|
ORDINARY COUNCIL
|
|
|
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO.
318
|
|
|
7 MAY 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Ordinary Council
at the Meeting 7 May 2007
9/01/2007 to Ordinary Council
Environmental Services Division Report No. 318
Subject: 8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove
Record No: DA06/367-01 - 511/07
Author(s): David
Campbell
Property: Lot 4 of DP11342 - 8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove
DA No: D367/06
Date Lodged: 13.12.06
Cost of Work: $84,870.00
Applicant: Archiworks
Architects Pty Ltd
Owner: David
& Rebecca Sim
|
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION
|
Alterations and
additions to existing single storey dwelling with partial demolition of the
existing dwelling at the rear of the property.
|
|
ZONE
|
Residential 2(a1)
|
|
IS THE PROPOSAL
PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?
|
Yes
|
|
IS THE PROPERTY A
HERITAGE ITEM?
|
No
|
|
IS THE PROPERTY
WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?
|
Yes
|
|
DOES DCP 1-
BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?
|
No
|
|
BCA CLASSIFICATION
|
Class 1a
|
|
STOP THE CLOCK USED
|
No
|
|
NOTIFICATION
|
Neighbours 316 Pacific Highway;
4,6, 10, 12 Cobden Avenue;
1 Haldane Crescent
Ward Councillors Tudge & Lawson
Progress Association Osborne Park Progress Association
|
REASON
FOR REFERRAL
The
application has been called to Council by Clr Longbottom due to concerns raised
by neighbours about loss of privacy, solar access and the appearance of the
building.
Further
an appeal has been lodged by the owner to the NSW Land
and Environment Court.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report assesses a proposal for
significant alteration and additions to the rear of an existing single storey
cottage. The additions include a mezzanine level with extensive glass façades,
a first floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling and a turret feature at the
rear of the house. The proposal was
notified to adjoining neighbours and two submissions were received raising
concerns at loss of privacy, loss of views and the style of the additions being
out of character with the area.
The
main issue of numeric non-compliance relate to FSR and side setback.
The application is currently the subject
of a class 4 appeal (No. 10269 of 2007) before the NSW Land and Environment Court under the
provision of deemed refusal. Council has engaged Pike, Pike and Fenwick,
Lawyers to defend the appeal.
The applicant has not submitted a Basix
Certificate with the application and contends the proposed additions and
alterations are less than $100K. This
may be an issue for the Court.
The
proposal is considered to be out of character with the area and presents a
significant impact to the amenity of adjoining residences together with numeric
non-compliances and is therefore recommended for refusal.
SITE
The subject site (Lot
4 DP 11342) is known as No.8
Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove, it is a regular-shaped
block measuring 13.715m wide by 40.84m long with a total site area of 559.9m2
and is located on the southern-eastern side of Cobden Avenue near where Cobden Avenue
intersects with the Pacific
Highway.
The site is currently
occupied by an existing single storey dwelling of brick and tiled roof
construction with an attached garage to the south-western side boundary, which
has access to Cobden Avenue
via an existing concrete driveway. The
site slopes gradually down from the north-eastern side to the southwest side as
well as from the rear to the front of the property. Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached (AT1 and AT2).
PROPOSAL
The
proposal is for the partial demolition of the rear of the existing single
storey dwelling and the construction of additions to the rear of the dwelling
which incorporate a roof mezzanine level, a rear deck area and roof turret.
The
resulting development is proposed to retain the existing 1920s dwelling and
behind it construct an addition built in a modern design. The ground floor
level of this addition would have extensive windows set into aluminium frames
accounting for over half of the ground floor façades. The remaining portion of
the ground floor façades being built of painted hardiflex.
The
first floor level of the proposed development is a mezzanine level built into
the proposed roof. The floor plan of the mezzanine level shows a central
platform shown on the plans as a library and a bathroom, with two open void
areas either side of this platform.
The mezzanine level would be provided with large windows on the
south-western elevation and on the rear elevation. These windows, like those on
the ground floor are proposed to be set into aluminium frames, and take
advantage of the vista to the south.
The
rear of the proposed additions would include an open wooden balcony at both the
ground and first floor levels.
The
existing hipped roof at the rear of the current dwelling is to be removed to
allow the new roof line to integrate with existing. The application is for the
new portion of the building to be roofed in tile that matches the existing
tiled roof.
While
the front portion of the house would retain an early twentieth century roof
profile, the proposed roof line for the additions at the rear is of an unusual
design incorporation a tall windowed turret on the north-eastern elevation and
two large dormer windows on the south-western elevation
The
most unusual aspect of the proposed additions are a prominent turret structure
at the rear of the development and the use of large areas of glass as a feature of the development.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:
Council’s records
indicate that the subject site has had no other development applications lodged
in the past few years.
PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:
Site Area (559.9m2)
|
|
PROPOSED
|
CODE
|
COMPLIES
|
|
Floor Space Ratio (max)
|
0.53:1 #
|
0.5:1
|
No- see below
|
|
Soft Landscaped Area (min)
|
42.26%
|
35%
|
Yes
|
|
Side Boundary Setback (min)
|
1.1m(west) and
1.0m(east)
(an existing awning is
.3m of boundary)
|
1.2/1.5m
|
No – See variation section see below
|
|
Overall Height (m) (max)
|
8.9m
|
9.5m
|
Yes
|
|
Ceiling Height (m) (max)
|
6.9m
|
7.0m
|
Yes
|
|
No of Storeys
|
2
|
2
|
Yes
|
|
Building Line (max)
|
6.1
|
7.5m
|
Yes-
Retains existing
|
|
Cut and Fill (max)
|
0.0m
|
1m
|
Yes
|
|
Deck/Balcony width (max)
|
2.1m
|
3m (if elevated by >1m)
|
Yes
|
|
Solar Access (min)
|
Adequate
|
3 hours to north elevation
|
Yes
|
|
BASIX # #
|
not
required based on the price quoted to Council
|
not required for
development less than $100000
|
See
variation section see below
|
# this figure includes the area of the void
space around the mezzanine and turret roof space which are included in GFA
# # the applicant submits a cost of works of
$84,870. However, based on a review by Council staff against the Australian Institute of Building
Surveyors Building Cost Code July 2006 the price
of the works is estimated to exceed $ 169,216 and therefore the development is subject to the
provisions of the BASIX requirements.
REFERRALS
Manager Urban Design
and Assets
No
objection was raised by this department subject to conditions of consent being
imposed.
Manager Parks
No
objection was raised by this department subject to conditions of consent being
imposed.
Manager Bushland
No
referral was raised with the manager of bushland as part of this assessment
Other (Heritage,
Traffic, Waterways, Rural Fire Service)
No
referrals were raised with external agencies as part of this assessment
Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))
Zoning
The subject site is
zoned Residential 2(a1) and the proposal is a permissible use in the zone.
Heritage
The subject site is
not listed as an item of heritage significance in Lane Cove LEP, or the State
Register. The subject site is not a
known archaeological site.
Environmental
Protection Areas
The proposal is not
within an area listed for environmental protection within the Lane Cove LEP.
Tree Preservation
The proposal does not
include the removal of any trees covered by the Tree Protection Order. The application has been referred to
Council’s Manager, Open Space for comment who raised no objection subject to
conditions of consent being imposed.
Aims of the LEP
In clause
2 of the Lane Cove LEP specific aims and objectives are set out in relation to
housing, specifically:
“to maintain and where appropriate improve
the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zones,” and “to
permit new residential development only where it is compatible with the
existing environmental character of the locality and has a sympathetic and
harmonious relationship with adjoining development”
The
proposal would also result in a loss of privacy due to the proposed first floor
balcony and the proposal is not in accordance with the stated objectives of
this clause.
It is
considered that the level of integration between the existing and proposed
building is poor given the extensive use of glass and the mismatch of modern
materials with the more traditional existing fabric.
Other Planning Instruments
SEPP 55 – State
Environmental Planning policy No.55 – Remediation of Land
Clause 7 of this
instrument requires Council to assess whether the subject site 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, contamination of the site is unlikely to be an issue.
APPLICABLE REGULATION
Environmental
Planning and Assessment Regulations
The proposal involves
the partial demolition of the existing dwelling house. Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must address Australian Standard
(AS2601-1991): The Demolition of
Structures. The issue is addressed by
the placement of a condition of consent in the without prejudice conditions
prepared for the Land & Environment Court appeal to be heard on this
application.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS
Residential Zones
Development Control Plan
The Lane Cove
Residential DCP applies to the subject site but no relevant provisions have
effect in the current proposal.
Development Control
Plan No.4 – Waste Management and Minimisation
The Lane Cove Waste
Management Development Control Plan is applicable to this application. A Waste Management Plan has been lodged with
this application and its review has formed part of this assessment. Should an approval be issued then an
appropriate Condition would be imposed.
PLANNING CONTROL CONTROLS
The
‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences,
Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’
The proposed
development has been assessed under the ‘Code and Development
Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and
Outbuildings. The development has a number of non compliances with regard to
the numeric standards in this control code. These numeric non-compliances
include side setback and FSR variations.
The code also fails to
meet the objectives of a number of points in the Code including requirements
for the protection of existing streetscape, and loss of privacy and views.
Variations to
Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))
The preceding policy assessment table
identifies those controls with which the proposal does not comply. Each of the
departures is discussed below.
Floor Space Ratio
Pursuant to the ‘Code
and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private
Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) is determined by the ratio of the Gross Floor Area against the site area. Gross Floor Area is defined
in the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences,
Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ as
“the sum of areas of
each floor of all buildings where the area of each floor is taken to be the
area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls ….. Where floor to
ceiling heights exceeds 5 metres, the area of that part of the building would l
be multiplied by 2 (that space being considered to be 2 storeys)…External
decks, balconies or terraces which are covered by more than half of its width will be included as
part of the gross floor area.”
This definition has important implications for
the current proposal in that:
· The void either side of the
mezzanine level results in a floor to ceiling height of more than 5 metres such
that this area is captured by the 5 metres floor to ceiling height
provisions. This area is included as
gross floor area.
· The proposed turret rises up from
the main roof line to form a skylight structure for the proposed study which is
on the ground floor level below it. Like the mezzanine level mentioned above,
this area has a floor to ceiling height excessive of the 5 metres mentioned in
the definition of Gross floor area and is also included in determining the FSR.
· The rear balcony is covered and in
accordance with the definition of Gross Floor Area is included in determining
FSR for the building.
Therefore the proposed development would have a
gross floor area as set out in the following table
|
Ground floor area (both Proposed and
existing)
|
229m²
|
|
First floor area (both mezzanine space, void area and balcony)
|
55.59m²
|
|
First floor Turret area
|
16.0m²
|
|
Total
GFA
|
300.81m²
|
With a total GFA of
300.81m² and a site area of 559.9m2, the
development would have a floor space ratio of 0.53:1 which exceeds the maximum
allowable figure for this site. Council’s policy is to limit noncompliant FSR,
to avoid excessively large developments in the Councils area. The Council
therefore requires adherence to the FSR controls.
The current proposal is
seen to be an over development of the site when viewed in conjunction with the
variation to side setback and the neighbour objections based on the bulk of the
building.
Side
Boundary Setback
The
existing dwelling has a side setback to the south western boundary of 3.5
metres, while to the north-eastern elevation the setback is 2.0 metres. There
is also an existing awning protruding from the eastern side which is not
enclosed and this is built to only 0.3 metres off the boundary. This is to be
retained in the proposed development.
An
existing garage is between the house and the south-western boundary line and is
built to the side boundary.
The
proposed additions would be setback 1.1 metres to the western boundary and 1.0
metres to the eastern boundary, with the existing awning being retained to its
current 0.3 metres from the eastern boundary.
The
setback controls in the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ is:
A minimum setback of 1200mm from the side
boundary for a single storey dwelling and a minimum setback of 1500mm for a two
storey dwelling. The setback is measured at right angles to the boundary and to
the wall of the dwelling or any ancillary structures like balconies or stairs.
Both
side setbacks in the proposed additions are less than the setback required
under the Councils Code, specifically the north-eastern setback is required to
be 1.5 metres while the south-western setback is required to be 1.2metres.
Given
strong neighbour objection over loss of privacy and the bulk of the building
this half a metre variation is of concern as it is exacerbating the impact of
both the buildings bulk and the privacy loss. The perception of bulk and scale
in particular would be increased more than it may have been perceived with more
generous setbacks.
The
proposed development is not compliant with the side setback controls and would
impact the level of amenity of the adjoining neighbours.
Front
Setback
The
proposed development retains the existing front setback of the cottage and
would not seek to amend the front setback of the building.
The
requirement of the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ for front
setbacks allows that:
A variation may be
considered where unusual site constraints exist or if there is an established
building line less than 7.5 metres and the proposal will have a minimal impact
on the streetscape.
The
current setback of 2 Cobden Ave is 0 metres and the
setback of numbers 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Cobden Ave are all between 5 and 6
metres from the road reserve boundary. An established localized building line
variation is therefore existing in Cobden
Ave. Given the established building line
and given the retention of the existing front setback this assessment does not
include this variation as one of the reasons of refusal.
Basix
Certificate
The applicant
submitted a cost of works for the proposal of $84,870. However, based on a
review of the likely cost of works by Council staff using the Australian
Institute of Building Surveyors Building Cost Code
(July 2006) the price of the works is estimated to be a minimum of $169216. The
development will therefore require the submission of a BASIX Certificate and be
required to comply with the provisions of the BASIX instrument.
The applicant has not submitted a BASIX certificate for the
application and has therefore failed to address these requirements.
SECTION 79C(1)(b) – Environmental Impacts
Clause
79C(1)(b) requires consideration of likely impacts of development on both the
natural and the built environments and the social and economic impacts in the
locality. The main issues resulting from
the proposed development relate to privacy loss, streetscape impact and view
loss.
Streetscape
Character
In
the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences,
Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ objective
A. of Clause 3.7 requires that development must:
‘Minimize the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape’
The
applicant submits in their Statement of Environmental Effects that that the
proposal comprises of alterations and extension of the existing ground floor to the
rear of the property and addition of a roof mezzanine area over the new rear
extension, and that “The front of the
existing residence will be unchanged and therefore this portion of the building
would have no altering effect on the existing streetscape”
However,
this assessment finds that although the front portion of the proposal is
unchanged, the development would impact the streetscape through:
· The additions would
provide a significant built feature to the rear of the building that is both
bulkier and taller than the existing cottage and surrounding established
dwellings. The resulting disparity of
scales detracts from the overall presentation of the development.
· The size and height of
the proposed additions would burden itself on the appearance and small scale of
the established building due to its size.
This effect would be particularly exacerbated when viewed from an oblique
angle.
· The additions differ from
the existing portion of the dwelling in regard to the use of materials, notably
expanses of glass and painted ‘hardi-flex’
board. The use of these materials would clash with the more traditional fabric
of the existing cottage The resulting dissimilarity in materials and finishes
detracts from the presentation of the site in the street context.
· The proposal of the
turret is in variance with surrounding rooflines detracting from the overall
appearance of the street.
· The use of material
including large expanse of glass set in aluminium frames and wide use of hardi-flex sheeting, merges poorly with
the masonry and tile exterior of the existing cottage and sits at variance with
materials in adjoining residences. The
proposed materials and style of the building additions differ from the
primarily federation character of the street and is generally considered to be
out of character with the locality.
· From a stylistic point of
view the propose additions are out of character with the surrounding
temperament of the street which is predominantly early twentieth century in
nature.
Visual
Intrusiveness of Proposal
In
the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences,
Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ the
objectives set out in clause 2 require that:
any development that is
proposed to be built amongst existing dwellings the design must take into
account factors beyond the site
including potential constraints relating to …. street character.
The
proposed development would be highly intrusive in the appearance of the
streetscape.
The
use of wide expenses of glass in the new additions will have three highly
intrusive impacts on the streetscape.
· Firstly the glass would
be highly reflective of sunlight at certain times of the day which has a
potential to impact adjoining residences and may be distractive to passers by.
· At other times of the day
the glass would appear as a dark or black mass on the streetscape.
· During the night, the
glass façades would be highly visible in the streetscape as the internal
illumination of the dwelling would make the front facing glass façade features
stand out prominently.
The applicant submits in their Statement of Environmental Effects that
the proposed alterations and additions are designed to maximise natural
lighting, improve internal layout of the building and provide more useable
landscaped outdoor areas for the occupants.
While the proposed additions no doubt does achieve much of these
objectives, it does so at considerable cost to the existing dwelling in that
the resulting dwelling would be visually intrusive in the following context.
· The roof form of the new
portion of the dwelling is taller than the existing portion of the dwelling
thereby adding considerable bulk to the dwelling.
· The proposed additions
rise above the existing cottage, framing it with a different set of materials,
particularly the glass sheet façade, and causing the cottage to be
over-burdened, detracting from the appearance of the site.
· The use of glass is out
of character with the existing portion of the house and adjoining residences,
in that during the day it would present as a darker mass on the street, and
during the night will be illuminated from inside by the domestic house lighting
causing the glass elevation to standout against the existing house.
· The two rooflines
integrate in a manner that is detracting from an overall appearance of the
building, with the proposed portion intergrading poorly from behind the
existing portion, imposing overbearing bulk on that potion of the house.
· The proposed glass front
facade and roof turret are architecturally different to the surrounding houses.
Privacy
Clause 3.6 of the ‘Code and
Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming
Pools and Outbuildings’ requires that
Buildings or additions shall be
designed and orientated to avoid overlooking of adjoining dwellings.
The
proposed rear balcony and the mezzanine level would impact on the privacy of
rear yards and outdoor living areas for adjoining residences.
The mezzanine windows look out to the
south-western elevation, and do allow casual observance in to neighbours yards
most notably 10 Cobden Ave. Direct overview through these dormer windows is
limited by the fact a person is not able to stand in the window, but despite this, these windows do still provide
passive loss of privacy to the rear yard of number 10 Cobden Ave.
With regard to the first floor
balcony proposed for the rear of the dwelling, this deck is located such that casual and
direct overview of the rear yards of both adjoining residences would occur. This
is particularly the case for 6
Cobden Ave where the casual observer on the
balcony would have unimpeded views directly into the primary living area of the
neighbours house. This deck would have a high impact on the level of privacy
for the primary out door living areas of number 6 Cobden Ave.
Impact
on Trees
The
Council Parks Department visited the site and observed that “there is a mature Brushbox street tree which will require
protection during the construction process. The proposal illustrates an extension
to the rear of the property which comes close to an existing Kaffir Plum
Harpephylum caffrum along the eastern boundary which will require protection.
The proposal indicates all existing trees to be retained”. The conclusion
was that the risk to the existing trees can be minimised by protection measure
around the trees which will be conditional of any consent that may be issued.
Loss of Views
An objection of the development from neighbours has
been that the proposed development would have an impact on views and access to
the sky.
The ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ requires
that development:
Minimize disruption to existing views or to
achieve reasonable view sharing from adjacent development with the height and
bulk of the development.
In determining what impact on views would result from
a development, the L&EC case Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council
(2004) NSW L&EC 347 has become the basis for the planning principle used to
examine view sharing. In this Commissioner Roseth framed a series of questions
which should be addressed in assessing whether the impact on views is
considered unacceptable. The following
is an assessment of the application in terms of these questions which are:
1. The assessment of the views to
be affected. Some views
(eg. water views, views of iconic buildings) are valued more highly than
others.
2. Consider from what part of the
property the views are obtained.
Protection of views across side boundaries are more difficult than from
front and rear boundaries.
3. Assess the extent of the
impact. This should be done for the
whole of the property, not just the view that is affected.
4. Assess the reasonableness of the
proposal that is causing the impact.
Factors include whether the proposal complies with development standards
and whether view loss could be ameliorated by better design.
In assessing the impact on views it is considered
that:
1. The views likely to be affected are not high value in that they are not iconic
or of grand vistas, but offer more of an ambient general openness to the south.
2. The views being impacted are across the
side boundaries rather than from the front or rear of the property and are thus recognised as being difficult to protect.
3. When looking at the reasonableness of
the view loss, the views (despite being non iconic) are the primary views to
the adjoining residences and do provide a level of amenity for 4 and 6 Cobden Ave. The
proposed development would have an effect on the amenity of the neighbours
property through loss of views to the south.
In view of the above findings it is considered that
that the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Councils Code in terms
of view loss and view sharing because of the impact on views for numbers 4 and 6 Cobden Ave.
Loss of Openness in the Neighbourhood
The objections do not relate solely to direct view
loss, but also claim that the development would result in a large structure forming a barrier to
the sky and horizon being located close to the boundaries which
would contribute to a general building out of the area.
It is considered that such a barrier is established
and that this would result in a decrease in the ambiance/openness of the area
and a loss of sky vista which is a type of outlook loss. The resulting sense of
enclosure is not in the best interest of the site, nor adjoining residences,
and represents an impact to the amenity of the area.
RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))
The
proposal was notified to six adjoining owner/occupants as well as the Ward
Councillors and the Local Progress Association.
Council received two submissions in response to the notification of the
development application. The issues
raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.
4 Cobden Ave
· The last few metres of the proposed
structure extends beyond the back decking area of both my neighbour and us
resulting in a privacy issue for us
Comment
Given
that the objector’s property is two houses to the north and given the minor
extent of the distance being objected to, this impact is considered to be
within the normal range of residential amenity expected on this street.
· Of great concern is the loss of view
to the west. The view from our rear veranda and a large portion of our garden
would be completely blocked by not only the two storey construction with a
somewhat standard roof, but exacerbated with the proposal of a turret that will
dominate the skyline.
Comment
Due
to the fact that the objector is displaced from the subject site by an
intervening property, and given also that the objectors residence has only
limited views, the impact of the proposed development on this objectors
property is considered to be minor.
The
issue of the bulk of the development intruding into the skyline, particularly
the turret feature, is more problematic for the application in that such a
proposed structure would add unnecessary visual bulk resulting in a sense of
enclosure and reduction of the sky-vista. The skyline intrusion is an
overbearing feature of the development.
· This turret does not suit the
streetscape and is considered as out of character in our area of Lane Cove.
Comment
This
structure adds bulk to the rear of the building particularly to the height of
the building. It also introduces a design feature in the roofline that detracts
from the overall harmony of the building and that diverges from the existing
character of the immediate area.
· The psychological effect of having
yet another large structure forming a barrier to the sky and horizon on the
boundaries of our property. This
development plus a new block of units recently built and a 3 storey house on
our boundaries will result in a general building out of the area.
Comment
This
issue is difficult to quantify in planning terms. Notwithstanding this, the
site is adjacent to an area of higher development along the highway which has
already established a sense of a higher
level of development.
This
development, although not on the scale of the nearby flat buildings, adds to
the reduction in the sense of openness in what is a normal residential street
and is not in the best interest of the amenity of the area and is not in
accordance with the objectives of the zone which requires development to “retain and where appropriate improve the
existing residential amenity of a
detached single family dwelling area”
6 Cobden Ave
· The proposed development will look straight into our kitchen and meal
area.
Comment
The proposed first floor windows look to the south west rather than to
the objector’s property. The rear
balcony however, does pose an issue with regard to loss of privacy to the rear
yard of the adjoining properties, including the objectors. The deck would have
an uninterrupted direct view into primary out door living areas for the
objectors’ property. This is an issue
for concern and goes to the case for non support of the application.
· Loss of Solar access
Comment
The Code and Development
Application Checklist For Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools And
Outbuildings requires that:
“ 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”.
Although the development would result in some
overshadow of the objector’s property, this property would receive a level of
solar access that is compliant with the above code requirements with much of
the additional shadows restricted to the afternoon. Further, this shadow is not affecting the
primary living areas of the objector’s property. The level of shading to the
objector’s property is considered to be reasonable.
This assessment
does not rely on solar access as one of the reasons for refusal.
· The development will result in a new building that is out of character
with the streetscape.
Comment
As discussed above the proposed development is not considered to be in
keeping with the surrounding area. The proposal differs considerably from the
existing character of the locality in terms of :-
· the height and bulk of
the development,
· the use of materials and
· external finishes and the
roof line.
SECTION 79C(1)(e) – Public Interest
An
examination of potential impact on amenity including privacy, noise, parking,
view sharing, and streetscape, appearance and crime prevention was considered
as part of this application. As stated previously
the development has numeric non-compliance with regard to FSR and Side Setback.
It also has significant problems with regard to view sharing and privacy, and
streetscape appearance and is considered to be not in the public interest. Furthermore, the objections received and the
points raised by neighbours would contribute to the finding of this assessment
that the development is not in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
The
application has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration
under s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane
Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 (the LEP) and Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses. There are
numerical noncompliances with regard to FSR and side setback. Further, the proposal
is out of character with surrounding development and is not in accord with
existing open streetscape features of the street.
While Council encourages innovative design
solutions, the proposed dwelling would have a significant impact on the amenity
of adjoining residents due the bulk and scale of the building in close
proximity of the boundary and a loss of privacy. Furthermore, the extensive glazing combined with the turret features differs from and
impacts on the existing predominantly federation streetscape.
For staff
to support this dwelling proposal, significant amendment would be required. The
proposal is therefore recommended for refusal for the following reasons:
· Non-compliance with the FSR required in the Councils Code
· Non compliance with the side setbacks requirements in the Councils Code
· Loss of privacy for adjoining residences.
· Bulk and scale of the building as excessive, as expressed through the
FSR and setback non-compliance and the interaction between the existing house
and the proposed additions.
· Visual intrusiveness of the building in terms of the excessive use of
glass on the front façade, and external features being out of character with
the streetscape.
· The development is contrary to the Public interest as shown by the
objections received and the points raised.
· The application has failed to meet the requirements of the BASIX
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the proposed development for
alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling at 8 Cobden Ave be
refused for the following reasons.
1. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does not satisfy the
objectives of clause 2(2)(a)(i) and clause 2(2)(a)(iii) of the Lane Cove
Local Environmental Plan 1987 with regard to protecting existing residential
character and amenity.
2. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does not satisfy the
objectives of clause 9 of the Lane
Cove Local Environmental plan for the
Residential 2(a1) Zone which are “to retain and where appropriate
improve the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling
area”
3. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does
not satisfy the objectives of
Clause 2 of the Code and Development Application
Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings, which requires any
development proposed to be built among
existing dwelling the
design to take into account factors beyond the site including overshadowing, overlooking, views privacy and street character.
4. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does
not satisfy the requirements of Clause 3.1 of the Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings which requires that Dwellings are to be
designed with regard to the amenity of adjoining
properties’.
5. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does
not satisfy the requirements of Clause 3.2 of the Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings because the proposed development exceeds
the FSR requirements of Clause 3.2.
6. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does
not satisfy the requirements of Clause 3.6 of the Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings because the proposed development is to be
designed and orientated to avoid overlooking
dwellings.
7. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a
) as the proposal does
not satisfy the requirements of Clause 3.8 of the Code and Development Application Checklist for
Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings because the proposal is closer than required side setback.
Specifically, the north eastern elevation is
setback less than 1.5 metres and the south western setback is less than 1.2 metres from the
boundary.
8. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( b
) because the proposal would
have a significant impact on the
privacy of the residents at number 6 and
10 Cobden Ave.
9. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( b
) because the proposed
development will impact the ambience and amenity of the area due to the bulk and scale of the development.
10. The proposal is
unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( c ) because
the proposal is not
suitable for the site considering the:
· The impact on the sense of openness in the area
· The impact on Streetscape
· Bulk and scale given sitting of proposed addition on
the site
11. The
proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(e )
and is not in the public interest.
12. The proposal is
unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( d ) because
the proposal would have an adverse impact on the existing amenity of
adjoining residences as evidenced by objections raised and the variety
of concerns in those objections.
|
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
|
AT‑1 View
|
Site Location Plan
|
1 Page
|
|
|
AT‑2 View
|
Notification Plan
|
1 Page
|
|
CNL070507ES_318.doc
***** End of Environmental Services Division
Report No. 318 *****
