Agenda of Ordinary Council

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 242
6 AUGUST 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 6 August 2007

3/07/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 242

Subject: 16 Private Road, Northwood

Inspection Committee at its meeting on 04 August 2007 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 06 August 2007.

Record No: DA05/357-01 - 17553/07

Author(s): Andrew Thomas

Property: 16 Private Road, Northwood

DA No: D357/05

Date Lodged: 15 November 2005, amended plans received 20 July 2006 and 30 April 2007

Cost of Work: $950,000

Owner : Mr. and Mrs. R. Webber

Author: Andrew Thomas

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Construction of a two storey dwelling house, a detached double garage and a swimming pool, on a 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, 10a and 10b
STOP THE CLOCK USED	Yes from 23.2.06-13.7.06; 2.8.06-30.8.06; 24.11.06-13.3.07 and 29.3.07-30.4.07
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours Adjoining owners and objectors to the first revised application Ward Councillors A. Smith, K. Freedman, J. Hassarati Progress Association Northwood Resident Action Group

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

This application had been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Clr. Freedman and Clr. Smith. As the Planning and Building Committee have resolved that it go to an Inspection Committee it is now referred to Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report assesses a revised development application for the erection of a two storey dwelling-house, with a detached double garage and swimming pool on a vacant lot that was the result of a subdivision approved by Council in 2001. This report follows on from a report by Council’s consultants on an earlier revision of the proposal which was considered by Council’s Planning and Building Committee meeting on 19 March, 2007.

Whilst the revised proposal has addressed certain requirements in relation to solar access, a number of objections have been received to the proposal on the grounds of overshadowing, overdevelopment and its effect on neighbour’s properties. Council’s Landscape Architect has confirmed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on two significant Brushbox trees, one of which is located on the subject site, and the other on an adjoining property. The concerns of Council’s Landscape Architect are sufficient grounds to warrant refusal of the application.

The proposal is not an appropriate form of development on the site because it would adversely affect two significant Brushbox trees, one of which is located at the southern end of the site’s access handle and the other at the south-western corner of the adjoining property at 14 Private Road. In addition the proposal would also adversely affect the amenity of adjoining owners in relation to overlooking. A development that better utilises the access handle serving the site for parking and possibly the proposed pool, and that brought the proposed dwelling house closer to the rock escarpment, might address a number of the ongoing concerns raised to this proposal.

BACKGROUND:

Original and First Revised Proposals

The development application was submitted in November 2005 and proposed a dwelling-house on three levels, with a detached double garage and swimming pool on a vacant lot. Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

The original application was revised in July 2006 and was the subject of Environmental Services Division’s Report No.68, a copy of which is attached at (AT3). This report was prepared by Connor Siwak & Associates, Consultant Town Planners and the report (the Consultant’s report) was considered by Council’s Planning and Building Committee at its meeting on 19 March 2007. At that meeting Council heard from four local residents who objected to the proposal, as well as the applicant’s (and property owner’s) Town Planning consultant. The Committee called for an on-site inspection to take place on 31 March 2007 and the applicant to arrange for height poles to be placed on the site. The intention was that the Inspection Committee would report back to the next Council meeting on 2 April 2007.

Subsequently, the applicant requested that owing to time constraints in erecting the height poles and having these certified, that the Inspection Committee be deferred to the next scheduled meeting on 5 May 2007. The applicant requested a second deferment of the Inspection Committee Meeting due to commitments by his Town Planning consultant. The applicant also indicated that because of issues arising from a meeting with Council staff on 11 April 2007, that modified plans would be submitted. Councillors and objectors to the first revised application were notified of the deferment of the Inspection Committee meetings, that further amended plans would be lodged and that objectors would be notified.

Second Revised and Latest Proposal

A second revision to the proposal was submitted at the end of April 2007 and notified to the objectors of the first revised proposal the following month. Nineteen objections have been submitted to the current proposal compared to 9 to the original application and 14 for the first revised application.

Objectors had been notified that the latest plans would be the subject of an on-site Inspection Committee meeting due to be held on Saturday 14 July 2007 and that the matter would be considered by Council at it’s meeting on 16 July 2007. Again, on the applicant’s request, these meetings have been deferred to the Inspection Committee’s meeting to be held on Saturday 4August, 2007 and the following Council meeting of 6 August, 2007.

(i) Design

All three designs for the proposal are fundamentally the same. A dwelling-house is proposed on the lower part of the site, and a detached garage and swimming pool on the site’s higher northeast corner. The original and first revised designs proposed a dwelling-house on three levels with a third/basement level containing a storeroom located at the southwest, rear corner. In the latest design the third level has been deleted. In all three designs the main ridge and uppermost ceiling heights have remained the same. Only minor adjustments have been made to the proposed floor space of the dwelling-house. Minimum side and rear boundary setbacks both comply with Council’s requirements and are unchanged.

(ii) Purpose

In a covering letter from the applicant’s Town Planning consultant to the latest revision to the original application, it is stated that the main purpose of the design is to reduce overshadowing over the single storey dwelling-house at 80A Northwood Road which adjoins the site’s southern boundary.

In addition the consultant’s letter acknowledges Council’s Planning and Building Committee’s request that the development addresses concerns raised by residents and, if possible, to reduce its impact on neighbours. The applicant’s consultant confirms that the latest design addresses concerns raised by the owners of not only 80A Northwood Road, but also 12 Private Road, which is a two storey dwelling-house adjoining the northeast corner of the subject site.

In addition, the applicant’s consultant also confirms that the latest design would increase the area of private open space for the occupants and reduce the potential adverse impacts on a mature Brushbox tree located at the southern end of the site’s access handle.

(iii) Changes

The revised plans include external and minor internal changes to the proposed dwelling-house, and external changes to the proposed garage and pool. The design changes are described below.

(a) Major Changes

The major changes affect the house, garage and pool and these are:

· the western and centre sections of the ground floor level would be moved back a further metre from the rear boundary;

· the Canary Island palm tree located near a rock ledge is proposed to be removed and so allow for a 1m increase in the width of the deck on the northern side of the ground floor kitchen;

· the deck on the western side of the ground floor kitchen would be deleted and the kitchen and lower ground floor guest bedroom would be moved 600mm closer to the western side boundary;

· the basement store would be deleted;

· whilst the size and location of the proposed double garage in the northeast corner of the site would not change, its pitched roof would be deleted and replaced with a flat roof;

· grid mesh over compacted aggregate is proposed around the Brushbox tree; and,

· whilst the size and location of the proposed pool on the southern side of the garage would not change, the shallow end would be reversed so that it would be located next to the garage and the deep end next to the house.

(b) Other Changes

Minor changes that only affect the house are:

· a lower ground floor balcony off the main bedroom on the eastern elevation has been deleted;

· the laundry on the west side of the lower ground floor and adjacent to the guest bedroom has been relocated to the rear of the house and the laundry area proposed as a bathroom and spa;

· the southwest corner of the ground floor dining room would move 800mm to the east, although the setback of the ground floor from the eastern side boundary would remain unchanged;

· the rooftop terrace has been reduced in area; and,

· whilst the main ridge and uppermost ceiling heights would remain the same, a new covered section of roof over the access stairs to the rooftop terrace would increase the roof height.

Outcome

The results of the design changes to the revised proposal submitted last year would benefit all seven adjoining property owners. Although some existing negative impacts due to the proposal would remain, these would be at a reduced level. The positive and negative outcomes are discussed under separate sub-headings below.

(i) Positives

The proposed design changes would reduce the shadow cast by and the potential overlooking from the proposed dwelling house over “Squirrel Lodge” at 80A Northwood Road, and would reduce the visual impact of the proposed garage although part of this structure would be visible above the site’s common boundary fence to both Nos.12 and 14 Private Road.

In relation to “Squirrel Lodge” revised shadow plans confirm that the southwest corner of its covered rear courtyard, its kitchen window and a northeast facing dining room window, would receive more sun at noon in winter than under the first revision. However, additional sun at 9am in winter would fall over the roof and not any of this dwelling’s three north facing roof skylights.

The applicant’s development would also benefit from the changes to the garage roof which from the revised shadow plans would allow more sun over part of the pool and the area between the pool and the entry steps to the house. The changes would also increase private open space for the proposed dwelling-house.

Whilst the changes to the location of the deep and shallow end of the pool would reduce on-site excavation, the potential impact on the roots of the Brushbox tree from both the garage and pool would remain.

(ii) Negatives

In contrast to the positive outcomes resulting from the design changes, overshadowing and potential overlooking of a number of adjoining properties would remain.

In particular, “Squirrel Lodge” would still be subject to overshadowing. Part of the rear yard of 74A, 76 and 78 Northwood Road would still be overshadowed in the morning in winter, as would all of the adjoining courtyard on the west side of 14 Private Road by 3pm in winter.

Whilst the ground floor deck along the western elevation has been deleted the decks at the front and rear of the ground floor level would still allow the rear yards of the properties to the west of the site i.e. at 76 and 78 Northwood Road, to be overlooked. Similarly, whilst the lower ground floor terrace on the eastern elevation has been deleted, the rear yard of 53 Cliff Road would still be overlooked from rooms on each level of this same elevation. The courtyard area of 14 Private Road would be overlooked from the pool coping. The roof top terrace would allow overlooking of some adjoining properties.

Although the shadow cast over adjoining rear yards to the west would remain, the areas affected would be limited. Consequently the objective under the Code, to provide reasonable solar access to recreational areas would be satisfied. Potential overlooking of any adjoining property could be addressed by appropriate privacy screening.

REFERRALS:

Development Engineer

Council’s Engineer states that an on site detention system is not required as the applicant has agreed to install a rainwater reuse tank with a minimum capacity of 10,000 litres (this structure is proposed at the southern end of the swimming pool). Council’s Engineer advises that the site slopes to an existing easement and the stormwater system to the rear is known to be piped and confirms that on site manoeuvring would be satisfactory. Council’s Engineer recommends appropriate conditions in the event that the application is approved.

Manager, Open Space (Council’s Landscape Architect - CLA)

States that Council’s Significant Tree Policy is:

“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.”

Comments that the Brushbox tree located on the subject site, and another at the southwest corner of 14 Private Road, are significant “in terms of their health, potential life expectancy, canopy presence, backdrop and street visibility and amenity.”

Confirms that:

· The proposed development is of considerable scale in relation to the size and shape of the site.

· The location of a mature Brushbox tree on the site, the site’s topography and the shape of the site, make this tree “highly vulnerable to construction damage and stress and should be considered as a site constraint in terms of the design process.”

· The proposed construction works alone (in particular mechanical damage), root loss, soil compaction and reduction of soft landscaping “will have a detrimental affect” on not only the Brushbox tree but all trees on the subject site.

· The design of the proposed dwelling “needs to be mindful of the significance and health and potential life expectancy” of the Brushbox tree.

· Whilst the Arborist’s report (submitted in relation to the previous proposal) has addressed most previous concerns, all the recommendations in that report regarding construction would be required as a minimum in the event that the application was approved.

· Is concerned for the future viability of the Brushbox tree because of the accumulative effect of the construction process and the excavation required for the garage, driveway and pool.

Confirms that the application is not supported and states that:

“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” on the subject site; and,

“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.”

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

The Consultant’s report included compliance tables for the house, garage and swimming pool in relation to Council’s Code. Although the revised changes would not alter the majority of the proposed numerical requirements, each non-compliance table has been updated and/or reviewed to address the proposed changes. The revised compliance tables follow.

TABLE 1: DWELLING-HOUSE

Site Area: 552m² – excludes area of access handle of 101.5m²

ISSUE	PROPOSED (latest design plans)	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.44:1	0.5:1	yes
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	36%	35%	yes
Side Boundary Setback (min)	West: 1.5m East: 1.637m Rear: 2.4m	1.5m	yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	8m	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	-	-
Cut and Fill (max)	2m (pool)	1m	no
Deck/Balcony width (max)	n/a (< 3m)	3m (if elevated b y >1m)	-
Solar Access (min)	> 3 hours	3 hours to north elevation	yes
BASIX Certificate	Not revised	BASIX Certificate	no: has not been updated to address the revised design.

TABLE 2: SWIMMING POOL

ISSUE	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Concourse edge to neighbour’s house (mm)	4.2m (to 14 Private Road)	3m	yes
Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level (min)	1.5m 600mm	900mm – from internal face of pool 450mm from edge of concourse	yes yes
Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level (min)	600mm-900mm	900mm from edge of concourse	no, in part
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	-
Height (max)	3m (in part)	1800mm	no: would allow overlooking of part of the courtyard of 14 Private Road.
Setback if height is >1800mm (min)	600mm – 1200mm	1:1 setback measured from concourse edge	no: would allow overlooking of part of the courtyard of 14 Private Road.
Screening of façade where > 1.0m above ground level	1.8m fence & landscaping	Screening required	yes

TABLE 3: OUTBUILDING (double garage)

ISSUE	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Height (max-to ceiling)	2.45m	3.6m	yes
Rise (storeys)	1 storey	1 storey	yes
Setback	north: nil east: nil	Cl. 3.8 may allow a nil setback	may be allowed
Floorspace (max)	42m²	55m²	yes
Roof space	n/a: flat roof	can be used as a loft, or storage	-
Occupied area i.e. dwelling and garage (max)	< 2/3 of site area	2/3 of site area	yes
Unoccupied area	> 46.4m²	not < 46.4m²	yes

COMMENTS ON COMPLIANCE TABLES

Council’s consultant’s report addressed non-compliances in relation to all three tables.

In relation to Table 2 for the swimming pool the third issue has been reviewed in relation to the proposed setback from the concourse. Part of the pool would only be setback 600mm as opposed to the 900mm required under the Code. As there is a masonry boundary wall at this location the impact on the adjoining neighbour would be the same. The non-compliance is acceptable if Council were of a mind to approve the application.

The other revision in this table is issue six, which seeks to match swimming pool height and setback. At its southern end the proposed pool would have a maximum height of 3m. The Code requires a pool to be setback on a 1:1 ratio where height exceeds 1800mm. The proposed setback is only between 600mm and 1200mm and is therefore significantly below that required. If Council were of a mind to approve the application a privacy screen would be required along the edge of the concourse to a height of at least 1.7m above the concourse level so as to ensure that the adjoining courtyard and rooms of 14 Private Road would not be overlooked.

The only other review is in relation to Table 3 which addresses the double garage. Under the Setback issue the table has been reviewed in relation to the Code. Clause 3.8 of the Code addresses Setbacks To Side Boundaries and may allow a detached garage on a nil boundary setback. The consultant’s report has addressed this fact and the impact of the structure on the boundary.

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

19 objections were received to the revised proposal. The concerns raised are summarised and discussed below. A response to specific objections from the applicant’s town planning consultant is also summarised and discussed and a copy of which is attached at (AT4).

1. Overshadowing

1. General

A number of objectors have consistently raised a concern that the proposal would result in too much overshadowing of some adjoining properties and Squirrel Lodge, in particular.

2. Specific

i) Mr Berry, the owner of Squirrel Lodge, confirms that whilst the proposal would improve solar access this would not be sufficient to provide that required under the Code. In particular key living areas on the north elevation would receive an average of only 38% sunlight between 9am and 3pm in winter; the kitchen would receive no morning sun and an outdoor courtyard would be in shade for 5 hours between 9am and 2.30pm in winter.

ii) Mr Berry criticises the shadow plans because these do not address the existing morning shadow cast by 12 Private Road which affects his house.

iii) Mr Berry criticises the applicant’s Statement for emphasising the effect of shadow cast by trees located on 16 Private Road, particularly because this is only dappled shadow, and has requested to know Council’s position regarding the thinning of trees and removal of limbs that overhang his property.

3. Applicant’s Response

· The windows on Squirrel Lodge and it’s north facing courtyard would receive the required 3 hours of solar access.

· Shadow is already cast by the southern boundary fence and eaves of Squirrel Lodge and is exacerbated by the 2m plus difference in ground level between the two sites.

· Other adjoining rear yards would have adequate solar access.

Comment

1. General

Apart from 12 Private Road which would not be overshadowed, the overshadowing of adjoining properties would be limited to a portion of the other 6 adjoining rear yards and some but not all adjoining dwellings. Apart from Squirrel Lodge the area of rear yard affected of the other 5 of these sites would satisfy the objective of the Code which requires “reasonable solar access to…recreational areas.”

2. Specific

(i) The main purpose behind the latest revised plans has been to improve solar access to

the north facing windows of Squirrel Lodge, and in particular the kitchen.

Squirrel Lodge has 11 windows visible from 16 Private Road of which 9 are north facing and these are:-

· a main bedroom which has one window and glass doors (i.e. 2);

· a hall (adjacent to which is an ensuite); *

· a kitchen;

· an informal lounge (2)

· 3 roof skylights (one over a dining area beyond the kitchen, and two over the informal lounge)

[ * The hall window is not required to be assessed in relation to solar access as a hall is not a habitable room].

The other 2 windows face northeast and therefore only allow morning sun into the dining area. A solar access assessment of these 2 windows is not required under the Code.

The shadow plans for the revised proposal confirm that the north facing windows of Squirrel Lodge would receive 3 hours of sun between 9am and 3pm in winter (i.e. on June 22), as required under the Code. However, photographs taken of the north facing windows on 12 and 13 June between 9am and 3pm confirm that shadow cast by trees on these windows is, at times, significant.

(ii) Shadow photographs taken within 10 days of June 22 confirm that significant shadow affects Squirrel Lodge in the early morning. However this is more likely to be that cast by the dwelling at 14 Private Road, not 12 Private Road. Despite this, the application needs only to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling-house would not cast unreasonable shadow. The Code does not require an applicant to assess the cumulative effect of shadow cast by adjoining dwelling-houses.

(iii) The dappled effect of shadow cast over Squirrel Lodge has been discussed.

Council’s Landscape Architect (CLA) confirms that a number of the trees along part of the southern and lower eastern boundaries are “either thin, or of poor form or poor condition”, and 3 may be removed: a Grey Gum on the eastern boundary, a Bloodwood in the southeastern corner and a Blue Gum on the southern boundary. In addition CLA states that a limb of another Gum that overhangs Mr. Berry’s property can be removed.

Whilst Mr. Berry has been advised in relation to this matter, recent discussions with the applicant confirmed an intention to retain all trees along the southern boundary.

Irrespective of what trees may be trimmed, CLA confirms that all of the trees on the site would “be impacted upon…through the construction process.”

Notwithstanding the comments of CLA, the thinning or pruning of trees on the subject site is not a relevant issue in the assessment of the application.

In relation to the courtyard area of Squirrel Lodge the shadow plans show this to be in full sun at 9am in winter. In reality the courtyard is already in shadow at this time and from 10am only has limited sun throughout the rest of the day. By 12 noon most of the courtyard would be in shadow cast by the new dwelling, although the amount of shadow cast would decrease throughout the rest of the afternoon.

Even without the development the courtyard of Squirrel Lodge does not receive a reasonable amount of direct sun between 9am and 3pm in winter. As the development would reduce solar access to a significant outdoor area of Squirrel Lodge it does not satisfy the objective of the Code because it would not provide reasonable solar access to this recreational area.

Conclusion

The proposal would ensure the north facing windows receive a reasonable level of solar access as required under the Code but would reduce solar access to the northern courtyard.

2. Loss of Privacy

1. General

This concern has been raised by 6 of the 7 adjoining property owners, as well as some other owners. Concerns relate to the potential overlooking from the southern and western elevations and roof top terrace over some rear yards and windows of adjoining properties.

2. Applicant’s Response

Issues have been addressed by amendments to the previous plans, setbacks between dwelling-houses and differences in level between the proposed dwelling-house and Squirrel Lodge.

Comment

The increased setback of some of the ground floor level in conjunction with the use of planter boxes and the treatment of windows on the south elevation, would reduce the potential overlooking of Squirrel Lodge.

Overlooking into the north facing windows and courtyard of Squirrel Lodge would also be unlikely because the eaves and courtyard awning would cut out most, if not all, available lines of sight.

The intention to remove the Canary Island palm tree would allow overlooking of the rear garden of 74A Northwood Road.

The western windows and western edge of the front and rear ground floor decks would allow overlooking of the rear yards of 76 and 78 Northwood Road.

From the eastern windows overlooking would be possible over the rear yard of 53 Cliff Road (even though the owners have not objected to the latest proposal).

Some overlooking of the western courtyard of 14 Private Road from the pool concourse would be possible because the common boundary fence follows the natural fall of the site.

Despite it’s reduced area, the roof top terrace has been designed to capture distant views and consequently it would also generally allow overlooking of some adjoining properties.

Conclusion

Despite the design changes, the location of the proposed dwelling-house and its elevated position relative to some adjoining dwelling-houses and their rear yards, would result in potential overlooking of a number of adjoining properties from inside the dwelling, as well as from its extended decks and the roof top terrace.

3. Impact of Garage

1. Adjoining owner’s concerns

The detached double garage is proposed along the common boundary of 12 and 14 Private Road. Although the pitched roof has been replaced with a flat roof the two adjoining property owners have raised the following concerns:-

· intrusion on a primary living/entertainment area

· loss of outlook and light

· oppressive structure

· question legitimacy for allowing dwellings and structures on boundary lines

· request poles confirm the extent of the structure.

The owners of 12 Private Road, located on the north side of the proposed garage, suggest that:

· the structure is setback at least 1m from the northern boundary; and

· the roof height is lowered, so that is does not protrude above the height of the

existing northern fence.

2. Applicant’s Response

Height poles representing the structure will be installed for the site inspection. It would not cause any detrimental impacts on the amenity of 14 Private Road.

It would not have any impact on the visual outlook from the family room of 12 Private Road, nor the natural light received into this property. It is reasonable for this structure with its flat roof to be provided in this location, and a setback of 1m from the boundary would not have any measurable benefit.

Comment

Table 3 in the earlier section of this report headed ‘Proposal Data/Policy Compliance’ confirms the setback requirements of the Code. The Code may allow “detached garages on nil boundary setback” but only if there would be “no adverse impact on adjoining properties”. Although the structure would protrude above the fence to each objector’s property, it would not have a significant effect on the existing outlook. Whilst a garage would have an impact on the noise and visual amenity of each neighbour, the proposed flat roof would not create any significant shadow. These impacts would be similar if the structure were setback 1m. If the roof height were lowered the outlook from 12 Private Road would only be marginally improved.

Conclusion

Whilst the impact of the proposed garage on each adjoining neighbour would not be significant, it’s construction and use would contribute to the proposed development’s adverse impact on the Brushbox tree. If the garage were relocated to the access handle the impact on this tree, and on neighbours, could be reduced.

4. Overdevelopment of the Site

1. Objector’s Concerns

A number of objectors have consistently raised this concern. In summary current concerns are:-

· New dwelling should be located closer to rock escarpment and further away from boundaries.

· New dwelling should be built above the rock escarpment, leaving the lower level for a garden/tree cover.

· New dwelling appears to be 3 storeys.

· Site deserves a more modest dwelling.

· The area of the roof top terrace should be included as floor space.

· Lacks adequate open space.

· Detracts from the existing built environment.

· Would change the character of this historic suburb.

· House, plus garage, plus pool is a gross overdevelopment.

2. Applicant’s Response

The proposed FSR of 0.42:1 is substantially within the maximum of 0.5:1 allowed under Council’s Code. Proposal is a modest scale. Its location is influenced by the retention of the rock cliff.

Comment

Council’s FSR estimate of 0.44:1 is slightly above the applicant’s. Council’s figure includes all internal stairs; the roof over the access stairs to the upper terrace and the covered portion of the front entrance at the ground floor level. Irrespective of the estimate, the difference between the two figures is not significant.

Northwood contains a variety of dwelling-house designs and styles and a range of dwelling-house sizes, a number of which include pools and garages.

The proposed dwelling-house would only be on 2 levels; the roof top terrace is not assessed as a level and as it is uncovered is not included in floorspace calculations.

A dwelling-house built above the rock escarpment would have a detrimental impact on the Brushbox tree located in this position.

The Canary Island Palm tree is setback between 3m and 3.5m from the rock escarpment. As this tree is now proposed to be removed a new building could be located further north thereby increasing it’s setback from the southern, rear boundary and reducing it’s overall impact on properties at a lower level e.g. overshadowing of Squirrel Lodge.

One measure as to whether a site is overdeveloped is its floorspace ratio (FSR). However even though this latest design has a FSR below the maximum allowed the location chosen for the new dwelling, garage and pool results in an overdevelopment of the site. The bulk and scale of the development could be reduced if it were located closer to, but not above the rock escarpment and if the garage, and possibly the pool, were relocated to the access handle. This would increase the natural landscaped area in the northeastern corner of the site and around the boundaries at the lower level. The latest application only provides a natural landscaped area just above the minimum; this is a further indication that the site would be overdeveloped given its topography and the proximity and number of adjoining owners.

5. Height

1. Specific

Mr. Berry, the owner of Squirrel Lodge, has raised this issue and requests an independent expert to certify the highest point of natural ground level.

2. Applicant’s Response

The proposal has been designed on natural ground level at the time of the subdivision application.

Comment

The original Statement of Environmental Effects attached an extract of the survey submitted with the 2000 subdivision application. This shows natural ground levels of just over RL 36 around, and close to, a shed near to the southern boundary but which was relocated to abutt the southern boundary. These levels were no longer shown on the survey submitted with the current development application.

The issue was discussed with the owner and his Architect and a footprint of the latest design showed that the proposed dwelling-house would not extend over these lower levels, although it would be very close to them.

The owner has confirmed that the lower area where the shed had been was levelled off when it was relocated. In addition the owner also states that soil from the southwestern corner of the site was used to create the ramp (that still exists) linking the upper and lower levels of the site adjacent to the southwestern corner of 14 Private Road.

The potential discrepancy in levels between the 2000 and 2005 site surveys is not significant considering the reason for, and the extent of, soil redistribution on the site. Further the uppermost ceiling height has not varied in any of the 3 designs submitted under this application.

The footprint of the proposed dwelling-house is such that it is located above levels that would ensure Council’s height controls would be satisfied. As such an independent survey of the site is not warranted.

6. Loss of Views

1. Specific

The owners of 12 Private Road and 74A Northwood Road have repeated previous concerns in relation to loss of city and/or water views.

2. Applicant’s Response

First floor level views from 74A Northwood Road across the site would be retained. No mention is made of the views from the other property.

Comment

The revised proposal would have no greater impact on views than the previous proposal.

First floor level water views from each property would be retained.

City views from 74A Northwood Road would be reduced. However these views are already significantly impaired during the day by trees on the site (particularly the Canary Island palm tree) and/or other sites. Views are more evident in the evening because the city lights are visible through the foliage.

Any single storey structure would have an adverse impact on the ground floor outlook from 12 Private Road. This outlook is already impaired by trees on the subject site and beyond the site to the south.

The overall impact on views would not be significant and would be unchanged by the latest proposal.

The removal of the Canary Island palm tree would not have a significant beneficial effect on the southeasterly views from 74A Northwood Road because these views are impaired by other trees, or would be impaired by the proposed dwelling-house.

7. Access

1. Concerns

The owners of 12 Private Road state that the original subdivision application required their consent and any subdivision must have access off a public road – however the access was off a right of way and drainage easement. The fence line adjacent to our western boundary encroaches about 500mm onto our land resulting in access to the site being more difficult.

The owners of 13 Private Road comment that the proposal has no Traffic Management report.

The owners of 74A Northwood Road are concerned their boundary wall to the access handle could be damaged.

2. Applicant’s Response

Access to the site was deemed to be adequate when the subdivision application was approved (in 2001). Legal access to the site is not a relevant consideration in this application.

Comment

Issues regarding the proposed access to the site over a right of way and drainage easement were addressed in the assessment of the subdivision application. Conditions recommended by Council’s Engineer have been implemented and adequate access has been provided to the site.

The width of the access handle from the survey has been used in the assessment of the application.

The applicant was advised the day after a meeting with Council’s Consultants to submit a Traffic Management report. This request has not been addressed in the latest plans.

8. Drainage

Concern

The owner of 79 Northwood Road has raised a concern about the lack of natural runoff and the proportion of hard surface area.

Comment

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions to address drainage from the site. In addition the development includes a 10,000 litre rainwater tank at the southern end of the pool. The treatment of on-site drainage has been addressed and the percentage of natural soft landscaped area complies with the Code.

9. Trees

1. Concerns

Three adjoining owners have raised issues regarding neighbouring trees.

The request by the owner of Squirrel Lodge has been addressed under the first heading Overshadowing.

The adjoining owner of 76 Northwood Road is concerned that the development would have an affect on the Jacaranda tree located on the rear boundary of this property.

The owner of 14 Private Road has raised a concern regarding a Brushbox tree believed to be on the subject site which overhangs his house. The owner is concerned that the development would cause damage to the tree and requests that it be trimmed.

Comment

Council’s Landscape Architect (CLA) has confirmed that the Brushbox tree at the southwest corner of 14 Private Road is owned by the objector. CLA has confirmed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on this Brushbox tree, as well as the Brushbox tree on the subject site. The objector has been advised to contact the Tree Preservation Officer for advice on pruning.

In relation to the concern raised about the Jacaranda CLA has not raised this as an issue.

CONCLUSION

This report has assessed a revised proposal for the erection of a two storey dwelling with detached double garage and swimming pool on the subject site. This report follows on from a report prepared by Council’s consultants in relation to the development application which was first revised in the middle of last year.

This report confirms that the revised proposal would still have an adverse impact on some adjoining properties in relation to overshadowing and overlooking. Council’s Landscape Architect has confirmed that the proposal would have an adverse effect on two significant Brushbox trees, one located on the subject site and the other on the adjoining property at 14 Private Road. The revised design would still have an adverse impact in terms of privacy and amenity to some adjoining properties. A number of objections have been received to the proposal, many of which raise ongoing concerns in relation to overshadowing and the scale of the development.

The revised proposal is unable to be supported in its current form and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

That development application number D357/05 for the erection of a two storey dwelling house, separate garage for the parking of two vehicles and the erection of a swimming pool at 16 Private Road, Northwood, be refused for the reasons numbered 1-15 in Environmental Services Division’s Report No. 68 with the following amendments:-

1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

8. 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 recreational areas of the proposed dwelling and/or No. 80A Northwood Road between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22^nd June.

9. 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. 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 the private open space areas within the subject site on 22 June.

11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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	Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page
AT‑3 View	Council's consultants report: Environmental Services Division's Report No. 68	24 Pages
AT‑4 View	Applicant's response to objections	6 Pages

CNL060807ES_242.doc

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 242 *****

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 233
6 AUGUST 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 6 August 2007

28/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 233

Subject: 10 Alpha Road & 9 Gamma Road, Lane Cove

Record No: DA05/322-01 - 16820/07

Author(s): May Li

Property: 10 Alpha Road and 9 Gamma Road, Lane Cove

Application No: DA322/2005 (Section 82A Review)

Date Lodged: 23 May 2007

Cost of Work: $10,000.00

Owner : M Macine & C Wallace

Author: May Li

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Section 82A Review of Council refusal of Development Application No. 322/2005 for the demolition of the existing in-ground swimming pool at 10 Alpha Road and the detached single garage at 9 Gamma Road, consolidation of the land and re-subdivision of the land into three lots
ZONE	2(a1) - Residential
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	The existing buildings on the site are Class 1a, 10a and 10b buildings.
STOP THE CLOCK USED	No
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 7, 8, 9 & 11 Alpha Road, 7, 9, 11, & 13 Beta Road, 7 & 11 Gamma Road, and 1 & 2 Delta Road, Lane Cove Ward Councillors D’Amico, Lawson & Tudge Progress Association Osborne Park Progress Association

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The development was previously determined by way of refusal by the Planning and Building Committee. The Section 82A Review application is submitted to Council for review in accordance with Section 82A (6) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposal involves consolidation of two existing lots and the Torrens Title re-subdivision of the land into three lots. The proposed development complies with the residential subdivision standards of Lane Cove Residential Zones Development Control Plans.

The Section 82A application comprises a planning report addressing the issues raised in the notice of determination of the development application. The design of the proposed subdivision remains unchanged to the original design.

Following the notification of the Section 82A Review application, Council has received 16 submissions including 15 objections. The objections stated that the proposed development would result in a future dwelling house being located in close proximity of their back yards and would create over-looking and over-shadowing impacts to the adjoining properties.

The Section 82A application is submitted to Council for a review of the determination.

ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:

The development proposal is detailed as follows:

- Demolition of the existing in-ground swimming pool at 10 Alpha Road;

- Demolition of the existing detached single garage at 9 Gamma Road;

- Consolidation of two existing lots and re-subdivision of the land into three lots. The sizes of the proposed lots are summarised in the flowing table:

Lot No.	Proposed lot size (m²)	Proposed frontage	Other
1	818.4	20.12m to Alpha Road
2	551.68 (exclusive of the access handle)	3.5m to Gamma Road	Battleaxe allotment
3	550.31	16.62m to Gamma Road

- Retaining all existing trees on the site.

Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2). Refer to the original planning report of the development proposal and Council minute attached (AT3 and AT4).

SECTION 82A PROPOSAL

There is no change to the original proposal in the Section 82A Review application. An additional planning report prepared by Kevin A Brodie and Associates Town Planners and Property Consultants was included in the Section 82A Review application to address Council’s reasons for refusal. Refer to AT5 for a copy of the applicant’s planning report.

In summary, in dealing with the reasons for refusal of the original application, the applicant’s planner has advised:

The proposal does not meet the aims and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP 1987 and will not contribute to and enhance the amenity of the surrounding area.

The objective of the Lane Cove LEP is designed to ensure that future development is in sympathy with and respects the living environment of adjoining neighbours. It may be achieved, in this instance, by ensuring that each allotment within the proposed subdivision is of sufficient shape and has adequate dimensions and site area to provide for residential accommodation with support facilities of a compatible scale with neighbouring accommodation and which reflect modern day domestic living requirements.

The proposal will not result in the creation of lots that are of a size and in keeping with the surrounding scale of residential development.

A requirement to retain allotments of a size in keeping with the surrounding scale of residential development is not specifically documented or reflected in either the objectives or numerical requirements of Part VII – Residential Subdivision – Lane Cove Residential Zones Development Control Plan.

The immediate residential precinct does not contain any features which require any special attention over any other Residential 2(a1) Zoned land in Lane Cove.

There is a battleaxe allotment at 10a Beta Road as well as other regular and irregular shaped allotments with a site area less than the predominate allotments within Alpha and Gamma Roads.

The proposal will adversely impact the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties in Alpha, Beta and Gamma Roads.

The proposed Lot 2 is a considerable distance from neighbouring dwelling houses in Alpha and Gamma Roads.

The amenity of the adjoining properties fronting Beta Road could be addressed by the design of the future dwelling house at Lot 2.

Officer’s Comment

The proposed development is for the subdivision of the land. The construction of a dwelling house on the proposed new lot (Lot 2) is not included in this development application. However, Council may impose conditions (e.g. by the restriction of the height of the new building or no windows with sill height less than 1.7m from the finished floor level on the western elevation) in the development consent of the subdivision to ensure the amenity of the adjoining properties in Beta Road are addressed should Council be willing to approve the application as a result of this.

Insufficient information has been provided detailing garaging arrangements for 9 Gamma Road.

The width of the proposed Lot 3 (9 Gamma Road) together with the setback of the existing dwelling house from both the front and western side allotment boundaries would enable erection of a carport adjacent to the western side of the allotment boundary complying with the requirements of the Code for Dwelling House of Lane Cove.

The potential for loss of significant well established trees and vegetation on the sites.

Completion of the subdivision through to registration would have no impact on any existing trees.

The proposal could create an unacceptable precedent that is not consistent with the objectives of this residential area.

The proposed subdivision fully complies with the subdivision requirements of Lane Cove Residential Zones Development Control Plan and would retain the existing residential amenity of detached single family dwellings.

The proposal is not in the public interest.

The proposed subdivision complies with the intent of the Residential 2(a1) zone objective as contained in Lane Cove LEP 1987.

Lane Cove LEP 1987 was gazetted following public participation and input in accordance with the respective provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and having gone through this course of action reflects the public interest.

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY:

10 October 2005 Development Application No. 322/2005 lodged with Council for subdivision of two allotments into three Torrens Titles.

26 October 2005 The development proposal was notified and 8 submissions were received.

1 November 2005 Council requested additional information for the development assessment.

1 December 2005 Further information including an arborist report of the site was requested for the assessment.

20 March 2006 Council requested a concept plans for the proposed new site to show that could be developed in a way that was not intrusive to the area. This was in response to the submissions of objectors.

8 June 2006 Council notified the concept plan and received 4 submissions.

21 August 2006 The planning report was submitted to Planning and Building Committee and Council resolved that the development application to be referred for a site inspection by Councillors on 2 September 2006 and height poles of the conceptual plan building to be erected for the site inspection.

4 September 2006 The second planning report was submitted to Planning and Building Committee and Council resolved that the development application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet the aims and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP 1987 and will not contribute to and enhance the amenity of the surrounding area.

2. The proposal will not result in the creation of lots that are of a size and in keeping with the surrounding scale of residential development.

3. The proposal will adversely impact the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties in Alpha, Beta and Gamma Roads.

4. Insufficient information has been provided detailing garaging arrangements for 9 Gamma Road.

5. The potential for loss of significant well established trees and vegetation on the sites.

6. The proposal could create an unacceptable precedent that is not consistent with the objectives of this residential area.

7. The proposal is not in the public interest.

11 September 2006 A notice of Determination of Development Application was issued to the applicant.

17 May 2007 An appeal was lodged to the Land and Environment Court against Council’s decision of the development application by the owners of the property.

23 May 2007 A Section 82A Review application was lodged to Council by the owners of the property.

5 June 2007 Section 82A Review Application was notified by Council and 16 submissions were received.

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

The Section 82A Review application was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy between 5 June 2007 and 19 June 2007. 16 Submissions including 15 objections were received in response to the notification of the development application. The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.

* There is no change to the proposal for a two storey house to be built upon Lot 2 after re-allocation of property boundary and the subdivision.

* The amenity of the area which comprise single dwellings on larger allotments will be adversely impacted.

* The proposed development would increase the local traffic.

* All the houses in this area are single houses on large blocks of land. Allowing this proposal to proceed would set an unacceptable precedent for future subdivisions.

* The proposed development would impact on the existing trees.

* The proposed development would cause loss of privacy, reduction of solar access to the adjoining properties

CONCLUSION

The application is submitted to Council for a review in accordance with Section 82A of Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979. In the event the Council after it’s review of the determination wishes to approve the proposal, suggested conditions of approval are as follows:-

1. Any future dwelling house on proposed Lot 2 to be restricted to single storey only, with only highlight windows with minimum sill heights of 1.7m from the finished floor level on the western elevation.

2. That a covenant be placed on the proposed Lot 2 in respect to Condition 1 (above). Such covenant to be in favour of Council and PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE.

3. (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 050011/DT dated 31/08/05 by Robert Moore and Associates Pty Ltd.

4.. A demolition application for removal of the existing swimming pool and garage is to be lodged with Council and the swimming pool is to be drained, removed from site and the excavations are to be filled to the level of the surrounding lands.

5. Subdivision certificate to be obtained from Council

A subdivision certificate, being a certificate that authorises the registration of a plan of subdivision under Division 3 of Part 23 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 is to be obtained from Council in accordance with Section 109C(1)D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

6. Plan of Subdivision - Council Signature

Six (6) copies of final plan of subdivision, prepared by a registered surveyor, and six (6) copies of S88B Instruments, are to be submitted to Council for signature, prior to registration at the Department of Lands (Land and Property Information).

7. Sydney Water - Section 73 Compliance Certificate

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the “Your Business” section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the “e-Developer” icon or telephone Sydney Water 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following application, a "Notice of Requirements" will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of an occupation or subdivision certificate.

8. Subdivision Certificate Issue Requirements

A subdivision certificate will not be issued until:

w The Section 94 contributions and relevant fees and bonds are paid.

w A Compliance/Occupation Certificate is issued.

w The property has been developed in accordance with plans approved by Development Application No.322/2005 and documentary evidence of compliance (or a compliance certificate) with conditions of consent has been submitted to Council.

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

10. The proposed new lot of land must be allocated with a telephone, water, electricity and sewerage services. All these services must be provided underground. The applicant is to contact these service providers to ascertain what these agencies require of the applicant.

11. No excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within five (5) metre of any tree trunk for any future developments.

12. Existing soil levels are to be maintained on lot 2 after subdivision to protect tree roots

13. This approval does not extend to any tree removal, nor pruning lopping or damaging of any trees on the site or in adjoining lands.

14. A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Municipality of Lane Cove. The Order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council and the penalty for contravention of this Order is up to Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of the bushland character of the Municipality. All enquiries concerning the Tree Preservation Order must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

15. The site is to be properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorized persons outside of working hours.

16. Each of the properties is to be fenced with appropriate boundary fencing. An appropriate design solution is to be provided to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate. Lot 2 is to be provided with fencing that is at least 1.8 metres in height.

17. Silt control/fence is to be installed along the front boundary of Gamma Rd before any works are undertaken.

18. The submission for Council's approval and endorsement where necessary, of all instruments creating restrictive covenants including height restrictions, building lines, drainage easements and rights-of-way prior to release of the subdivision certificate.

19. The payment of a contribution for an additional 3.0 persons in accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan. This payment being made prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate and is to be at the current rate at time of payment. The amount is $ 24376.50 at the current rate of $8125.50 per person. Note: payment must be in bank cheque. Personal cheques will not be accepted.

This contribution is for community facilities, open space/ recreation and road under the lane cove section 94 contributions plan which is available for inspection at the customer service counter, Lane Cove Council, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove.

20. It should be noted that any future dwelling house should be sited such that it is away from the mature trees in the Northern east corner of Lot 2 and the Southeastern corner of Lot 1.

21. Full details of the hydraulic evaluation of the stormwater drainage system is prepared by a suitably qualified civil engineer in accordance with Council’s standards and specification for stormwater drainage shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate application.

22. An easement to drain stormwater water shall be created over all pipelines, which may be constructed within adjoining private properties to enable collected stormwater runoff from the site to be piped to Council's drainage system by gravity flow. Such easements must be lodged with the Land and Property Information and documentary evidence of the registration of the easement submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

In conjunction with the above documentation a drainage design by a qualified Civil Engineer is to be submitted showing the pipe and easement position and sizing and any other relevant detail, in accordance with Council's standards and specifications for stormwater drainage. The legal documentation is to reference the drainage design submitted prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate application.

Confirming that the constructed interallotment drainage system complies with the construction plan requirements and Lane Cove Council’s ‘standards and specifications for stormwater drainage’.

23. Compliance Certificate – Surveyor. A compliance certificate must be submitted from a Registered Surveyor indicating that all pipelines and associated structures lie wholly within any easements required by this consent.

24. The applicant shall arrange for and pay all costs and fees associated with providing underground electrical power and telephone services to the subdivision.

25. 88B Instrument. The submission of an instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 plus 2 copies, creating any Easements, Positive Covenants and restrictions on use, the Lane Cove Council being the authority empowered to release vary or modify the same.

26. Prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate the applicant is to indicate a design solution for a parking space for the house at 9 Gamma Road. If a separate application is required for a footpath/gutter crossing this must be lodged with Councils prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the determination of Development Application No. 322/2005 resolved by Council at its meeting of 4 September 2006 for the consolidation of two lots and re-subdivision into 3 lots on Lots 68 & 68 DP 4373 and known as 10 Alpha and 9 Gamma Roads, Lane Cove is submitted for review and determination.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page
AT‑3 View	Environmental Services Report No. 94	22 Pages
AT‑4 View	Council Minutes for 10 Alpha Road dated 4/9/06	1 Page
AT‑5 View	Town Planning Report by Kevin Brodie dated March 2007	24 Pages

CNL060807ES_233.doc

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 233 *****

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 246
6 AUGUST 2007

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 6 August 2007

4/07/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 246

Subject: 7 Holden Street, Northwood

Record No: da07/128 - 17740/07

Author(s): Rajiv Shankar

Property: Lot 55 DP 58263 -7 Holden Street, also known as 7 Kelly’s Esplanade Northwood

DA No: DA128/07

Date Lodged: 11 May 2007

Cost of Work: $ 285 000

Owner : D & M Cant

Author: Rajiv Shankar

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Erection of a two storey dwelling house, carport and driveway.
ZONE	2 (a2) Residential
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
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 Kelly’s Espl, 3, 4, 5, 9 Holden St, 4 James St. Thirty (30) submissions were received. Ward Councillors Councillors A Smith, K Freedman & J Hassarati. Progress Association Northwood Action Group. Submission received.

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

This application is being referred to Council because the original application and subsequent Section 82A Review were determined by Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Council, at it’s meeting of 16 May 2005, resolved to refuse the original Development Application proposing the construction of a two storey dwelling house on the existing separate vacant allotment.

Council, at it’s meeting of 6 February 2006, acknowledged the withdrawal of the S82A application lodged by the applicant and chose not to determine it.

Subsequently, a second S82A review application was received and Council at it’s meeting of 20 November 2006, resolved to reaffirm the original refusal.

An appeal was lodged in the Land & Environment Court, on the 19 December 2006, against the refusal dated 6 November 2006 of a S 82A review application, But was later withdrawn because the 12 months period, within which the applicant has a right to appeal, had expired.

On 11 May 2007 a Development Application was submitted proposing the construction of a two storey dwelling on the existing vacant allotment. The proposal is primarily the same as DA 214/03 as amended as part of the applicant’s second S82A Review, which Council at it’s meeting of 20 November 2006, resolved that Council’s refusal to the original application be reaffirmed.

The application has been notified and thirty (30) submissions have been received from individuals and an additional submission from Northwood Action Group.

A letter was written to the applicant on 3 July 2007 asking him to address the concerns raised in the submissions received.

On the 4 July an appeal was lodged in the Land & Environment Court against deemed refusal under S 82(1) the call over date for which is 2 August 2007.

SITE:

The subject site is Lot 55 DP 58263 and known as 7 Holden Street also known as 7 Kelly’s Esplanade Northwood and is situated on the northern side of Kelly’s Esplanade with the south-eastern corner of the site adjoining the unmade portion of the lower end of James Street.

The site has a total area of 227.7 square metres and is currently vacant. The site comprises lawn/grass areas, path and gardens and improvements and is used by the owners of Lot 54 DP 58263 (7 Holden Street), being the current owners for both lots, for open space purposes.

Within the north and north-eastern areas of the site the land is relatively flat; however from the central areas of the site to the west and south-western boundaries the land commences to fall some 2-3 metres. The west and south-western boundaries of the site adjoin unmade sections of a road reserve and again commence to fall a further 2-3 metres. A further significant fall of approximately 4-5 metres occurs from the western edge of the road reserve to the made section of Kelly’s Esplanade below.

Kelly’s Esplanade contains one and two storey dwelling houses of varying styles. The surrounding sites with access to other streets are comprised of similar development. Copy of Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is for the construction of a two storey dwelling house with a pitched roof along with an attached tandem carport with a flat roof within the front portion of the site. Access to the dwelling house is from the carport area to the entry to the ground floor. The two storeys comprise of living & dining, study, laundry, WC and kitchen on the first floor and bedrooms and bath rooms on the ground floor. Terraces are proposed on both the levels.

Vehicular access is proposed via a driveway along the elevated portion of Kelly’s Esplanade road reserve starting from the existing cul de sac till the front of the subject property.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

On 20 July 2003 a Development Application was received by Council proposing the construction of a two storey dwelling house on the existing separate substantially vacant allotment.

The original proposal was to construct a two storey dwelling house with a flat roof and an attached carport within the front portion of the site. Access to the dwelling house from the carport area was via an entry point into the Level 2 living area. The two storeys comprised of living, laundry, WC and kitchen on the first floor and bedrooms, bathrooms and study on the ground floor. Terraces were proposed to both levels.

Excavation of the site was proposed for the dwelling house and also for the construction of a driveway across the unmade section of the road reserve of Kelly’s Esplanade and James Street.

During assessment of the Development Application Council received nine submissions following notification of the proposal. Issues included:

Inappropriate density on a small allotment

Inappropriate access over Kelly’s Esplanade and James Street

Impact on existing pedestrian walkway by a driveway

Excessive excavation

Issues regarding possible Archaeological find/s on site

Shadow effect

On 4 April 2005 a report was submitted to Council’s Planning and Building Committee recommending approval of the application. The application was deferred to the Inspection Committee of Saturday 7 May 2005 and was referred to the Council meeting of 16 May 2005.

At the Council meeting of 16 May 2005 Council resolved to refuse the Development Application for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal will not be consistent with the housing objectives of Clause 2(2) of the Lane Cove Local Environment Plan (the "LEP") in that the proposal will not maintain or improve the existing amenity and environmental character of the area;

2. The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development because of the constraints relating to the topography and natural features and the irregular shape of the land;

3. The development does not comply with Council's codes in terms of cut and fill, building line set back and solar access;

4. The proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on the existing views from 4 James Street and on the amenity, value and access to the property at 9 Kelly's Esplanade;

5. The proposal will not be consistent with the objectives and standards of clause 3.5 Energy Efficiency of the Code for Dwelling Houses;

6. Approval of the application would not be in the public interest because the proposed driveway involves the alienation of a substantial area of the road reserve of Kelly's Esplanade for use as a private vehicular access and would also result in a conflict with the existing vehicular access to 9 Kelly's Esplanade and with pedestrian using the pathway and reserve area (footpath) as an access to Kelly's Esplanade;

7. The proposed driveway will result in an unacceptable loss of greenery and vegetation on the Kelly's Esplanade frontage;

8. The quality and provision of landscaping on site is not consistent with the objectives of Clause 3.9 of the Code;

9. That without having obtained a proper archaeological survey and investigation of the site, the proposed construction of the driveway could result in the destruction of heritage items comprising and relating to the old convict road from Woodford Bay; and

10. Overall the development is not in the public interest.

On 19 October 2005, the applicant lodged a Section 82A Review of the refusal.

The Section 82A application was neighbour notified on 1 December 2005. Eleven (11) submissions were received.

The Section 82A review was subsequently withdrawn at the Council meeting of 6 February 2006.

On 15 May 2006 the owner/applicant lodged a further Section 82A application with a number of supporting documents not previously submitted with the original Section 82A application.

The Section 82A application was neighbour notified on 23 May 2006. Ward Councillors and interested groups were also notified on that date. A total of seventeen (17) submissions were received.

The Council, on 20 November 2006, reaffirmed the refusal as follows.

2. The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development because of the constraints relating to the topography and natural features and the irregular shape of the land; Refusal reaffirmed

3. The development does not comply with Council's codes in terms of cut and fill, building line set back and solar access; Refusal reaffirmed

4. The proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on the existing views from 4 James Street and on the amenity, value and access to the property at 9 Kelly's Esplanade; Refusal reaffirmed

5. The proposal will not be consistent with the objectives and standards of clause 3.5 Energy Efficiency of the Code for Dwelling Houses; Satisfactory information submitted

7. The proposed driveway will result in an unacceptable loss of greenery and vegetation on the Kelly's Esplanade frontage; Satisfactory information submitted

8. The quality and provision of landscaping on site is not consistent with the objectives of Clause 3.9 of the Code; Satisfactory information submitted

10. Overall the development is not in the public interest. Refusal reaffirmed

On 11 May 2007 the current Development Application was received by Council proposing the construction of a two storey dwelling house on the existing vacant allotment. The proposal is primarily the same as DA 214/03 as amended by the applicant’s second S82A Review.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

Site Area (227.7m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.51 :1	0.7:1	Yes
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	41%	35%	Yes
Side Boundary Setback (min)	1.5m (East) 1.5m (West)	1.5m 1.5m	Yes Yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	6.0m (to ridge height)	9.5m	Yes
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	5.8m (raked ceiling)	7.0m	Yes
No of Storeys	2	2	Yes
Building Line (min)	5.5m	7.5m	No
Foreshore Building Line (min)			Not applicable
Cut and Fill (max)	1.0m	1.0m	Yes
Deck/Balcony width (max)	Balcony (Upper level) 2.0m Terrace (Lower level) 2.0m	3m (if elevated by >1m) 3m (if elevated by >1m)	Yes Yes
Solar Access (min)	Unsatisfactory	3 hours to north elevation	Yes
BASIX	Satisfactory	Required	Yes

CARPORTS IN FRONT BUILDING LINE

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Building Line (min)	2.0m	7.5m	No
Proportion of Allotment Width	4.0m	50% or 6m, whichever is the lesser	Yes
Setback of Posts (min)	1.6m	1.0m	Yes

REFERRALS:

Manager Urban Design and Assets

The Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who raised a number of issues with regard to the gradient of the driveway, separation of entry with 9 Kelly’s Esplanade, construction methodology for driveway excavation and future maintenance and reconstruction of the driveway.

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no technical objection to the proposal and has provided specific conditions in respect to the above issues.

Manager Parks

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect who raised no landscape objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of specific conditions.

The Council’s Landscape Architect further advised:

‘As this property falls under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore and Waterways DCP all natural sandstone outcrops should be preserved and enhanced. Preservation of the sandstone outcrops and ledges has been identified on the landscape plan but no measures to suggest further enhancement have been submitted.’

It is acknowledged that the existing natural sandstone outcrop and ledges are an important feature on the site and have been identified on the submitted landscape plan/s and should be maintained and enhanced at all times. If the application is to be approved by Council then specific condition/s should be imposed to ensure that the natural sandstone outcrop and ledges be preserved, maintained and enhanced.

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

The following comments have been raised by Council’s Manager Traffic with regards to the referral sent for the previous application under S82A review. These comments remain valid for the current application.

The proposed access driveway is located primarily on an underdeveloped road reserve that is utilised by many local residents from Holden Street and Northwood Road as a footway to Woodford Bay. While the traffic generation rate of a single dwelling property is negligible, the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles needs to be addressed.

This interaction of pedestrians & vehicles could be addressed by making the area a ‘share zone’. Share zones have a very low speed limit (5KPH) and utilise signage and traffic calming facilities to both highlight and enforce the fact that the area is shared area for vehicles and pedestrians.

The proposed access way will impact on any future plan by Council to formalise this road reserve.

All access/egress on the access driveway must be undertaken in a forward direction, thus an on site turning area is required.

A guardrail will be required along the full extent of the southern boundary of the access driveway given the significant change in level to Kelly’s Esplanade.

The access driveway will pass in close proximity to No 9’s garage, sight distance between the two must not be compromised by vegetation, with a possible convex mirror required to allow both residents to gauge traffic movements in the area.

The dimensional characteristics of access driveway must comply with AS2890.1-2004-‘Off Street Parking Code.’

Comment

The comments made by Council’s Manager Traffic in respect to the proposed access way (turning area) into Council’s road reserve and the possible construction of a turning area on the subject site so that all vehicles enter and leave the site in a forward direction has raised significant concerns.

In terms of the proposed access way (turning area) into Council’s road reserve the Manager Traffic has stated that the proposed access way would impact on any future plan/s by Council to formalise this road reserve. The Manager Traffic suggests that an alternate solution would be the provision of a turning area on site to ensure vehicles enter and leave the site in a forward direction and that it would satisfy Council’s possible formalisation of the road reserve.

It is considered that the above comment made by the Manager Traffic is valid in terms of the impact of any future plans for Council’s road reserve. However, the alternate solution to provide a turning area on site would be difficult to achieve as it may involve the possible excavation, cutting into and building over the existing natural rock outcrop and ledges on the subject site and is also in direct conflict with the Sydney Harbours Foreshores and Waterways DCP (and Council’ s Landscape Architect) for the retention of these important existing natural landscape features.

Further, it should be noted that the unmade portion of James Street (located at the subject site’s southern boundary) is not a CLOSED road, rather an unformed road under the care, control, management and maintenance of Council. It is apparent that the concerns raised in terms of the current access way design, layout and vehicular movement would conflict with the existing neighbour situation. The formation of James Street would give direct access to the subject site.

79 (C)(1)(a) The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

The proposal is permissible within the 2(a2) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP. The proposed works are for construction of a dwelling house. The proposal is permissible with consent.

The Aim, objective under Clause 2 (1)(a) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 states:

To preserve and where appropriate improve the existing character and environmental quality of the land to which it applies in accordance with the expectations of the community.

The proposal would not preserve and improve the existing character and environmental quality of the land to which it applies in accordance with the expectations of the community, because the characteristic walkway, used by the neighbouring community, would not be preserved and would be lost.

The Aim, objective under Clause 2 (2)(a)(i) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 states:

To maintain and where appropriate improve the existing amenity and the environmental character of the residential zones.

The proposal would not maintain and improve the existing amenity and the environmental character of the residential zones because the proposed dwelling house would be an unusually configured, small house on a very tight parcel of land, in a context which is characterised by larger dwelling houses, on mostly larger sites. It offers limited accommodation, limited storage, and little usable outdoor space and private open space. The small dwelling house would be inconsistent with the surrounding development and would provide a low level of amenity to its inhabitants. The proposal would deprive the existing dwelling house at 7 Holden Street of a back yard or any useful private open space, constraining its amenity as well as affecting that of its neighbours.

The proposed development, therefore does not satisfy the relevant objectives set for the Low Density Residential Zone as defined under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses – September 2000

As indicated in the policy compliance table, the proposal complies with the code’s provisions for excavation, floor space ratio, soft landscaped area, side boundary setbacks, roof ridge and ceiling height, number of storeys, cut and fill, deck and it is considered to achieve the objectives for each provision.

The proposal does not comply with the provisions for building line as the front setback from the first floor balcony would be 5.5m as against a requirement of 7.5m.

The proposal does not comply with the provisions for building line as the front setback from the carport would be 2.0m as against a requirement of 7.5m.

Draft Lane Cove Acid Sulfate Soils Map

The subject site is affected by Council’s Draft Acid Sulfate Map. Considering soil investigation has not been carried out, once the application is approved, as a condition of consent the applicant will be required to carry out soil investigations to assess the impact of acid sulfate soils and incorporate any recommendations during construction.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP) and Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan for the SREP (the DCP)

The Municipality of Lane Cove is identified as being within the Sydney Harbour Catchment of the SREP. The subject site is also located within the Foreshores and Waterways Area as indicated on the Foreshores and Waterways Area map contained within this SREP, and as such, is subject to the DCP that complements the SREP.

The SREP aims to recognise, protect, enhance and maintain the catchment, foreshores and waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour and to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment. Part 3 of the SREP addresses the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Within Part 3, Division 2 sets out Matters for consideration which Council is to consider in assessing new development. Of the clauses 20-27 listed for consideration, the location and scale of the proposed works, would not raise any significant issues.

The property falls under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore and Waterways DCP which states that the intend is to retain natural features and only encourage development that is consistent with the scale, design and siting of that which exists. The proposed dwelling house has been sited to enable preservation of the sandstone outcrops and ledges. The conifers, on Kelly’s Esplanade, being the most dominant natural feature from the waterways have been retained. Existing vegetation along the proposed driveway have been retained and additional planting has been proposed. Therefore, it is considered that the existing character and natural features would be retained.

OTHER PLANNING INSTURUMENTS

SEPP 55 – State Environmental Planning policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with Clause 7 of this instrument, Council is required to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to carrying out of development on this land. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites have been for residential purposes and unlikely that that there has been any high risk uses. Accordingly, contamination of the site is unlikely to be an issue.

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.

The proposal would deprive the existing dwelling house at 7 Holden Street of a back yard or any useful private open space, constraining its amenity as well as affecting that of its neighbours. The proposed building towards the rear would adversely impact on the existing views of the existing dwelling on number 7 Holden Street at the rear. In the original application, this issue was addressed by lowering the dwelling by increased cutting into the ground.

With regard to views, site inspections revealed that there would be view loss suffered by 4 James Street as a result of a dwelling house being erected in its proposed location on the subject land. In particular, there would be a loss of water and tree-lined ridge views from the existing family room looking to the west over the subject site to Woodford Bay. The erection of a dwelling house on the subject site, in the proposed location, would not affect the existing views from the southern areas of 4 James Street to the south and southwest.

The difficulties of providing vehicle access to the site may result in disruption of the established amenity of the area. While in engineering terms the proposed ‘slip road’ may be possible, it would only be realised through major disruption of the established setting and invasive construction. The property at 9 Kelly’s Esplanade would notably suffer in this regard, having a roadway imposed where there is presently a pleasant footpath. The use of a stencilled concrete surface for this roadway would be particularly obtrusive and uncharacteristic of the locality.

Section 79C(1)(c) - The Suitability of the Site for the Development

The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development because of the constraints relating to the topography and natural features and the irregular shape of the land.

The area of the subject site is 227.7 square metres. The area of adjoining properties with an existing dwelling varies from 550 square metres to approximately 1200 square metres with an average of 720 square metres per lot. These properties contain dwelling houses of a size, bulk, design and scale appropriate to the area of the land.

Whilst it is acknowledged that a dwelling house can be erected on an allotment of land that was in existence prior to the appointed day of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan, Council must consider whether the proposed development is suitable for the land and have regard to the previous and predominant land use.

The subject site has a number of specific constraints including its topography (land is elevated above Kelly’s Esplanade and a substantial section of the land is below the existing lawn levels dropping away to sandstone rock shelves), its irregular shape, small land size, varying rock shelves and ledges and the use of part of an existing pedestrian walkway for vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. The combination of a number of these constraints severely restricts the type and size of dwelling allowed on the site even though Council’s Dwelling House Code permits a dwelling house to be built on the subject site with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.7:1.

By virtue of its difficult topography, the site has remained as ‘back yard’ to the existing dwelling house fronting Holden Street. It is apparent on the site how the uneven terrain of the land has been more effective in determining its boundaries and usefulness than survey pegs and fence lines. Rock shelving and changes in level are notable features which contribute to the site’s character and constrain its use.

Development of the land in the manner proposed would leave the existing dwelling house at 7 Holden Street without a back yard or indeed, any useful private open space, constraining its amenity as well as adversely affecting that of its neighbours.

Section 79C(1)(d) - Any Submissions Made in Accordance With this Act or Regulations.

A total of thirty one (31) submissions, one being from North Action Group, were received in response to the notification of the development application. The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

The DA is exactly the same as DA 214/03 as amended as part of the applicant’s second S82A Review.

Comment

After comparison, it is observed that the proposal is primarily the same as DA 214/03 as amended as part of the applicant’s second S82A Review which Council at it’s meeting of 20 November 2006, resolved that Council’s refusal to the original application be reaffirmed and the reasons of refusal have not been addressed. This is indicated in reason for refusal No.8.

…..strongly opposed to the proposed access via Kelly’s Esplanade. We do not want one of Northwood’s pretty, historic and leafy walkways turned into a driveway. Very narrow street and may cause vibrations and rock falls to street. Noise. Traffic problems. Cue- de sac and driveway.

Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal would not preserve and or improve the existing character and environmental quality of the land to which it applies in accordance with the expectations of the community, because the characteristic walkway, used by the neighbouring community, would not be preserved and lost for ever. This is indicated in reason for refusal No.1.

A development on 227 sq m in not in keeping with the area…

Comment

The site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development because of the constraints relating to the topography and natural features and the irregular shape of the land. This is indicated in reason for refusal No.6.

I note that the present application plan an easement and a new Stormwater drain.

Comment

The stormwater drainages has been assessed by Councils Engineer and no technical objections have been expressed with regards to drainage.

Loss of views

Comment

With regard to views, site inspections revealed that there would be view loss suffered by No 4 James Street as a result of a dwelling being erected in its proposed location on the subject land.

Section 79C(1)(e) - The Public Interest.

Given the circumstances of the proposal as outlined in this report, and given the significant public opposition, the approval of this proposal is not considered in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council controls, as well as public good and suitability of the site. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory due to various reasons. The matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and the proposal is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Development Application D 128/07 for the erection of a two storey dwelling house, carport and driveway at Lot 55 DP 58263 -7 Holden Street, also known as 7 Kelly’s Esplanade, be refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would not be consistent with the housing objectives of Clause 2(2) of the lane Cove Local Environmental Plan in that the proposal would not maintain or improve the existing amenity and environmental character of the area.

2. The site is not considered suitable for the proposed development because of the constraints relating to the topography and natural features and the small area and irregular shape of the land.

3. The development does not comply with Council’s codes in terms of the front building line setback.

4. The proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on 4 St James Street and on the amenity, value and access to the property at 9 Kelly’s Esplanade.

5. Approval of the application would not be in the public interest because the proposed driveway involves the alienation of a substantial area of the road reserve of Kelly’s Esplanade for use as a private vehicular access and would also result in a conflict with the existing vehicular access to 9 Kelly’s Esplanade and with pedestrians using the footpath and the road reserve (footpath) as an access to Kelly’s Esplanade.

6. The proposal is not considered in the public interest, given the impact of the proposal and the issues raised by the significant number of the objections received.

7. The proposal would deprive the existing dwelling house at 7 Holden Street of its only private open space.

8. The location of the open space on the site is not considered appropriate, in that the area is not a “private” area for the occupants of the proposed dwelling house.

9. The proposed dwelling house would adversely impact on the existing views of the existing dwelling on number 7 Holden Street at the rear.

10. The proposed location of living areas at an elevated level with direct access to a terraced area which would potential result in an unacceptable loss of amenity in terms of noise and visual intrusions, to the adjoining properties given the small and constrained size of Lot 55 DP 58263.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page

CNL060807ES_246

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 246 *****

AT‑1 View	Lane Cove Draft Telecommunications Facilities DCP 2007	39 Pages
AT‑2 View	Lane Cove DLEP 2007 - Clause 23D - Telecommunications Facilities	1 Page
AT‑3 View	Letters to Mr Wade and Mr Langford	3 Pages
AT‑4 View	RF EME Environmental Survey Report Jan 2007 Burns Bay Road	9 Pages

ORDINARY COUNCIL
ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 13
6 AUGUST 2007

ORDINARY COUNCIL
CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 37
6 AUGUST 2007

ITEM REPORT CONTENT PAGE