Agenda of Planning and Building Committee

PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 286
20 AUGUST 2007

Planning and Building Committee at the Meeting 20 August 2007

27/07/2007 to Planning and Building Committee

Environmental Services Division Report No. 286

Subject: 30 George Street, Greenwich

Record No: da07/76 - 20736/07

Author(s): May Li

Property: 30 George Street, Greenwich

DA No: 76/2007

Date Lodged: 15 March 2007

Cost of Work: $300,000.00

Owner : R & E Hunter

Author: May Li

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Demolition of the existing single garage, construction of a double carport at the front of the property, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house
ZONE	2(a2) - Residential
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?	Yes
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?	No. However the subject site is located in the vicinity of heritage items: 1-19 Mitchell Street and 41 George Street, Greenwich
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?	Yes. The subject site is located within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?	No
BCA CLASSIFICATION	Class 1a, 10a and 10b
STOP THE CLOCK USED	Yes – 30 days
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 11 – 15 Mitchell Street, 32, 34, 37, 39, & 41 George Street, 11 Richard Street, Greenwich Ward Councillors Tudge, Lawson, Progress Association Greenwich Community Association Inc Other Interest Groups Lane Cove Historical Society

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The development application has been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Councillor DÁmico.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The subject site is located within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area and adjacent to heritage items. The proposal involves demolition of the existing single garage and construction of a double carport at the front of the property. It also involves alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including enclosure of part of the existing front verandah for the construction of an en-suite.

The proposed development does not comply with provisions of Lane Cove Code for the Dwelling Houses relating to the floor space ratio (FSR), the building line, side setback, privacy and over looking requirements.

The proposed works are incompatible with the character of the existing dwelling house and the streetscape of the heritage conservation area. The proposed development would change the street presentation of the dwelling house and the garden setting of the property. It is likely to result in adversely impacts on the streetscape of the conservation area and amenities of the adjoining properties. The proposed development is considered unacceptable in its current format and application is therefore is recommended for refusal for the reasons stated in the report.

SITE:

The subject site is located on the southern side of George Street, Greenwich and is also located within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area.

The site slopes from the front to the rear by approximately 10.5m and an existing part 1/part 2 storey dwelling house with a detached single garage is located on the site. The surrounding development comprises dwelling houses.

Notification Plan and Site Location Plan attached AT1.

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is detailed as the follows:

Lower ground floor level:

- Demolition of two existing sheds attached to the western side of the dwelling house;

- Internal alterations including new bathroom, new stairs and new access door to the garden area;

- Installation of two water 10,000 litres water tanks under the ground floor decking area.

Ground floor level:

- Demolition of the existing single garage;

- Construction of a double carport at the front of the property;

- Alterations and additions to the dwelling house including construction of a 950mm wide front deck attached to the existing verandah, enclosure of part of the front verandah for an en-suite, new stairs, new entrance and new family room and timber deck attached to the western side of the dwelling house.

Refer to the AT2 for plans dated 6 June 2007 for more details.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

There is no relevant approval history for the site.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

Site Area (555m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.53:1	0.5:1	No
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	34.1%	35%	No
Side Boundary Setback (min)	1.2m at the front and 1.8m at the rear	1.5m for 2 storey dwelling house	Yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	As existing (9.6m)	9.5m	N/A
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	6.17 (as existing)	7.0m	Yes
No of Storeys	2	2	Yes
Building Line (max)	6.2m	7.5m	No
Foreshore Building Line (min)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Cut and Fill (max)	Nil	1m	Yes
Deck/Balcony width (max)	5.5m	3m (if elevated by >1m)	No
Solar Access (min)	More than 3 hours	3 hours to north elevation	Yes

CARPORTS IN FRONT OF BUILDING LINE

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Building Line (min)	1.5m	7.5m	No
Proportion of Allotment Width	Less than 50% of the frontage or 6m	50% or 6m, whichever is the lesser	Yes
Setback of Posts (min)	1.5m	1m	Yes

FENCING

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Height (max)	Timber gate 1800mm	900mm	No
% Open Where > 900mm in Height (min)	Less than 50% opening	50%	No
Setback From Front Boundary if >900mm in height (min)	Nil	1m	No

REFERRALS:

Manager Urban Design and Assets

The development was referred to Council’s development engineer for comment as part of the development assessment. The engineer raised no objections to the proposal in terms of proposed storm water management of the site.

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

Heritage Advisor

The subject site is located within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation area and adjacent to heritage items. The proposed development was referred to Council’s heritage advisor for comment.

The heritage advisor states that the existing residence is a representative example of Federation Bungalow style residence substantially altered in finish and detail. The residence retains its original roof form and open hip roofed verandah characteristic of the Federation Bungalow style. The character and style are contributory to the setting and cohesive with the adjacent listed residences.

“The proposed works include partial enclosure of the existing front verandah and alteration of window openings to the remaining verandah. It is unclear why such an extensive development relies upon enclosure of the existing front verandah to provide an additional bathroom. Reference to the proposed layout indicates opportunities existing for alternative location of the proposed bathroom within the existing interiors. Enclosure of prominent external verandah is traditionally associated with subdivision for smaller living unites and considered to detract from the established form and detail of Federation and Victorian residences.

While it is noted that the applicant proposes to remove some elements of inappropriate detailing (e.g. applied iron filigree) the overall approach appears to further obscure the original form, detail and planning of the residence.”

The heritage advisor has provided the following recommendations to the proposed development:

“- The existing front verandah be remained as a continuous open space.

- The new glazing doors to the front verandah be detailed in a manner reflecting the proportion and division of traditional French doors.

- Unless there is some catastrophic material failure, existing roof tiles should be retained and closely matched in the proposed roof extension to the western side.

- The proposed double height window to the eastern elevation be amended to reflect the scale, proportion and detail of existing opening.

- The proposed garage be set back to the line of the existing building.”

Refer to AT3 for the Heritage Advice.

The heritage advice was forwarded to the applicant and the applicant did not agree with the heritage advisor and has not provided amended plans.

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

Clause 18A (3) When determining a development application required by this clause, the Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

As indicated in the previous part of this report, the subject site is located within the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area and is also located in close proximity to heritage items. The existing dwelling house is part of the character of the conservation area. The proposed works would create adverse impacts on the conservation area in the following ways:

* The open hip roofed front verandah is the significant character of the existing dwelling house. Enclosure of the centre part of the verandah for the construction of a bathroom not only changes the design of the veranda but also changes the street presentation of the dwelling house in the conservation. It would alter the original features of the dwelling house and the streetscape.

* The building line of the existing dwelling house is approximately 7.6m to the front boundary and proposed bathroom is 6.2m and the carport is only 1.5m to the front boundary which are inconsistent with the building lines of the adjoining properties in George Street.

* The proposed double carport has a full height brick wall on the western elevation with a tilt-a-door. It is adjacent to a 1.8m high timber front gate. The double carport is enclosed on two sides and it looks like a double garage when viewed from George Street. The carport is located only 1.5m from the front boundary of the property and located at prominent position of the front garden area. It would create an adverse impact on the presentation of the dwelling house. The carport should be a single carport and should be located behind the building line of the existing building line and have a roof with a simple design.

* The proposal involves replacement of the roof tiles of the existing dwelling house and however, the conditions of the roof have not been addressed by the Heritage Statement accompanying the development application.

* The designs of the proposed windows on the eastern elevation do not reflect the proportions, the scale and details of the existing windows of the dwelling house.

Given the reason above and the comment of the heritage advisor, it is considered that the proposed works would adversely impact on the heritage significant value of the conservation area.

Other Planning Instruments

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings

It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives and the requirements of the Code. Further details will be discussed below.

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

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

3.1 General

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

The proposed elevated timer deck is approximately 3m above the natural ground level. It will create a significant over looking impact to the adjoining properties to the west and south. The design of the proposed development has not addressed the over looking impacts on the adjoining neighbours.

3.2 Floor space ratio (FSR)

Objectives:

a. Limit the bulk of the dwelling

b. Ensure dwellings and additions are generally in scale with the character of the neighbourhood.

Standard: The maximum permissible FSR for the subject site is 0.5:1

The proposed FSR is 0.53:1 and the proposed development does not comply with the 0.5:1 FSR requirement of the Code. The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted gross floor area by approximately 16m²which is close to the size of the proposed additional family room on the ground level.

3.6 Privacy and Overlooking

Objective: Buildings are to be designed and constructed so as the use will not significantly affect the privacy of the occupants of any adjoining site

Standards:

2. Buildings or additions shall be designed and orientated to avoid overlooking adjoining dwellings. Where, due to design or site constraints, overlooking is unavoidable, use should be made of natural or constructed screening.

3. Elevation decks, terraces, or balconies greater than 1m above natural ground level are not to exceed a width of 3.0m of useable area.

The width of the proposed deck is 5m wide and the deck is approximately 3m above the natural ground level. It would create over looking impacts to the adjoining properties to the west and the south. The deck is 1.8m from the common boundary.

3.7 Building line

Objectives:

a. Minimise the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape

b. Maintain an open streetscape with sufficient area for soft landscaping between the dwelling and the street.

Standards:

1. A building line of 7.5m from the front boundary line.

3. Carports may be permitted on a lesser building line subject to the following criteria:

i. they are of open design and afford minimum impact on the streetscape.

The proposed double carport has a full height wall on the western elevation with an enclosure door. It is not in an open design and is located only 1.5m from the front boundary. It will adversely impact on the streetscape. The wall of the en-suite is only 6.2m from the front boundary.

3.8 Setbacks to side boundaries

Objectives:

a. Achieve separation betweens for privacy and to enable areas for landscaping.

b. Enable view between dwellings where applicable

Standards:

1. A minimum setback of 1200mm from the side boundary for single storey dwelling and a minimum setback of 1500mm for a two storey dwelling.

2. Variations may be considered if there will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties and if objectives are achieved, for example:

i an open carport on nil boundary setback,

ii detached garage on nil boundary setback.

The wall of the proposed carport is 500mm from the western boundary of the property. A variation to the setback requirement has not been lodged. It is considered that the bulk and the scale of the proposed double carport will create an overwhelming impact on the bulk and the scale of the dwelling house and the front garden setting of the property.

3.9 Landscaping

Objective: Soft landscaped areas to ensure the predominant landscape quality of the municipality is maintained and enhanced and to decrease urban runoff.

Standards:

2. At lease 35% of the site be natural/soft landscaped area.

The proposed soft landscaping area is only 34% of the site and variation has not been lodged. Reduction in the extent of the proposal would result in compliance with this requirement.

4. Fencing

a. Design Requirements

i Front fences are to be constructed no higher than 900mm above footpath level.

The front timber gate is 1.8m high and is incompatible with the height and the design of the existing front fence.

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy. No objections were received in response to the notification of the development application.

CONCLUSION

The development application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the aims and objectives of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 and the provisions of Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings. It would create adverse impacts on the streetscape and the heritage value of the Greenwich Heritage Conservation area. It also would create adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours. The development proposal in its current form is unacceptable and is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons stated in the recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to section 80 (1) (b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 refuse consent to Development Application No.76/2007 for demolition of the existing single garage, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and construction of a double carport at 30 George Street Greenwich, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development does not comply with the aims and the objectives of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987, as amended.

Particulars:

a. The proposed works are incompatible with the character of the existing dwelling house and do not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with the adjoining developments in the Greenwich Heritage Conservation area.

b. The proposed deck is too wide and would create over looking and noise impacts to the adjoining properties and would adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

2. The proposed development does not comply with Clause 18A of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

Particulars:

a. The proposed development would create adverse impacts on the heritage value of the property and the streetscape of the conservation area. The heritage impact statement is inaccurate and contains insufficient information.

b. The enclosure of the front verandah for the construction of a bathroom would significantly alter the design of the original front verandah and change the street presentation of the property.

c. The new glazing doors to the front verandah do not reflect the proportion and division of traditional French Doors.

d. The proposed window on the east elevation does not reflect to the scale, proportion and detail of the existing openings of the dwelling house.

e. The proposed double carport is too close to the front boundary and changes the garden setting of the property. It also challenges to the design of the dwelling house and create an over whelming impact on the dwelling house.

3. The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and the provisions of Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings.

Particulars:

The proposed development does not comply with provisions of the Code in relation to the floor space ratio, building lines, setback, privacy, landscaping and the fence requirements.

4. The development application contains inaccurate information.

Particulars:

The floor plans are inconsistent with the elevations. The proposed carport is shown as a garage on the elevations and southern wall of the garage is a full height wall on the south elevation.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Site Location Plan	6 Pages
AT‑3 View	Heritage Advisors Report	1 Page

PBC200807ES_286

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 286 *****

PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 254
20 AUGUST 2007

Planning and Building Committee at the Meeting 20 August 2007

9/07/2007 to Planning and Building Committee

Environmental Services Division Report No. 254

Subject: 10, 12 & 12A Poole Street, Longueville

Record No: DA06/388-01 - 18145/07

Author(s): May Li

Property: 10, 12 & 12A Poole Street, Longueville

DA No: 388/2006

Date Lodged: 22 December 2006

Cost of Work: $5,500,000.00

Owner : D Fite & D Lowes

Author: May Li

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Demolition of all existing structures including a heritage item except an in-ground swimming pool at 10 Poole Street, construction of two detached dwelling houses and associated structures, consolidation and boundary adjustment
ZONE	2(a2) – Residential
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?	Yes
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?	Yes. 10 Poole Street, Longueville is listed as a heritage item
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?	No. However, the subject site is located in vicinity to other heritage items: No.6 Poole Street, and No. 5 and No.7 Stuart Street, Longueville.
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?	No
BCA CLASSIFICATION	Class 1a, 10a and 10b
STOP THE CLOCK USED	Yes - 182 days
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 1-8 Poole Street, 1-7 Stuart Street, 41, 66 & 68 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville Ward Councillors A Smith, K Freedman, & J Hassarati Progress Association Longueville Residents Association The development proposal was also advertised on North Shore Times newspaper in January 2007.

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

The development application has been called by Councillor Smith and Freedman due to the land use concerns.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposed development involves demolition of all existing structures including a heritage item at 10 Poole Street except the in-ground swimming pool at 10 Poole Street for the construction of two dwelling houses.

The existing dwelling house known as Derwent House located at 10 Poole Street; Longueville is listed as an item of local heritage significance. The proposed demolition of the heritage item is likely to create an adverse impact on the heritage value of the Lane Cove local government area.

The existing dwelling house with an in-ground swimming pool located at 12 Poole Street is less than 10 years old. Replacement of a two storey 4 bedroom structurally sound dwelling house with another dwelling house of a similar size is unlikely to promote an ecologically sustainable development. The ecological sustainable design (ESD) investigation report submitted by the applicant has not provided an analysis between the existing dwelling house and the proposed dwelling house at 12 Poole Street. It is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The design of the proposed dwelling houses does not comply with the Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses relating to cut and fill, floor space ratio, and the set back of above ground swimming pool requirements.

15 of 16 submissions received relating to the proposed development raised objections to demolition of the heritage building. The owners of the adjoining properties of 1 and 3 Stuart Street also raised concern to overlooking impacts, over shadowing and noise impacts to their properties.

The potential loss of an identified heritage item of significance to the Lane Cove area must be actively considered by Council as a separate issue to the merit of the proposed structures. The proposed development in its current format is not supported.

SITE:

The subject site is located at the southern side of Poole Street, Longueville bounded by Lucretia Avenue to the east and Stuart Street to the south.

It comprises the following titles:

Lots 1 & 2, DP 333694 is known as 10 Poole Street with a rear boundary directly to the Lane Cove River. It is a battle axe allotment with an access width of 4.572m to Poole Street. The site also has a right of carriageway footway access from the western boundary to Stuart Street and Longueville Park. The land has a rear frontage to the Lane Cove River. An existing two storey dwelling house with attached garage and an in-ground swimming pool and a pool house are located on the site. The site area is 3206m².

Lot 11, DP 601751 known as 12A Poole Street is also a battle axe allotment with an access handle to Poole Street and the total area of 613m². An existing two storey dwelling house with an in-ground swimming pool is located on the site.

Lot 10, DP 601751 known as 12 Poole Street is rectangular in shape, with a frontage directly to Poole Street and a site area of 570m². An existing two storey dwelling house with an in-ground swimming pool is located on the land. It is noted that the development consent for the construction of the existing dwelling house at 12 Poole Street was approved on 24 August 1999 and the development consent for the swimming pool was approved on 28 July 2000. The existing buildings on 12 Poole Street are less than 10 years old and are in a structurally sound condition.

The land falls gradually from Poole Street to Lane Cove River by approximately 21 metres.

Surrounding developments comprise dwelling houses and the Longueville Park is located in Stuart Street.

Refer to AT1 for the Neighbour Notification Plan of the site.

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is detailed as follows:

- Demolition of all existing structures including the heritage item, except the in-ground swimming pool at 10 Poole Street.

- Consolidation of the land of 10 and 12A Poole Street.

- A boundary adjustment between 10 and 12 Poole Street.

- Construction of a dwelling house on the consolidation land of 10 and 12A Poole Street. The dwelling house is comprised of three individual pavilions linked with open covered areas.

The northern pavilion would be a three storey structure containing a play room, terrace, a sculpture pool and storage rooms on the lower ground level; an arrive podium, laundry, guest room and linen storage room on the ground level, gym, steam room, massage, two offices, a library, a bar and toilets on the first floor level.

The centre pavilion would be a two storey structure containing a family room and kitchen on the lower ground level, 4 bedrooms with bathrooms and gallery on the ground level.

The southern pavilion would be a two storey structure with basement containing three parking spaces, cellar, plant room, store, lift and water tanks storage area on the basement level, foyer area, covered decks, bar cellar, sitting room, dining room/library and reflection pool on the ground level, master bedroom with bathrooms, sitting room, walk-in robes, bar and a 32m length above ground lap swimming pool on the first floor.

The gross floor area of the dwelling house at 10 Poole Street would be approximately 1864.8m² and the FSR approximately 0.52:1.

- Construction of a dwelling house on 12 Poole Street containing a squash court, storage and a toilet on the lower ground level; an entry, two bedrooms, living room, and a bathroom on the ground floor, two bedrooms with bathrooms on the first floor.

There is no on site parking provision proposed for the dwelling house within the boundaries of 12 Poole Street. Two parking spaces located at the arrival court area of the main house at 10 and 12A Poole Street are shown as easement parking spaces for 12 Poole Street on the amended plan (DA005 dated 23.5.07).

The gross floor area of the dwelling house is approximately 319m² and the FSR is 0.51:1.

Refer to AT2 for the architectural plans of the proposed development.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

There has been no previous development applications lodged for 10 and 12A Poole Street found in Council’s Authority system.

Development Application No. 160/1999 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house at 12 Poole Street was approved by Council on 24 August 1999 and Development Application No. 207/2000 for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool at 12 Poole Street was approved by Council on 28 July 2000. Other development applications lodged for the site is not relevant to the current development proposal.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

The dwelling house at 10 and 12A Poole Street, Longueville

Total site area of 3819.8m² including of 202.88m² access handle area. The calculations for floor space and site area have excluded the whole width of the access handle.

Site Area (3566.92m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.52:1	0.5:1	No
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	39%	35%	Yes
Side Boundary Setback (min)	1.5m	1.5m	Yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	7.7m	9.5m	Yes
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	7.0m	7.0m	Yes
No of Storeys	3 However, the lower ground level is under the natural ground level	2 from natural level	Yes
Building Line (max)	N/A	7.5m	N/A
Foreshore Building Line (min)	The proposed dwelling house is 17m away from the foreshore setback line established by line drawn from two adjoining neighbouring developments. The new pool shed is proposed at the same location of the existing pool shed.	Foreshore Setback line established by line drawn from neighbouring development	Yes
Cut and Fill (max)	3.7m	1m	No
Deck/Balcony width (max)	3m	3m (if elevated by >1m)	Yes
Solar Access (min)	The proposed building does not shadow any of the north facing windows of the adjoining properties by more than 3 hours	3 hours to north elevation	Acceptable

FENCING

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Height (max)	884mm	900mm	Yes
% Open Where > 900mm in Height (min)	N/A	50%	N/A
Setback From Front Boundary if >900mm in height (min)	Nil	1m	N/A
Splays	Nil	1m	N/A

SWIMMING POOLS

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House (min)	More than 3m	3m	Yes
Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level (min)	N/A	900mm from internal face of pool 450mm from edge of concourse	N/A
Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level (min)	1.6m	900mm from edge of concourse	Yes
Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space (min)	1.6m	1:1 setback measured from concourse edge	No
Height (max)	3.6m	1800mm	No
Setback if height is >1800mm (min)	1.6m	1:1 setback measured from concourse edge	No
Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?	Screen proposed	Screening required	Yes

The dwelling house at 12 Poole Street, Longueville

Site Area (620 m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.51:1	0.5:1	No
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	42%	35%	Yes
Side Boundary Setback (min)	Approximately 3.2m	1.5m	Yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	8.4m	9.5m	Yes
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	6.7m	7.0m	Yes
No of Storeys	2	2	No
Building Line (max)	7.5m	7.5m	Yes
Foreshore Building Line (min)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Cut and Fill (max)	Less than 1m	1m	Yes
Deck/Balcony width (max)	1m	3m (if elevated by >1m)	Yes
Solar Access (min)	The proposed building does not shadow any of the north facing windows of the adjoining properties by more than 3 hours	3 hours to north elevation	Acceptable

FENCING

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Height (max)	884mm	900mm	Yes
% Open Where > 900mm in Height (min)	N/A	50%	N/A
Setback From Front Boundary if >900mm in height (min)	Nil	1m	N/A
Splays	Nil	1m	N/a

REFERRALS:

Manager Urban Design and Assets

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. The Development Engineer states that there is no objection raised to the proposed development relating to the stormwater management of the site.

Manager Open Space

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Manager of Open Space for comment. No objections have been raised relating to the proposed landscaping plans.

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

As discussed in the previous section of this report, No.10 Poole Street is listed as a heritage item of local significance in the Lane Cove LEP 1987. The proposed development involves demolition of the heritage item and Heritage Impact Statement of the development application has been forwarded to Council’s heritage advisor and NSW Heritage Office for comment. The proposal for demolition of the heritage building was not supported as indicated below:

· Council’s Heritage Advisor

Council’s heritage advisor does not support the demolition of the heritage item and stated that the building is an unusual example of the architectural style of the period, reflecting the development of Longueville and contributes to the Lane Cove riverscape. Refer to AT3 for the heritage advice.

· NSW Heritage Council

The NSW Heritage Council does not support the demolition of the heritage item and has stated that the residence is an imposing, architect-designed building, visible from the Harbour, purpose-designed to take advantage of all views and is intact. In this instance, the Heritage Council recommended that Lane Cove Council considers alternatives to the demolition of this locally significant building. Refer to AT4 for the comment of NSW Heritage Council.

NSW Maritime

The development proposal was referred to NSW Maritime as an integrated development. The NSW Maritime stated that the applicant is required to make a separate application for the Part 3A Permit to NSW Maritime if Council grants development consent and before any physical works are commenced at the site.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act)

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act contains objectives for the carrying out of development. The proposal does not meet the following objective:

5 Objects

The objects of this Act are:

(vii) ecologically sustainable development

The proposed development involves demolition of a building of heritage value of local significance and a building that is structurally sound and intact at 10 Poole Street.

The existing dwelling house at 12 Poole Street is a less than 10 years old structure and is also in a structurally sound condition. The proposed demolition is will create an adverse impact on the heritage value of Lane Cove and does not promote an ecologically sustainable development.

The applicant has recently lodged an ecologically sustainable design (ESD) report for supporting the demolition of the existing buildings. It is noted that the ESD only provided an analysis between the energy efficiency of three existing dwelling houses and the proposed two dwelling houses. It did not provided an analysis of energy efficiency of the existing dwelling house and the proposed dwelling house at 12 Poole Street. The application has not provided an acceptable reason for the replacement of the dwelling house at 12 Poole Street. The ESD Efficiency Investigation summary is included in AT5. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to objective 5(vii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

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

2 Aims, Objectives etc

(1) to preserve and where appropriate improve the existing character and environmental quality of the land to which it applies in accordance with the indicated expectations of the community, and

The proposed development involves demolition of a heritage listed building which will create a loss of heritage value to the local government area.

The combined area of the car park and the water tanks storage area on the basement level is appropriately 600m². The excavation of the land for the construction of the basement area and the lower ground level of the north pavilion of the main house would create a significant impact on the land form of the subject site and the adjoining properties. The proposed development is unlikely to preserve the environmental quality of the locality.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Clause 2(1) of the aims and objectives of the LEP.

18A Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

(2) When determining a development application required by this clause, the Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation.

The Heritage Study of the Municipality of Lane Cove states that 10 Poole Street is listed because it is a substantial house of the mid-wars period in the picturesque cottage style. The present appearance of the house is a modernisation of a Queen Anne style residence. The proposed demolition of the heritage item has been referred to NSW Heritage Council and Council’s heritage advisor for comment. Both of the NSW Heritage Council and Council’s Heritage Advisor did not agree with the recommendation of the Heritage Impact Statement of the development application and stated that the heritage building should be retained.

Officer’s comment:

Given the above comments, it is considered that the proposed development does not comply with the aims and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP and is contrary to Clause 18A of the LEP.

Other Planning Instruments

Lane Cove Residential Zones Development Control Plan

Lane Cove Residential Zones Development Control Plan sets requirements for the development of residential zoned land in Lane Cove.

Part II – Development in Foreshore Areas and Part VII – Residential Subdivision of the DCP applies to the proposed development. The proposed development complies with the Foreshore setback and the minimum lot size requirements of the DCP.

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings (The Code)

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses applies to the site and provides development standards for the proposal.

3. Design, Density and Streetscape

3.1 General

Objectives:

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

b. Dwelling blend into natural landscape.

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

Standards:

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

2. The preservation of existing trees.

The maximum cut in the proposed development is 3.7m below the natural ground level. The proposed basement area with water tank storage area is approximately 600m² and the construction of proposed development would create a significant excavation to the land. The proposed development does not comply with the maximum cut requirement of the Code.

3.2 Floor Space Ratio

The maximum permissible FSR for the sites is 0.5:1 in accordance with the FSR table of the Code.

The FSR of the dwelling house on 10 Poole Street is 0.52:1 and the FSR of the dwelling house at 12 Poole is 0.51:1. The proposed development does not comply with the FSR requirement of the Code.

5. Private Swimming Pools and Spas

General Requirements:

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

The proposed lap swimming pool is approximately 3.6m above the natural ground level. The concourse of the lap pool is 1.6m from the eastern boundary of the site and the proposal does not comply with the above requirement of the Code, which would require a 3.6m setback.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment ) 2005

The subject site is located with the Sydney Harbour Catchment area and given the proximity to the water frontage, is identified as being within the Foreshores and Waterways Area.

It is considered that the proposed development is not contrary to the Regional Environmental Plan.

Sydney Harbour Foreshores Area Development Control Plan

The DCP applies to all development proposals within the Foreshores and Waterways Area identified in SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. The subject site is located within a foreshore area identified on the map and therefore the DCP applies to the proposed development.

The proposed development complies with the objectives and the provisions of the DCP.

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

The non-compliances to the Code have been outlined in the compliance tables in the previous sections of this report. The applicant has not submitted justification for the non-compliances with Council’s Code relating to the FSR, cut and fill and set backs.

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

The development proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy between 10 January 2007 and 1 March 2007. 16 submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application. 15 submissions raised objections to the proposed development and a submission supported the proposal. The issues raised in the objections can be summarised as follows.

· Derwent House has been a landmark in Longueville. It is one of the few significant houses and land surrounds in the area. It is of heritage value and should be treated accordingly.

Officer’s comment:

Derwent House located at 10 Poole Street is listed as a heritage item in accordance with Lane Cove LEP 1987. Council’s heritage advisor and the Heritage Council have advised that the building adds value to the heritage significance of Lane Cove area. The demolition of the heritage item can not be supported unless Council is convinced the argument input forwarded by the Heritage Impact Statement.

· The scale of the proposed development is out of proportion to existing homes in our neighbourhood.

Officer’s comment:

The dwelling house at 10 Poole Street is proposed to be built on a site area of 3567m² with a gross floor area of 1855m². Its scale is larger than all existing nearby dwelling houses, and it is agreed that the proposal will be out of proportion with the surrounding development.

· We are concerned about possible commercial use of the proposed building. There are reception area and meeting room shown on the plans.

Officer’s comment:

The proposed application applies for the construction of two dwelling houses on two proposed allotments. Dwelling houses are permissible in 2(a2) zones in accordance with Lane Cove LEP 1987. Originally, there was a proposed meeting room shown on the first floor plan of the dwelling house at 10 Poole Street. This was altered by the applicant to be a library.

· Noise from air conditioners located adjacent the boundary.

Officer’s comment:

Six air-conditioning units are proposed for the dwelling house at 10 Poole Street. They are proposed to be located in a large enclosure adjacent to the arrival court, 3.1m from the southern boundary. The location is considered a reasonable distance to the dwelling houses of the adjoining properties.

· 3 storey section of house exceeds the height controls of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses.

Officer’s comment:

The lower ground floor of the north pavilion of the dwelling house at 10 Poole Street would be built under the natural ground level. The proposed building does not exceed two storey above the natural ground level. The proposal complies with the height requirement of the Code.

· The proposed development will over shadow the pool and private outdoor space of 3 Stuart Street, Longueville.

Officer’s comment:

The solar access requirement of the Code states that a portion of north facing windows of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sun between 9am and 3pm on 22 June. The shadow diagrams show that the proposed development does not shadow any facing windows of the adjoining properties by more than 3 hours. There is no additional over shadowing to the pool and marginal early morning over shadowing of the open space of 3 Stuart Street caused by the proposal.

· The second house fronting Poole Street has no carparking

Officer’s comment:

There is no on site parking provisions proposed within the boundaries of 12 Poole Street. However, two easement car parking spaces located at the arrival court for the second houses are shown on the amended plans. However, the easement for the vehicle access to the easement parking spaces is not shown on the amended plans.

CONCLUSION

The development application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The demolition of the heritage item will create an adverse impact on the heritage value of the local government area and the demolition of a building completed less than 10 years will not promote sustainable development. The scale of the proposed dwelling building on 10 Poole Street is incompatible with the surrounding development, given its visual bulk and relationship with other dwelling houses in the locality. The proposed development is not supported and the development application is recommended for refusal.

Executive Manager’s Comment:

A critical issue of the application relates to the heritage significance of heritage item 13153 located at 10 Poole Street, known as “Derwent House”. The heritage dwelling house listing stated that the dwelling house is a “Substantial house of mid-wars period in the picturesque cottage style”. The item is of local significance in the Lane Cove LEP. Notwithstanding the issues of non-compliance with the proposed structures Council must address the fundamental question. Is this heritage item of such significance that any application for demolition should be rejected?

If Council is of the view that this heritage item is significant, it must reject the contention of the applicant’s Heritage Impact Statement dated December 2006 that “the building does not have technical, social or historical significance”, as advised on the page of 36 of the applicant’s heritage statement. After determining the significance of heritage item 13153 Council should then consider the merit of the proposed development.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority pursuant to section 80 (1) (b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 refuse consent to Development Application No.388/2006 for demolition of three existing dwelling houses, consolidation of No.10 and 12A with boundary adjustment for 12 Poole Street and construction of two new dwelling houses at 10, 12 and 12A Poole Street, Longueville, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed demolition of heritage item 13153 located at 10 Poole Street is unreasonable and is rejected.

2. The proposed development does not comply with the aims and the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and would not promote an ecological sustainable development to Lane Cove.

3. The proposed development does not comply with the aims and the objective of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

4. The proposed development does not comply with the aims and the provisions of Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings.

5. The amenity for the future occupants at 12 Poole Street is considered unsatisfactory.

6. The approval of the development application would not serve the public interest.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View	Neighbour Notification Plan	1 Page
AT‑2 View	Development Proposal Plans	36 Pages
AT‑3 View	Heritage Consultant's Report	2 Pages
AT‑4 View	Advice from the Heritage Council	1 Page
AT‑5 View	Energy Efficiency Investigation Summary	1 Page

PBC200807ES_254

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 254 *****

PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 269
20 AUGUST 2007

Planning and Building Committee at the Meeting 20 August 2007

18/07/2007 to Planning and Building Committee

Environmental Services Division Report No. 269

Subject: 16 Taleeban Road, Riverview

Record No: DA07/119-01 - 19161/07

Author(s): Stan Raymont

Property: 16 Taleeban Road, Riverview

DA No: D119/07

Date Lodged: 2.5.07

Cost of Work: $405,000

Owner : C.F. Keefe

Author: Stan Raymont

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION	Demolition of existing dwelling house and garage and erection of a new two storey dwelling house and swimming pool
ZONE	2(a1)
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 and 10b
STOP THE CLOCK USED	Yes: from 14^th June 2007 to 16^th July 2007
NOTIFICATION	Neighbours 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 Taleeban Road and 11, 13, 15 Carranya Road Ward Councillors Central Ward Progress Association - Other Interest Groups -

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

This matter is brought before the Planning and Building Committee by Councillor Hassarati.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a two storey dwelling house with an inground swimming pool in the rear yard.

The proposed dwelling house has a floor space ratio of 0.59:1.

The applicant has requested that the floor space as proposed be considered as they have six children and when purchasing the site, the site survey was incorrect, resulting in a reduced site area.

One letter commenting on the application has been received which includes a request to ensure that the floor space ratio complies with Council’s requirements so as to be fair to other properties in the suburb that have/will comply with this requirement.

As the floor space ratio is in excess of the 0.5:1 Code for Dwelling’s maximum requirement, the application is recommended for refusal.

SITE:

The subject site is located on the southern side of Taleeban Road. Existing improvements on the site consist of a single storey mostly brick and tile dwelling house with a detached fibro garage in the rear yard and a driveway on the western side. Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is to demolish the dwelling house and garage and:

1. Erect a two storey six bedroom mostly brick veneer dwelling house with some fibre-cement sheeting on the eastern side of the first floor level. There is a double garage at the front of the dwelling house on the eastern side and a balcony at first floor level at the front of the dwelling house off bedroom 1. Two 3,000 litre rainwater tanks are shown on the western side of the dwelling house.

2. Erect an inground reinforced concrete swimming pool 9.5m by 4.5m in size with a 400mm wide bond beam around it in the rear yard of the site. The concourse level is shown to vary between a minimum of 170mm below the existing ground level to a maximum of 170mm above the existing ground level.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

Nil.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

Site Area (585.3m²)

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Floor Space Ratio (max)	0.59:1	0.5:1	no
Soft Landscaped Area (min)	44%	35%	yes
Side Boundary Setback (min)	1586mm	1500mm	yes
Overall Height (m) (max)	8.3m	9.5m	yes
Ceiling Height (m) (max)	6.1m	7.0m	yes
No of Storeys	2	2	yes
Building Line (max)	7.5m	7.5m	yes
Foreshore Building Line (min)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Cut and Fill (max)	Cut – 350mm	1m	yes
Deck/Balcony width (max)	2.3m	3m (if elevated by >1m)	yes
Solar Access (min)	3 hours to north elevation	3 hours to north elevation	yes
BASIX Certificate	BASIX Certificate submitted	BASIX Certificate required	yes

FENCING

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Height (max)	unchanged	900mm	n/a
% Open Where > 900mm in Height (min)	n/a	50%	n/a
Setback From Front Boundary if >900mm in height (min)	n/a	1m	n/a
Splays	n/a	1m	n/a

SWIMMING POOLS

	PROPOSED	CODE	COMPLIES
Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House (min)	3m	3m	yes
Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level (min)	900mm 500mm	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)	n/a	900mm from edge of concourse	n/a
Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space (min)	n/a	1:1 setback measured from concourse edge	n/a
Height (max)	170mm	1800mm	yes
Setback if height is >1800mm (min)	n/a	1:1 setback measured from concourse edge	n/a
Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?	n/a	Screening required	n/a

REFERRALS:

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no technical objection to the proposal, and provided conditions should the proposal be approved.

In commenting on the pool, the Development Engineer has required that doing the extremity of the pool paving, a kerb and catch drain system be provided to direct ‘splash’ water to a piped system which will, in turn, be directed to the new absorption system.

Also, to prevent overland flows from entering the pool the coping level must be a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level. The entire outside perimeter of the pool surround must have overland flow escape routes which will protect the pool from flooding.

If approved, a condition will require any overflow water from the pool to be caught and connected to the sewer.

In relation to the dwelling house, the site is located on the OSD exempt area. Although the site slopes to the rear, it is possible to drain the roof area to the street. All other impervious areas will drain to an absorption system.

Council’s Arborist

Council’s Arborist has advised that the site does not contain any trees of significance and the nature strip has no street trees. No objection is raised to the removal of the two NSW Christmas bush trees and the Camellia tree located at the rear of the property. The Frangipani tree located on the back boundary is a good tree that provides screening between the properties and should be retained.

Conditions of consent have been provided.

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

The proposal is permissible within the 2(a1) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP with Council’s consent.

Other Planning Instruments

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

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

The proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage. Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must take into consideration Australian Standard (AS2601-1991): The Demolition of Structures, as in force July 1993. The matter may be addressed by conditions of consent.

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

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

1. Floor Space Ratio – Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses specifies under Floor Space Ratio as follows, inter alia:

“Objectives:

a. Limit the bulk of the dwelling.

b. Ensure dwellings and additions are generally in scale with the character of the neighbourhood.

Standard:

The maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) for this dwelling is 0.5:1.”

The floor space ratio has been calculated as being 0.59:1 which is well in excess of 0.5:1 or by 4sq.m.

In the Statement of Environmental Effects it is stated, inter alia:

Proposed floor space (as defined) is 340.68m² which represents a floor space ratio of 0.58:1 (+48sq.m.). Whilst this represents a non-compliance with the numerical requirements of this clause, it is considered that the proposal complies with the objectives and should be supported in this instance for the following reasons:

· The proposed two storey dwelling house is provided with ample setback to the street, which allows for the provision of additional landscaping and reduces bulk and scale.

· The proposed two storey dwelling house is compatible in bulk and scale with the immediately surrounding development.

· The proposal complies with all other requirements of the Code.

· The proposal is well articulated on all facades to minimise bulk and scale. Particularly, the front façade is well articulated through the use of varied setbacks, balconies, and change in external finishes.

· The proposal does not result in any unreasonable bulk or scale.

· The proposal does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing.

The applicant, Mrs. Keefe, was advised by letter dated 14^th June 2007 to reduce the floor space ratio to 0.5:1 which is the specified Code for Dwelling’s maximum for an allotment of this size.

During meetings with Mr. and Mrs. Keefe they have advised that when they purchased this allotment they were under the impression that the allotment was deeper than it is, which would have allowed a dwelling house of the size required as they have six children.

They have also advised that to reduce the floor space ratio and still accommodate their needs would be difficult.

Whilst there is no doubt that with six children that a large dwelling house would be required, the proposed floor space ratio is in excess of 0.5:1 and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

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

One submission was received in response to the notification of the development application. The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

“(1) Proposed Two-Storey Residence: From the plans presented, the development exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) required by the Council’s Code. We kindly ask that you review the proposed dwelling in detail to ensure that the FSR it complies with Council requirements, and is also fair to other properties in the suburb that have/will comply with this requirement”.

Comment:

The application is recommended for refusal as the floor space ratio is well in excess of the 0.5:1 specified in Council’s Code for Dwellings.

“(2) Proposed Pool: From the plans presented, the pool creates the following issues for our property.

a) Setback from Boundary with 13 Carranya Road: The position of the pool is extremely close to the southern boundary fence that divides our two properties. It is not clear from the proposed plans on the exact setback from the boundary and whether it meets the Council’s code on “private swimming pools and spas”. It appears that the setback is under the required setback, therefore we ask council to review this to ensure that this does meet Council requirements.

Currently there is only a simple timber fence that divides our two properties. With the natural slope of the land and the current lack of a solid barrier between our two properties (i.e. north/Taleeban Rd to south/Carranya Rd), we believe that there is great potential for excessive water seepage/runoff/overflow (e.g. from use or excess rain/water) from the pool into our property. The potential impact would be as follows:

i) This would cause significant undue damage to our property. For example, we have sensitive plantings at the rear of our property (i.e. vegetable garden, fruit/citrus trees) that would clearly be damaged from excess, and chlorinated &/or salted water.

ii) The significant waste of water that could not be recovered. In these times, it is important that we take responsibility for our environment with respect to the current water shortage being experienced in Sydney and Eastern Australia.

It is clear that the applicants have considered a concrete retaining wall on the west side of the pool to prevent this happening for the neighbouring house. We kindly ask you to require the applicant to construct a masonry barrier (or similar) to the height of the fence and for the entire width of southern side of the pool to ensure displaced pool water flows back into the pool to prevent the above issues occurring to our property. In addition the erection of a fence high barrier would also benefit neighbouring properties and us by reducing the noise level when the pool is in use.

With the building of large, two storey family homes in the immediate area, and the reverberation of noise between these structures, we feel that by incorporating some noise reduction measures would ensure some level of peace and comfort for all neighbours who chose to spend time in their backyards.”

Comment:

The proposed pool which is only a maximum of 170mm above the existing ground level is shown to be setback 500mm to the edge of the bond beam and 900mm to the water. The setbacks comply with the requirements of Council’s Swimming Pool Policy.

The plans show a 1.5m high feature wall 3m in length on the western side. This feature wall does not continue along the remainder of the western side. A condition of consent will be provided, if approved, that any pool overflow be captured and piped to the sewer.

The comments of the Development Engineer were requested on the drainage issues and conditions concerning the pool paving are included in his conditions.

“(3) Removal of Trees on Applicants Property: From the plans presented, the applicant has proposed to remove a very large and healthy Frangipani tree located on the southern end of the property (i.e. at the border of 16 Taleeban and 11 Carranya Roads.) We strongly believe that Council should deny the applicants request to remove this tree for the following reasons. .

a) Removal of this tree is totally unnecessary, as it does not inhibit the construction of the proposed residence or pool. The applicants are removing all trees on this property and therefore keeping this one tree is fair and reasonable.

b) It provides a natural “green” privacy barrier to at least 3 neighbours properties. Removal of this tree will directly impact the privacy enjoyed by neighbours to this day.

c) This tree is the home and resting place for a number of native birds and wildlife (e.g. Magpies, Kookaburras and Possums). Removal of this tree would impact their habitat and residence in our area.

d) It is a beautiful and healthy tree that has taken many years to develop to get to the size it is currently. Killing is would be a mistake and a great loss to the area.”

Comment:

The Frangipani tree is shown to be removed on the architectural plans and retained on the landscape plan.

The comments of Council’s Arborist were requested on the proposed removal of the Frangipani tree and in his conditions he requires the retention of this tree, as it provides screening between the properties.

CONCLUSION

The matters in the Department of Planning Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.

As the floor space ratio is in excess of 0.5:1, the proposal is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new dwelling house and swimming pool be refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposed floor space ratio of 0.59:1 exceeds Council’s maximum requirement of 0.5:1 under its Code for Dwellings.

2. The proposal is considered likely to adversely affect the amenity of the area.

3. The bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling house is considered excessive.

4. The proposal creates an undesirable precedent for further applications with a floor space in excess of the Code for Dwelling House’s requirement.

5. The proposal is not in the public interest.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

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

PBC200807ES_269

***** End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 269 *****

ITEM REPORT CONTENT PAGE