, noise and visual amenity. It should be noted that the area where the double garage is to be erected would be better utilised for a private open space area as previously indicated on the concept plan lodged with the subdivision application.

 

In view of the above comments it is considered that the non compliance cannot be supported.

 

Section 79C(1)(b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

Environmental Impact

 

Comment:

Based on the information supplied by the applicant and assessment of the application it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the surrounding environment in terms of stormwater, soil erosion and land contamination.

Natural Hazards

 

Comment:

The site is not in an area recognised by Council as being subject to flooding, subsidence, bushfires, slip or any other major risk.

 

Water and Air Quality Impacts

 

Comment:

The proposed development due to its nature is not likely to cause pollution of any nearby waterway, nor will it generate any liquid waste, odour or fumes. The proposal is not likely to have an adverse impact in terms of air or water quality.

Soil and Water Management

 

Comment:

The proposed development would not adversely impact on the quality of soil on the site and adjoining properties.

 

Best management practices will be implemented to control runoff and soil erosion and to trap sediment in order to maintain satisfactory water quality in downstream areas. The discharge of water to adjoining lands is to be minimised by specific conditions of consent if the application is approved.

 

Neighbourhood Amenity and Internal Amenity

 

Comment:

The subject development application is for a two storey dwelling house, swimming pool and separate two car garage.

 

The development application lodged with Council has been assessed with regard to the amenity to adjoining neighbours with particular emphasis on Council’s Codes and Policies.

 

Assessment of the application in terms of the amended plans has revealed that the proposal would overshadow the principal private open space area/s and affect the habitable windows of the property to the south of the subject site, No 80A Northwood Road during the winter solstice.

 

In relation to Council’s requirements for reasonable solar access to adjoining recreational areas the proposed development overshadows the private open space area (north facing) of the property at No 80A Northwood Road and is considered unreasonable in the circumstances. 

 

Also, a number of recent Land and Environment Court Cases in terms of Planning Principles have indicated, in particular, that internal amenity must be assessed for all development. Not only do numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design.

 

As part of the assessment in terms of these Planning Principles, (in particular, internal amenity) the design does not allow for reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and the private open space areas of the proposed design within the subject site and therefore the proposal would be in constant shadow for most of the day on the 22 June. The lack of adequate solar access within the site would significantly impact on the amenity of the future occupants of the proposed dwelling.

 

Traffic Impact

 

Comment:

Due to the nature of the development it is considered unlikely that the traffic generation from the development would adversely impact on the performance of intersections in the locality.

 

Impact on Utility Services

 

Comment:

All utility services are available to the site and appropriate arrangements and any conditions would require the applicant to address these issues with the relevant Service Authorities. In view of the nature of the development it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on existing utility services in the area.

 

Impacts During Construction

 

Comment:

 

Council’s Landscape Architect and Tree Preservation Officer have raised objection to the proposed development in terms of the following:

 

“The proposed development is of considerable scale in relation to the size and shape of the block of land. The future intent for this block when the subdivision was approved indicated and illustrated a modest dwelling house.

Therefore, based on our original concerns we do not support this application in its present state. The scale of construction works and  the associative site modifications required above and below the ground will have a direct and accumulative impact on the trees indicated to be retained, particularly the Significant Brushbox (Lophostemon confertus) on subject site.

In addition, there will be considerable crown loss and potential mechanical damage to the Brushbox on the adjoining property No 14 based on the proposed development.

The proposal and the associated construction works will affect the long term viability of the Brush Box and will be compromised as a result of:

· The impact of the construction process (mechanical damage to tree trunk and limbs, soil compaction and soil contamination)

 

· The close proximity of the garage, driveway and pool to the tree (root loss and change in hydrology).

The Brushbox  trees (Lophostemon confertus) at No 16 & 14 are Significant in terms of their health, potential life expectancy, canopy presence, backdrop and street visibility and amenity.”

 

Site Attributes Conducive to Development

 

Comment:

The subject site is not conducive to the development proposed. 

 

Social and Economic Impact

 

Comment:

Due to the nature of the development it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the social and economic environment of the area.

 

Public Domain

 

Comment:

The development would not adversely impact upon any linkages and access between the development and public areas. If approval is granted for the development a condition of approval would be imposed requiring that all works associated with the development would be contained entirely within the site and will not impact on the public domain.

 

Cumulative Traffic Impacts

 

Comment:

Any cumulative impact, particularly in respect of traffic generation would not be significant as the local road system is capable of supporting the proposed development.

 

Section 79C(1)(c)   The suitability of the site for the development.    

 

Having regard to the site area and site characteristics and the potential environmental impacts the proposal will have on the site and the locality the development it is considered that the proposal in its current format is unacceptable and should be refused.

 

 

 

 

Section 79C(1)(d)  Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations.

 

It is considered that all relevant planning matters have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this proposed development. 

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION  - Section 79C(1)(e)   The public interest.

 

The original application was neighbour notified (including occupiers) on 7 December 2005 and nine (9) submissions were lodged with Council.

 

The amended application was neighbour notified (including occupiers) on 20 July 2006 and fourteen (14) submissions were lodged with Council.  

 

The issues raised in the submissions received with regard to the amended plans are summarised as follows:

 

- Overshadowing of No 80A Northwood Road

 

Comment:

It should be noted that the applicant’s architect, as a result of the objection received, provided 3D representations of the shadow affect on No 80A Northwood Road (also known as ‘Squirrel Lodge’) in relation to the private open space area/s and windows on that property’s northern elevation.

 

The objection received states that overshadowing (apart from other issues) by the amended proposal is a significant issue in terms of the proposal’s affect on the objector’s property.

 

Two issues arise, namely the overshadowing affect on the north facing windows and to the principal private open space area of No 80A Northwood Road.

 

The north facing windows of No 80A Northwood Road comprise of windows to the sunroom/enclosed verandah and to the kitchen. The 3D representations indicate that overshadowing will occur to these windows on 22 June. The amended plans for the proposal clearly indicate that the amended design will still affect these living areas of No 80A Northwood Road at this time of year.

 

The principal open space area of No 80A Northwood Road is a north facing courtyard/patio area located within the north eastern corner of that property and adjoins the subject property on its common rear (southern) boundary.

 

Part of this area and attached to the dwelling is a clear ‘ancelite’ awning and provides filtered light to this area. The north facing wall of the dwelling to the courtyard has double doors and windows to the master bedroom. The objector states that “the ‘ancelite’ awning maximises the amount of filtered sunlight and natural light entering the master bedroom and kitchen”.

 

The courtyard area to No 80A Northwood Road provides an outdoor dining table, lounge and chairs. The objector states that the “area is much used by the family in all seasons.”.

 

In relation to Council’s requirements for reasonable solar access to adjoining recreational areas the proposed development overshadows the private open space area (north facing) of the property at No 80A Northwood Road and is considered unreasonable in the circumstances. 

 

Calculations by the objector from No 80A Northwood Road and also during the assessment of the application of the shadow affect by the proposal on the property at No 80A Northwood Road for the verandah/sunroom, kitchen and the external courtyard area indicate that the affected areas of that property on 22 June will have approximately 69% of the day of considerable shadow to those areas on that particular day.

 

Although new, the owner of No 80A Northwood Road has skylights to the northern elevation of the roof and these will be in constant shadow on 22 June.

 

Whilst there have been amendments to the original plans in order to address the initial concerns raised in relation to the shadow affect on No 80A Northwood Road it is considered that the amendments have not been sufficient to satisfy the concerns raised and also satisfy the assessment of the proposal in terms of the proposal’s affect by shadows and solar access to adjoining properties.

 

- Loss of privacy to No 80A Northwood Road

 

Comment:

The objector at No 80A Northwood Road states that “there is severe overlooking by the proposed development into our skylights and all of our kitchen and sunroom windows.”.

 

The original design, at the ground floor (upper level), proposed an external deck area and a number of large windows to the proposal’s southern elevation in order to maximise views.

 

The amended design at this level moved the deck area to the west, however still located off the southern elevation, and provided large planter boxes on the deck area and maintained the large windows looking south.

 

It is considered that privacy issues still arise in terms of the amended design as line-of-sight diagrams provided by the applicant’s architect clearly indicate overlooking into the window and private open space areas of the objector’s property.

 

- Proposed garage-loss of privacy and amenity

 

Comment:

The owners of No 12 Private Road (adjoins the eastern side of the access handle of the site) raise objection to the location of the proposed separate, two car garage. This garage is proposed to be located on the upper level of the site at the end and to the east of the access handle.

 

The northern and eastern walls of the proposed garage are to be erected on a nil boundary setback in order for the garage to be built in that location. Any setback/s on the abovementioned boundary/s would not allow a garage of that size to be built in that location.

 

A variation (the nil boundary setback) to the Code requirement may be considered if there will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties.

The property at No 12 Private Road has, on its southern elevation, a number of windows, in particular, windows for their main living/family and dining area. This living area to No 12 Private Road is where the owners/occupants have their meals and is their primary entertainment area. The distance from the main window to the proposed garage, on the nil boundary setback, is 1.5 metres. The sill height of the subject window is RL43.807 and the topmost height of the proposed garage is RL44.950, which, in effect will mean the occupants of No 12 Private will have ‘skyward’ rather then ‘outward’ views that they currently enjoy out over the site.

 

In addition, it is considered that the proposed location of the garage will adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, noise and visual amenity. It should be noted that the area where the double garage is to be erected would be better utilised for a private open space area as previously indicated on the concept plan lodged with the subdivision application.

 

- Roof top viewing terrace-privacy

 

Comment: 

A number of objections raised concern to the proposed roof top viewing terrace.

 

The proposed terrace is to be located in a central location of the roof structure and is proposed to be accessed by an internal stair from the level below, ground floor (upper living level). The proposed roof is of a mansard style and the terrace area has reasonable setback, on all sides, from the edges of the roof area.

 

Council has no Code requirement for rooftop terrace areas and it has to be assessed on merit.

 

Three adjoining properties need to be assessed in terms of the terrace location:

 

No 80A Northwood Road

 

This property is directly to the south of the site and is at a much lower level. The rooftop terrace is setback on this elevation and it is considered that there will be no overlooking from the proposed terrace to this particular property.

 

No 12 Private Road

 

This objector raised the proposed terrace as an issue in their submission in terms of overlooking and privacy. The objector states that the terrace will have a direct line of sight into their main upstairs bedroom.

 

In terms of levels the objector’s residence this residence is effectively above the level of the proposed terrace and the terrace is some 22 to 26 metres away from that residence. Whilst there may be an issue with privacy two matters need to be assessed, firstly the distance from the terrace to the main bedroom and the type of room affected. As mentioned previously the bedroom is some 22 metres distance from the terrace and, secondly the room (a bedroom) is not a high use room. Given the above comments the terrace to this subject property is considered sufficient in terms of any privacy issues.

 

No 14 Private Road

 

The relevant RL’s for this particular property indicates that it will be below the finished floor level (RL) of the proposed terrace. The setback of the proposed terrace to the edge of the roof, in that location, varies from 3.0 metres to 6.0 metres and is considered to be sufficient in terms of privacy and overlooking.   

 

Nos 74A, 76 and 78 Northwood Road were also assessed in terms of the location of the proposed terrace and the possible amenity affect on these properties. The design and location of the terrace in relation to these properties is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

- Loss of views

 

Comment:

It is considered that certain views will be lost given the location of the site, central to a number of surrounding, established properties. The view loss is somewhat tempered by the existence on the site and surrounding properties of a number of trees, some significant.

 

In terms of design any form of dwelling erected on the site would create view loss, it is a matter of how much.

 

As previously mentioned views would be lost to No 12 Private Road and would affect the amenity of that residence by the construction of a garage adjacent to that property’s primary entertainment area (see Proposed garage-loss of privacy and amenity above).

 

Similarly, views will be lost, in part, to No 74A Northwood Road to the city and water from that property’s main living areas. It should be noted that height poles have been erected and remain on the subject site. These height poles were erected at the beginning of the 2005 year. The poles would relate to the original plans, however they give a clear indication that views will be lost to the main living areas of No 74A Northwood Road.

 

Council’s Code is very specific at Clause 3.3, in particular,

 

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

 

In view of the above comments it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy Council’s Codes and requirements in terms of view loss and view sharing.

 

- Inadequate vehicle access and danger to pedestrians

 

Comment:

This objection suggests that the access point to the site is inadequate for vehicular access and may be a danger to pedestrians.

 

As indicated the site is a battle axe block. The site is accessed by the ‘handle’ from Private Road. The ‘handle’ is some 6 metres wide and some 17 metres in length before you enter the site proper.

 

Adequate Engineering conditions were applied to the subdivision application in terms of vehicular access to the site. The upper area of the land including the access handle is of sufficient size for the occupant’s vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

 

 

 

 

 

- Overdevelopment of the site

 

Comment:

The proposed amended development complies with the basic numerical requirements of Council’s Code in terms of Floor Space Ratio, overall height and ceiling height, setbacks and landscaping and is not an overdevelopment of the site in terms of the numerical requirements.

 

- Damage to adjoining properties from construction vehicles

 

Comment:

This objection raises issue with the possible congestion by trucks, at the Private Road entry point to the site, delivering building materials together with other types of construction vehicles and cement mixers. It is acknowledged that the entry point to the site in terms of construction vehicles may cause congestion in that area and it would be prudent to require specific traffic management conditions if consent was issued to the proposal.

 

- Privacy (Nos 74A and 76 Northwood Road)

 

Comment:

There are sufficient distances between the two existing dwellings and the proposed dwelling in terms any affect relating to aural and visual privacy as it relates to residential amenity between these properties.

 

- Proposed three (3) storey dwelling

 

Comment:

The proposed dwelling is a two storey dwelling and complies with all the numerical requirements of Council’s Code in relation to height and cut and fill.

 

- Solar access (76 and 78 Northwood Road)

 

Comment:

The proposed site adjoins these two properties at both rear boundaries. Both sites are to the west of the subject site.

 

Both sites are partially affected by shadow to their rear yard areas on 22 June at 9.00am and this reduces into the day. There is no affectation from approximately 11.00am onwards. In this regard the proposal complies with the solar access requirements to both of these properties in terms of Council’s Code requirements.

 

- Bulk and scale

 

Comment:

This matter has been raised in terms of the overbearing aspect of the design, particularly the affect on the property to the south, No 80A Northwood Road. In order to maximise views from the proposed dwelling the design has the dwelling on a pier construction creating an undercroft area (with basement) to the dwelling. This, in turn, raises the dwelling up above the natural ground level and, as stated, appears to maximise the views to the south and, in particular, the south west out and over No 80A Northwood Road.

The height control in Council’s Code, in part, states that “bulk and scale of new dwellings” are designed “so that they are in harmony with the surrounding buildings.”  

 

Historically, if one views the concept dwelling design lodged with the previous subdivision application and the comments made regarding a dwelling on the site in that it would “be feasible to design a moderate sized dwelling……” and in terms of the Suitability of the site that “It would be feasible to include a small two storey building set against the cliff,………..” then this current design is far in excess of a possible design to the site that would/should address bulk and scale, in particular the overbearing affect to No 80A Northwood Road.

 

- Trees

 

Comment:

Retention of the existing trees was paramount in relation the previous subdivision approval of the site. A tree annexure plan was attached to Council’s file.

 

The proposed amended design to this application intends to maintain the trees.

 

Council’s Landscape Architect and Tree Preservation Officer do not support the proposal, in its current form, and advise, in part, as follows:

 

According to Council’s Significant Tree Policy

Council will give priority to the preservation of significant trees. The development must aim to maximise the preservation of trees or tree stands and the application must include strategies for the maintenance of their long term health.

The proposed development is of considerable scale in relation to the size and shape of the block of land. The future intent for this block when the subdivision was approved indicated and illustrated a modest dwelling house.

Therefore, based on our original concerns we do not support this application in its present state. The scale of construction works and  the associative site modifications required above and below the ground will have a direct and accumulative impact on the trees indicated to be retained, particularly the Significant Brushbox (Lophostemon confertus) on subject site.

In addition, there will considerable crown loss and potential mechanical damage to the Brushbox on the adjoining property No 14 based on the proposed development.

The proposal and the associated construction works will affect the long term viability of the Brush Box and will be compromised as a result of:

· The impact of the construction process (mechanical damage to tree trunk and limbs, soil compaction and soil contamination)

 

· The close proximity of the garage, driveway and pool to the tree (root loss and change in hydrology).

The Brushbox  trees (Lophostemon confertus) at No 16 & 14 are Significant in terms of their health, potential life expectancy, canopy presence, backdrop and street visibility and amenity.”

 

- Floor and deck heights-privacy and overlooking

 

Comment:

The amended design has taken account of the issues raised by objectors to the original design in terms of privacy and overlooking from decks and any external elevated areas of the site.

 

Some overlooking issues arise with the amended design, in particular, from the internal area of the dwelling on its southern elevation.

 

The amended design at this upper (ground) level moved the deck area to the west, however still located off the southern elevation, and provided large planter boxes on the deck area and maintained the large windows looking south.

 

It is considered that privacy issues still arise in terms of the amended design as line-of-sight diagrams provided by the applicant’s architect clearly indicate overlooking into the window and private open space areas of the objector’s property.

 

- Fill placed on site

 

Comment:

Two objections state that the subject site has had fill placed on the land following the subdivision approval in 2001.

 

A check of the survey plan (dated 4/2/2000) lodged with the subdivision file and the survey plan (dated 21/11/2005) lodged with the current application indicate no change in spot levels (RL’s) to both survey plans.

 

One objection suggests that:

 

“The applicants appear to have altered the natural ground level by building steps down to the lower level, by constructing a ramp to the lower level, by excavating down to the roc shelf and generally piling rocks against the natural rock face.”

 

Another objection states:

 

“…….the cliff face on 16 Private Road is no longer distinguishable because of boulders and fill that have been used to change the contour of the block. This work was carried out after the purchase……..”

 

Council’s Code defines Natural Ground Level as

 

“…the ground surface level prior to any cutting, filling and grading, and, where the existing ground level differs from the natural ground level, the natural ground level shall be determined by Council.”

 

If fill has been placed on the site following the subdivision approval then the proposed dwelling would be much higher (out of the ground) then indicated on the plans in accordance with the nominated RL’s (spot levels).

 

Site inspections did not reveal any new fill placed on the land, however, it should be noted that the whole of the site has now fallen into disrepair and the only avenue to assess if this claim is correct is to have an independent survey carried out to ascertain the correct spot levels.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987, and Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings.

 

The proposed development is for the erection of a two storey dwelling. The proposal also includes a separate garage for the parking of 2 vehicles and the erection of a swimming pool.

 

Whilst the proposed amended development satisfies Council’s Code in terms of the numerical requirements (except for the separate garage) the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to its affect on adjoining properties in relation to solar access and overshadowing. Further, the proposed design does not allow for reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and the private open space areas within the subject site during the winter solstice. The proposal would also have an affect on the significant trees on site. Also, it is considered that the design layout would have an affect in terms of privacy and amenity to adjoining properties together with the bulk and scale of the proposal on those adjoining properties. A number of objections were received to the amended proposal.

 

The proposed development deviates significantly from the indicative form proposed in the original subdivision which Council endorsed.

 

The proposal is unable to be supported in its current form. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application No. 357/05 for the erection of a two storey dwelling house, separate garage for the parking of 2 vehicles and the erection of a swimming pool at 16 Private Road Northwood be refused on the following grounds Nos. 1 –  15:

 

1.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 in relation to Clause 2 (1) (a) because it would not preserve, nor improve, the existing character and environmental quality of the site or reflect the solutions proposed in the subdivision creating this lot.

 

2.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 in relation to Clause 2 (2) (a) (i) and 2 (2) (a) (iii) because it would neither maintain, nor improve, the existing amenity and character of the locality because it would not be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality; and, because it would not have a sympathetic or harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

3.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 in relation to Clause 2 (2) (d) (ii) because the new dwelling would not be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality.

 

4.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy the Aims and Objectives of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation to Part 1 – Aims and Objectives, in particular, Part 1 - 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 because it would not result in a high standard of development; nor would it retain or improve the existing residential amenity of the area; and, nor would it achieve a high standard of residential amenity regarding matters such as privacy, views, solar access, parking and open space/landscaping.

 

5.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy Part 2 of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation to the Objectives of the Code because its design is not of a high quality and is insensitive to its environment, the constraints of the site and the location of neighbouring sites.

 

6.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy Part 3 of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation to the Objectives 3.1 - a, b and c and Standard 3.1 - 2 of the Code because it would not minimise its impact on the landform, or blend into the natural landscape; and because it does not have regard to the amenity of adjoining properties and it does not preserve existing trees.

 

7.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy Part 3.3 - Height of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation the location of the proposed, separate two car garage and with regard to the Objectives 3.3 – a and b of the Code because the height, bulk and scale of the development would not be in harmony with surrounding buildings and because the development would not minimise the disruption to existing views, nor achieve reasonable view sharing from adjacent dwellings.

 

8.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy Part 3.4 – Solar Access of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation to the Objective and Standard of the Code because it would not provide reasonable solar access to the habitable rooms and recreational areas of the proposed dwelling and/or No. 80A Northwood Road between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22nd June.

 

9.         Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy Part 3.6 – Privacy and Overlooking of Lane Cove Council Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings in relation to the Objective and Standards 1 and 2 of the Code because it would have a significant effect on the privacy of the occupants of adjoining sites because of the design and orientation of windows, balconies and decks in relation to adjoining dwellings, and because natural or constructed screening would not avoid overlooking of adjoining dwellings.

 

10.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal does not satisfy standard Planning Principles, in that, the proposed design does not allow for reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and the private open space areas within the subject site on 22 June.

 

11.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the proposal is considered to be of a Bulk and Scale that will affect the existing amenity of the adjoining property to the south of the subject site.

 

12.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as it is considered that the proposal will not satisfy Council’s Significant Tree Policy.

 

13.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as the proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site.

 

14.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, given the number of submissions received in relation to proposal.

 

15.       Whether the proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Copy of Site Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 PBC190307ES_68.doc***** 

 End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 68   ****   

 

 

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