m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

7 September 2009

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.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held Council Chambers on Monday 7 September 2009 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Win Gaffney. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 7 September 2009

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 47

SUBJECT: NSROC Tender for Supply; Supply & Delivery and Supply, Delivery & Laying of Asphaltic Concrete

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing.

 

2.       General Managers Report No. 20

SUBJECT: Organisational Structure

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and and specifically the report contains details about the staffing of Council. 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

3.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 AUGUST 2009

 

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 05 September 2009

 

4.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 60

SUBJECT: 19 Glenview Street, Greenwich FROM Inspection Committee 05 September 2009

 

5.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 86

SUBJECT: 34 Chisholm Street, Greenwich FROM Inspection Committee 05 September 2009

 

6.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 219

SUBJECT: 330 Pacific Highway Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

7.       Notice of Motion No. 8

SUBJECT: Access Map for Lane Cove Town Centre

 

General Managers Reports

 

8.       General Managers Report No. 21

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Market Square Status Report

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

9.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

SUBJECT: Annual Financial Reports for 2008/2009 - Referral for Audit

 

10.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 47

SUBJECT: Code of Conduct and Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

11.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 48

SUBJECT: Meeting Practice Note

 

12.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 49

SUBJECT: Survey from the Local Government Association Concernign One Association to Represent Local Government in NSW

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

13.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 40

SUBJECT: Street Environmental Capacity Study for Lane Cove Council

 

14.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 48

SUBJECT: NSROC Tender for Supply; Supply & Delivery and Supply, Delivery & Laying of Asphaltic Concrete

 

15.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 49

SUBJECT: Reconstruction of 17th Green

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

16.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

SUBJECT: Austin Street - Request for a Retail Directory

 

17.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

18.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

SUBJECT: State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Commercial and Industrial) 2009

 

19.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 34

SUBJECT: Amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying) 2008 - The Housing Code

 

20.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

SUBJECT: Renaming of Howell Place

 

21.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 36

SUBJECT: Cunninghams Reach Boatshed - Linley Point

 

22.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 38

SUBJECT: Request for Boundary Adjustment - 32 Vista Street  

 

 

 

 

             


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 60

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 60

Subject:          19 Glenview Street, Greenwich

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 September 2009.   

Record No:    DA08/278-01 - 7243/09

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     19 Glenview Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                         D278/08

 

Date Lodged:              24 September 2008

 

Amended plans:         Renotified on 22 May 2009. Additional notification letters sent on 19 June 2009.

 

Cost of Work:              $1,000,000.00

 

Owner             :                       H & W Pty Ltd

 

Author:                         Rajiv Shankar

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building to convert 3 flats into 2 and the construction of a detached third dwelling house over a basement car park and alterations to the existing pool.

ZONE

Residential 2(a1)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Residential flat buildings are not permitted within this zone. The applicant claims to have existing use rights to use the building as a residential flat building comprising of three flats.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2 & 7a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                     56-58, 60-64, 66 Greenwich Rd, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 23A, 25 Glenview St,

Ward Councillors            Clr D Brooks-Horn, Clr P Palmer, Clr R Tudge

Progress Association:    Greenwich Community Association

Other Interest Groups:    Lane Cove Historical Society.

Additional Groups:          2, 3, 27 Glenview Street, Greenwich Conservation Group, Craddock Murray Neumann, Moody & Doyle

 

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The application is referred to the Planning and Building Committee meeting on the request of the Mayor Clr Longbottom, Clr Palmer and Clr Tudge having regard to issues raised by the community.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     The subject site has a two storey brick and tile dwelling house which has been converted to 3 flats and is listed as a heritage item (B95) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.   The heritage item is described as being:

 

“a pair of two-storey substantial brick houses, which appear to have been built to the designs for a first-class house in the1885 Greendale Park Estate Subdivision Advertisement.  The houses stand on high ground, asymmetrical in form, with front verandahs to both upper and lower floors and a protruding bay.  The ground floor of 21 is rough hewn sandstone, the upper floor brick with sandstone string coursing.  There are two fine corbelled chimneys.  The timber verandah posts are of simple design.  The front gable has a decorative barge board.  French doors open onto the verandah.  Two large pines remain to the front of the house.  19 appears to be of slightly later date with its ornamental terracotta crest tiles to the roof, two chimneys and gable treatment of rough cast and timber decoration.  French doors open onto the verandah.  A modern carport has been built to the front of the house.  Both houses have been extended and are presently being used as flats”.

 

·     The applicant claims that the subject property has existing use rights to use the property for 3 residential flats.  Relevant material, provided by the applicant in support of the claim for having existing use rights, was considered by Council’s solicitors. Based on the evidence provided, Council’s solicitors have agreed with the existing use claim.

 

·     Assessment of the proposal is based on merit as Council’s Codes and Development Controls Plans do not apply, but have been used as a guide.

 

·     The original proposal was for a 2 storey dwelling over basement parking at the front of 19 Glenview.

 

·     In the amended proposal, the level of the basement and the floor level of the front building have been reduced by 1.0m. The proposed two storey front building has been changed to a single storey building. The overall height of the building has been reduced by 1.47m.

 

·     Council’s heritage advisor has stated that the matters raised with regard to heritage significance have been taken into consideration in the amended proposal. Most items of the proposed works, which detrimentally impacted upon the heritage item, have been suitably addressed. The report concluded that the proposal is more sympathetic to the site and is less dominant.

 

·     The additional items, which would have an impact upon the heritage significance, have been amended as per conditions 2 and 3 in the draft conditions.

 

·     The proposal is recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.

 

SITE:

 

The site is located on the western side of Glenview Street. The site is rectangular in shape with front and rear boundaries of 18.29m, side boundaries of 45.72m and an area of 836.22 m2. The site falls towards the street. 

The site features a federation style two storey brick and tile dwelling house which has been converted into 3 flats and is listed as a heritage item (B95) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987. The building is located towards the rear of the site.  There is an existing in-ground pool towards the rear. Towards the front along the northern boundary is a flat metal roofed open carport.

 

There are two trees towards the front of the existing building.  The smaller tree towards the southern side is proposed to be removed and the larger tree towards the northern side is proposed to be retained.  Neighbouring to the south is a similar federation style two storey building also listed as a heritage item (B95). This dwelling house is also located towards the rear of the site. There is a three car garage towards the front along the southern boundary.  Neighbouring to the north is a single storey brick and tile dwelling house.   Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal includes the following:

 

·     Additions and alteration to the existing building which includes conversion of the existing three flats into two flats, a dormer window towards the front and a second floor addition towards the rear.

·     Demolition of the existing carport.

·     Construction of an underground car-park to provide for parking of six cars for all three flats.

·     Construction of a single story building above the proposed car-park, towards the front of the existing building, to replace the removed third flat from the existing building.

·     Construction of walls within the existing swimming pool to create a smaller rectangular pool.

·     Construction of decks and a gazebo towards the rear of the existing building.

 

The proposal for a 2 storey dwelling at the front of the site was amended. The amendments include the following:

 

·     The level of the basement and the floor level of the front building have been reduced by 1.0m.

·     The proposed two storey building towards Glenview Street has been modified to be a single storey building.

·     The overall height of the proposed building towards the front has been reduced by 1.47m and is varies from 5.2m to 4m above natural ground level.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

DA431/99 – Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 8 units – Refused.

DA298/99 – Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 10 units – Refused.

 

For the purpose of comparison, the proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the Dwelling House Code and the Residential zones DCP for Flats.

 

DWELLING HOUSE CODE - PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

Site Area (836.22m2)

 

PROPOSED

 DWELLING HOUSE CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio       (max) Including the area of the existing building and the proposed new building. Area of the basement has not been included.

0.51 (426m2)

0.5 (418m2)

NO (+8m2)

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

Landscape area above the basement has not been included.

25.3%

35%

NO (-81m2)

Side Boundary Setback (min).

Existing Building:

New Building:

Basement:

 

Existing

1.5m

Nil

 

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

 

NA

Yes

NO

Overall Height (m)       (max)

9.5m (existing blg)

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

7.0m (existing blg)

7.0m

Yes

No of Storeys

2 (proposed extension to existing blg)

2

Yes

Building Line    (max)

7.962m

7.5m

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

NA

NA

NA

Cut and Fill      (max)

3.0m approx (for basement)

1m

NO

Deck/Balcony width    (max)

0.9m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

Yes

Solar Access  (min)

3 hours

3 hours to north elevation

Yes

Basix

Provided

Required

Yes

 

RESIDENTIAL ZONES DCP PART V- FLATS - PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

 

PROPOSED

 RESIDENTIAL ZONES DCP PART V- FLATS

COMPLIES

OBJECTIVE

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a1).

 

 

Nearby development comprise of single dwelling houses. There is no nearby flat or town house development.

Objective is to encourage infill flat development on Residential 2(c) Zone.

 

Development should in harmony with the nearby flat and town house development.

NO

 

 

 

NO

BUILDING DESIGN & SCALE

The proposal maintains the existing residential character.

 

The proposal is sympathetic to adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials roof pitch and overall character.

Preservation of existing residential character.

 

Architectural style be sympathetic to adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials roof pitch and overall character.

Yes

 

 

Yes

MINIMUM SITE AREA

836.22m2 

 

1000m2

 

NO

 (-163.78m2)

MAXIMUM DENSITY

1 dwellings per 278.74m2

 

1 dwelling per 175m2

 

Yes

VIEWS AND OVERSHADOWING

Does not significantly affect any available views from adjoining buildings.

 

Does not significantly decrease the amount of sunshine access available to the adjoining buildings.

Not significantly affect any available views from adjoining buildings.

 

Not significantly decrease the amount of sunshine access available to the adjoining buildings.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

SETBACKS

Front:

 

 

Side:

 

New building - matches adjoining

 

New building - matches adjoining

 

 

Match neighbouring residential development.

 

Not less than neighbouring or nearby development

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

LANDSCAPING

55%

50% of the site.

This includes private open spaces and swimming pools.

Yes

CAR PARKING

6 spaces

Flat -1 : 3 Bed sit – 2 space

Flat -2 :  Bed sit– 1 space

Flat -3 : 2 Bed – 1.5 space

Visitor space – 1 space

Total = 5.5 spaces

Yes

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Assets

 

No objections expressed subject to draft conditions in relation to drainage and construction works.

 

Manager Parks

 

The proposal requires the removal of 1 Golden Cypress tree and retention of a Himalayan Cedar. No objection was raised to the removal of the Cypress and conditions have been provided to support the retention of the Himalayan Cedar.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

The site is located in an area which requires management as an Inner Protection Zone.  Draft conditions of consent have been provided.

 

Manager Traffic

 

Council’s Traffic Manager has considered the proposal and suggested a number of draft conditions relating to the size and marking of the car spaces.

 

Building Surveyor

 

No objection was expressed subject to compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Solicitors

 

Legal advice was sought from Council’s solicitors at various stages. The advice provided is summarised below:

 

Advice As Per The Letter Dated 5 November 2008.

 

REBUILDING:

 

“The proposed new building (which would comprise flat 3) would be permissible under the rebuilding provisions contained in clause 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation where existing use rights have been established.

 

In North Sydney v Stevens (1992) 75 LGRA 337 the Court acknowledged the requirement for a “liberal construction” for the term “rebuild” and said, accordingly, the word should not be limited by considerations of the size, character or design.

 

In Peddle, Thorp and Walker Architects Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council (2000) NSWLEC 279 (albeit by consent), the Court held that a proposal to construct an additional building on the same site as an existing building enjoying existing use rights was possible.

 

In Mona Vale Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2003) NSWLEC 74 the Court held that a three storey shopping centre with car parking which bore no relationship to the building it was proposed to replace was nonetheless authorised under the existing use “rebuilding” provisions because the existing single storey shopping centre enjoyed existing use rights. In addition, the Court held that redevelopment was not limited to the surface of the land but could include subterranean car parks.”

 

The Assessment of the Proposal if Existing Use Rights Can Be Established

 

Section 108(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides:

 

            “An environmental planning instrument may, in accordance with this Act, contain provisions extending, expanding or supplementing the incorporating provisions, but any provisions (other than incorporated provisions) in such an instrument that but for this subsection, would derogate or have the effect of derogating from the incorporating provisions have no force or effect while the incorporated provisions remain in force.”

 

Therefore, in Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (1997) LGERA 373 the Court held that zoning and zone objectives are not relevant considerations on the redevelopment of a site enjoying existing use rights.  In Taipan Holding v Sutherland Council (1999) NSWLEC 276 the Court extended the same reasoning to subordinate controls such as that contained in Council Policies and DCPs.

 

Planning Principles

 

The Court has however, subsequently softened its position in that regard and there are a number of Planning Principles giving guidance in respect of some including the following:

 

In Michael Hesse Associates v Parramatta City Council (2003) NSWLEC 387 an existing motel was to be converted to residential apartments where the majority of nearby development was single storey. The Court had regard to relevant planning instruments as being indicative of the planning regime that would apply to the site surroundings.

 

In Bonim Stanmore v Marrickville Council (2004) NSWLEC 671 the proposal was for a four storey housing complex. Again, the Court had regard to the LEP as indicative of the nature of future development to be expected around the site. The development was refused on the bases that it was grossly out of scale with its context.

 

In Fodor v Hornsby Shire Council (2005) NSWLEC71 the Court outlined the following Planning Principles applicable to the redevelopment of sites enjoying existing use rights:

 

(i)         How does the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to that which is permissible on surrounding sites.

 

(ii)        What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place (ie the retention of the existing building is more defensible than the creation of a new building)?  The impact of new building works on the existing building, which is a heritage item, would therefore be a relevant consideration.

 

(iii)       What are the impacts on adjoining lands?

 

(iv)       What is the internal amenity?

 

Advice As Per The Letter Dated 6 January 2009

 

Council’s solicitors considered material provided by the applicant in support of their claim for having existing use rights to use the subject property for the purpose of flats. The solicitors have concluded the following:

 

“On the material provided, it appears to us that on balance the lawful commencement of existing use may be inferred and there does not appear to be any evidence of its abandonment thereafter.  It is open to Council therefore to make its assessment of the application on the basis that the premises enjoy existing use rights.”

 

Advice As Per The Letter Dated 3 April 2009

 

The advise in this letter was in response to the issues raised in a letter by Susan Hill and associates Lawyers Pty Ltd which questioned whether the proposal was a change of use that was contrary to the existing use rights provisions.

 

“The proposal to convert the existing residential flat building from 3 flats into 2 and construction of a detached third unit over a basement car park does not constitute a change of use”.

 

Additional Information With Regard To Existing Use Rights:

 

“Reference is made to the Planning Principle established by Commissioner Roseth in Fodor v Hornsby Shire Council (2005) NSWLEC71 which are as follows:

 

Regulation 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 states that

An existing use may, subject to this Division:

 

a) be enlarged, expanded or intensified; or
b) be altered or extended;
c) be rebuilt;
d) be changed to another use, including a use that would otherwise be prohibited under the           Act.

 

A long line of legal authority has held that provisions of planning instruments that derogate (ie detract) from Regulation 41(1) do not apply to the assessment of applications on sites with existing use rights. A useful summary of the legal tests for existing use rights can be found in the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ashfield Municipal Council v Armstrong [2002] 122 LGRA 105 by Davies AJA at paragraphs 13 to 15.  Thus the consequence of preserving existing use rights is that zone objectives and planning controls that limit the size of a proposal (ie floor space ratio, height and setback) have no application.”

 

Heritage

 

The application could not be dealt with by Council’s usual advisor, as he advised a conflict of interest.  The application was then referred to Graham Brookes and Associates.

 

 

 

 

Heritage Advisor 1 -  Graham Brookes and Associates

 

The independent heritage advice concludes that the proposed free standing two story residential flat building in the front garden of the subject property, combined with the large almost full width terraced platform over the garage, would have an adverse impact upon on the setting and heritage significance of subject listed heritage property and the adjoining property at 21 Glenview Street.

The proposed recessed attic level balcony and non traditional dormer in the front section of the roof are considered unacceptable on the architectural character of the Federation style existing building.

 

Removal of door case and sidelights opening on to the top verandah would also have an impact upon the architectural style of the existing building attached (AT3)

 

In referring the matter to Graham Brookes and Associates, copies of objection letters were also referred.  As this was not standard practice, the procedure was contested and a further heritage consultant was selected and advice sought.

 

Heritage Advisor 2  -  Graeme Drew and Associates

 

Original Proposal

 

The second independent heritage advisor concludes that the proposed free standing residence, fence and gates located in the front garden are considered a major intrusion, obstructing a clear view of the existing residence and in terms of street presentation for the heritage item. The street vista is an important factor in the heritage value of 19 & 21 Glenview Street. The association of both the heritage items is broken with the proposed fence, garage and the new building with terraces. The proposal interrupts the vista of the existing heritage items from the street attached (AT4). 

 

The issues were discussed with the applicant and an amended proposal was submitted.

 

Amended Proposal

 

The response to the amended proposal is that the matters raised have been taken into consideration. Most items of the proposed works, which detrimentally impacted upon the heritage item, have been suitably addressed. For the remaining items, the following modifications have been suggested:

 

1.   It should be made clear to applicant that Council will not allow any future extension or addition to this proposed new structure.

2.   The masonry enclosure for the bins be reduced in height and the overhead pedestrian gate structure be deleted.

3.   The earthwork be moulded to the existing ground line along the south western boundary and an alternative be considered to the rigid high fence, a more transparent fence at a reduced height similar to that proposed for the vehicle gates and pedestrian gate attached (AT5).

 

Any future extension or addition to the proposed new structure, stated in recommendation 1 above, would be subject to a separate application and would be dealt with on merit.  Items 2 & 3 have been included as conditions in the draft conditions of consent.

 

EXISTING USE RIGHTS – Planning Principles

 

Planning principles: Assessment of proposals on land with existing use rights four questions usually arise in the assessment of existing use rights developments, namely:

1.         How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

As indicated in the compliance table in the report above, in the amended proposal where the proposed front new building has been reduced to single storey, the total floor space ratio is not substantially more than the maximum permissible within the area. The front setback of the proposed front new building is similar to the front setback of the adjoining dwelling house towards the north. The northern side boundary setback is 1.5m which is more than the minimum required for a single storey dwelling house. The proposal is well below the maximum height limit for dwelling houses. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not be substantially in excess of that permissible on the surrounding sites.

 

2.         What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place?

 

The proposal does not include a change of use or the demolition of the existing building. The existing building is a heritage item. The location of the new works would maintain the relation of the paired buildings. As indicated in the report, the proposed works would not have a detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage items.

 

3.         What are the impacts on adjoining land?

 

The proposal meets the requirement for overshadowing as indicated in the code for dwelling houses. The proposal provides for reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational area of the adjoining properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. 

 

4.         What is the internal amenity?

 

It is considered that the proposal provides for an adequate level of amenity in terms of adequate solar access and privacy. 

 

Therefore it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria established in the Planning Principles established for developments on properties with existing use rights.

 

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

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

 

The subject site is zoned Low Density Residential 2(a1) under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.  Residential Flat Buildings are not permitted within this zone. The proposal may be considered under existing use rights as demonstrated previously in this assessment.

 

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

The proposal remains prohibited under the R2 zone where the site is located. However, as stated above, the proposal can be considered under the provisions of existing use rights of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses – September 2000

 

For comparison purposes, the proposal would not comply with the following provisions of the code:

 

·     Maximum Floor Space ratio.

·     Minimum soft landscape area.

·     Side setback for the basement car garage.

·     Maximum cut and fill.

 

Residential Zones DCP Part V- Flats

 

As indicated in the policy compliance table the proposal would not comply with the following provisions of the code:

 

·     The objective relating to the 2(c) zone.

·     Minimum site area.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Under the DCP the proposed works would not raise any significant issues in relation to the relevant sub-sections, i.e. 5.3 (Siting of buildings and structures) and 5.4 (Built form).

 

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

 

The proposed development is not substantially in excess of the maximum permissible floor space ratio that is applicable to surrounding development in the Residential 2(a) zone. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to be excessive in bulk and would not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed free standing single storey residential flat building, in the front of the subject property, would complement the existing garage structure located on the southern side of the adjoining heritage property at 21 Glenview Street.

 

Privacy

 

The proposal has been designed to minimise the overlooking of adjoining properties. The proposed flat 3 has no north facing living room windows to ensure that a reasonable level of privacy is maintained between the adjoining properties.

 

Views

 

An objection to the development from the resident of 17 Glenview Street has been that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on views.

 

In determining what impact on views would result from a development, the L&EC case Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council (2004) NSW L&EC 347 has become the basis for the planning principle used to examine view sharing. In this Commissioner Roseth framed a series of questions which should be addressed in assessing whether the impact on views is considered unacceptable.  The following is an assessment of the application in terms of these questions which are:

 

1.         The assessment of the views to be affected. Some views (eg. water views, views of iconic buildings) are valued more highly than others.

 

2.         Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.  Also, consider sitting or standing views Protection of sitting views across side boundaries are more difficult than from front and rear boundaries.

 

3.         Assess the extent of the impact.  This should be done for the whole of the property, not just the view that is affected. Views from living areas (including kitchen areas) are more significant than from bedrooms.

 

4.         Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.  Factors include whether the proposal complies with development standards and whether view loss could be ameliorated by better design. View impact from a complying development would probably be considered acceptable, and view sharing reasonable.

 

In assessing the impact on views it is considered that:

 

1.         The views likely to be affected are not high value in that they are not iconic or of grand vistas, but offer more of an ambient general openness to the south.

 

2.         The views being impacted are across the side boundaries rather than from the front or rear of the property and are thus recognised as being difficult to protect.

3.         The existing views from the front of the building would not be significantly impacted.

 

4.         The proposal would exceed the planning controls of dwelling houses as the subject site has existing use rights. In this respect the impact upon views in considered reasonable. 

 

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal reasonably satisfy the requirements of view sharing principles with 17 Glenview Street.

 

Overshadowing

 

Clause 3.4 of the DCP requires that the proposal should “give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational area of the adjoining properties between 9.0am and 3.0m on 22nd June”

And “portion of north facing window of the neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9.00am to 3.00pm on 22nd June.”

 

The proposal presents an acceptable level of overshadowing and is unlikely to significantly impact on the level of solar access to adjoining developments. The shadow diagrams indicate that private open space & the windows serving habitable rooms in the adjoining dwelling receive 3 hours of sunlight between 9am & 3pm and in this regard it is considered that solar access would be retained in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

In the proposal, provision is made for six off street car parking in an underground car parking area. This meets the parking requirements for the three residential flats. The number of flats is proposed to remain unaltered. Therefore, it is considered that the amount of traffic would not increase as a result of the proposed development. Engineering and traffic requirements are included in the draft conditions of consent.   It was noted, during inspections, the parking on the street is quite heavy and the provision of parking for the development is supported.

 

Heritage

 

The applicant’s heritage study report states that the proposal maintains the existing forms and introduces new works which are cohesive in form, location and detail to the existing fabric and site planning. The location of the new works would maintain the relationship of the paired building. The report acknowledges that the proposed works would have some impact upon the sight lines of the existing buildings but does not elaborate upon the extent of impact upon the sight lines.

 

With regard to the original proposal, both of the reports by Council’s heritage advisors have indicated that the proposal would compromise viewing of the heritage item from the street and have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of subject heritage listed property and the adjoining heritage listed property at 21 Glenview Street.

 

In the amended proposal, the level of the basement and the floor level of the front building have been reduced by 1.0m. The proposed two storey front building has been converted into a single storey building. The overall height of the building has been reduced by 1.47m.

 

With regard to the amended proposal, Council’s heritage advisor has stated that the matters raised with regard to heritage have been taken into consideration. Most items of the proposed works, which detrimentally impacted upon the heritage item, have been suitably addressed. The report concluded that the proposal is more sympathetic to the site and is less dominant to the site.

 

The items, which would have an impact upon the heritage significance, have been amended as per conditions 2 and 3 in the draft conditions of consent.

 

Based on the advice from the heritage advisor, It is considered that the amended proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage items.

 

Stormwater

 

Stormwater drainage as been assessed by Council’s Engineer and roof water & run off to be disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Design Code. Conditions relating the storm water drainage have been included in the draft conditions of consent.

 

Trees

 

There are two significant trees on the site. The existing Golden Cypress tree is proposed for removal which is considered acceptable by Council’s tree preservation officer. The existing Himalayan Cedar is proposed for retention. Conditions relating to the retention of the tree have been included in the draft conditions of consent.

 

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

 

The proposal maintains the existing residential flats on the site. Accordingly the site is considered suitable with respect to the proposed development.

 

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 and 16 submissions were received in response to the notification of the original proposal, two late submissions were received, one from Moody & Doyle Town Planners and one from Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers. The amended plans were renotified and 12 submissions and 1 letter of support was received. The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

 

Existing Use Rights

 

The applicant must prove that the property had been approved as flats and have been used as flats up to the present times without a break to prove existing use rights.

 

Comment

 

All documentation provided by the applicant was referred to Council’s solicitors who have stated that lawful commencement of existing use may be inferred and there does not appear to be any evidence of its abandonment thereafter, concluding that the premises enjoy existing use rights.

 

In the event that existing use rights do exist, they must be confined to the existing structure and cannot be extended to a new and separate building.

 

Comment

 

As per the legal advice received by Council, a proposal to construct an additional building on the same site as an existing building enjoying existing use rights is possible. The Ref Peddle, Thorp and Walker Architects Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2000) NSWLEC 279 (albeit by consent).

 

Impact Upon Views From 17 Glenview Street

 

The views of the city ‘skyline’ and the bush from the rear garden would be impacted.

 

Comment

 

As discussed previously in the report above the proposal is considered satisfactory with regards to view sharing principles.

 

Potential overlooking from the proposed dormer at the rear (western elevation of the existing building).

 

Comment

 

The window towards the rear serves a bedroom and is located substantially away from the side boundaries. The addition is substantially towards the rear and does not overlook the rear open space of the adjoining property. It is not considered that this window would impact upon the privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

Potential overlooking from any window at the rear (western) elevation of the proposed new flat. - original proposal.

 

Comment

 

The front new dwelling has been modified to be a single storey building. The only west facing kitchen window would not overlook the adjoining property.

 

The proposal includes replacement of balustrades along a deck very close to the southern side boundary. The deck exists very close to the side boundary.


 

Comment

 

The deck is existing. There are no objections to the replacement of balustrades of the deck. The deck does not overlook private open space of the adjoining property.

 

Potential damage is possible because of the impact of mechanical rock pick machines which may be used for the excavation for the basement.

 

Comment:  Draft condition 27 has been included in the conditions of consent to address this concern.

 

Overdevelopment and Excessive Building Bulk

 

The size of the block is 836m2, well below the 1000m2 minimum required for construction of flats. It is also under 900m2 required under dual occupancy code. The proposal for construction of three flats is considered to be an overdevelopment. The combined footprint of the existing building and new dwelling is excessive.

 

Comment

 

The proposal is not substantially in excess of the maximum permissible floor space as required by Dwelling Houses Code. It also meets the height and setback requirements. The existing dwelling is set well back from the street. The proposed free standing third unit has setbacks similar to that of the adjoining development and would not adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining development.

 

Therefore it is considered that the proposal does not appear to be visually excessive in bulk.

 

The proposal does not meet the objectives of Lane Cove LEP 1987.

 

Comment

 

As per legal advice received by Council, in Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (1997) LGERA 373 the Court held that zoning and zone objectives are not relevant considerations on the redevelopment of a site enjoying existing use rights.

 

Impact Upon Heritage Item:

 

19 & 21 Glenview Street are viewed as a pair of heritage items mirror image in building bulk and set back from the street. Addition of a two storey building and the underground car-park, stepped terraces and gares in front of the heritage item would block the view of the building from the street and impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage item.

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that the original 2 storey proposal would have detracted from the vistas of the heritage item.

 

In the amended proposal, Council’s heritage advisor has stated that the matters raised with regard to heritage have been taken into consideration. Most items of the proposed works, which detrimentally impacted upon the heritage item, have been suitably addressed. The report concluded that the proposal is more sympathetic to the site and is less dominant to the site.

 

Also, the front of property structures and retaining walls which would have an impact upon the heritage significance, have been deleted by conditions 2 and 3 in the draft conditions.

 

It is considered that the amended proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage items.

 

Level 2 of the new third flat would overlook on the existing north facing windows of 23B Glenview Street.- original proposal

 

Comment

 

The front new flat has been concerted into a 1 storey building. The only west facing kitchen window would not overlook the adjoining property. The proposed south facing windows are on ground floor. In addition there is significant distance between the proposed flat three and 23B Glenview Street. Therefore, it is considered that these windows would not impact upon the privacy of the north facing windows of 23B Glenview Street.

 

Streetscape

 

Definition of Residential Flat Building (RFB) in the LEP

 

The definition of a Residential Flat Building in the LEP is a building containing three or more dwellings. The proposal is for two separate buildings. The existing building would have two dwelling and the second building will have one dwelling.

 

Comment

 

As per Council’s legal advice to convert the existing residential flat building from 3 flats into 2 and construction of a detached third unit over a basement car park does not constitute a change of use, and remains a residential flat development.

 

Soft Landscaping

 

The soft landscape area is below the minimum area specified area of 50% for flats and less than 35% for dwelling houses.

 

Comment

 

The proposed soft landscape area is 25.3% as against the requirement of 35% as per the single dwelling house code. The calculation do not included the pool area and the landscaping provided above the basement parking. However the landscape area for flats, which includes swimming pools, complies with the minimum requirement of 50%. Considering the pool area and the landscaping above the parking, it is considered that adequate open space has been provided on the site.

 

Zoning of The Site

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a1) and flats are not a permitted use.

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that a ‘residential flat building’ is not a permitted use within this zone. However, the proposal has been submitted on the basis of existing use rights, and can in accordance with the Act, be considered.


 

Bushland

 

The site is in the vicinity of bushland and should contribute to bushland management.

 

Comment

 

The application was referred to Rural Bush Fire who have recommended that the entire property be manages as an ‘Inner Protection Area’ as outlined within Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

 

Potential Precedent

 

The proposed development would form a precedent of similar development within the surrounding area.

 

Comment

 

This development would not form a precedent within the area because every application is assessed on its merits and this particular site enjoys existing use rights unlike other properties in the area.

 

Additional Issues Raised In Response To The Notification of Amended Proposal

 

Impact Upon Heritage Item

 

Comment

 

Council’s heritage advisor has advised that the amended proposal would not significantly impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage items.

 

Existing Use Rights and Multiple Dwellings

 

Comment

 

Existing use rights on the subject property have already been established. There is no increase in the number of dwellings on the subject property.

 

Increase in Traffic

 

Comment

 

Number of dwellings is not being increased. Therefore, there would be no additional demand in traffic.  Adequate on-site parking has been provided.

 

The proposal does not comply with the existing zoning of the land. The proposal does not take into consideration the zone objectives of the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Comment

 

Existing use rights on the subject property have already been established. As indicated in the legal advice referenced earlier in the report, zone objectives and planning controls that limit the size of a proposal (ie floor space ratio, height and setback) have no application.

 


Public Interest

 

Comment

 

It has been established that the subject property enjoys existing use rights. Therefore the proposal is considered to be in public interest, notwithstanding the objections to the proposal, which have been commented upon in the above report.

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered satisfactory with respect to the provisions of existing use rights of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  It is considered that the amended proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact upon the significance of the heritage items as advised by the Council’s heritage advisor.  The proposed development does not create any major environmental impacts. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development is in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed having regard to existing use rights of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the relevant Planning Instruments and Council controls, as well as public good and suitability of the site. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the following conditions. The matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and are considered to be adequate and satisfactory.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grant consent to Development Application D278/08 for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building to convert 3 flats into 2 and construction of a detached third unit over a basement car park and alterations to the existing pool on 19 Glenview Street, Greenwich at 19 Glenview Street, Greenwich subject to the following conditions.

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers:

            0747/DA01 to DA05 issue K dated 12/5/09 by Cant Dibden Pty Ltd.

            2008-007 SW1 dated Aug 08 by Water Design Civil Engineers.

            except as amended by the following conditions.

 

2.         The masonry enclosure for the bins be reduced in height and the overhead pedestrian gate structure be deleted. Amended plans be submitted prior to the issue of construction certificate.

 

3.         The earthwork be moulded to the existing ground line along the south western boundary and an alternative be considered to the rigid high fence, a more transparent fence at a reduced height similar to that proposed for the vehicle gates and pedestrian gate. Amended plans be submitted prior to the issue of construction certificate.

 

4.         (1) The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

5.         (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

6.         (11) The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met.  Plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

            The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must:-

 

·           Ensure that a Quick Check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

7.         (12) Approval is subject to the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work.  It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council or the PCA that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the PCA will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance or an owner builder permit is submitted. THE ABOVE CONDITION DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, OWNER BUILDER WORKS LESS THAN $5000 OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS LESS THAN $12000.

 

8.         (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the building.

 

9.         (35) All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                     7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                   7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

10.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

11.       (37) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

12.       (48) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

13.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

 

a)         the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority;

b)         the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)         a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

 

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

14.       (50) The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

15.       (52) The swimming pool being surrounded by a fence:-

 

a) That forms a barrier between the swimming pool; and

 

i)   any residential building or movable dwelling situated on the premises; and

ii)   any place (whether public or private) adjacent to or adjoining the premises; and

 

b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992, and the Australian Standard AS1926.1 – 1993, “Swimming Pool Safety – Part 1: Fencing for Swimming Pools”.

 

      SUCH FENCE IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE FILLING OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

 

16.       (53) The filter and pump being located in a position where it will create no noise nuisance at any time or, alternatively, being enclosed in an approved soundproof enclosure.  If noise generated as a result of the development results in an offensive noise Council, may prohibit the use of the unit, under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

17.       (54) In accordance with the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations there under a warning notice is to be displayed in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool at all times.

 

The notice must be in accordance with the standards of the Australian Resuscitation Council for instructional posters and resuscitation techniques and must contain a warning "YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS POOL".

 

18.       (55) Fibrecrete Swimming Pool Shell being constructed in accordance with AS.2783-1985 "Concrete Swimming Pool Code, AS 3600-1988 - "Concrete Structure" and "AW1 Fibresteel Technical Manual, November 1981".

 

19.       (138) All overflow water and drainage including backwash from filter washing from the swimming pool must be directed to the sewer in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements.

 

20.       Standard Condition (56) Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process.  Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required:-

 

a)         The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete

c)         The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid

d)         Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering.

e)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)          Waterproofing of wet areas

g)         new pool walls reinforcement prior to placement of concrete

h)         The pool safety fence and the provision of the resuscitation poster prior to filling of the pool with water

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

j)          Completion.

 

21.       Standard Condition (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing;

g)         shoring details;

h)         pool structure.

 

22.       (58) Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that existing building is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

23.       (61)  All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684-79.

 

24.       Standard Condition (64) A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

 

a          Dampcourse level;

b          The establishment of the basement roof level;

c          The roof framing; and

d          The completion of works.

 

Note:    All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

25.       (65) Noise from domestic air conditioners is not to be audible in any adjoining dwelling between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am on weekdays or between the hours of 10:00pm and 8:00am on weekends and public holidays. 

 

If the noise emitted from the air conditioning unit results in offensive noise, Council may prohibit the use of the unit, under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

26.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Safety Act and the Regulations details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

27.       (67) 

(a)        The use of mechanical rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for damage to adjoining properties.

 

(b)        Notwithstanding the prohibition under condition (a), consideration will be given to the use of rock pick machines and may be approved by Council subject to:-

 

(1)        A Geotechnical Engineer's Report that indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to the adjoining properties.

 

(2)        The report details the procedure to be followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties.

 

(3)        With the permission of the adjoining owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING.  Where approval of the owners/occupiers is refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages (if any) from the developers and where such permission is still refused Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval.

 

(4)        The Geotechnical Engineer supervises the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid down.

 

            COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION      CERTIFICATE.

 

28.       (70) Protection of the dwelling against subterranean termites must be carried out in accordance with AS.3660.

 

 

29.       (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

30.       (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

31.       All waste generated on site shall be disposed off in accordance with the submitted Waste Management Plan.

 

32.       (142) BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate lodged with Council as part of this application.

 

Building Conditions

33.       Disabled access is to be provided in accordance with Clause D3.2 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

34.       Submit BCA fire safety report from a suitably qualified fire safety engineer (or other person with appropriate qualifications and experience) detailing all non-compliances with the current requirements of Section C, D, E, G and I of the Building Code of Australia. The report will need to rationalise the non-compliance and clearly recommend in the conclusion all works required to be completed. The report will also need to provide a schedule of existing and proposed essential fire safety measures PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Traffic Conditions

35.       The parking spaces shall be linemarked.

 

36.       The parking spaces shall be 2.5m wide with the end spaces to be 3.1m wide where it is adjacent to a solid end wall.

 

Rural Fire Service Conditions

37.       Asset Protection Zone

 

            The intend of measures is to minimize the risk of bush fire attack and provide protection for emergency services personnel, residents and others assisting fire fighting activities.

           

            At the commencement of the building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an ‘Inner Protection Area’ (IPA) as outlined within Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and Service’s document ‘Standards for asset protection zones’.

 

38.       Design and Construction

 

            New construction is to comply with Appendix 3 – Site Bushfire Attack Assessment of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. In this regard the following design standards for construction are to be incorporated into the development.

 

a)   New construction for the third flat shall comply with Australian Standard AS3959-1999 ‘Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas’ Level 2.

 

b)   Roofing of the proposed third flat shall be gutter less or have leafless guttering and valleys to prevent the build up of flammable material. Any materials used shall have a Flammability Index no greater than 5.

 

 

c)   New construction for the proposed new decking shall comply with Australian Standard AS3959-1999 ‘Construction of buildings in Bushfire prone area’ Level 1.

 

Tree Preservation Conditions

39.       (300)  A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Lane Cove local government area. The order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council, which must be strictly and fully complied with, and the penalty for contravention of this order is up to One million one hundred thousand ($1,100,000).  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Tree Preservation Order must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

40.       (302)  The protection on site, without damage, of all existing trees. Irrespective of this consent permission from Council must be obtained for the removal or pruning of any trees, including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

 

41.       (303)  There must be no stockpiling of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or any other construction material or building rubbish on any nature strip, footpath, road or public open space park or reserve.

 

42.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a sealed locked container / cage.  Any building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

 

43.       (344)  All tree protection measures as specified in the Predevelopment Tree Assessment Report prepared by Ian English on 6th September 2008 must be in place and approved by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE, and must be maintained for the duration of works on the site.

 

44.       (366)  There must be no soil disturbance within the tree protection area, including any activities associated with the construction other than topdressing on completion of the landscaping works to a maximum of 50mm, within the approved tree protection zones of the trees shown on the approved plan to be retained.  All activity within the Tree Protection Area must be undertaken with hand tools.

 

45.       (383)  The Applicant must ensure that all landscaping is completed to a professional standard, free of any hazards or unnecessary maintenance problems and that all plants are consistent with NATSPEC specifications.

 

General Engineering Conditions

46.       (A1) Design and Construction Standards:  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

47.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

48.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's urban services division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

 

49.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

50.       (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

 

51.       (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

52.       (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS-1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

53.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the applicant

 

54.       (A9) Services Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the applicant.

 

55.       (V3) Car parking: All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series.

 

56.       (R1) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The proposed rainwater tank is to be installed in accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards.

Note:

§ Rainwater draining to the reuse tank is to drain from the roof surfaces only. No “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank.  “On - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system.

§ Mosquito protection & first flush device shall be fitted to the reuse tank.

§ The overflow from the rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system.

 

57.       (S1) Stormwater requirement Stormwater runoff from all impervious areas shall be collected and disposed of using the following mechanism

 

·     All impervious areas are to drain to the street system.  

·     Environmental pollution control pit is to be installed just prior to the connection to the street system

 

The design and construction of the drainage system is to fully comply with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater management. The design shall ensure that the development, either during construction or upon completion, does not impede or divert natural surface water so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

Engineering Conditions To Be Complied With Prior To Construction Certificate

                         

58.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed generally in accordance with plan 2008-007 SW1 prepared by Water design civil engineers dated August 2008.

 

Certification by a suitably qualified engineer of the above plans is to be submitted to the Principle Certifying Authority stating that the design fully complies with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater management. The plans and certification shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the certified plans for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the construction certificate plans, in order for the issue of the construction certificate.

 

59.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the occupational certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 90days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

60.       (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

61.       (V1) Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed Vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. An INSERT CROSSING APPLICATION TYPE ‘Construction of residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the construction certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the occupational certificate. 

 

62.       (K4) Council inspection requirements: The following items are to be inspected 

 

·     Connection to council pit  

 

This item is to be inspected prior to the pouring of any concrete (formwork) and on completion of the construction. An Inspection fee of $165 is to be paid prior to the issue of the construction certificate.        

 

Engineering Condition to Be Complied With Prior to Commencement of Construction

63.       (C2) Erosion and sediment control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with the approved plan satisfying condition ‘(C1) Erosion and sediment control plan’. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering Conditions to Be Complied With Prior to Occupation Certificate

64.       (V3) Redundant Gutter Crossing:  All redundant gutter and footpath crossings shall be removed and the kerb, gutter and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Urban Services Division. These works shall be carried out prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

65.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters. The plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant certificates are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to issue of the occupation certificate.

 

·     Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP-Stormwater management. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Heritage Report from Graham Brookes & Associates 28-11-08

7 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Heritage Report from Graeme Drew & Associates 27/2/09

6 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Amended Heritage Report from Graeme Drew & Associates 4/6/09

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 86

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 86

Subject:          34 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 September 2009.   

Record No:    DA08/264-01 - 9296/09

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

Property:                     34 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                         D 264/08A – Section 96 Modification

 

Date Lodged:              8.5.09 – revised plans submitted 19.6.09

 

Cost of Work:              $850,000:  original development application

 

Owner             :                       D Weston & T Condon

                                                

Author:                         Andrew Thomas

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 modification seeking to modify development consent 08/264 and delete conditions to allow a roof terrace and associated changes.

ZONE

Residential 2 (a2)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Yes, and in addition the street tree in front of the site is a contributory item to the street trees that form a landscape heritage item under the LEP

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a & 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours:                             22-38 and 23-31 Chisholm Street; 86A Greenwich Road; 35-41 Vista Street

Ward Councillors:                   East

Progress Association:            Greenwich Community Association

Other Interest Groups:            Lane Cove Historical Society

 

Public Notification:  The proposal was advertised on two occasions in the North Shore Times inviting comments from the public over a period of 30 days, and a notice was placed at the front of the site to coincide with the 30 day notification period

 


REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

This amended application is referred to the Planning and Building Committee because it proposes a roof terrace.  A roof terrace was approved by the Land and Environment Court of NSW (the Court) in December 2008 for a development at 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich. The issues in that application and this are similar for the following reasons:

 

·     no objections were submitted to the roof terrace proposed for either site;

·     the roof terrace in each development was/is proposed to be open;

·     the views from each site are similar; and

·     the solicitors for the respective property owners are the same.

 

A significant difference between the roof terrace proposed for 34 Chisholm Street  is that with an area of about 29m2 it is almost twice the area of that approved by the Court at 12 Chisholm Street. 

 

In April 2008, Council’s Planning and Building Committee resolved to approve development application D302/07 for alterations and additions to the dwelling house at 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich subject to the deletion of a roof terrace.

 

In July 2008 the same Council Committee resolved to refer to Council, a section 96 amendment to the development consent granted in April 2008, seeking to retain the roof terrace.  In August 2008 Council resolved to refuse the amendment.  In December 2008 the Land and Environment Court upheld the applicant’s appeal to Council’s decision on the following grounds:-

 

·     Council’s current code is not an adopted DCP and in any case is silent on roof terraces;

·     there have been other roof terraces in Greenwich and elsewhere in Lane Cove;

·     it is only Council’s practice to oppose roof terraces;

·     the potential impacts would be minimal and acceptable, an opinion that apparently all neighbours have for the application;

·     residential amenity would remain acceptable;

·     whilst the width limit would be contravened that is Council’s only control such that roof terraces are not constrained in size or length; and

·     the proposal was not setting a precedent because of the other roof terraces in the area.  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     The site is a heritage item under the Lane Cove LEP 1987.  Council’s Heritage Adviser did  not raise issue with the original proposal for this site which included a roof terrace.  The existing dwelling house was constructed in 1905 and is a single storey weather board dwelling house.

 

·     Under delegated authority, development application D264/08 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, including its partial demolition; alterations and additions, a swimming pool and a front fence was approved on 8 April 2009.

 

·     The roof terrace aspect of the proposal was referred to GMU Planning Consultants for comment. GMU concludes that the roof terrace would have substantial and unreasonable privacy and noise impacts on adjoining neighbours.

 

·     Although development application D264/08 originally proposed a roof terrace Council staff advised the applicants that this feature would not be supported and it was removed from amended (and subsequently approved) plans submitted in March 2009.

 

·     The current proposal is a section 96 modification seeking mainly to amend the development consent to reinstate the roof terrace.  The roof terrace of 29.3m2 would be accessed by exterior stairs.  The roof terrace is to provide a private area of open space for the occupants.  The application states that the main entertainment area would be located at first floor level.

 

·     Revised plans submitted on 19 June 2009 have reduced the height of a planter box along the south side of the proposed roof terrace by 800mm so as to, at least, maintain the same degree of solar access over the adjoining property at 36 Chisholm Street as was approved under the original development application.  A balustrade has been added for safety reasons. Due to the scale and nature of the proposed change renotification of the proposal was not required.

 

·     As the proposed roof terrace would have dimensions of 10.8m x 2.5m and an area of 29.3m2  it would not comply with the intent of Council’s Code, which seeks to minimise intrusion on visual and aural privacy of neighbouring and nearby properties from elevated decks.

 

·     Although no submissions have been received, Council has a practice of not supporting roof terraces because they have the potential to reduce the residential amenity of adjoining and adjacent properties due to a loss of privacy caused by overlooking and noise.

 

·     The amended proposal is not supported for the following reasons:-

 

- whilst Council’s current lack of controls indicates that the adverse impacts of roof terraces was not anticipated, the Draft Comprehensive DCP that is currently on exhibition would prohibit them; and

 

- the locality is characterized by small and narrow residential lots where there is likely to be continuing pressure to obtain harbour and city views from larger and taller dwelling houses which would be in close proximity to, and could have major amenity impacts on, each other.

 

 

SITE:

 

The rectangular lot has a frontage of just over 13m to Chisholm Street, a rear secondary frontage of the same width to Vista Lane and an area of about 459m².

 

This site is located on the east side of Chisholm Street, south of it’s junction with Edwin Street.  The site falls about 3.5m from its front to it’s rear boundary and has a slight cross fall from its north side boundary to it’s opposite south side boundary.

 

Existing development on the site consists of a single storey weatherboard dwelling house with a metal pitched roof and an undercroft area at the rear.  The original dwelling house was constructed in 1905 and has later fibro additions attached on its north elevation.  The site is a heritage item under the Lane Cove LEP 1987.  There are two separate detached garages on the north side of the site: the one at the front is accessed from Chisholm Street, and the one at the rear is accessed from Vista Lane.

 

The site has a small front yard and the rear yard is mainly grass with some rock outcrops.  The site has no trees.  In front of the site on Council’s verge is a mature Eucalypt; this tree is one of a number of such trees which collectively form a landscape heritage item under the Lane Cove LEP1987.

 

Adjoining development to the north, at 32 Chisholm Street, consists of a part 1 and part 3 storey dwelling house.  To the south, at 36 Chisholm Street, is a part 1 and part 2 storey weatherboard dwelling house of similar proportions to the dwelling house on the subject site.  At the rear of the site, on the opposite side of Vista Lane, is part 1 and part 2 storey dwelling houses.

 

The locality is residential and contains a mix of both older single storey, and contemporary 2 and 3 storey dwelling houses.   Site Location Plan and Elevations (AT1) and Neighbour Notification Plan (AT2)  are attached.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal is for the amendment of conditions 1 (the list of approved plans) and 6 (the confirmation of maximum height) to enable the construction of a rectangular roof terrace.

 

The proposed roof terrace would be located above the rear two storey portion of the approved addition, part of which would be situated above an approved garage. It would have general dimensions of 10.8m x 2.5m, plus a small section on the north side with dimensions of 2.3m x 1m and a total area of 29.3m2, or 5.4m2 less than the area of the terrace proposed in the original development application.  There would be a 700mm wide planter box along its south side and a 1m high glass balustrade along both its north and south sides.

 

The terrace would be accessed by an exterior set of stairs located at the front west side of the rear addition that would lead up to a landing located 700mm below the level of the terrace on its south side.

 

The original plans submitted under this amendment have been further amended by an 800mm reduction in the height of the planter box to only 200mm so as to at least maintain the level of solar access over the adjoining property to the south, at 36 Chisholm Street, provided by the original development application.  A glass balustrade is also proposed along the terrace’s north and south sides to satisfy the safety requirements under the Building Code of Australia.

 

The revised proposal would reduce the overall height of the approved development by 200mm.  Minor related amendments are proposed to the level of the ground floor hall; the height of three south facing ground floor level windows; a first floor level landing and a north facing skillion roof.  However, as these modifications would appear to be linked to the proposed roof top terrace they have not been developed in this report.  Consequently if Council were not to support the proposal neither of the two conditions (1 or 6) would need to be amended.

 

A model of the approved development, including the proposed roof terrace, has been provided.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

Only that relating to D264/08 as previously stated.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

DWELLING HOUSE

 

Site Area (459.2m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Overall Height (m)       (max)

8.95m

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

7.98m

7.0m

No, but 200mm less than approved

Deck/Balcony width  (max)

10.8m x 2.5m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

No

 

All of the other provisions of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses, etc. August 2002 (the Code) remain unchanged.


REFERRALS:

 

Referral of the s96 application has not been required.

 

Heritage Comments in Relation to Original DA

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection on heritage grounds to the original development application which initially proposed a roof terrace.

 

Urban Design Comments in Relation to Original DA

 

The original application was also referred to GMU Planning Consultants for comment in relation to urban design issues regarding the proposed roof terrace.  GMU is the company Council has employed to prepare the Comprehensive DCP.

 

GMU have advised that:-

 

·     Council’s current lack of controls for roof terraces does not imply support for such terraces, rather it indicates that such outcomes were not anticipated;

·     the area in which the subject site is located is characterized by narrow lots with tightly constrained dwelling houses and where large dwelling houses are replacing the traditional small cottages;

·     some sites in this area would benefit from harbour and city views from higher levels which could result in pressure for roof terraces and taller dwelling houses to capture these views; however narrow lots and small lot areas would also mean that these dwelling houses would be in close proximity and could have major amenity impacts on each other; and

·     the useable area of the roof terrace proposed in this s96 application (ie of 29.3m2) would be greater than the useable area approved for the roof terrace at 12 Chisholm Street (ie of 15.75m2).

 

 A copy of GMU’s advice on the proposed roof terrace is attached at AT3. 

 

ASSESSMENT

 

SECTION 96 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (the Act)

 

The proposed development has been assessed in relation to the relevant matters under s96 (2) of the Act as discussed below.

 

S.96 (2) (a) Is the Modified Development Substantially the Same?

 

The original development application included a roof terrace 5.4m2 greater in area, and in the same location, as proposed in this amended application.

 

Revised plans were submitted to that original proposal which removed the roof terrace.  These revised plans were approved in April of this year.

 

As this amendment to the development consent proposes a roof terrace it could be argued that it is not substantially the same development.  However, the Land and Environment Court Commissioner who heard the appeal in relation to Council’s refusal of a roof terrace at 12 Chisholm Street did not agree with Council’s opinion that a proposed roof terrace was not substantially the same development.  Based on the opinion taken previously for a similar amendment of a development consent by a Commissioner this amendment to the original development consent is for substantially the same development.

 

S.96 (2) (b) Consultation with the Relevant Minister, Public Authority or Approval Body

 

There is no requirement to consult with any Minister, public authority or approval body.

 

S.96 (2) (c) Notification of Application to Modify Consent

 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policy and the relevant regulations.

 

S.96 (2) (d) Consideration of Submissions

 

No submissions have been received.

 

S.96 (3) Assessment of the Proposed Modification

 

An assessment of the proposal is required in relation to s.79C of the Act.  This assessment follows.

 

SECTION 79C OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (the Act)

 

S79C (1) (a):  Relevant environmental planning instruments, development control plans and regulations.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 (the LEP)

 

(i)    Zone

 

The proposed works are permissible in the Residential 2(a2) Zone under the LEP.

 

(ii)   Heritage

 

Both the subject site, and the street tree in front of the site, are heritage items of local significance under the LEP.  Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the original development application which initially included a roof terrace and raised no objection on heritage grounds.  A condition recommended by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer was included in the development consent to ensure the heritage street tree would be protected.  The proposal does not raise any additional heritage issues.

 

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2008 (the DLEP)

 

The proposed works are also permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone proposed for the subject site under the DLEP.  There are no additional provisions that need to be considered with respect to the DLEP.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55:  Remediation of Land

 

This Policy was addressed in the assessment of the original development.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP)

 

The site is within the Harbour Catchment of this SREP.  In relation to those Matters for consideration set out under cl 20-27 of Division 2 of the SREP, the original development was consistent with relevant clauses.  The proposal would also be consistent with those same relevant clauses.

 

Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 2005 (the DCP 2005)

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore area identified on the Foreshores and Waterways Area Map contained within the SREP and as such is subject to the DCP that complements the SREP. 

 

In the assessment of the original development application the proposal was consistent with the relevant parts of the DCP.  The revised proposal would also be consistent with those same parts.

 

Applicable Regulation

 

Relevant matters in relation to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Australian Standard AS2601-2001 were addressed in the assessment of the original development application and condition 42 (79) was included in the consent to address this requirement.  The revised proposal does not require any further assessment in relation to these matters.

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls under Council’s current Code For Dwelling Houses, August 2002 (the Code) that the revised proposal would not comply with.  Each departure is discussed below.

 

(i)         Ceiling Height

 

The proposed reduction to the overall height of 200mm would also result in a consequent reduction in ceiling height.  Whilst this would exceed the maximum ceiling height of 7m allowed under the Code, it would be below that assessed as reasonable and that was approved in the original development proposal.

 

(ii)        Width of the Roof Terrace

 

Where privacy is an issue, the Dwelling House Code restricts the width of elevated decks/balconies more than 1m above the natural ground level to 3m of width.  The 3m width was adopted by Council as a dimension whereby usable outdoor space was provided to the resident whilst reducing the loss of visual and aural privacy to neighbours.

 

Usually the width of a deck would be measured from the room providing access to it.  In this s96 application, access to the proposed roof terrace would be provided by exterior stairs.  With a maximum dimension of 10.8m the proposed roof terrace would exceed that allowed under the Code.

 

Due to the potential impact on aural and visual privacy caused by of such elevated terraces/ decks the Planning and Building Committee and Council have had a practice of rejecting proposals for roof terraces above the upper level of dwelling houses.  In the Draft Comprehensive Development Control plan, which is currently on exhibition, roof terraces are prohibited above the upper storey of dwelling houses.  In the interim, the Planning and Building Committee may wish to suggest to Council that a prohibition of roof terraces be formally adopted as a Policy of Council.  Adopting a Policy would assist in negating the “precedent” that the applicant is citing in support of the roof terrace.

 

S79C(1)(b) The Impacts of the Development

 

Despite the applicant’s statement that the purpose of the proposed roof terrace would be to provide a private area of open space, with a total useable area of 29.3m2 the proposed roof terrace could be used for entertainment purposes even though this would be limited because it would only be accessible by a set of exterior stairs, not off an adjoining room.

 

In addition the proposed roof terrace has the potential to overlook each adjoining and some adjacent properties.  Also, on would anticipate the need/ desire to permanent or temporary shade structures on the roof top terrace, which would add further to the appearance of bulk and scale of the dwelling house.

 

Consequently the proposal has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of nearby residential properties in terms of both acoustic and visual privacy.

 

S79C(1)(c) The Suitability of the Site for the Development

 

Although the proposed roof terrace would maintain the residential use of the site, its use could have an adverse impact on nearby residential properties.  Consequently the site is unsuitable for a roof terrace.

 

S79C(1)(d) Submissions

 

No submissions have been received to Council’s notification of the proposal.

 

S79C(1)(e) The Public Interest

 

The proposed roof terrace has the potential both to overlook and affect the acoustic privacy of both adjoining and some adjacent properties that could result in a loss of privacy. In addition Council’s draft DCP would prohibit roof terraces like the example proposed.  Consequently the proposal would not be in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The s96 application proposes a roof terrace accessed by exterior stairs.  The proposal has been assessed against the relevant environmental planning instruments, Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses (the Code) and Council’s adopted Draft Comprehensive DCP (the draft DCP). The proposal would exceed the intent of the Code which seeks to limit the width of an elevated deck, balcony or terrace to 3m as it would have a maximum dimension of 10.8m. This is to avoid aural and visual privacy issues for neighbouring and nearby properties.  In addition the draft DCP would prohibit roof terraces similar to the example proposed.

 

It is considered that the proposed roof terrace has the potential to overlook both adjoining and some adjacent properties and to affect the acoustic privacy of the occupants.  Consequently although no submissions have been received to the proposal, the residential amenity of nearby residents could be adversely affected.   

 

In 2002 Council approved D212/02 which included a roof terrace at 41 Chisholm Street. By contrast in August 2008 Council refused a roof terrace that was proposed as an amendment to the development consent for alterations and additions at 12 Chisholm Street, Greenwich proposed under D302/07 and approved on 29 April 2008. In relation to the latter development, in December 2008 the Land and Environment Court of NSW upheld the applicant’s subsequent appeal against Council’s decision.  Although the current Code is silent in relation to roof terraces, they would be prohibited under Council’s draft DCP which is currently on exhibition.

 

Matters in relation to s96 and s79C of the Act have been assessed and the proposal for a roof terrace is not satisfactory.  Therefore the s96 application is not supported.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D264/08 granted on 8 April 2009 for alterations and additions including the partial demolition of the dwelling house; additions on three levels; a swimming pool and a front fence on Lot 13 DP 3907 and known as 34 Chisholm Street, Greenwich not be amended for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposal would be contrary to an objective of the Residential 2(a2) Zone under the Lane Cove LEP 1987 because it would not retain the existing residential amenity of the detached single family dwelling area.

 

2.         The proposal would not comply with the objective of cl. 3.6 of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses, August 2002 in relation to Privacy And Overlooking because it would have the potential to significantly affect the privacy of the occupants of each adjoining site.

 

3.         The proposal would not comply with the intent of the numerical standard under point 3 of cl.3.6 of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses, August 2002 because the proposed roof terrace would have a maximum dimension of 10.8m.

 

4.         The proposal would be contrary to the public interest because it would be prohibited under Council’s Draft Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

                                                                                                                    

                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan and Elevations

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

GMU advice dated 4 March 2009

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 219

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 219

Subject:          330 Pacific Highway Lane Cove

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 September 2009.   

Record No:    DA09/12-01 - 26885/09

Author(s):       Kristy  Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     330 Pacific Highway Lane Cove

 

DA No:                         D12/2009 

 

Date Lodged:              5 June 2009

 

Cost of Work:              $200,000.00

 

Owner             :                       A G Low

 

Author:                         Kristy Wellfare

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 82A Review of DA09/12 which approved alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling.

ZONE

Residential 2(a1)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is permissible with the zone

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

The property is not a heritage item

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

The property is not located within a conservation area

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

The provisions of DCP1 do not apply to the property

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a and 10a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   326, 328, 332, 334 Pacific Highway

3, 5 Haldane Crescent

Ward Councillors         East Ward

Progress Association   Osborne Park Progress Association

Other Interest Groups   Nil

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The original development application was approved under the delegated authority of the Executive Manager, Environmental Services.  The Section 82A Review is therefore referred to the Planning and Building Committee for determination.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     The proposal is a Section 82A review of determination for DA09/12, which approved alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling.  The applicant is seeking a review of condition 2(a)-(c) of the consent. 

·     In addition, the applicant has amended the parking aspect of the proposal and is seeking to provide for a double garage and terrace onto Haldane Lane in lieu of the approved parking structure. The proposed double garage has a trafficable roof accessible from the lower ground floor level facing onto Haldane Lane. A copy of the Section 82A review and amended plan is contained in (AT3) and (AT1).

·     The development application was approved under delegated authority on 5 May 2009, however conditions of consent had the effect of reducing the floor space ratio from that proposed by the applicant.

·     The development application sought a floor space ratio of 0.94:1 (199.3 m²) in an area where the floor space ratio control is 0.7:1 (148.4 m²).  The consent issued allowed a floor space ratio of 0.73:1 (154.7 m²).  The approved floor space ratio exceeded the Code by 6.3 m².

·     There are a number of semi detached dwellings in this section of Pacific Highway, which back onto Haldane Lane.  In the past the floor space ratios of additions to these buildings has exceeded the Code by substantial amounts.  A comparison of the floor space ratios is included in the original development assessment report dated 6 April 2009.  (AT4).

·     The Section 82A review and amended plan was notified and one objection was received. Concerns were raised regarding privacy and overlooking, and the impact on trees.

·     The Section 82A Review is submitted to the Planning and Building Committee for review and determination.  It should be noted that the applicant has requested that the site and proposal be inspected by the Inspection Committee. 

 

SITE:

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern side of Pacific Highway, between Cobden Avenue and Allison Avenue. The site has an area of 212 m² and has a frontage of 6.4m to Pacific Highway and a rear frontage of 6.2m to Haldane Lane. The site falls from Pacific Highway to Haldane Lane.  Existing improvements on the site consist of a semi-detached mostly brick dwelling with a pitched slate roof.  The dwelling is single storey at the front and two storey at the rear.  The site adjoins a mixed use building to the southeast at 328 Pacific Highway. At the rear are the back yards of properties fronting Haldane Crescent.  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal comprises 2 parts:

 

The Section 82A Review

 

The Section 82A Review seeks a review of condition 2(a)-(c) of the development consent D19/2009 granted for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling at 330 Pacific Highway Lane Cove.

 

The review seeks a review of Condition 2 as follows:

 

1.       Deletion of condition 2(a) which required a minimum rear setback of 5m

2.       Deletion of condition 2(b) which restricted the width of the rear decks to 1.5m

3.       Deletion of Condition 2(c) which restricted the provisions of on-site car parking to one car space.

 

Amendments to Approved Plans

 

In addition to the Section 82A Review, the applicant seeks consent for the following additional work:

 

1.         Deletion of the approved open car space at the rear of the property and inclusion of a double garage accessed from Haldane Lane with a trafficable roof over, forming a rear deck accessible from the lower ground floor level bedroom with a planter box along the Haldane Lane edge of the terrace.

 

In accordance with Section 82A(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Council’s legal advice, in requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application. The additional works proposed have been notified, 1 objection received and the proposal has been assessed in accordance with this section.

 

The report has therefore been divided into 2 sections, the first dealing with the Review aspect and the second with the parking amendment.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

28 December 2007:    Refused.  Alterations and additions to existing semi detached dwelling. (DA07/182).

 

This development application proposed a first floor addition to the existing semi detached dwelling as well as substantial alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling at ground floor and lower ground floor levels resulting in a three storey dwelling with a floor space ratio of 1.02:1. The application was refused under delegation for a number of reasons, including non-compliance with the floor space ratio, number of storeys, exceedence of internal ceiling height, and side setback controls contained within the Code, as well as bulk and scale and privacy concerns.

 

5 May 2009:                 Approved. Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling (DA09/12), and the subject of this modification.

 

This development application proposed an extension to the existing ground level and lower ground level resulting in a floor space ratio of 0.94:1. The application was approved subject to conditions requiring a rear setback of 5m in accordance with the rear setback of the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling and to create greater separation between the proposed rear balconies and the dwelling house and private open space of 3 Haldane Crescent to the rear of the site. This condition also served to reduce the approved floor space ratio to 0.73:1.

 

PART 1 - SECTION 82A REVIEW

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 allows an applicant to request Council to review the determination of an application. In accordance with the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Council is satisfied of the following:

 

·     The subject application was not complying development, designated development, integrated development or an application made by the Crown.

·     The subject application was determined by the Executive Manager, Environmental Services under delegated authority on 5 May 2009. The request for review was received by Council on 5 June 2009. Therefore, the review is within the 12 month timeframe.

·     The applicant has paid the applicable fee in connection with the request for a review.

·     In requesting a review, the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application,

·     The proposed deletion of design conditions 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and the proposed amended car parking arrangements would not result in a development substantially different from development described in the original application.

·     The application was advertised for a period of 14 days.  The advertising period was between 11 June and 25 June 2009.

·     One objection was received during the advertising period, and the concerns raised in the objection received during the advertising period are assessed within this report

·     As the original determination was made by the Executive Manager Environmental Services, the review of the application is referred to Council’s Planning and Building Committee for determination.

·     Council would proceed to issue the determination notice as soon as practicable after a decision has been made in accordance with the requirements of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

·     The application is not the subject of any appeal, and

·     This is the only review that has been requested for the subject application.

 

SECTION 82A ISSUES RELATING TO REVIEW OF CONDITIONS 2(a) –(c).

 

In the supporting information received accompanying the Section 82A review and the proposed additional works, the applicant put forward comments in support. These comments, and Council’s officer’s response, are as follows:

 

“Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Precedence: In relation to the approved FSR in our street, at least 4 approved developments where Council has permitted the 0.7:1 FSR control to be waived are documented. In particular 364 Pacific Hwy has a ratio of 1.17:1. Also note that 348 Pacific Highway is listed in the Council report no. 101 as being 0.83:1, however we have collected information from an accurate source and believe this development to be 1.5: 1. Further investigation by Council is strongly encouraged to verify this statement. Please note that the FSR or our resulting development application is calculated at 0.94:1.”

 

Comment       

 

Re-calculation of the floor space ratio for the development at 364 Pacific Highway using the same criteria applied to 330 Pacific highway results in a floor space ratio of 0.94:1. This application was approved in 1998, under D1998/156.

 

“Offset of semi-pairs: Offset in this context is defined as the western most point of the semi-pair being out of alignment to each other. Please refer to the photographs showing aspects from Haldane Lane and aerial view pictures in Appendix A. Refer first to the most exemplary semi-pair - 346 and 348 Pacific Highway. This semi-pair shows an offset in relation to the nature of the allotment angle. In respect of the semi-pair that we are one of - 330 and 332 Pacific Highway, the aforementioned offset is of the same nature and scale as proposed in our development application. In support of the nature of offset semi-pairs please also refer to Appendix A. Other compelling offset examples in our street: 342 and 344 / 350 and 352 /368 and 366. Please note that in 3 of these semi-pair examples the house that is extending beyond its neighbour have all had their developments approved by Lane Cove Council within the past 11 years with the most recent approval being granted just 2.5 years ago for 344 Pacific Highway.”

 

Comment

 

The following is a summary of the recent development history of the properties noted by the applicant above:-

 

342 Pacific Highway:  BA115/1989. Approved 17/4/1989

BC606/1992. Allowed to remain 5/1/93

344 Pacific Highway:  D113/2006. Alterations and additions and new front wall. Approved 30.5.2007. Restricted to 0.82:1.

 

346 Pacific Highway:  D241/1999 Additions. Approved 7/9/1999.

348 Pacific Highway:  D384/2007 Internal alterations and additions (no new floor space created ) Approved 26.3.2008

                                    BA156/1998A. Approved 23.5.2001

                                    BA156/1998. Approved 15/6/1998

 

350 Pacific Highway:  D40/2008. Rear balcony and front fence. Approved 6/5/2008. There is no other recent development history in Council’s computer system.

352 Pacific Highway:  D316/2003 Alterations and additions. Approved 3/2/2004.

 

366 Pacific Highway:  D2008/370 Awning and Timber deck. Approved 11/2/2009. BA189/1998. Timber deck to dwelling. Approved 11/6/1998 BA1997/209. Additions to dwelling. Approved 1/9/1997

368 Pacific Highway:  There is no recent development history pertaining to the property on Council’s computer records.

 

It is noted that 344 Pacific Highway was restricted to a floor space ratio of 0.82:1 by Council.

 

“Additional crucial arguments for semi-pairs In addition to the precedence aforementioned there are 5 other reasons supporting this offset.

1)         privacy is maximised between the semi-pair particularly because the areas of each of the houses to be offset are main living areas.

2)         in consideration of the natural arc of the sun, the offset of our house 330 in relation to 332 will maximise light to both homes, specifically their living areas

3)         the offset follows the natural flow of the street

4)         a larger indoor living area with a significantly smaller balcony is in the line with the style and type of house that is being developed

5)         In relation to point 4 it follows that minimised social gatherings on the upper deck area will occur - this is in direct consideration to the privacy between us and our direct neighbours at 332 and 328, and the distant neighbour across the lane way (at 3 Haldane Street) diagonally opposite. In relation to this final point please also regard part B below. Our consideration for the privacy and comfort of ourselves and of our direct neighbours is paramount in our development.”

 

Comment       

 

In response to the above, the following is noted:

 

§ Privacy to the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling has not been raised as a concern. Notwithstanding this, the living areas of the semi-pair are separated by a solid wall on the boundary with no window openings.

§ The attached semi-pair at 332 Pacific Highway is to the northwest of the subject site and as such the alignment of 330 Pacific Highway to the southeast would not affect the solar access available to 332 Pacific Highway between the hours of 9am and 3pm at mid-winter

§ The 5m setback required by condition 2 (a) reinforces the existing 5m setback of the attached dwelling from the rear property boundary. Due to the oblique nature of the rear boundary at 330 and 332 Pacific Highway, the rear alignments of the dwelling  will be offset from each other.

 

“We are committed to building the upper deck no more than 1500 mm as supported in point 5 above. The lower deck has been amended to extend to the boundary of the lower ground level and a privacy screen will be erected on the street boundary. This privacy screen will comprise of appropriate native flora that will feed native birds and wildlife. In support of this design please refer to a precedence set by no less than 9 properties in our street. These properties display lower ground decks/courtyards and/or garages/car spaces beneath.”

 

Comment

 

Condition 2 (b) reinforces the applicant’s commitment to construct the upper level deck to no greater than 1500mm in width. Should council approve the garage structure, conditions 2 (b) would be amended to remove reference to the lower ground floor level deck. The proposed planted privacy screening to the lane (Haldane Lane) boundary is considered inadequate, and hence draft condition 2 (d) has been provided to ensure appropriate minimum soil dimensions are provided.

 

“In support of the lower deck extending to the boundary line it has an increased aesthetic appeal and also protects the cars parked beneath. Please note that a suitable translucent screen will be erected between homes 330 and 332 to increase privacy but also allow the maximisation of light. A vegetation screen will be grown to 1.5 metres between 328 and our house 330 Pacific Highway in consideration to the pending application for an entertaining courtyard in property 328 Pacific Hwy.”

 

Comment

 

The privacy screen intended to be erected is not noted on the plans. To that end, a draft condition [Condition 2 (f)] has been provided in the recommendation of this report should Council be in mind to approve the garage structure.

 

“More than before we need an alternate entertaining area since an enormous road sign has been recently erected against our front boundary wall at the front of our house on the Pacific Highway(refer to Appendix C). This road sign towers above our property and has an overbearing presence as you can observe from the pictures. Use of our front courtyard for outdoor entertaining purposes has become extremely unappealing. We did not give permission for this sign to be erected, nor did Lane Cove Council or the RTA seek our approval for such a sign to be erected so close to our home.”

 

Comment

 

The abovementioned sign is erected in the footpath reserve of the Pacific Highway administered by the Roads and Traffic Authority. 

 

“The issue explained to us by Council regarding this amendment was in relation to an engineering issue. We have amended the development to increase the size of the driveway entrance. We also are committing to replant appropriate native flora in self-sustaining planter boxes on the boundary of the lower ground floor deck area. There is precedence of no less than 9 properties in our street where a double carport/garage has been allowed with nil to minimal landscaped areas being observed. Refer to Appendix B.”

 

Comment

 

In the plans submitted with the Section 82A Review, the driveway crossing has been widened. This amended proposal has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment, and no concerns were raised regarding manoeuvrability on the site for two car space. Should Council be of a mind to approve the garage structure, condition 2 (c) should be deleted and additional conditions be imposed as recommended by Council’s Development Engineer. Draft conditions are provided in the recommendation of this report.

 


PART 2 – AMENDED PARKING ARRANGEMENT

 

The amended plans submitted involved the amendment of the approved parking to include the construction of a garage with a trafficable roof.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE (AMENDED PLANS)

 

The works relating to the proposed garage do not comply with the following provisions of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings:

 

§ Deck/balcony width: 3.8m proposed including 600mm wide planter box.

§ Setbacks to side boundaries: Nil setback proposed

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The amended parking proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. No concerns were raised regarding the amended car parking arrangements, subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions, including requiring a 500mm setback from the driveway to the existing power pole.

 

Manager Parks

 

The amended proposal was referred to Council’s Tree Assessment Officer, who provided the following comments. The amended plans “show a raised garden bed with external measurements of 4.6m long x 400mm wide x 600mm in depth. The planter box is proposed to accommodate screening plants for privacy. It is over optimistic to expect shrubs large enough for screening to survive in this inadequate growing environment. The raised planter boxes should be at least 800mm wide internally to allow for adequate soil for plant growth. The depth of the planter box would be adequate to support plants.”       

 

Objections

 

In addition, Council’s Tree Assessment Officer reviewed the issues raised by the owners of 3 Haldane Crescent. With regard to the concerns raised in relation to the Jacaranda tree located in the neighbouring property at 328 Pacific Highway and the Grevillea shrub located in the south-western corner of the subject site, the following comments were provided.

 

The Jacaranda tree is designated for removal as part of the neighbouring development. This tree is located in close proximity to the existing masonry retaining wall and has caused significant damage to the wall. Given the location of the tree it was determined that the tree was in an untenable location because of its elevated growing environment therefore should be removed as part of the development (D344/08). Furthermore there is no room for future growth of the tree’s root system.

 

The Grevillea “Honey gem” located in the southwest corner of the property is less than 4m tall, is over-mature, has poor form and is planted underneath power wires. This tree is not covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and is considered not worthy of retention given its poor form.        

 

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

 

The amended plans submitted with the Section 82A Review raise no additional concerns with regard to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987. (See original report).

 

DRAFT LANE COVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2008

 

The amended plans submitted with the Section 82A Review raise no additional concerns with regard to the Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2008. (See original report).

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

The amended plans submitted with the Section 82A Review raise no additional concerns having regard to the provisions any other applicable planning instrument.

 

 

SECTION 82A RELATED Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes

 

As noted in the preceding policy assessment, the amended plans submitted with the Section 82A Review would result in non compliance with the following controls:-

 

-      Maximum deck width requirement; and

-      Side boundary setback requirement to the northwest and southeast boundaries for the garage structure.

 

Each of these departures is discussed below. The areas of non-compliances of the original proposal are addressed in Council’s Assessment Report of April 2009.

 

Deck Width

 

The amended plans submitted with the Section 82A Review include a garage structure with a trafficable roof forming part of the deck accessible from the lower ground floor level. The overall width of the deck is between 2.6m and 3.8m and features a planter box 600mm wide. Due to the slope of the site, this deck is elevated by 2.36m at its highest point and privacy has been raised as an issue by the neighbours to the rear. As such, the proposed deck does not comply with the 3m maximum width requirement of Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses.  The restriction of deck width is to allow reasonable sized decks for residents, whilst minimising loss of visual and aural privacy to neighbours.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has advised that the planter box should be at least 800mm wide to support appropriate screen planting. Should Council be of a mind to approve the structure, additional draft conditions have been provided requiring this planter box be of sufficient internal dimension to support screen planting and that this planting be maintained at a minimum height of 1.5m. It should be noted that the draft condition provided [draft Conditions 2 (d)] combined with Condition 2 (a) as approved would result in a deck of between 5.5m and 6.7m in width due to the 5m setback requirement imposed on the original consent.

 

Setback to Side Boundaries

 

The additional plans submitted with the Section 82A Review do not alter the non-compliance of the semi-detached dwelling with the side setback controls as discussed in Council’s Assessment Report of April 2009.

 

The garage structure is proposed to be built with a nil setback to both the north-eastern and south-western boundaries and does not comply with the side setback control. Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses allows setback variations to the side setback requirement for:-

 

i.      an open carport on nil boundary setback; and

ii.     detached garages on nil boundary setback.

 

Regarding the non-compliance with the side setback requirements arising from the proposed garage structure, the following comments are offered:-

 

·     The proposed garage structure is attached to the dwelling and cannot be considered as a detached garage.

·     The site is particularly constrained being 6.2m in width at the rear boundary. In order to provide two car spaces on the site, any garage structure proposed would rely on a nil side setback in order to accommodate these spaces in accordance with the Australian Standard 2890.1.

·     Haldane Lane features a number of garage structures to the rear of semi-detached dwellings in this locality featuring nil setbacks to the side property boundary and/or rear property boundary.

·     The neighbouring sites at 328 and 332 Pacific Highway also feature parking areas at the rear of the sites and as such, side setbacks for the garage are not considered to be necessary to maintain privacy to the immediately adjacent properties.

·     Landscaped area is generally provided at the front of the sites in the locality, with parking areas located to the rear due to the inherent difficulty in achieving safe access to and from the Pacific Highway for such narrow sites.

·     The topography of the site and the existing built form on neighbouring sites, both of which feature a nil setback to the subject site, preclude any access to significant views between the three properties. This situation would not alter as a result of the proposed garage structure.

 

Having regard to the above, the proposed garage structure is not considered to be contrary to the objectives of the side setback control.

 

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

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the Section 82A Review. The submission contained a copy of the submission received during the notification period of the original application. The issues raised in the additional submission can be summarised as follows.

 

The latest plans do not appear to address any of the issues raised on my response to the earlier notification dated 2 February 2009

 

Comment       

 

The concerns raised in the letter received by Council during the notification of the original development application included privacy and the impact on the trees on the site and neighbouring site are addressed in Council’s Assessment Report of April 2009. The applicant has proposed a planter box over the proposed garage structure in order to address these concerns. This planter box has been assessed and is not considered to be of a sufficient width to support screen planting and a draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report to be imposed in the event that Council favourably considers the review of determination.

 

The windows and balcony at the top level (RL 97.30) of the proposed development overlook at close quarter the rear courtyard and buildings on our property [3 Haldane Crescent]. Measures to mitigate this would include:-

 

·     Limiting the western building alignment to that already defined by the adjoining semi-detached residence;

·     Prohibiting removal of any of the canopy of the mature jacaranda; and

·     Prohibiting the removal of the grevillea.

 

Comment       

 

The elevated ground floor level at RL97.30 would be 5.17m above the level of the centre of Haldane Lane at RL92.13. In Council’s assessment report of April 2009, it was considered that locating a deck servicing a living area at this level with a setback of 1.4m from the rear property boundary would result in unacceptable privacy and overlooking impacts on the neighbouring property to the rear. Council’s assessment of the elevated ground floor level deck is not altered following the submission of amended plans. The amendments to the basement level incorporating a garage with trafficable roof and planter box accessible from the lower ground floor level bedroom are not considered to result in any undue privacy impacts of the property to the rear of the site, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring a minimum width of the planter box to ensure sufficient soil area to support appropriate screen planting.

 

The jacaranda and grevillea noted have been assessed by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer, who notes that the neighbouring property at 328 Pacific Highway has approval to remove the jacaranda in question, and that the grevillea is not subject to Council’s Tree Preservation Order as it is less than 4m in height.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council is requested to determine two issues:-

 

1.         Determine the Section 82A request to reconsider D12/2009 conditions 2 (a), (b) & (c).

 

Recommendation: That Council determine the 82A request

 

The review of development consent D12/2009 has been assessed under Section 79C and Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and it is referred to the Planning and Building Committee for determination.

 

2.         Determine works additional to the original application (Section 79C) being the construction of a double garage with trafficable roof in lieu of the approved open car space.

 

Recommendation: That the additional works be approved, subject to the conditions as recommended.

 

The proposed amendments to accommodate the double garage on the site have been assessed having regard to the provisions of Section 79C and Section 82A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Given the constraints of the site and the prevalence of garages fronting directly onto Haldane Lane in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, the proposed double garage is considered to be satisfactory, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A          That pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended the determination of development consent D12/2009 granted on 5 May 2009 for the additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling on lot 70 in Deposited Plan 11416 and known as 330 Pacific Highway Lane Cove is submitted to the Planning and Building Committee for review and determination.

 

 

 

 

B         Should the Planning and Building Committee be of a mind to approve the amended parking arrangements, the following conditions be applied:-

 

            Delete condition 2 c)

           

            Delete condition 2 b) and replace with the following:

 

            2          b)         the width of the ground floor south-western (rear) elevation deck shall not exceed 1500mm

 

            Delete condition 47 and replace with the following:

 

47        Car parking. All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series. The plans shall contain the following details:

 

-           Sections showing the clearance to the underside of any overhead structure demonstrating compliance with the clearance provisions of AS2890.1.

 

Insert the following conditions:-

           

2          d)         The lower ground floor level planter box above the garage structure shall have minimum internal soil area dimensions of 600mm depth x 800mm width extending across the entire structure.

                        e)         The screen planting within the planter box shall be maintained at a minimum height of 1.5m

                        f)          privacy screening to a height of 1.7m shall be provided to the north-western side of the lower ground floor deck

 

 

47A      Services Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the applicant.

 

48A      Drainage plans amendments: The stormwater drainage plan 2048DA12A prepared by The Site Foreman dated 27/11/08 is to be amended to show the following:

-    the proposed grated drain along the Haldane Lane boundary needs to match the full width of the proposed driveway opening

-    the proposed rainwater tank adjacent the Pacific Highway boundary needs to drain the overflow by gravity to the receiving system

-    Environmental pollution control pit is to be installed just prior to the connection to the street system

The amended design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater management; certification is to be by a suitably qualified engineer. The amended plan and certification shall be submitted to the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

The Principle Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the amendments have been made in accordance with the conditional requirements and the amended plans are adequate for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

48B      The design and construction of the drainage system is to fully comply with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater management. The design shall ensure that the development, either during construction or upon completion, does not impede or divert natural surface water so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

48C     Proposed Vehicular Crossing. The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. The driveway needs to be off set a minimum 0.500mm clear from the existing power pole.

A ‘Construction of residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the construction certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the occupational certificate

 

48D                 Excavation greater the 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5 meters of the proposed excavation.

The applicant shall:-

§ seek independent advice from a suitably qualified engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties

§ detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction

§ provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of  support for the adjoining properties

The above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer.

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed shall be submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

All recommendations of the suitably qualified engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Section 82A Review documents from the applicant

11 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Development Assessment report 101 dated 6 April 2009

12 Pages

 

 

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Notice of Motion No. 8

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 8

Subject:          Access Map for Lane Cove Town Centre    

Record No:    SU100 - 34844/09

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove Council has a proven commitment to providing and promoting an accessible environment.  The Access Advisory Committee’s role is to assist Council to increase and promote general awareness of access, mobility and safety issues in the community and more specifically for people with disabilities.

 

The Committee comprises representatives from a number of organisations involved in support and service delivery to the disability field plus a number of community members and a representative from Lane Cove ALIVE.

 

The Committee sees benefit in having Council’s Access Maps for the Lane Cove town centre updated in consideration of both the new carpark in Austin St and the new library opening in the next 3 to 4 months.

 

It is noted that the new lifts, escalators and travelators in the Lane Cove Market Square (LCMS) development will also become important access points within the CBD.  In addition, new public toilet facilities will be available in LCMS and the library.

 

Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, scooter users, wheelchair users, pram users – and businesses - will all benefit by a better understanding of the location of these new facilities and access points.

 

To this end, the recommendation seeks co-operation from Woolworths, a major tenant of the LCMS development, in the development and promotion of new Access Maps for the town centre.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Produce an updated Access Map for the Lane Cove town centre in time for the opening of the new Austin St car park (around December 2009) which shows:-

 

i) regular car parking areas and time limits;

ii)       special designated car parking areas such as accessible bays and seniors parking;

iii)      bicycle parking areas;

iv)      scooter parking areas;

v)       public toilets; and

vi)      detailed pathways for pram, wheelchair and scooter users through the new Market Square development

 

2.    Approach Woolworths to contribute resources towards the production of the new Access Map

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

General Managers Report No. 21

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 21

Subject:          Lane Cove Market Square Status Report    

Record No:    su1460 - 33611/09

Author(s):       John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Market Square is in its final stages of construction, with the roof near complete, and glazing, tiling, painting and services well advanced.

 

This report deals with the construction status of the Lane Cove Market Square development, notes the foundation stone ceremony on 29 August 2009 and responds to a request for additional information on carparking.

 

Discussion

 

Construction Update

 

Construction is now well advanced with the roofing nearly complete at the date of this report. 

The installation of services in all parts of the development is well advanced.

 

A number of fitout works such as tiling the upper floor terrace has been undertaken as part of the main building contract works for efficient coordination.

 

Glazing of the library shell is underway, with handover of the shell, subject to practical completion being certified, expected in the period immediately after 2 October 2009.  At this stage the library fitout contractor should still be in a position to commence on 16 October 2009.

 

Access to the north east service yard from Austin Street through the loading dock is expected to be commissioned shortly.  The public toilets under the library will then be decommissioned to facilitate the completion of the elevated Library Walk through to Longueville Road.

 

Photographs

 

The photographs in AT-1 provide a summary of progress at the date of this report

 

Foundation Stone Plaque Ceremony

 

A Foundation Stone plaque ceremony was held in the current Library at 10 am Saturday 29th August 2009.  It provided a good opportunity for Councillors to visit the site and to see first hand the space available in the new library and to view the fitout materials in context. 

 

Councillors were provided a brief tour of the public walkway through to the Plaza, and were able to have a better picture of the context of the proposal for a piazza between the library walk and the rear of properties fronting the Plaza / Longueville Road deferred report (GM report 14 dated 6 July 2009).

 

Carparking

 

The Local Traffic Committee has sought additional information from Woolworths to fine tune the carpark traffic management plan.

 

It is important that the carpark is managed efficiently to meet the parking demands of the development, largely based on space turnover within 2 hours and on a minimum of 2 hour free parking

                                                                                                 

Council is yet to consider the introduction of paid parking and on what basis.  ARRB (Luxmoore Consulting P/L) have been commissioned to advise on management options and technologies available to Council if paid parking is introduced for the Lane Cove Market Square carpark.

 

A separate report will be presented to Council shortly outlining recommendations by ARRB.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the Lane Cove Market Square Status Report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Photograps of the Lane Cove Market Square as at August 2009

3 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 46

Subject:          Annual Financial Reports for 2008/2009 - Referral for Audit    

Record No:    SU772 - 34791/09

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council's Annual Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2009 are presented for referral to audit.  A statement is required in respect of the accounts from Council and Management in relation to the accuracy of the accounts.  It is recommended Council sign the statement and refer the accounts for audit.

Discussion

 

Council's Annual Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2009 have been prepared and are ready to proceed for Audit. The general purpose financial reports, special purpose financial reports and special schedules are required to be completed and ready for audit by 31 October following the financial year end.  In accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, Council is required to include with the Annual Financial Reports a "Statement by Councillors and Management" signed under resolution of Council, by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer, which will allow Council's Auditor to complete the audit.  A similar "Statement by Councillors and Management" is also required for the Special Purpose Financial Reports.

 

Following the Audit, the Annual Financial Reports will then be presented to Council in November, with the Auditors Report.  The "Reports" to be signed plus a copy of the Annual Financial Reports for the Year ended 30 June 2009, are attached.  In order for Council's Annual Financial Reports for 2008/2009 to go forward for Audit the following resolution of Council is now required.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   In respect to Council's General Purpose Financial Reports the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

 

GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2009

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to section 413 (2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

 

The attached General Purpose Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2009, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

 

·     the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and the Regulations made thereunder;

·     the Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements;

·     the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;       




To the best of our knowledge and belief, this Report:-

 

·     presents fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for the year; and

·     accords with Council’s accounting and other records.

 

We are not aware of matter that would render this Report false or misleading in any way.

 

2.         In respect to Council's Special Purpose Financial Reports, the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

 

SPECIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL REPORTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2009

 

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

The attached Special Purpose Annual Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2009, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

 

·     NSW Government Policy Statement "Application of National Competition Policy to

      Local Government"; and

·     Department of Local Government guidelines "Pricing & Costing for Council Businesses:

           Guide to Competitive Neutrality".

·     The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

 

To the best of our knowledge and belief, this report:-

 

·     Presents fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for each of Council’s

declared Business Activities for the year; and

·     accord with Council’s Accounting and other records.

 

We are not aware of any matter that is false or misleading in any way.

 

3.         Council's Annual Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2009 be referred for audit by Council’s Auditors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

General Purpose Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2009

72 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 47

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 47

Subject:          Code of Conduct and Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors    

Record No:    su836 - 34892/09

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to re-adopt Council’s Code of Conduct and Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors, as required by the Local Government Act 1993. 

 

Discussion

 

Code of Conduct

 

Section 440(7) of the Local Government Act 1993, requires a Council within 12 months after each ordinary election to review its adopted Code of Conduct. 

 

The Department of Local Government released a new Model Code of Conduct for all NSW councils in June 2008.  Council staff reviewed this new model code and additional clauses were inserted based on optional best practice recommended by the Department’s guidelines and in addition the provision for time-outs during Council Meetings and the adoption of a Peer Review Committee.  The ammended model code was adopted by Council on 21 July 2008.

 

Since the adoption of the new Code of Conduct, Staff, Councillors and Committee Members of Council Committees have all been trained in the provisions of the new Code.

 

It is recommended that Council re-adopt the Code of Conduct as required under Section 440(7) of the Act, with one amendment to Section 12 “Conduct Review Committees” to formalise that Council has resolved to appoint a panel of independent persons through a regional expression of interest by NSROC.  As this is an administrative amendment as a result of a previous Council Resolution the ammended policy does not need to be placed on public exhibition.

 

Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires a Council to annually review its policy concerning the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to Councillors and submit the adopted policy to the Department of Local Government by 30 November each year. 

 

No change to this policy is proposed.  It is recommended that this policy be re-adopted and sent to the Department.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council’s Code of Conduct with one amendment to Section 12 “Conduct Review Committees” shown attached as AT 1 and the Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors shown attached as AT 2 be adopted.

 

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The amended Code of Conduct and the Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors both dated 7 September 2009 be endorsed; and 

 

2.   A copy of the Policy on Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors be sent to the Department of Local Government in accordance with legislative requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Code of Conduct  Adopted 7 September 2009

38 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Adopted Policy on Payment of Expenses and Facilities to Councillors (dated 7 September 2009)

6 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 48

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 48

Subject:          Meeting Practice Note    

Record No:    SU837 - 34917/09

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a Practice Note for the conduct of Council meetings.  A review of the document has been undertaken and a number changes are recommended to Council’s existing procedures.  It is recommended that the changes to the procedures be adopted. 

 

Background

 

The Department of Local Government has released a Circular in relation to the latest Meetings Practice Note Number 16, dated August 2009.  This publication is designed to address frequently asked questions and promote best practice in the conduct of council meetings.  A copy of the circular has been distributed to councillors separately and is available for download at http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_DocumentsIndex.asp?sectionid=1&documenttype=10&mi=31.

 

Discussion

 

A review of the Practice Note has been undertaken against Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice and normal custom and practice.  From this it has been identified that Council could increase its compliance with the Practice Note in the following areas:-

 

1.   1.4.11-  Page 7- Questions Without Notice

The Practice Note indicates that “Questions Without Notice” is not an appropriate agenda item and suggests it should be replaced with ‘Questions With Notice’ on the basis that notice should be given of all matters to be raised at Council.  This could be accommodated by Council modifying its standard order of business.

 

2.   7.2.2- Page 43- Matters to be Discussed in Closed Committee

The Practice Note indicates that it is not appropriate for Council to consider nominations for awards in Closed session.  It suggests an alternative that Council delegate to a committee which contains members other than just councillors to determine such matters where the rules of closed committee do not apply.  This can be accommodated by Council appointing an Awards Nomination Committee on which all Councillors and the General Manager are members.   This would be included in the list of Council Committees considered in September each year.

 

3.   7.2.4- Page 44- Reporting of Contractual Conditions of Senior Staff

The Practice Note indicates that the reporting of senior staff contractual conditions should be presented at an open meeting subject to any salary information and performance matters being excluded.  This will be implemented from the next report to Council on the Senior Staff contracts due in 2010.

 

4.   7.3.2- Page 45- Reporting the Resolutions of Closed Committee

The Practice Note states that “The minutes should record sufficient details of the resolution to indicate the nature of the decision.  It is not sufficient, for example, to resolve to implement the committees’ recommendation or the general manager’s recommendation.  More specific information is required”.  Council has been reforming its processes in dealing with confidential matters in recent months.  The requirements outlined can be accommodated by Council framing its recommendations from Closed Committee to provide further information without revealing confidential details. 

 

5.   10.1.3- Page 58- Acting Upon Council Decisions That Are Subject to a Motion for Rescission

The Practice Notes suggests that a council’s position in relation to implementing resolutions upon which a rescission motion has been lodged after the Council meeting should be included in the Code of Meeting Practice.  Council has three options in this regard:-

 

i)          determine that no resolution should be implemented until the rescission motion has been dealt with;

ii)         determine that any action should continue until the rescission motion has been dealt with; or

iii)         allow the General Manager the discretion whether or not to implement the recommendation having regard to the circumstances of the matter

 

6.   11.1.5- Page 62- Information to be included in the Minutes

The Practice Notes states ‘when a council makes a decision against the recommendations of their officers or council engaged experts, it is considered best practice to minute the reasons for this.  Minuting the reasons for council’s decisions is particularly important when determining development applications against the recommendations of council officers.  This can reduce the costs to councils of Land Environment Court litigation, as well as achieving transparency and accountability in decision making.  Council’s existing practice has been to only record such information where the recommendation of officers for tenders is changed.  This further requirement can be accommodated in relation to all recommendations by Councillors including a preamble in their motion, for example ‘Having regard to …..  Council ……’.

 

7.   13.1- Page 66-67- Council Workshops

The Practice Note supports the utilisation of workshops as a method of providing briefing sessions and education for Councillors.  It notes that workshops are not subject to the normal rules of council meetings and therefore there is no entitlement for the public to be present, however, councils should look to establish guidelines within the Code of Meeting Practice to educate the public on their role and reinforcing that they are not decision making sessions.  This can be accommodated by including a note within Council’s Code of Meeting Practice which states the following:-

 

“Council from time to time conducts workshops with Councillors on issues relevant to Council business.  The sessions provide an informal environment to allow Councillors to receive information and ask questions about issues outside of the formal Council meeting process.  At these workshops Council will not:

i)    give consideration to specific reports containing recommendations; or

ii)   reach an agreement or decision in relation to any matters discussed during the workshop.”

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report on Meetings Practice Note.

 

2.   Modify its order of business for Council Meetings to replace Questions Without Notice” with “Questions With Notice”.

 

 

3.   At the September election of committees appoint a new Awards Nomination Committee, and a suitable Charter be prepared.

 

4.   Receive future reports in relation to contractual conditions of senior staff in Open Council.

 

5.   Ensure future resolutions arising from closed committee include appropriate information to allow the community to understand the decision of council without revealing and confidential details.

 

6.   In relation to implementing resolutions where a rescission motion is lodged after a meeting include one of the following in its Code of Meeting Practice:

i. no resolution should be implemented until the rescission motion has been dealt with;

ii. any action should continue until the rescission motion has been dealt with; or

iii.         the General Manager shall have the discretion whether or not to implement the recommendation having regard to the circumstances of the matter

 

7.   When departing from the officers recommendation, include in its Minutes the reasons for the change, such to be recorded in the form of a preamble to the substantive resolution.

 

8.   Include as a notation within the Code of Meeting Practice the following:-

 

“Council from time to time conducts workshops with Councillors on issues relevant to Council business.  The sessions provide an informal environment to allow Councillors to receive information and ask questions about issues outside of the formal Council meeting process.  At these workshops Council will not:

                        i.          give consideration to specific reports containing recommendations; or

ii.          reach an agreement or decision in relation to any matters discussed during the workshop.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 40

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 49

Subject:          Survey from the Local Government Association Concernign One Association to Represent Local Government in NSW    

Record No:    SU2072 - 34969/09

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that correspondence including a survey has been received by the Local Government Association (LGA) regarding the issue of one Association to represent Local Government in NSW.  The report recommends that Council formulate a view on the questions raised in the survey and send a response to the LGA.

 

Discussion

 

The LGA has been debating for some years on whether the LGA and Shires Association of NSW should merge and become one Association representing local government in NSW.  This has been subject of many motions to the LGA Conference over recent years.  The LGA has sent Council correspondence with a short survey and explanatory memo (shown attached as AT 1) on this issue asking for a response in early September.

 

Traditionally, the LGA has taken the view that One Association is best achieved by the Shires Association members joining the LGA as full members under its existing constitution and structure.  The major point of contention appears to be an insistence on the part of the Shires Association for the retention of a Divisional structure to provide representation for rural and regional NSW.

 

As well as providing any general comments on this issue, the survey asks 5 main questions as detailed below:-

 

1.   Do you support the idea of having One Association?

2.   If so, is this best achieved by the Shires Association joining the LGA as full members under its existing constitution and structure?

3.   Alternatively, do you believe that One Association is best achieved by the creation of a completely new Association?

4.   What are some of the things you would see in a new Association:-

a)   A Divisional Structure at least for rural and regional NSW?

b)   If Yes, should representation from each Division be:- (i) elected by members of that Division only; (ii) elected by all members in rural or regional councils, or (iii) elected by all members.

5.   In terms of voting delegates;

a)   Should each member council have one vote irrespective of size or b) Should member councils have a number of voting delegates based on:- (i) population or (ii) geographical size.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council formulate a view on the questions raised in the survey on the issue of forming One Association and provide a response to the Local Government Association.

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Survey -Issue of One Association

6 Pages

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 40

Subject:          Street Environmental Capacity Study for Lane Cove Council    

Record No:    SU1666 - 28790/09

Author(s):       Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Currently, the priority for investigating and providing traffic control treatments for particular residential streets is based on submissions made by residents, businesses or other interest groups that identify vehicle speed, volume or road safety issues.

 

This report proposes a more systematic way for Council to identify and prioritise the need for traffic control treatments of particular residential streets by establishing a Street Environmental Capacity program. The Street Environmental Capacity concept is used to quantify the traffic impacts on a local street and examines whether there is spare “physical or environmental” capacity in the existing transport road network.  This is achieved with the use of parameters, (in accordance with RTA’s traffic standards for volumes on the road) based on street characteristics, such as street width, pedestrian flow, vehicular traffic characteristics (speed and volume) and traffic accident records.

 

The purpose of the implementation of an acceptable Street Environmental Capacity Concept for Lane Cove Council is to set the parameters and boundaries of what should be agreed as acceptable traffic volumes and vehicle speeds in Lane Cove Council’s local street Network. The streets that may require some type of treatment, minor or major will be prioritised in order to treat the streets for traffic issues, so that priorities can be identified in this process and also to be able to utilise Council’s resources more efficiently.

 

As part of the program, detailed assessment will be carried out for each street based on the Environmental Capacity Concept and by using a computer software program, TRACON, developed specifically for this purpose. The assessment includes the identification of an “Environmental Capacity” measure for each local street.

 

Council Staff are currently applying the Environmental Capacity Concept to streets where speed and volume data has already been collected over the last year. The ultimate aim is to apply this process to all of Council’s local streets. Council, through this analysis, will introduce a guide for what should be considered acceptable, quantifiable measurements of the environmental capacity of all streets in Lane Cove and also to guide Council to act on those streets in which this capacity has been exceeded.

 

Background

 

The Street Environmental Capacity concept is used to quantify traffic impacts and examines whether there is spare “environmental” capacity in the existing transport road network.

 

Council has commenced a program of undertaking traffic counts (volume and speeds) in all the local streets and this data together with other data, such as street widths and reported traffic accidents, is being used to prepare a Street Environmental Capacity program.

 

Discussion

 

The concept of Environmental Capacity for a street is described in the “Traffic in Towns” (the “Buchanan Report – 1963”), where the Street Environmental Standards was researched and the concept was defined as:

 

“The capacity of a street or area to accommodate moving and stationary vehicles, having regard to the need to maintain the (chosen) environmental standards.”

 

Usually there is a perception in the community of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable of traffic flows and speeding in their local streets. There are many instances where Council staff receives requests from residents to implement traffic facilities or provide treatments in specific streets, although the traffic standards of these streets could be described as ‘good’ and the traffic volumes and speeds may be very low.  In some other cases, investigations lead to recommendations for various traffic measures or treatments. The implementation could be improved by a more systematic approach on which streets require treatment first.  Systematic prioritisation also assists Council to seek funding for the streets which have been identified for some type of traffic control treatment.

 

The identification of treatment priorities, based on Street Environmental Capacity Standards provides a type of ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ or a “Reference Point” between Council, the residents and the RTA, or any other stakeholders, such as Sydney Buses, Department of Transport, etc regarding the standards that are expected for local streets in terms of traffic flow and the capacity of these streets to carry traffic based on quantifiable measures. The exercise also aims to provide priority to projects that require urgent attention, rather than be driven by other external factors such as the non-local traffic ‘NIMBY’ (Not in My Back Yard approach).

 

It is important to note, that the traffic volume flow capacities that are discussed below and are based on traffic and environmental studies are accepted as quantifiable measures based on traffic standards, rather than subjective ones and are based on Environmental Street Standards that have been tested around the world.

 

Environmental Capacity

 

Environmental Capacity can be defined simply as the number of vehicles that is considered acceptable within an area or individual street, with respect to the impacts on such environmental indicators as pedestrian risk, pedestrian crossing delay, noise impacts for residents, etc. 

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) set the recommended performance standards for environmental capacity for streets with direct access to residential properties as shown in the following Table;

 

Table 1 Environmental Capacity Performance Standards on Residential Streets

Road Class

Access way

SEC

Local

Street

200 -300

Collector

Street

300 -500

RTA Guidelines

 

Table 1 above provides an indication of upper and lower limits of SEC for different speeds and road classification. There are other methods that consider other factors such as road width, noise, pedestrian safety and delay. It should be noted that the above figures could also be described as ‘conservative’ as they are mainly aimed at acceptable traffic volumes for new developed areas.

 

Quantification of Streets Environmental Capacity

 

There are models and accepted measures to calculate acceptable traffic volumes. The “TRACON” computer program uses the following generally accepted input data:-

 

·     Street Characteristics: width reservation and carriageway, number of lanes, gradient, road surface conditions;

 

·     Traffic Characteristics: traffic volumes, traffic composition (in particular , proportion of heavy vehicles), vehicle speed;

 

·     Built Environment: distance from carriageway, nature of intervening surfaces, type and design of building and type of occupation; and

 

·     Road Classification (environmental capacity relates primarily to the local road system.

 

Generally, a local Street can be accepted as performing with its Environmental Capacity limits if the traffic volumes are within 250 – 300 vehicles per peak hour and if it is a Local Collector road from 300 – 500 vehicles per peak hour is acceptable. In the same case, due to limited access from the local network to the main arterial network a higher volume of traffic could be acceptable;

 

At this stage the Street Environmental Capacity (SEC) has been identified for many local streets in Lane Cove where traffic volumes and speeds are available. Some examples of the application of the Environmental Capacity concept is shown in Attachment 1.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the stakeholders of the application of the Street Environmental Capacity concept for the local roads in Lane Cove area. Any comments as a result of the discussions will be reviewed and evaluated to determine the inclusions or amendments on the proposed Street Environmental Capacity guide.

 

Level of Participation

 

Inform

 

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key Message Givers (e.g. RTA, residents on targeted streets, Councils Planning Department, Consultative Traffic Forums, and Bicycle Advisory Committee)

RTA, internally -Council sections, such as Council’s Planning Department

Proposed Medium

 

Advertisment, Website, E-Newsletter and Public Exhibition

Meetings and Email

Website, public exhibition and surveys

Indicative Timing

Consultation

from 1 September 2009 until 30  October 2009

Consultation

from 1 September 2009 until 30  October 2009

Consultation

from 1 September 2009 until 30  October 2009

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the implementation of an acceptable Street Environmental Capacity Study for Lane Cove is to set the parameters and boundaries of what should be agreed as acceptable traffic volumes and vehicle speeds in Lane Cove’s streets. The streets that may require some type of traffic control treatment, minor or major will be prioritised in a determined order. This will result in  treatment of the streets that have been identified in this process as exceeding their Environmental Capacity and allow Council to utilise its’  resources more efficiently.

 

In summary, there is a practical benefit for Lane Cove Council in developing a Street Environmental Capacity standard for residential streets. The benefits are shown below in the following applications:

 

·     Road Design: When assessing cross- sections, when assessing alignments to ensure standards for all road users including pedestrians and cyclists;

 

·     Identifying road links that are approaching or exceeding their capacity, in order to prioritise future capital cost works;

 

·     Assessing the impact of external arterial works on the local road network;

 

·     Development of appropriate traffic calming works for new or existing developments; and

 

·     Development of strategic plans to identify suitability of developments, such as retail, commercial and residential;

 

This study will create a framework that the community and Council staff can follow and understand that provides an assessment of the relevant issues related to local Street Environmental Capacity.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.     Council’s Street Environmental Capacity Study be communicated to various stakeholders, including, the RTA, Council’s Planning Department, Council’s Traffic Consultative Forums, Bicycle Advisory Committee and other stakeholders for the purpose of creating a guide for Council and the other stakeholders of what should be acceptable maximum traffic volumes and vehicle speeds for specific local streets in Lane Cove Area.

 

2.    Councils Street Environmental Capacity Study be placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report.

 

3.    Following discussions with stakeholders, the completion of all Street Environmental Capacity indicators for all streets under Council’s jurisdiction, and the exhibition period, a report be referred back to Council that considers the results of the community consultation and priorities for treatments in specific streets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Environmental Capacity Concepts

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 48

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 48

Subject:          NSROC Tender for Supply; Supply & Delivery and Supply, Delivery & Laying of Asphaltic Concrete    

Record No:    SU3311 - 31103/09

Author(s):       Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Tenders were invited by NSROC on behalf of member councils for Supply; Supply & Delivery and Supply, Delivery & Laying of Asphaltic Concrete. A full report on the evaluation of the tender is included in the Confidential Section of this Business Paper. This Report provides details on the tender process conducted for the information of the public.

 

Discussion

 

Scope of Work and Contract Period

 

NSROC tender 8/09 was issued to the market in July 09 for Supply; Supply & Delivery and Supply, Delivery & Laying of Asphaltic Concrete. The contract is for the supply of Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing and associated works to the NSROC Member Councils for a twelve month period.

 

Assessment

 

As part of the selection and evaluation process the tenders were evaluated on the following criteria:- 

 

·    Compliance with the contractual and technical conditions of the Tender

·    Compliance with relevant Government Policies

·    Compliance with Australian Standards

·    Performance standards e.g. Delivery, quality

·    Competitive pricing structure

·    Capacity to supply the specific requirements of each Council

·    Service Levels

·    Suitability of Quality Systems

·    Ability to invoice on a Project Basis at the end of the month during which the project is completed

 

Eleven tenders were received.  All tenders met the evaluation criteria and the preferred tenderers were selected based upon the competitive pricing structure offered by each tenderer as shown below:-

 

 

Mill & Resheet 100m Section of Roadway

Heavy Patching

AJ Paving

 

Equal Preferred

Ally Civil

 

 

Boral Asphalts

 

 

D & M Excavation & Asphalting Pty Ltd

Equal Preferred

 

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

Equal Preferred

 

J & M Schembri Pty Ltd

 

Equal Preferred

Pioneer Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Sharpe Bros (Aust) Pty Ltd

 

 

SRS Roads Pty Ltd

 

 

State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Tropic Asphalts Pty Ltd

 

 

Recommended Tenderer

 

Based on the tender assessment the recommended Tenderers are AJ Paving, D & M Excavations & Asphalt Pty Ltd, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd and J & M Schembri Pty Ltd.  This is based on the assessment of the tenders submitted with the tenders from these companies having the most competitive pricing structure for Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 49

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 49

Subject:          Reconstruction of 17th Green    

Record No:    su2932 - 34215/09

Author(s):       Susan  Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A design for the rebuilding of the 17th green at Lane Cove Golf Course has been prepared by Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd. This design includes a recommendation for the clearing of the understorey vegetation in the adjacent bushland reserve in order to provide increased light and air circulation and improve golf play. Council staff have developed a plan for the management of the bushland area that would help achieve improvements in light and air movement without disturbing or destabilising the bushland.

 

Background

 

The 17th green at Lane Cove Golf Course has been in poor condition for some time. The green is located immediately to the south and east, and down slope of the bushland reserve linking Lane Cove Bushland Park with Osborne Park bushland, adjacent to properties in Cogan Place.

 

Discussion

 

Golf Course Advisory Committee (GCAC)

 

Over the past year or so, Council has engaged a number of consultant golf course specialists to prepare reports about the condition of the 17th green. This year Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd was engaged to undertake a Review of the 17th Green and then to prepare a Design and Documentation Report (attached). The Proposed Green Alteration plan has been distributed separately.

 

Mark Parker identified four main reasons why the green is not performing - poor construction; incorrect grass variety; heavy shade; and lack of air movement. He prepared a design for the green to overcome the problems caused by construction method and grass variety. He then made recommendations for the vegetation management of the adjacent bushland in order to provide increased light (both direct and reflective) and air movement, as well as to greatly improve golf play.

 

Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd recommended as follows:-

 

1. Remove all vegetation, except the current established trees, in a 5 metre distance away from the current left hand side turf/bush interface and rear of the green, commencing at the permanent red hazard peg on the front left hand side of the green.

 

2. Remove any dense shrubs (above 1.5 m in growth) from a 10 metre area beyond the 5 metre area on the left hand side, including the Pittosporums and tree ferns.

 

Mark Parker also recommended the creation of another planted area of similar size within the golf course to compensate for the loss of the bushland understorey in zones that rarely come into play and would not create a shade problem in the future. He commented that having densely vegetation so close to play results in constant annoyance for golfers due to lost balls and lack of recovery shots.

 

The report was tabled at the GCAC meeting on 11 August 2009. While the recommendations regarding vegetation removal did not meet with unanimous approval among committee members, the committee supported the following resolution in the form of a recommendation to Council;

 

‘The committee recommends to Council that Mark Parker’s report be received and accepted and that the GM be asked to prepare a report to Council recommending the reconstruction of the 17th green and associated work including drainage and removal of vegetation.’

 

The Lane Cove Country Club has written in support of these recommendations. A copy of the letter is attached.

 

Bushland Adjacent

 

These recommendations would require the removal or alternation to the bushland vegetation immediately adjacent to the 17th green. The bushland reserve in this location is very narrow, less than 15 m in width at some points. The bushwalk linking Osborne Park Recreation Area with Lane Cove Bushland Park runs through this area and the bushland forms a wildlife corridor linking the two reserves. Part of the bushland is affected by stormwater runoff from Cogan Place.

 

This bushland is categorised as SEPP 19 bushland and is zoned Open Space Bushland 6 (b) under the 1987 LEP and E2 Environmental Conservation under the 2008 DLEP.

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee (BMAC)

 

The recommendation made by Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd was tabled at the BMAC meeting on 26 August 2009. The committee discussed the proposed design and the recommendations regarding clearing of vegetation in the bushland surrounding the green.

 

The committee is totally opposed to any loss or alienation of bushland. It cannot accept the removal of bushland vegetation to improve golf play and opposes the recommendations in the Mark Parker report for clearing the understorey vegetation. The issues of concern are the impact on the viability of the bushland reserve caused by the loss of understorey vegetation and the narrowing of the bushland at this point, the impact of the loss of this vegetation on wildlife and habitat, the impact that it will have on the amenity of the bushwalk and the impact on the visual amenity of the bushland. As well, the impact of the removal of this understorey vegetation on the adjacent residents needs to be taken into account.

 

Staff Proposal

 

Council staff have investigated the impact of the clearing of vegetation in the bushland reserve as set out by Mark Parker and have made recommendations that would help achieve improvements in light and air movement without disturbing or destabilising the bushland. This has been set out in a work plan which divides the adjacent bushland into various areas with site specific actions for the removal of particular plants, predominantly weed species, the trimming of some native plants and the replanting of suitable native species to retain and stabilize the steep eroding slopes. A copy of that plan is attached.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to measure community reaction to the proposal to clear bushland vegetation adjacent to the 17th green.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed reconstruction of the 17th green as set out by Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd.

 

Method

 

Draft Policy

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key message givers eg members of the Lane Cove Country Club, Golf Manager, The Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society, Osborne Park Residents Association; immediate neighbours

Proposed Medium

Public exhibition, website, e-newsletter

Public exhibition, advertisement, letters

Indicative Timing

Wednesday 9 September to Friday 23 October 2009

Wednesday 9 September to Friday 23 October 2009

 

Conclusion

 

Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd has prepared a plan for the design of the 17th green to address the problems caused by poor construction, incorrect grass variety, heavy shade and poor air movement. The recommendations in this report for the vegetation management of the adjacent bushland in order to provide increased light (both direct and reflective) and air movement and improve golf play will have an impact on the adjacent bushland. Council staff have developed a plan for the management of the bushland area that would help achieve improvements in light and air movement without disturbing or destabilising the bushland.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council receives and notes the Design and Recommendations for the 17th green prepared by Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd for the purposes of public exhibition.

 

2.   The proposed plans be placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation takes place in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report.

 

3.   A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period to consider the final plans for the 17th green.

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove GC 17th green report 2 design and documentation

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

letter from Lane Cove Country Club in support of Mark Parker design

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

bushland adjacent to 17th green - work plan

2 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

Subject:          Austin Street - Request for a Retail Directory    

Record No:    su2136 - 32971/09

Author(s):       Steve  Fedorow 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report seeks Council’s response to a request by Mr Rouse that Council fund the full cost to install a retail directory for the retail area on the southern side of Austin Street, rather than share the cost as previously resolved by Council.

 

Background

 

At the inspection committee of 4 July 2009 Council considered a request from Mr Rouse, owner of the retail area on the southern side of Austin Street, for a retail directory to be installed for the businesses in this area.  No consensus was reached at the inspection committee. 

At the Council meeting of 4 July 2009, upon receiving the report of the inspection committee Council resolved that “A retail directory be positioned at the discretion of staff with the cost to be shared equally between the Applicant and Council”. 

 

Discussion

 

Staff have subsequently contacted Mr Rouse, the owner of these premises and advised of Council’s resolution, seeking his commitment to proceeding with a directory on a cost share basis.

 

Mr Rouse has responded that whilst he appreciates Council’s recognition of the need for a retail directory in this location, that he respectfully requests Council to reconsider its decision for him to pay half the cost and Council to bear the full cost of the directory.

 

Retail directory signs cost approximately $15,000 inclusive of all Development Application costs (consultant to prepare the Development Application, Plans & Council Fees).  Repair costs are additional to this amount should any vandalism occur.

 

It is important to note that Council has not allocated any funds in its 2009/10 budget to install any retail directory signs (even on a cost shared basis) or repair existing signs in the event of any vandalism.

 

Conclusion

 

Council should consider Mr Rouse’s request in the light that Council has not allocated any funds for installation or repair of any retail directories.  Regardless of whether Council reaffirm’s its decision to share the cost of a retail directory or decides to fund the full cost of a retail directory Council will need to indicate which funds are to be used if it confirms Resolution 213 of 4 July 2009 or alternatively defer the project to be funded in the 2010/2011 budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider the request of Mr Rouse and advise of it’s decision having regard to the above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:          State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009    

Record No:    SU1802 - 32958/09

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

·     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 was gazetted on 31 July 2009 and came into force at that time.

·     A draft of the Policy was not communicated to Council prior to its implementation.

·     SEPP 10 (Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation) has been repealed by the SEPP and amended provisions have been incorporated into SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

·     SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 has been amended to delete “housing” related sections (such as Group Homes, Housing Provided by Social Housing and Public Authorities and Housing NSW).  These have been incorporated into SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

·     The SEPP looks at 7 broad areas of housing opportunities:-

 

-  In-fill affordable housing;

-  Secondary Dwellings;

-  Boarding Houses;

-  Supportive Accommodation;

-  Residential Flat Buildings – Social Housing Providers, Public Authorities and Joint

   Ventures;

-  Residential development – Land and Housing Corporation; and

-  Group Homes.

 

This report recommends Council receive and note the information.

 

 

Background

 

On 31 July 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental housing) was gazetted. 

 

The Policy affects all of the state and all residential zones and prevails over all other planning instruments, such as Council’s LEP, DCPs and Codes.  The link to the website is:

 

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/PlansforAction/Supportingaffordablerentalhousingpolicy/Councilsandpractitionersinformation/tabid/315/Default.aspx

 

 

The SEPP is designed to:

 

“help increase the amount and diversity of affordable housing in our state”

 

The SEPP suspends all covenants with the exception of Council imposed covenants, covenants under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989, any conservation agreement with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, trust agreements with the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, vegetation plans under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, biobanking agreements within the meaning of Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or any planning agreement.

 

The SEPP sets out the criteria for the various housing forms considered.  It also, in some instances provides bonuses by way of additional floor space for residential flat development.  This applies to areas already zoned for residential flat buildings and that meet certain vocational criteria. The amount of bonus is dependent on the site’s maximum permitted floor space ratio and amount of housing to be retained as affordable rental housing for a period of 10 years.

 

Affordable housing is rental accommodation that is available for affordable rental for a period of 10 years. The affordable dwellings are given to a social housing provided to manage during the 10 year period at rent levels set by the provider.  

 

A social housing provider is defined as:-

 

·     Department of Human Services;

·     Land and Housing Corporation;

·     Registered community housing provider;

·     Aboriginal Housing Office;

·     A registered Aboriginal housing organisation within the mean of the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998;

·     A local government authority that provides affordable housing;

·     A not-for-profit organisation that is a direct provider of rental housing to tenants.

 

Discussion

 

The SEPP is divided into 7 main areas of development:

 

1.         In-fill Affordable Housing

 

This allows dual occupancy, multi dwelling housing (3 or more dwellings attached or freestanding on one site) and residential flat buildings where at least 50% of dwellings are retained for affordable housing in all residential zones.

 

The SEPP sets out the criteria (minimum standards) whereby development consent cannot be refused, much in the way SEPP (Seniors Living) is designed.

 

Where proposals are on land where residential flat buildings are permitted, floor space bonuses are available for the provision of an additional proportion (minimum 20%) of the dwellings as “affordable rental”. 

 

Subdivision of the development is permitted.

 

Implications for Council

 

Infill development in the form of low rise residential flat development is permitted in all residential zones.  This may result in 2 storey residential flat buildings (maximum height 8.5m) being proposed under the SEPP in zones where residential flats are not permitted, provided the sites have good access to public transport as detailed in the SEPP.  Council cannot use local standards to refuse an application.

 

2.         Secondary Dwellings

 

The SEPP allows alterations and additions to existing dwelling houses and the erection of additional buildings, to allow a second dwelling in all residential zoned sites.

 

The minimum site area for this type of development is 450sqm.  The resulting building cannot exceed the maximum floor space ratio permitted for the site.  No additional parking is required for the additional dwelling.

 

Generally the floor area of the second dwelling is restricted to 60sqm, unless a greater floor space is permitted for a second dwelling under another environmental planning instrument.

 

The second dwelling can be considered as “Complying Development”.  Subdivision of the development is not permitted.

 

Implications for Council

 

The SEPP reduces the current minimum site area for dual occupancy from 750sqm for an attached dual occupancy and 900sqm for a detached dual occupancy to 450sqm.  The development is also, provided it meets the requirements of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008, dealt with as Complying development.  The “no subdivision” provision is the same.  For any application that is submitted as “complying Development” a 10 day turn around period applies.  This impacts on staff resources as well as the processing of development applications already in the system.

 

3.         Boarding Houses

 

New generation boarding houses can provide low cost, flexible rental accommodation to a wide range of tenants, particularly single retirees, homeless, working singles, students and young couples.

 

Boarding houses are permitted in residential land zones R1-R4, business zones B1, B2 and B4.

 

The boarding houses are designed more on a “self contained” design with a minimum floor area of 12sqm for a single occupancy and 16sqm for a double. Rooms cannot exceed 25sqm.  Common rooms are required and for buildings with more than 20 boarding rooms accommodation for an on site manager is required.  Parking is not required in zones which permit residential flat buildings.

The SEPP sets out the criteria (minimum standards) whereby development consent cannot be refused, much in the way SEPP (Seniors Living) is formatted.

 

Implications for Council

 

The SEPP results in boarding houses being permitted in R2, B1 and B2 in addition to those zones in the LEP where they are already permitted land uses.  The non provision of parking may impact on street parking in areas close to transport hubs where there may already be issues between residents and commuters competing for parking.

 

4.         Supportive Accommodation

 

The SEPP enables Support Services (such as counselling and life skills development) to be provided within existing flat buildings and boarding houses so that these buildings can be operated by not-for–profit organisations and charities as long term housing for homeless people and others requiring support.

 

This has been brought across from SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 and relates to the provision of housing for homeless people and others involving long term, independent living with appropriate support services that the residents can call on as required. 

 

Supportive accommodation is permitted in any zone which allows residential flat buildings and boarding houses.  This section of the SEPP does not allow the erection of a building, but relates solely to the provision of the services for the residents.

 

Implications for Council – This provision has been moved across from SEPP (infrastructure) 2007, and as such has been in place for some time.  It is not envisaged this will have an implication for Council.

 

5.         Residential Flat Buildings – Social Housing Providers, Public Authorities and Joint Ventures

 

This applies only to the provision of housing by or on behalf of a public housing authority or social housing provider, or by the Land and Housing Corporation and relates to all zones, excepting where residential flat buildings are permitted.  The location of these buildings is restricted to within 800m of a railway station or light rail station.

 

Development of the site can only occur if the Director- General has issued a site compatibility certificate certifying that the development is compatible with surrounding land uses, and in commercial areas; that the ground floor is not used for residential unless permitted by another planning instrument.

 

On-site parking is not required for this category of development due to the low car owner ship rate of residents.

 

Implications for Council

 

Development consent is required for this type of activity and the SEPP sets out criteria Council must use for the assessment.

 

6.         Residential Development – Land and Housing Corporation

 

This division sets criteria for the Land and Housing Corporation to develop their land for public housing. 

 

This has been brought across from SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, and allows development without the need for development consent.  SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 and SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, both allow the Land and Housing Corporation to self-certify and develop within the restrictions of the SEPP without the need for development consent.

 

Implications for Council – The Land and Housing Corporation are required to notify Council and neighbours of their intentions to develop land and take any representations into consideration.

 

7.         Group Homes

 

This has been brought across from SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

Exempt development for group homes, includes alterations and additions to existing group homes, provided they meet certain criteria detailed in Schedule 1 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. 

 

New group homes, meeting SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development) requirements as modified by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 can be dealt with as complying development.

 

Development consent is required for proposal falling outside of the above.  An application can only be refused if the consent authority has made an assessment of the community need for the group home.

 

Implications for Council

 

The SEPP results in group homes being permitted in Business B4 and SP2 Infrastructure zones, in addition to those zones in the LEP where they are already permitted land uses.  In determining a development application for a group home, the need for the group home must be assessed and considered by the Council.

 

Retention of existing affordable rental housing

 

The SEPP replaces SEPP 10 (Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation).  This section of the SEPP applies to Lane Cove as well as other metropolitan Councils and affects the strata subdivision, demolition or refurbishment of any residential flat building or boarding house in the same manner as the previous SEPP 10.  the requirement for referral of these applications to the

 

Implications for Council

 

The SEPP repeals SEPP 10 (Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation) and in so doing removes the referral/ concurrence requirement of the SEPP, allowing Council to determine such applications.  A savings provision exists for development applications already lodged.

 

Conclusion

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 was gazetted with no reference to Lane Cove Council.  From discussions with the Department of Planning, there was input from only a small number of selected Councils. 

 

The SEPP increases the potential for low rise residential flat buildings in all residential zones and introduces developer incentives to increase the provision of affordable rental accommodation and limits Council and the community’s input into the decision making process by way of the use of “exempt” and “complying” provisions.  The suggested implications for Council have been mentioned under each classification of development.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

Subject:          State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Commercial and Industrial) 2009    

Record No:    SU1802 - 33294/09

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

·     State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Commercial and Industrial) 2009 was gazetted on 5 August 2009 and comes into force on 7 September 2009.

·     The SEPP is the next stage of the state government’s planning reforms.

·     The SEPP provides for exempt and complying categories for retail, commercial and industrial activities.

·     Council’s existing DCP6 – Exempt and Complying already applies to a number of the activities which are exempt, such as change of use of existing retail and commercial premises.

 

Background

 

Over the past year the Department of Planning have been introducing reforms to the NSW planning system.  This included the introduction of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008 (The Housing Code).  This chiefly dealt with residential and ancillary development.

 

Coming into force on 7 September 2009, is SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Commercial and Industrial) 2009.  This is the next stage of the reforms relating to development and exempt and complying provisions.  The link to the website is:

 

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/PlanningSystem/ImprovingthePlanningSystem/NSWCommercialandIndustrialCode

 

Discussion

 

“The principle aim of the General Commercial and Industrial Code is to reduce unnecessary complexity.  Improved efficiency and consistency will be achieved by making it permissible for certain commercial and industrial developments to be determined as exempt and complying developments

 

It is anticipated that these amendments will also:

 

·     Reduce costs

·     Significantly reduce planning approval waiting time for proponents, and

·     Reduce the burden on local councils so that they can focus on more complex, sensitive developments and strategic matters.”

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Commercial and Industrial) 2009, contains provisions whereby certain forms of development are complying.  These include:

 

·     Changes to certain commercial and industrial buildings

·     Demolition and internal fit-outs of certain commercial and industrial buildings

·     Minor external changes to commercial and industrial buildings.

 

For the purposes of the SEPP, “commercial” includes both retail and office activities.

 

As with complying developments considered under the Housing Code, private certifiers or Council can issue Complying Development Certificates.

 

The areas that are excluded from the SEPP applying are only environmentally sensitive areas. 

 

These areas are defined as being:-

·     Coastal water of the state;

·     Coastal lake;

·     SEPP 14 Coastal wetlands or SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests;

·     Aquatic reserves or marine park;

·     Wetlands or international significance or world heritage;

·     Land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;

·     Land reserve or dedicated for preservation of flora, fauna, geological formations or environmental protection purposes; and

·     Critical habitat under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or Part 7A of the fisheries Management Act 1994.

 

Also, complying development cannot be carried out on a site where there is a heritage item, or wilderness.

 

Both exempt and complying development must act upon an original lawful development consent.  For example for a change or use to occur, there must be an original development consent that can be acted upon.

 

EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT

 

The following are an indication of the types of development which are exempt under the SEPP. 

 

Changing:-

 

·     one business to another business;

·     a business premises to office premises or visa versa;

·     an office use to another;

·     a retail use to another retail use;

·     a bulky goods premises to another type of bulky goods;

·     a light industrial use to another light industrial use;

·     a warehouse or distribution centre to another warehouse or distribution centre;

·     a light industry to a warehouse or distribution centre; and

·     a warehouse or a distribution centre to a light industry.

 

Implications for Council

 

Parking for these types of uses are compatible in terms of Council’s DCPs and a number of the above are already catered for in Council’s DCP 6 - Exempt and Complying (Clause 11) which allows for various changes of use without the need for development consent.

 

The exempt development in the above list cannot involve building work, increases in floor space, existing use rights provisions or changes to the BCA and excludes:-

 

·     food and drink premises;

·     a funeral home or chapel;

·     retail sale of fire arms;

·     landscape and garden supplies;

·     a market;

·     beauty or hair salons;

·     premises offering skin penetration;

·     restricted premises ;

·     roadside stall;

·     sex service premises; and

·     vehicle sales or hire premises.

 

The use also cannot contravene any condition of the original consent of the premises, such as hours of use, staff numbers etc.

 

Where the proposed development does not comply with all other development standards for exempt development, it may be able to be considered as complying development rather than needing to go to a development application.

 

COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

 

The following development can be considered as complying under the SEPP:-

 

·     A bulky goods  premise to another bulky goods premises;

·     A type of commercial premises to another  type of commercial premises;

·     A light industry to another light industry;

·     A warehouse or distribution centre to another warehouse or distribution centre;

·     A light industry to a warehouse or distribution centre;

·     A warehouse or distribution centre to a light industry;

·     A light industry to an ancillary office; and

·     A warehouse or distribution centre to an ancillary office.

 

Implications for Council

 

The change of use cannot be inconsistent with approved hours, parking or landscaping.  This means that as there is a change of parking assessment when warehouses or light industrial space (1 space per 80sqm) are converted to office (1 space per 40sqm), the proposal would not comply with the Council requirements.

 

The change of use does not include increases to floor space, a change of use to residential or changes to various BCA classifications and excludes:

 

·     a funeral home or chapel

·     retail sale of fire arms

·     landscape and garden supplies

·     a market

·     a pub

·     restricted premises

·     roadside stall

·     sex service premises

·     timber and building supplies

·     vehicle sales or hire premises.

 

For building alterations to be considered as complying development, generally they have to be internal and exclude heritage items.  External alterations can be considered as complying development for such things as repairs and new shop fronts.

 


Implications for Council

 

The ability to consider new shop fronts as complying development removes the trigger used to require shops and the like to be made accessible for people with a disability.  “Food and drink premise” (excluding barbecue and charcoal cooking) can also be considered as complying development however as Council has a parking requirement of a space per 4 seats for refreshment rooms, if seating is provided and additional parking is required, this can be an issue and may trigger the need for a development application.

 

If there are no existing parking conditions relating to car parking, the new use must comply with any relevant requirements contained in an EPI or DCP applying to the land.

Parking can be achieved on the site by compliance with the EPI or DCP applying to the land, any parking surplus within the development to paying a section 94 contribution (only where permitted and where Council is the certifier).  In other cases, a development application would be required.

 

Where the most recent development consent does not contain conditions for ‘hours of operation” the change of use under the Code is restricted as follows:

 

·     a bulky goods premises or a commercial premises – 7am to 10pm Monday to Saturday and 7am to 8pm on a Sunday or public holiday, and

·     light industry or a warehouse and distribution centre – 7am to 7pm on Monday to Saturday only.

 

In terms of the BCA, internal alterations can be considered on the basis of alternative fire safety solutions and other requirements of the BCA automatically apply (access, egress, sanitary facilities, light and ventilation and fire separation in the case of a mixed use building).

 

Where an alternative fire safety solution is proposed, the complying development application must include a copy of a report from an accredited certifier (grade A1 or A2) to the effect that the proposal is consistent with the alternative solution.

 

As with State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008 in relation to complying development in the Housing Code; Division 2 of the SEPP provides conditions of consent which only can be applied to complying development certificates.

 

Conclusion

 

The main change for Council is anticipated to be that certain development which would require development consent shall be considered on the basis of “complying development”.  An impact also is the need to allocate staff resources to these applications, as the 10 day turn around period needs to be prioritised and there may be a flow on affecting DA processing times.  It is recommended that the information be received and noted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 34

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 34

Subject:          Amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying) 2008 - The Housing Code    

Record No:    su1802 - 33541/09

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

·     State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying) 2008 became operational on 27 February 2009, and included exempt and complying provisions relating to residential development.  This is commonly called “The Housing Code”.

·     Council has been advised of further amendments to the SEPP.

 

Background

 

The SEPP came into force in February 2009 and was estimated by the Department of Planning to cover 1.1 million lots state wide.  In Council’s area, there has been a limited take up of the Complying Development provisions, with Council only issuing 1 CDC for alterations to a dwelling house, under the SEPP.   This may be a result of our site topography, exclusion zones and the majority of development proposals being outside the design constraints of the Housing Code.  There has also been limited uptake from Private Certifiers with only a small number of CDCs issued under the SEPP in Councils area.  The link to look at the Code is:

 

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/PlanningSystem/ImprovingthePlanningSystem/NSWHousingCode/CouncilsandPractitionersInformation/tabid/104/Default.aspx

 

Discussion

 

The amendments to the SEPP come into force from 7 September 2009.

 

The amendments to the SEPP include:-

 

·     Allow external alterations and additions to existing dwelling houses that meet the site coverage and maximum floor area requirements of the Code.

·     Increases the floor area for outbuildings from the current 40sqm, on a sliding scale to 45sqm to 100sqm depending on the lot size.

·     Clarifies the definition of building height and the development standards for side and rear setbacks.

·     Allows internal alterations to an existing dwelling house without regard to the development standards of the SEPP.

·     Reduced land based exemptions (internal alterations can proceed on bush fire prone or flood control lots).

·     Roof terraces are excluded as complying development.

·     The SEPP also introduces additional new development types as exempt.  These include:-

-     Animal shelters;

-     Evaporative cooling units (roof mounted);

-     Garbage bin storage enclosure;

-     Hardstand spaces; and

-     Hot water systems.

 

·     The SEPP also contains amendments to the existing exempt development types.  These include:-

-     Allowing access ramps in bushfire prone land;

-     Air conditioning units not locate on the wall or roof of a building that faces a street or forward of the front building line;

-     Removing the need for some exempt development types to be located 1m from a registered easement;

-     Not allowing earthworks and retaining walls to flood control lots;

-     Allowing more than 1 letter box;

-     Minor building alteration including the installation of security door and window screening;

-     Water tanks that are “slimline”;

-     Allowing scaffolding, hoardings and temporary site construction fences where associated exempt or complying development works;

-     Screen encloses are not to be attached to any balcony, deck, patio, pergola. Terrace or verandah that faces a road; and

-     Water features and ponds have a size restriction of 10sqm.

 

The Regulations are also amended and the amendments include:-

 

·     The benefactor of the CDC must, as a courtesy, notify residential neighbours within 20m of the subject lot, 2 days before building work commences (This replaces the requirement for Council to notify residents within 40m of the lot within 2 days of issue of the CDC Notice).

·     Allows Council to request additional information from a property qualified person.

·     Where a building is subject to n alternative solution under the BCA proposal for internal alterations or a change of use are required to be consistent with the alternative solution .

·     Corrects a reference to a certifying authority as the person who must endorse any relevant plans that are attached to the CDC.

·     Requires Council to provide information on a 149(2) Certificate as to whether the land is land on which complying development can occur under the SEPP.  If development cannot be carried out, the reason why.

 

Conclusion

 

The amendments to the SEPP and Regulations chiefly correct anomalies or clarify issues which have been raising concern to practitioners since the implementation of the SEPP and Housing Code.  No major issues are anticipated from Council’s perspective.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

Subject:          Renaming of Howell Place    

Record No:    SU3771 - 33873/09

Author(s):       Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council was requested to support a proposal from a resident of Howell Place to rename it to Jacaranda Place, on the grounds of confusion and difficulties caused by the street’s configuration and the similarity of its name with that of Howell Avenue. Council wrote to affected and nearby residents and received replies from fourteen households.

 

Having regard to the number of responses opposing renaming, it is recommended that the renaming not proceed and that directional signage be upgraded.

 

Background

 

Council received a request from a Howell Place resident to either rename Howell Place, or to renumber it.  Howell Place comprises eight detached dwelling house lots in a continuation of the eastern end of a local road, Howell Avenue, which extends east and west of Ross Smith Parade. The area is shown on the map and aerial photograph with street numbers at AT1.

 

The request is made on the grounds of perceived confusion between the two street locations and confusion caused for public authorities, such as emergency services, gas and water personnel, postal deliveries, tradesmen, taxis and others visitors.  A series of incidents experienced by the one resident in only a few months, including a misdirected ambulance as advised by telephone since the letters, indicates the necessity to address the issue for the residents of the area as a whole.

 

On 1 June 2009, Council resolved that:-

 

“Council write to relevant residents of Howell Place and Howell Avenue seeking their views on the proposed renaming of Howell Place and suggesting it be called Jacaranda Place;”

 

A total of eight properties would be affected by the proposed street renaming, being Nos.1 to 8 Howell Place. On 9 July 2009, Council wrote to these residents and also wrote to all properties in Howell Avenue, east of Ross Smith Parade.

 

Discussion

 

A total of 14 responses were received from Howell Place and Howell Avenue residents. A summary of support or opposition for the proposal, along with the resident’s location either in Howell Place or Howell Avenue, is included in the table below.

 

Response

Support

Opposition

Total

Howell Place Residents

1

5

6

Howell Avenue Residents

1

7

8

Total

2

12

14

 

As indicated in the table above, 2 residents in total supported the proposal, while 12 residents were opposed to the proposal. It should also be noted that support or opposition to the proposal was not clustered depending upon whether the resident lived in Howell Place or Howell Avenue.

 

The issues raised were as follows –

 

i)          Support

 

-     inconvenience of numerous deliveries to the wrong address;

-     resolve confusion; and

-     would also like a chicane for demarcation of Howell Place.

 

ii)         Opposing

 

-     unreasonable cost and time to notify authorities;

-     historical and practical reasons to retain existing address;

-     question as to whether council would reimburse residents for cost to change address details;

-     no benefit;

-     confusion due to overlapping numbers not closeness of name;

-     renaming will create more confusion as not all people have the latest street directory;

-     current numbering has been in place too long;

-     street signs provide all the information people need;

-     too many people to contact with change of name;

-     households do not have new visitors every day; and

-     major disruption.

 

The proposal by a resident to change the street name or numbering was sensible and had substance. However, the public feedback highlights that the extensive inconvenience caused by changing the street name outweighs the benefit to most residents of clearing up what would seem to some to be, in comparison, a minor inconvenience.

 

The inconvenience is acknowledged and two other possible solutions to the issue follow.

 

1.   House Renumbering

 

The resident who brought this issue to Council’s attention also suggested that the properties could be renumbered Nos.41 – 48 Howell Avenue. This is not supported, as Nos.39 and 49 are located at the opposite, western end of Howell Avenue.

 

A possible renumbering to Nos.1A - 8A Howell Avenue is not supported, as experience has shown that such numbering is often not clearly distinguishable to visitors either, from Nos. 1-8 nearby.

 

2.  Improving Signage

 

Three submissions received suggested improved signage could assist in resolving the issue of locating dwellings in Howell Avenue or Howell Place.

 

Council has in the past added to the signage at Ross Smith Parade (see AT2 – Photographs 1 and 2).  Although this additional signage may have improved the directions in the locality it would seem that it has not solved the issue.

 

Referrals

 

The views of Council’s Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services and the Traffic Manager were sought in relation to the traffic issue.

 

The Traffic Manager suggested the installation of two-directional street signage on the boundary of Howell Avenue and Howell Place, including dwelling numbers below the place name, on both sides of the road at the boundary of the avenue/place angled towards oncoming vehicles. In addition, an advisory sign (yellow sign with black lettering) would be put at the intersection of Howell Avenue and Ross Smith Parade indicating that Howell Avenue becomes Howell Place at the eastern end. The approximate cost for the signage and its installation would be in the vicinity of $800.

 

Solutions to the issue involving physical demarcation of the Avenue and Place (eg, a chicane), are very costly (in the vicinity of $25,000 including landscaping) and are not supported at this stage by Council’s Manager of Open Space and Urban Services or Traffic Manager. It is considered that this option should only be used if the improved signage does not resolve the issue.

 

Council’s Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services and the Traffic Manager support the proposal to improve the signage, as outlined above, for Howell Avenue and Howell Place.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council support the proposal to improve street signage in Howell Place and Howell Avenue, as outlined above, but not proceed to rename Howell Place.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Install two sets of two-directional street signs at the boundary of Howell Avenue and Howell Place, including house numbers below the place names;

 

2.         Install an advisory sign (yellow background with black writing) on the eastern side of Ross Smith Parade, at the intersection with Howell Avenue, informing visitors that Howell Avenue becomes Howell Place at the cul-de-sac; and

 

3.         Notify relevant residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Map and aerial photograph

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Photographs - existing signage and future signage locations

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 36

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 36

Subject:          Cunninghams Reach Boatshed - Linley Point    

Record No:    DA08/202 - 34900/09

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 3 August 2009 deferred ESD Report No. 147, Cunningham’s Reach Boat Shed for consideration at the first meeting in September 2009.

 

Since that time additional submissions have been received and a request by the applicant to defer the matter to enable a review of key issues.

 

This report restates the proposal and site details of the independent report (AT1) and recommends Council consider the same.

 

The Site

 

The subject site is public land, used for recreational activities by the general public and is administered and maintained by Lane Cove Council.  The site is an elongated park along the Lane Cove River, adjacent to and well below Burns Bay Road at Linley Point.  Vehicular access to and from the site is from Burns Bay Road, via a sealed, single lane, one way loop road that passes under the Fig Tree Bridge.

 

The key topographic feature of the site proposed for development on the western side of Cunningham’s Reach is a rock face of between 1-8 metres in height, set parallel with Burns Bay Road.

 

This exposed rock face and the filled land to the west was the result of quarrying undertaken in the 1960s.  Land above the rock face, extending up to Burns Bay Road, is steep and well vegetated, other than for a section of the loop road.  Land from the base of the rock face (site of the proposed structure) across to the river is essentially level, further confirming the extent of prior disturbance to this area of foreshore.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal consists of the following components:

 

Building/Structure

 

-           Extension and upgrading of an existing pathway to provide a defined pedestrian access from the car park to the river bank, which will continue north adjacent to the river for the frontage of the site.

-           Construction of a two-storey building.

-           Construction of a deck and ramp providing access to a pontoon in the river, set adjacent to the riverbank, at the northern end of the site.

 

Use of Structure and Site

 

The development would be used for the following purposes:-

 

-           As a modern training facility for Sydney University Boat Club only.

 

-           The facilities within the building would include video analysis facility, massage area, change rooms, toilets, hydrotherapy / recovery room and a small kitchenette for early morning breakfast for users (not the general public) of the facility.

 

-           Storage of sculls and rowing boats, small speed boats and occasional trailer storage.

 

-           The pontoon and jetty would be used for the launching of rowing boats being used for training purposes by the club members. The pontoon and jetty would also be available for usage by the public at all times. The public would not be denied access to the pontoon and jetty. The club would maintain the pontoon and jetty.           

 

-           The premises would be used as part of a junior program, which would be initiated, by Sydney University Boat Club and Sydney University Sports and Fitness. The junior development program is proposed to draw from local schools and junior residents of Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

-           Rowing boats stored in the building and used on the Lane Cove River would only be used for training at this location. Rowing boats would be transported on trailers to regatta venues elsewhere.

 

-           The development would not be used for a venue for regattas, a café, restaurant, licensed club, function centre, boathouse or for accommodation.

 

-           No loud speakers are proposed to be used on training boats on the waterways or within the site.

 

Number of Users

 

It is anticipated that approximately 25 athletes would use the facility in the morning and approximately 15 athletes in the afternoons, assisted by coaching staff of 1-3 people.

 

Hours of Operation

 

Monday – Friday 5.30am – 8.30am:

 

Training for elite athletes sponsored by the Institute of Sport (except on Thursdays at present). The training would usually involve the same group of athletes each morning who tend to travel together, usually 2 to 3 athletes per car.

 

Monday – Friday 4.00pm – 6.00pm:

 

A new juniors program for local school students involving approximately 15-16 children attending in the afternoons, with the majority of students travelling in groups in a small community bus.

 

Saturday 5.30am – 8.30am:

 

Training for elite athletes unless they are involved in racing e vents at other locations.

 

Saturday Afternoons:

 

New juniors program, same as weekday afternoons, although the number of students involved is likely to be lower than on weekdays.

 


Sundays Mornings:

 

Minimal activity (training for individual athletes if required).

 

Sunday Afternoons:

 

Closed, except to return boats after Saturday events elsewhere.    

 

Floor Space

 

-           Ground floor: 829sqm

-           First floor: 454sqm

-           Total: 1,284sqm

 

Setbacks from River

 

-           Minimum 9.756m

-           Maximum 14.562m

 

Maximum Height

 

-           10.3m (RL 14m)

 

Ground Floor Facilities

 

-           Covered entry and foyer

-           Male and female change rooms

-           Accessible facility

-           Coach’s change room

-           Hydrotherapy pool room

-           Lift and stairwell

-           Extensive boat storage areas

-           Repair bay, workshop and storage area

-           External boat wash area

 

First Floor Facilities

 

-           Balcony

-           Video analysis room

-           Massage/recovery area

-           Ergometer area

-           Kitchen and breakfast area

-           Office

-           Various storage rooms and amenities

-           Lift and stairwell

 

Commemorative Plaque

 

It should be noted that a commemorative plaque for the fig trees planted on site in 1995 is located on the cliff face. The proposed building would obscure the view of the plaque. The applicant has indicated on the submitted amended plans that the plaque would be relocated near the eastern end of the path near the proposed building. The applicant has not indicated whether the plaque would be mounted on a pole or located at ground level.       

 

As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to provide further details of the location and housing of the plaque.

 

Amended Plans

 

Following discussions with the applicant, amended plans were submitted to Council on 20 March 2009.  The changes include:-

 

-           Roof direction on upper floor;

-           Orientation of ventilated highlights;

-           External colours reselected to a grey/green scheme;

-           Change in external materials on upper levels to remove fibre cement sheeting;

-           Verandah shape carried from semi-round to rectangular;

-           Water tank numbers increased and regularised as a design feature;

-           The identification wall on the south side detached from the main structure;

-           The roof over the southern end (female change rooms) pitched toward the water;

-           Metal cladding above roller doors varied to be consistent with the roller doors;

-           Minor changes to internal layouts to accommodate structural changes necessitated by the change of roof directions;

-           The graphic faced perforated metal screens over windows change in some cases from rhomboid to rectangular shapes; and

-           Amendments to the stormwater and erosion control plans to accommodate the new layout of water tanks.

 

Previous Report

 

The report to Council (ESD Report 47) is attached as AT1 for Council’s information.  The report was undertaken by independent planning consultant, Wayne Siwak Urban Planning Consultant, who recommended that the application be approved as a deferred commencement consent that requires the applicant to provide a range of public facilities and comply with 150 conditions of approval.

 

Update

 

Subsequent to Council’s resolution of 3 August 2009 a number of additional submissions have been received in relation to this application.  The additional submissions are provided to Councillors under separate cover for their information.

 

Correspondence has also been received from the Director of Campus Infrastructure and Services requesting that Council again defer determination of the application to enable the University to review the proposal having regard to the key issues of:-

 

·     Impact on Parkland

·     Alienation of public land

·     Visual impact

·     Provision of public amenities

 

The correspondence is also provided under separate cover.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider the attached report and subsequent submissions referred to this meeting of Council.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

ESD Report No. 147 dated 6 July 2009

65 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 September 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 38

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 38

Subject:          Request for Boundary Adjustment - 32 Vista Street   

Record No:    SU2620 - 34918/09

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report advises Council of a request by the owners of 32 Vista Street for Council to consider a boundary adjustment along the southern and eastern boundary of 32 Vista Street to provide a reasonable setback to Holloway Park and to rectify encroachments by previous owners.

 

In essence, the owners have offered to swap an area of land adjoining their southern boundary with the intended result of increasing Council’s Reserve along Gore Cove and decreasing a similar area along their southern boundary.

 

Background

 

In late 2008 Council issued a 149D Building Certificate to regularise various unauthorised building works by the previous owners.  As part of routine inspections associated with the issue of the building certificate it came to light that not only was the dwelling built to the front boundary but the occupants had over many years encroached upon Holloway Park.

 

The subject land (13.7m x 43m) is located on the southern side of Vista Street with a side and rear boundary fronting parkland and Holloway Park as shown on (AT1) attached.

 

Discussion

 

Relevant Issues

 

Why would Council consider a boundary adjustment?

 

A boundary adjustment would enable Council to extend bushland adjoining Holloway Park and revegetate the same over a period of time providing increased amenity to the community.  The owners of 32 Vista Street would increase their usable open space adjoining their dwelling.

 

A land exchange would enable the encroachments to be regularised.

 

What is the process if Council agreed to a land exchange?

 

Holloway Park is zoned community land and Council has no power to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of community land.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Council formed the view that there would be value in regularising the encroachments, providing a reasonable outdoor entertaining area adjacent to the existing house in exchange for land adjoining Holloway Park, then the following process would need to be undertaken:

 

1.         The area of community land proposed to be exchanged for that part of 32 Vista Street would need to be reclassified as operational land within the meaning of the Local Government Act;

 

2.         An appropriate amendment to the new LEP would need to be made (possibly at the 12 month review); and

3.         A public hearing would need to be held for any proposed land reclassification.

 

4.         Should all the above be successful, an appropriate boundary adjustment could be undertaken.

 

Referral

 

The Manager, Open Space and the Bushland Manager were consulted on the offer made by the owners of 32 Vista Street and advised that they saw value to Council of a land exchange provided the quantum of land was satisfactory and useful for Council purposes.

 

Comment

 

Without committing Council to any final view on the matter, there would be a number of issues to be discussed and resolved in relation to any boundary adjustment, together with a need to separately consider findings and submissions to any reclassification of affected land.  Council would need to consider any future reclassification and LEP amendment having regard to the context and advice at the time of consideration.

 

Notwithstanding the process involved in facilitating a possible land exchange, it is reasonable that Council agree to discuss and investigate a land exchange if it is of the view such would facilitate an increase of the Holloway Park bushland and regularise encroachments by the previous owner of 32 Vista Street.

 

Having regard to the above information the following two options appear appropriate:

 

Option 1

 

Council decline the proposal and advise the owners accordingly.

 

Option 2

 

Council seek to further investigate (obtain a survey and other information) and discuss the matter on a without prejudice basis and report back to Council.

 

Should Council adopt Option 2 staff would undertake investigation and discussion with the owner and report back with the purpose of enabling Council to determine if it wished to undertake a public enquiry to change a part of Holloway Park from community land to operational land.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council give consideration to the offer by the owners of 32 Vista Street and advise accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Aerial photograph of the site with side and rear boundary

1 Page