m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

4 August 2008

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.


 

 


 

 

 


Ordinary Council 4 August 2008

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

Reports Of Committees

 

1.       Report Of Committees No. 49

SUBJECT: Inspection Committee Minutes........................................................... 3

 

Referred Reports

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 280

SUBJECT: 196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich......................................................... 4

 

 

 

    


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 August 2008

 

Report Of Committees No. 49

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Report Of Committees No. 49

Subject:          Inspection Committee Minutes    

Record No:    DA08/65-01 - 28410/08

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

 

Present:          Clr I Longbottom (Mayor), Clr W Gaffney (Deputy Mayor), Clr A Smith, Clr K Freedman, Clr F Teirney, Clr T Lawson, Clr R Tudge, Clr J Hassarati, Mr P Brown, General Manager, Mr M Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services and Mr J Lee, Director Mayor Projects

 

Apology:          Clr R DÁmico

 

 

1.         Environmental Services Report No 280

            Subject:  196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich

 

Councillors, the applicant and owner and a number of adjoining and nearby neighbours heard Mr Mason give an overview of the proposed development.  Councillors and neighbours sought details of the proposed development from Mr Mason and the applicant.

 

At the conclusion of the site inspection Councillors left the site with Clr Gaffney moving ‘been and seen’ and Clr Teirney seconding the motion.

 

2.         Inspection of Friedlander Place, St Leonards

 

Councillors, Mr Brown and Mr Lee visited Friedlander Place to inspect Council’s landholding.

 

Councillors inspected the site and the Inspection Committee concluded at 10am.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Planning and Building Committee Meeting 21 July 2008

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 280

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 280

Subject:          196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA08/65-01 - 22696/08

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich

 

DA No:                         DA65/08

 

Date Lodged:              6 March 2008

 

Cost of Work:              $8,000,000

 

Owner             :                       S MacJohn

 

Author:                         Rajiv Shankar

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a ten (10) storey, one hundred (100) bed room motel with three (3) levels of basement parking for 46 vehicles, restaurant, conference rooms, roof top SPA & entertainment area.

ZONE

Residential 2(c)

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

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                  194, 198, 200-204, 206-208, 218-220, Pacific Highway, 17,7-15, 17G, 21 Bellevue Ave, 6, Morven Ave, 8 Nield Ave,

Ward Councillors       Clr R D’Amico, Clr R Tudge, Clr T Lawson.

Progress Association Wollstonecraft Progress Association.

Other Interest Groups Willoughby Council

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The application has been referred to the Planning and Building Committee on the request of Clr T Lawson as a result of community concern.

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     The proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 10 storey motel building with one hundred (100) one bedroom suites and three (3) levels of basement parking (46 vehicles).

 

·     The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to height and floor space ratio.

 

·     The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI with regards to the objective, minimum site area, building design & scale, views and  overshadowing, setbacks, landscaping and car parking.

 

·     The proposal would necessitate the removal of 22 trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees on the adjoining properties.

 

·     As per Council Code 107 car parking spaces are to be provided. According to RTA, this would result in increased traffic generation and would impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.

 

·     Council has received thirty three (33) submissions with regard to the proposal.

 

·     The proposal is not supported.

 

SITE:

 

The site is located on the western side of Pacific Highway adjacent to its intersection with Westbourne Street. The site is rectangular in shape with an area of 696.18 m2. It has an eastern front boundary of 15.24m and southern side boundary of 45.79m.

 

The site currently features a 3-4 storey motel development. The site falls gently away from the street. Majority of the site is paved with little landscaping. There are two street trees and no significant trees on the subject property but there is a row of trees along the boundary on both the adjoining properties.

 

Neighbouring to the south is a five storey motel known as ‘Urban’. Towards the north is a 2-3 storey residential flat building.  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal includes the following:

 

·     Demolition of the existing building.

·     Demolition of boundary fences and brick walls.

·     Construction of 10 storey motel building, including restaurant, conference rooms, roof top SPA & entertainment area.

·     The building would include one hundred (100) one bedroom suites with kitchenettes and ensuites.

·     Three (3) levels of basement which would provide for forty six (46) car parking spaces accessed by a car lift and two (2) car parking spaces at the ground floor level within the front building line. Basement 1 would have a restaurant and kitchen.

 

 

 

 

Business Hours

 

The motel would run on a twenty four (24) hours basis. Cleaning would be carried out between 9am to 5pm.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

DA 18/05 – Inclusion of food preparation area.

DA 35/92 – Old application-withdrawn.

DA 18/05 – Alteration & additions to existing motel.

DA 283/96 – Juliet balconies.

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Assets

 

No objections have been expressed to the proposal subject to conditions.

 

Heritage Advisor

 

No objections have been expressed to the proposal.

 

Environmental Health Officer.

 

The application was referred to the Environmental Health Officer and the comments received are as under:

“The following information is required to be submitted in order to further assess this application:

·     An acoustic report carried out in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

·     Detailed plans showing the fitout out of the kitchen and storage areas in relation to the Food Safety Standards.”

 

The above was communicated to the applicant by Councils letter dated 6 May 2008. The requested information has not been provided.

 

Manager Parks

 

The application was referred to the Tree Preservation Officer and the comments received are as under:

 

“I have looked at the plans, visited the site and viewed the Arborist Report. I do not support this application in its current form. The proposed excavation works for the basement floor R.L will impact on the structural integrity of mature screen trees on neighbouring properties to the north and south of the site. These trees provide shade, soften the landscape and to some degree provide privacy screening between buildings.

The Arborist Report prepared by Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd identifies 27 trees that will be affected by the proposed development of the site. All 27 trees are standing on neighbouring properties save three (3) Paperbark trees located on the nature strip in front of the subject site. The Site arborist has suggested the proposed development will necessitate the removal of 22 of the aforementioned trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees.

The Landscape Plan mentions tree removal and replacement on neighbouring allotments shall be “negotiated with the owners of the allotments with Council’s recommendations in mind”. I do not support the removal of 22 trees standing in neighbouring properties as the trees; at the time of inspection, appeared to be in good condition. I consider the trees to be a valuable asset to the local community that have good horticultural aesthetic qualities and provide amenity to the local community and the residents of residential Units alike.”

Roads & Traffic Authority

 

The application was referred to the Roads & Traffic Authority and the comments received are as under:

 

1.         The RTA has no proposal that requires any part of the subject property for road purposes. Therefore there are no objections to the development proposal on property grounds.

 

2.         No provision has been made for delivery/service vehicles as detailed in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments other than by using the guest waiting spaces (C1 and C2). Concerns are raised regarding vehicle access and the ability of delivery/service vehicles to perform a 3-point turn internally to exit the property in a forward direction.

 

3.         Furthermore, the RTA raises concerns regarding the design of the ground floor parking area as there is limited room for manoeuvring, particularly if delivery/service vehicles and waiting cars are present simultaneously. To potentially address this concern the development would need to provide two waiting area parking spaces plus a service vehicle space plus a vacant space to be used as a turn around area.

 

The provision of a vacant space for a turn around area would facilitate vehicles entering/ existing the site in a forward direction (particularly if a situation arises that vehicles are entering the site and the car lift is inoperable).

 

Therefore it is recommended that the ground floor parking area be redesigned to address the abovementioned concerns.

 

4.         To ensure that there would be minimal impact to the traffic flows along the Pacific Highway, the developer should also be required to prepare a suitable management plan which will address how the vehicles entering the site will be managed should the car lift become in-operable or the car parking area is full. This plan should be submitted to Council and the RTA for comments prior to the determination of the application.

 

5.         Although Council’s parking code requires 107 spaces, the RTA would support the parking provision provided of 46 spaces, as the traffic generation and its impact on the neighbouring traffic signals will be reduced. However, if the total parking provision be provided at an amount that is noticeably higher than the suggested 46 spaces, then RTA would raise concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.

 

6.         The design and construction of the proposed driveway and gutter crossing off the Pacific Highway shall be in accordance with AS2890.1 – 2004 and the RTA requirements (ie 6m plus 0.5m splays to the kerb line and extended back to a width of 5.5m at the property boundary to facilitate simultaneous entry/exit manoeuvres). Details of these requirements could be obtained from the RTA’s Project Services Manager, Traffic Projects Section, Parramatta (ph: 02 8849 2144)

 

A certified copy of the design plans should be submitted to the RTA for consideration and approval prior to the release of any construction certificate for this site by Council and commencement of road works.

 

The RTA fees for administration, plan checking, civil works inspection and project management shall be paid by the developer prior to the commencement of works.

 

7.         The layout of the proposed car parking areas associated with the development (including: driveways, grades, turn paths, sight distance requirements, aisle widths, and parking bay dimensions) should be in accordance with AS2890.1 2004.

 

8.         Suitable drainage retardation should be implemented on –site to ensure that there is no increase in the current stormwater discharge from the site to the Pacific Highway.

 

Detail design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the RTA’s stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to the RTA for approval, prior to commencement of any works.

 

Details should be forwards to:-

 

The Sydney Asset Management

PO Box 973

Parramatta CBD NSW 2124

 

A plan checking fee may be applicable and a performance bond may be required before the RTA’s approval is issued. With regards to the Civil Works requirement please contact the RTA’s Project Engineer, External Works Ph: 8849 2114 or Fax: 8849 2766.

 

9.         The proposed development should be designed such that the road traffic noise from the Pacific Highway is mitigated by durable materials and complies with the requirements of Clause 102 – (Impact of road noise or vibration on non road development) of State Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

10.       All vehicles must enter and exit the property in a forward direction.

 

11.       Council should ensure that a ‘Left Turn Only’ sign is provided at the exit point within the property.

 

12.       The sight distances for northbound vehicles along Pacific Highway to the access driveway is restricted by large trees, thus requiring the installation of ‘Caution Driveways’ (W2-207 IL) signage. In order to carry out the installation of the proposed signage the applicant must contact the RTA Ph: 02 8849 2591 to organise a works inspection.

 

13.       Vegetation and proposed landscaping along the Pacific Highway frontage must not hinder sight lines to/ from the proposed access driveway to motorists, pedestrians and/or cyclists.

 

14.       Suitable provision is to be made on site for all construction vehicles. No construction works zones (s) would be approved by RTA for the Pacific Highway.

 

15.       All works and regulatory signage associated with the proposed development will be at no cost to the RTA.

 

Traffic Manager

 

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Manger and the comments received are as under:

 

“I reviewed the plans and the Traffic report by Traffix regarding the proposed Greenwich Inn Hotel at 196 Pacific Highway.

Following my assessment of the traffic and parking component of the development, the following are my comments:

·     The analysis of the parking requirements has been assessed and the proposed parking spaces for the proposed development are not considered to be adequate. Council’s requirement is for 107 spaces. The proposal provides 46 spaces. This number is less than half of the required parking spaces. The concern of not supplying the required or close to the required spaces is the ‘spill – over’ effect to the surrounding area where the parking is at premium. The parking requirement does not comply

·     The proposed driveway is not in accordance with AS2890.1 – 2004 as the requirement is 6 metres. The proposal provides a 5 metre wide two – way driveway. The driveway narrows to 4 metres on approach to the existing car park at the rear of the site. The driveway can be narrowed up to 5.5 metres internally. In this aspect the driveway does not comply.

·     The internal design of the carpark and layout does comply in relation to the configuration and position of some parking spaces.

·     Car Spaces No’s 19 & 20 are not acceptable in that location as they block other parking spaces. They need to be deleted.

·     There is no adequate manoeuvring around car spaces No’s 18 and 15.

·     The car spaces between the wall and the Car Lifts require an additional 600mm for door openings.

·     A traffic management plan is required to show the impact of vehicles accessing at the Pacific Highway. The plan requires approval by the RTA.

·     Waiting areas require to be provided for service vehicles and a turn around area.

·     Bicycle parking area should be designed.

Due to the above issues the parking area requires to be re-designed. The current design is not supported.”

Valet Parking Scheme

 

A sketch plan was provided by the applicant in May 2008 which suggested that in lieu of the 3 levels of basement parking, that two levels be provided with valet parking.  This was supplemented on 15 July 2008 with a further report from the applicant’s Traffic Consultant which advises that in their opinion a parking demand for less than 32 vehicles was expected and the proposal could provide 40 in 2 levels based on valet parking.  The applicant indicates that the proposed layout and sizes are what have been in operation at the Greenwich Inn over the past 20 years with patrons parking the vehicles themselves.

 

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

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2 (c) under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.  A ‘Motel’ is permitted within this zone with development consent of Council.

 

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

The subject site is zoned R4- High Density Residential. Although ‘motel’ has not been indicated as a permitted use, the proposal may be considered under ‘hotel’ as it meets the requirements of a ‘hotel’.

 

CRITERIA

DLEP - PARAMETERS

PROVIDED

COMPLIES

1. Height

15m (approx 5 storeys above ground)

30m ( approx 10 storeys  above ground)

NO

2. Floor Space Ratio

0.8:1

4.29:1

NO

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum height limit by 15m (approx 5 storeys above ground).

 

The proposed floor space ratio exceeds over 5 times the maximum permissible floor space ratio.

Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels.

 

Site Area (696.18 m2)

 

CRITERIA

CODE - PARAMETERS

PROVIDED

COMPLIES

1. Objective

This Part aims at maintaining, and where necessary, enhancing the existing high standard of residential development in the 2(c) Zone, whilst providing for the establishment of motel developments.

The existing building is used as a motel. The proposed building also provides for a motel. The adjoining building towards the south is also a motel. A motel would be compatible to the adjoining development.

 

The proposal does not enhance the existing standard of residential development. The proposal would dominate the adjoining developments

YES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO

 

 

 

 

2. Minimum Site Area

Motel developments will not be permitted on sites of less than 2,000m

 

The area of the site is 696.18 m2 which is much less than the minimum requirement.

NO

3. Building Design and Scale

A.   To ensure the preservation of the existing residential character in the vicinity of the development, the architectural style of motel proposals must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, the materials used, roof pitch, and overall building character.

 

 

B.    The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised.

 

 

C.    Designs which include an excessive paved area or which do not screen paved areas adequately from the street and neighbouring development, will not be accepted. Similarly, designs which show little imagination in the placement of buildings mass and with straight driveways are also unacceptable.

 

The adjoining building ‘Urban’ motel is 5 storeys and the adjoining residential flat building is 2-3 storeys. The proposed building is 10 storeys, which is much in excess of the adjoining buildings. Therefore the proposal is not considered sympathetic to the adjoining buildings in terms of number of storeys and height.

A substantial portion of the front setback area is devoted to driveway and vehicle turning areas.

 

The whole of the site is paved particularly because of the basement which extends across the entire site.

NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO

 

 

 

 

NO

4. Height

The height of motel developments are to match, or be less than, the heights of adjoining or nearby residential flat development.

The height of the proposed building would be nearly double the height of the adjoining building.

NO

5. Views and Overshadowing

The siting of a motel on an allotment needs to be related to the particular effect the development may have on the adjoining dwellings. For a proposal to be sympathetic to the existing immediate neighbouring buildings, it is required that the development will not significantly affect any available views from adjoining dwellings, nor significantly decrease the amount of sunshine access available to the adjoining allotments.

Motel developments are to be so located and designed that a total of five hours sunshine is available daily over 80% of the southern contiguous allotment during 22nd June

The proposal would impact adversely upon the city views of the adjoining building towards the north.

There would be significant impact upon the adjoining buildings in terms of overshadowing. 1-15 Bellevue and ‘Urban’ hotel would not receive a reasonable sunlight.

NO

6. Setbacks.

Building setbacks from a public street are to match that of neighbouring residential development. Side and rear boundary setbacks should not be less than that of neighbouring or nearby flat development

 

Front setback: The adjoining RFB has a front setback of 9.0m The proposed building has a front setback of 7.325m measured from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining building.

 

Side setback: The adjoining RFB has a side setback of 3.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a side setback of nearly 5.0m. The proposed building has a side setback of 2.0m for external walls and only 1.5m measured from the edge of the balcony towards the southern side which is less than that of the adjoining building.

 

Rear setback: The adjoining RFB has a rear setback of nearly 8.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a rear setback of nearly 13.0m. The proposed building has a rear setback of 3.0m for external wall and only 1.2m measured from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining building.

NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO

7. Landscaping

Fifty percent (50%) of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping does not include paved areas, such as driveways. A separate landscape plan is required with any development proposal. The landscape

plan should achieve or include the following:-

(a) An informal softening on building and paved areas generally.

(b) The screening of the development from the side and rear boundaries and, particularly, from the street.

(c) The exclusive use of the plant species native to Lane Cove. A list of such species is included at the end of this document.

(d) Landscaping of the nature strip along all frontages to a public street.

(e) The retention of all existing trees, where possible

The basement extends across full area of the site. There is no landscape area on the site.

The excavation of the full site would require a substantial number of trees (27) on the adjoining property to be removed.

NO

8. Car Parking

Off-street car parking facilities are to be provided at the following minimum rates:-

(a) 1 space per motel unit or suite.

(b) 2 spaces, plus 1 space per 20 units or suites to be provided for staff

       parking.

(c) 1 space per every six seats provided in any restaurant facility, and

(d) 1 space per 10m² of floor area provided for convention or conference facilities.*

* Kitchen facilities which cater for a convention or conference areas will be included in the calculation of floor area of those convention or conference facilities.

The above car parking requirements are to be provided for each o f the uses specified, and will be calculated independently. No discounting of the car parking requirements between different uses on-site will be permitted.

The provision of car parking spaces shall not be permitted within 10 metres of the road to which the site has frontage. Information regarding dimensions, layouts, etc. for off-street carparks is contained in Australian Standard 2890.1-1993 “Off-Street Car Parking Facilities

The car parking spaces required are 107. This does not take into consideration the spaces required for restaurant/ convention/ conference.

 

The proposed  car parking spaces provided are only 46 which is much less than the minimum required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two car parking spaces have been provided within the front building line.

NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies

 

·     The proposal does not comply with the provisions for Minimum Site Area, Building Design and Scale, Height, Views and Overshadowing, Setbacks, Landscaping and Car Parking requirements of Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels.

 

·     The proposal; does not comply with the provisions of height and floor space requirements of Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

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 has been for a motel and unlikely that that there has been any high risk uses. Accordingly, contamination of the site is unlikely to be an issue.

 

SEPP 1 – Objection

 

SEPP No. 1 provides flexibility in the application of planning controls that apply to a site in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable and unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in the Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

 

Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 , it may grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection made by the applicant.

 

The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 objection for variation to the following development standards:

 

1.               Clause- 2.0 – Minimum Site Area

 

Development Standard: Clause 2.0 of the Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that the motel developments will not be permitted on sites less than 2000 m2.

 

Applicant’s justification: A dispensation for redevelopment for site on account of the existing use rights of the site.

 

An existing use is a use that is lawfully commenced but subsequently becomes a prohibited use under a new local environmental plan (LEP). The EP&A Act provides for the continuance of existing uses. A ‘Motel’ is a permitted use within this zone. Therefore existing use rights are not relevant in this instance. Furthermore, the purpose of existing use rights is to balance the potential hardship and dislocation that could result if landowners or occupiers were required to discontinue uses no longer permitted under current planning controls.

 

In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is considered unreasonable given the significant difference in site area between the existing site and Council’s minimum site area of 2000m2.

 

 

 

 

2.               Clause- 4.0 – Height

 

Development Standard: Clause 4.0 of the Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that the height of motel development is to match or be less than the heights of the adjoining or nearby residential flat development.

 

Applicant’s justification: Compliments the proposed development application for a 6 story hospital on Nield Avenue. Existing building scales vary between 3-10 storeys in height. The proposed building is only 4 to 5 levels above the adjoining motel and residential flat building. 

 

The proposal for the hospital at Nield Avenue is being considered by the Department of Planning and has not been determined as yet. The adjoining building, ‘Urban’ motel is only 5 storey and the adjoining residential flat building is 2-3 storey. The proposed building is 10 storeys. The height of the proposed building would be double the height of the adjoining building.

 

In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation could not be supported.

 

3.               Clause- 5.0 –Overshadowing

 

Development Standard: Clause 5.0 of the Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels. Motel developments are to be so located and designed that a total of 5 hours sunshine is available daily over 80% of the southern contiguous allotment. 

 

Applicant’s justification: Due to the relatively same footprint of the proposed building. The proposed shadow is just elongated along the same line is the existing.

 

The building bulk of the proposed building is much more than the existing building. The impact of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties is much greater than the existing building. There is no justification for accepting additional overshadowing by the proposed building.

 

In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is considered unreasonable.

 

4.               Clause- 7.0 – Landscaping

 

Development Standard: Clause 7.0 of the Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels states that fifty percent (50%) of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping does not include paved areas, such as driveways. 

 

Applicant’s justification: the existing site has been extremely concreted leaving very little scope for landscaping.  

 

The proposal involved demolition of the entire buildings and all existing structures. There is no justification to permit non compliance with respect to landscaping just because adequate landscaping does not exist.

 

In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is considered unreasonable.

 

5.               Clause- 8.0 – Car Parking

 

Development Standard: Clause 8.0. of the Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels requires 107 off street car parking spaces  to be provided. Only 46 spaces have been provided.

Applicant’s justification: 46 spaces are considered to be well in excess of the needs based on previous experience. The site is close to public transport. The restaurants and conference rooms are designed for use by patrons of the motel only.

 

All residents may have cars. It is not necessary that the residents of the motel would use public transport. It is not necessary that the non motel residents would not attend conferences or visit restaurants.

 

In this regard, the SEPP 1 objection submitted to Council is not considered to be well founded and the proposed variation is considered unreasonable.

 

Note: The applicant has not lodged a SEPP1 objection to the non compliance with regards to Height and Floor Space Area requirements of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

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.

 

Adjoining to the south is a five storey motel building and north is a 2-3 storey residential flat building. The proposal is for a ten storey building which is in excess of the height of the adjoining buildings. The proposed building has a front boundary setback less than that of the adjoining buildings. Therefore it is considered that the proposed building is not compatible with the adjoining development and would dominate the streetscape.

 

The proposed building has side setbacks less than that of the adjoining buildings. The rear setback is considerably less than of the adjoining properties. Balconies from the sides and the rear of the proposed building would overlook adjoining properties. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

The proposal does not provide for adequate car parking. With appropriate parking, RTA has raised concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.

 

The proposal would not provide for any soft landscape area of on the site. Furthermore, excavation for the basement would require removal of a considerable number of trees on the adjoining properties.

 

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

 

There exists a 3-4 storey motel development on the site. The proposal is also for a motel. Therefore, the site is considered suitable with respect to the development of the site for a motel.

 

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

 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation. Thirty three (33) submissions were received. The issues raised have been discussed below.

 

Submission from J & G Mills:

 

Concern has been expressed regarding large number of storeys, excessive height  and streetscape.

 

Comment:  The height is much in excess of the adjoining buildings.

 

There shall be an increased parking demand and traffic flow.

 

Comment: The parking requirement as per Council’s Code has not been satisfied.

 

Submission from resident - 16/7-15 Bellevue Avenue:

 

10 storey building is twice as high as the adjoining hotel:

 

Comment:  The height is much in excess of the adjoining buildings.

 

As per Council’s Code minimum area requirement for the site should be 2000 sq. m.

 

Comment:  The proposal does not meet the minimum area requirement of Council’s Code. The area of the subject property is 698 sq. m.

 

There is no provision for parking tour buses.

 

Comment:  It is agreed that there is no provision for parking tour buses.

 

The proposal will have an impact upon the traffic of Pacific Highway.

 

Comment:  Council’s parking code requires 107 car parking spaces. RTA has stated that if the total parking provision be at an amount that is noticeably higher than the suggested 46 spaces, then RTA would raise concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.

 

Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has not been provided.

 

Comment: It is agreed that Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has not been provided. The proposal includes full basement with no setbacks from the site boundaries. Therefore, there is no soft landscape area available and will require the removal of trees on adjoining sites.

 

Submission from resident – 13/200 Pacific Highway:

 

The proposal does not meet the requirements of LEP, DLEP and DCP

 

Comment: The proposed does not meet the requirements of Council’s Code for Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels & Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007.

 

As per Council’s Code minimum area requirement for the site should be 2000 sq. m.

 

Comment:  There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

The DCP requires the proposal to be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings and the height of the development should be same or less than the adjoining or nearby developments.

 

Comment: The height is much in excess of the adjoining buildings.

 

Concern has been expressed regarding loss of city views.

 

Comment: It is considered that the proposed building will impact upon city views.

 

Council’s requirement of 50% landscaping has not been provided.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Council’s DCP requirement of 107 car spaces has not been provided.

Comment:  The proposal does not meet Council’s Code minimum car parking requirement. Provision has been made of only 46 car parking spaces.

 

Concern has been expressed regarding generation of additional noise because of the proposed development.

 

Comment:  The proposal would increase the capacity of the building substantially. There is a possibility of the additional noise being generated from the proposed building.

 

Concern has been expressed regarding loss of privacy because of the balconies on all sides.

 

Comment: The proposed balconies have a potential to overlook adjoining properties.

 

Submission from resident  – 25 Wisdom Road, Greenwich:

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, increase in noise, increase in traffic flow, impact upon traffic, inadequate landscaping, height size and bulk.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from resident – 17/7-15 Bellevue St:

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height and loss of privacy.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission – Accor hotels:

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height and number of storeys.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from resident – 10/7-15 Bellevue St:

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, increase in noise, increase in traffic flow, impact upon traffic, inadequate landscaping, height size and bulk.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from Unit 14/200, 7/200, 8/200, 15/206, 16/206, 6/206, 7/198, 2/206, 18/206, 1/198, 6/198, 12/200, 9/200, 3/200, 2/200, 1/200 Pacific Highway, 20 Pymble Ave, :

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to minimum lot size for motel, excessive height, inadequate car parking, loss of privacy, increase in noise, inadequate landscaping.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from H & T Jones– 9/7 Bellevue St

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to lack of adequate rear setback, excessive height, inadequate car parking and traffic impact, overshadowing, loss of privacy, inadequate landscaping.

 

Comment: It is agreed that the rear setback provided is less than that of the adjoining properties. Other concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from Flordeliza West

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to loss of privacy, excessive height, inadequate parking and increase in traffic flow, increase in noise and streetscape.

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from BR & LM Cole

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to non compliance with Councils codes, traffic issues, increase in noise, loss of privacy, overshadowing, and excessive height.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from resident of 2/198 Pacific Highway.

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height, increase in noise and increase in traffic flow.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from resident – 13/200 Pacific Highway:

 

The applicant states that the reason for the redevelopment of the hotel is that the extra rooms were necessary to cope with the increased need of RNSH. A newspaper extract has been provided which says that the contract for rooms at a commercial hotel near RNSH has ended. Therefore, the requirements of RNSH are not relevant.

 

Comment: Noted.

 

Submission from resident – 10/7-15 Bellevue St:

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to excessive height, overshadowing and inadequate landscaping.

 

Comment: There concerns have already been discussed above.

 

Submission from Greenwich Community Association.

 

Concerns have been expressed with regards to minimum lot size for motel, excessive height, inadequate landscaping and inadequate parking.

 

Comment: These concerns have already been discussed above.

 

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

 

The proposed development is not considered satisfactory with respect to design objectives and provisions under Council’s Code for Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels & Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007. It is not considered compatible with the scale of adjoining buildings in particular the 3-4 storey motel development and the 5 story motel development. It is considered that the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development is not 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 matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and the proposal is not considered to be satisfactory. Accordingly the proposal is not supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1) (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application D65/08 for Demolition of the existing building and construction of a ten (10) storey, one hundred (100) bed room motel with three (3) levels of basement parking, restaurant, conference rooms, roof top SPA & entertainment area at 196 Pacific Highway, Greenwich for the following reasons: -

 

1.         The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to maximum permissible height limit. The maximum height requirement is 15m (approx 5 storeys above ground). The proposal is for a maximum height of 30m (approx 10 storeys above ground) which is much in excess of the maximum permissible height limit.

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Council’s Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007 with regards to maximum permissible floor space ratio. The maximum permissible floor space ratio is 0.8:1. The proposed floor space ratio is 4.29:1 which is much in excess of the maximum permissible.

 

3.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to the objective. The proposal should enhance the existing high standard of residential development in the 2(c) Zone. The proposal does not enhance the existing standard of residential development. The proposal would dominate the adjoining developments.

 

4.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Minimum site area. Minimum site area required for a motel development is 2000sq. m. The area of the subject site is 696.18 m2 which is much less than the minimum requirement.

 

5.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and Scale. The proposal should be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, the materials used, roof pitch, and overall building character. The adjoining building, ‘Urban’ motel is 5 storey and the adjoining residential flat building is 2-3 storey. The proposed building is 10 storeys, which is much in excess of the adjoining buildings. Therefore the proposal is not considered sympathetic to the adjoining buildings.

 

6.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and Scale. The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised. A substantial portion of the front setback area is devoted to driveway and vehicle turning areas.

 

 

7.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Building Design and Scale. Designs which include an excessive paved area are not acceptable. The entire site is paved because the basement extends across the entire site.

 

8.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to the height of the building. The height of motel developments are to match, or be less than, the heights of adjoining or nearby residential flat development. The height of the proposed building would be nearly double the height of the adjoining building.

 

9.         The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Views and Overshadowing. The proposal would impact adversely upon the city views of the adjoining building towards the north. The proposal would significant impact upon the adjoining buildings in terms of overshadowing. 1-15 Bellevue and ‘Urban’ hotel would not receive reasonable solar access.

 

10.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to building setbacks. Building setbacks from a public street are to match that of neighbouring residential development. The adjoining RFB has a front setback of 9.0m. The proposed building has a front setback of 7.325m measured from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining building.

 

11.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to side boundary setbacks. Side boundary setbacks should not be less than that of neighbouring or nearby flat development. The adjoining RFB has a side setback of 3.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a side setback of nearly 5.0m. The proposed building has a side setback of 2.0m for external walls and only 1.5m measured from the edge of the balcony towards the southern side which is less than that of the adjoining building.

 

12.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to rear boundary setback. Rear boundary setbacks should not be less than that of neighbouring or nearby flat development. The adjoining RFB has a rear setback of nearly 8.0m and the ‘Urban’ hotel has a rear setback of nearly 13.0m. The proposed building has a rear setback of 3.0m for external wall and only 1.2m measured from the edge of the balcony which is less than that of the adjoining building.

 

13.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to Landscaping. Fifty percent (50%) of the site should be landscaped. The basement extends across the full area of the site. Therefore, there is no landscape area on the site.

 

14.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to off street car parking requirement. The car spaces required are 107. This does not take into consideration the spaces required for restaurant/ convention/ conference. The car spaces provided are only 46 which are much less than the minimum required.

 

15.       The proposal does not comply with Council’s Residential Zones Development Control Plan Part VI – Motels with regards to off street car parking requirement. The provision of car parking spaces shall not be permitted within 10 metres of the road to which the site has frontage. Two car spaces have been provided within the front building line.

 

16.       The following information has not been submitted to Council for the assessment of the application.

 

·     An acoustic report carried out in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

·     Detailed plans showing the fitout of the kitchen and storage areas in relation to the Food Safety Standards.”

 

17.       The proposed excavation works for the basement floor R.L will impact on the structural integrity of mature screen trees on neighbouring properties to the north and south of the site. The proposed development will necessitate the removal of 22 of the aforementioned trees and the possible retention of five (5) trees which is not supported.

 

18.       No provision has been made for delivery/service vehicles as detailed in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments other than by using the guest waiting spaces (C1 and C2). Concerns are raised regarding vehicle access and the ability of delivery/service vehicles to perform a 3-point turn internally to exist the property in a forward direction.

 

19.       The RTA raises concerns regarding the design of the ground floor parking area as there is limited room for manoeuvring, particularly if delivery/service vehicles and waiting cars are present simultaneously. The proposed development would need to provide two waiting area parking spaces plus a service vehicle space plus a vacant space to be used as a turn around area.

 

20.       A management plan, which would address how the vehicles entering the site will be managed should the car lift become in-operable or the car parking area is full has not been provided. The plan requires approval by the RTA.

 

21.       If provision of car parking spaces is made at an amount as per Council’s parking code which requires 107 spaces, then RTA would raise concerns with regards to the increased traffic generation and the impact on the operational efficiency of the neighbouring traffic signals on the Pacific Highway.

 

22.       The proposed driveway is not in accordance with AS2890.1 – 2004 as the requirement is 6 metres. The proposal provides a 5 metre wide two – way driveway. The driveway narrows to 4 metres on approach to the existing car park at the rear of the site. The driveway can be narrowed up to 5.5 metres internally. In this aspect the driveway does not comply.

 

23.       The internal design of the carpark and layout does comply in relation to the configuration and position of some parking spaces.

 

24.       Car Spaces No’s 19 & 20 are not acceptable in that location as they block other parking spaces.

 

25.       There is no adequate manoeuvring around car spaces No’s 18 and 15.

 

26.       The car spaces between the wall and the Car Lifts require an additional 600mm for door openings.

 

27.       Bicycle parking area has not been provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page