m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Inspection Committee Meeting

5 June 2010, 9:00am

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Inspection Committee meeting, to be held on-site on Saturday 5th June 2010 commencing at 9:00am. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



 

Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Important Information

 

The Inspection Committee inspects sites in order for Councillors to inform themselves and listen to any person who has an issue or concern about the proposal.  It is appropriate that any debate and decision take place at a Council Meeting, not onsite.

 

Councillors enter premises at the invitation of the property owner/occupier, and Council encourages the property owner/occupier to allow relevant third parties to accompany the Committee on its inspection.

 

The Committee is governed by Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, and no recording of the meeting is allowed.

 

Committee Meeting Procedures

 

The Inspection Committee Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Win Gaffney.  Items referred to the Committee are referred to a Council or Committee Meeting for determination. 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.

 

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.

 

 

 


Inspection Committee Meeting 5 June 2010

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Services division reports

 

1.       71 Northwood Road, Northwood (9:00am)

 

2.       11 Kellys Esplanade (9:30am)

 

  

 

 

 

             


Inspection Committee Meeting Meeting 5 June 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 171

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 171

Subject:          71 Northwood Road, Northwood

Planning and Building Committee at its meeting on 17 May 2010 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Inspection Committee Meeting Meeting to held on the 05 June 2010.   

Record No:    DA09/254-01 - 7676/10

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

Property:                                 71 Northwood Road, Northwood

 

DA No:                                     254/09

 

Date Lodged:                          2.11.09 (Revised plans and additional information received between January and March 2010)

 

Cost of Work:                          $720,000

 

Owner:                                                P. & M. Murphy

 

Applicant:                                P. & M. Murphy

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Demolition of the existing dwelling house, the erection of a dwelling house on 3 levels, alterations to a garage roof earthworks and associated retaining walls and water tanks

ZONE

Residential 2(a2)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes  Lane Cove LEP 1987.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a & 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes:  27.11.09 - 17.2.10

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                              59-79 and 70B-80 Northwood Road; 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4 & 5 James Street; 8, 9, 10 11 & 14 Kellys Esplanade

Ward Councillors                    East

Progress Association             Northwood Action Group

Other Interest Groups             n/a

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The application is referred to the Planning and Building Committee at the request of Councillors Tudge and Brookes-Horn due to concerns about scale, height and impact on the neighbouring properties.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     Notwithstanding the recent gazettal of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, this application was submitted under the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP 1987, and Council is required to assess and determine such applications under the planning controls in force at the time of lodgement; i.e. the LEP 1987 and the Dwelling House Code.

 

·     The proposal is for the demolition of an existing 2-storey dwelling house and the construction of a dwelling house on 3 levels; alterations to the roof of an existing detached garage, earthworks and associated retaining walls in the rear yard; and water tanks.  The original development application also proposed an elevated swimming pool and associated fill (earthworks) in the rear yard.

 

·     Council requested additional information in November 2009 and suggested the swimming pool be reviewed.  Additional information was submitted between January and March 2010 with the following changes:

-      the swimming pool deleted,

-      a lesser amount of fill, and associated retaining walls, are proposed in the rear yard, 

-      although the width of the rear first floor deck has remained at nearly 5m, it’s useable width has been reduced to 3m so as to comply with Council’s Dwelling House Code  (the Code).

 

            The changes did not require renotification.

 

·     The proposed development results in the following non-compliances with the Dwelling House Code:-

-      dwelling house would be part 3 storey (excavation exceeding 1m is proposed to create a lower level),

-      some of the upper floor level would have a ceiling height exceeding 7m,

-      fill for part of the rear yard would exceed 1m.

 

·     6 adjoining and adjacent property owners submitted objections to the proposal.  Concerns include:

-      loss of views,

-      overshadowing,

-      overlooking,

-      height, bulk, scale and setbacks.

 

·     A review of the concerns indicates:

-      no significant views would be affected,

-      a courtyard at the front of 75A Northwood Road would be overshadowed in winter,

-    the adjoining properties on each side of the site, at 69 and 75A Northwood Road would be overlooked.  Height, floor space ratio and setbacks comply.

 

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

 

SITE:

 

The subject site is a rectangular lot that benefits from a right of way to its northeast that links it to Northwood Road.  The site is set back 50m from Northwood Road and has a separate footpath access handle 1.4m wide on its south side to this street.

 

The site has an area of 920m2 excluding the right of way and footpath handle.  It is located on the west side of Northwood Road, midway between this street’s intersections with James Street to the north and Birriwa Place to the south.

 

The site’s rear boundary adjoins an unmade access lane that is almost 5m wide and that separates this lot, and other residential lots at 69, 75A and 79 Northwood Road, from the two residential lots at 11 and 14 Kellys Esplanade to the west. 

The site has a fall of 12.5m.  The front portion of the site has a fall of 3m to the existing dwelling house.  This part of the site includes an established garden with a mature tree that dominates its centre and a detached garage for 3 cars located on the site’s south side boundary.

 

The rear yard has a fall of 5.5m.  The upper half is generally level and at the rear the site has a fall of 4m from an embankment that includes a rock outcrop to a level area that joins the access strip.  There is a Jacaranda tree at the top of the embankment and a Eucalypt tree at the bottom abutting the site’s north side boundary.

 

Existing development on the site comprises a 2 storey dwelling house that is elevated at the rear and a detached garage in the front yard.  The dwelling house has an attached deck/patio at the front of the first floor level, and an attached rear first floor level balcony.

 

Adjoining and adjacent development consists of dwelling houses.  To the north, at 69 Northwood Road, is a 2 storey dwelling house that is elevated at the rear.  To the south at 75 and 75A Northwood Road, are two single storey dwelling houses.  Adjoining the site’s front boundary, at 67 Northwood Road, is a 2 storey dwelling house in Northwood Road.  At the rear of the site, and on the other side of the access strip, is a single storey dwelling house at 11 Kellys Esplanade that is the subject of a current development application for it’s demolition and the erection of a 2-storey dwelling house and swimming pool (D235/09).  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal includes:

·     The demolition of the existing dwelling house;

·     the construction of a dwelling house on 3 levels with a curved metal roof that would include:-

-      attached elevated rear decks at the ground and first floor levels, with the first floor level deck incorporating a reflection pool and 2 planters;

-      a lower level rear patio;

-      a patio at the front of the ground floor level;

-      a lift linking each level that would be located in the centre of the dwelling house; and 

-      excavation towards the front part of the lower level close to an existing rock outcrop;

·     the removal of the existing tiled roof from the garage and its replacement  with a colorbond roof;

·     earthworks, involving 200mm-600mm of fill over the upper lawn area; 2 retaining walls, with a maximum height of 1.2m, and associated fill at the lower level of the rear yard; and a retaining wall, with a maximum height of 1m incorporating tree screen planting, along part of the rear boundary; and

·     water tanks under the dwelling house with a capacity of 14,700 litres and a 3,000 litre water tank adjacent to the existing garage.

 


The proposed dwelling house would have the larger and higher portion on 3 levels located in the centre and 2 - storey sections located at the front and rear. It would have side setbacks of 1.5m; this would increase the existing side setback from the north, but reduce the existing side setback on to south side. The 2 storey sections would have side setbacks close to 5m at the rear and close to 6m at the front.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

D374/06:         Alterations and additions to the dwelling house, approved March 2007.  Consent not undertaken.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

TABLE 1:        DWELLING HOUSE  (Dwelling House Code 2002)

 

Site Area (992m2:  920m2 excluding area of footpath handle of 72m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio       (max)

0.36:1

0.5:1

Yes

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

> 45%

35%

Yes

Side Boundary Setback (min)

Both sides 1.5m

1.5m:  2 storeys

Yes

Overall Height (m)       (max)

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)    (max)

8m-8.9m

7.0m

No, in part

No of Storeys

2-3

2

No, in part

Building Line    (max)

50m:  unchanged (existing battleaxe lot)

7.5m

Yes

Cut and Fill    (max)

 Dwelling house:

Cut:  1.9m

Fill:  600mm

Rear yard:

Cut: Nil

Fill: 1.8m

1m

 

 

 

1m

 

No

Yes

 

Yes

No

Deck/Balcony width    (max)

4.89m (3m useable)

3m (of useable area if elevated by >1m)

Yes

Solar Access  (min)

> 3 hours

3 hours to north elevation

Yes

BASIX Certificate

Supplied

Required

Yes

 

TABLE 2:  OUTBUILDING (GARAGE)

 

As existing, only roof to be changed

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Height (max to ceiling)

3.4m

3.6m

Yes

 

 

REFERRALS:

 

Development Engineer

 

Draft conditions have been suggested that would address the proposed rainwater reuse system, excavation, retaining walls, erosion and sediment control measures.

 


Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has recommended the following:-

·     (As the swimming pool has been deleted) the Jacaranda tree to be retained;

·     the proposed stormwater dispersal trench to be relocated no closer than 4m to either of the 2 trees in the rear yard;

·     all existing perimeter garden beds, and all existing plants contained within those garden beds, to be retained and protected;

·     the New Zealand Christmas bush located in the front yard to be protected, (pruning of one branch on its north side would be allowed for machinery access); and

·     the 2 trees in the rear yard to be protected.

 

Draft conditions have been suggested which would address tree protection measures; restrictions on excavation within 3m of any tree greater than 4m in height, including trees on neighbouring properties; and a limit on the extent of fill adjacent to the Jacaranda tree, amongst other matters.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

SECTION 79C(1)(a) THE PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Applicable Planning Controls

 

Notwithstanding the recent gazettal of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, this application was submitted under the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP 1987, and Council is required to assess and determine such applications under the planning controls in force at the time of lodgement; i.e. the LEP 1987 and the Dwelling House Code.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 (the LEP)

 

The proposal is permissible and satisfies the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a2) Zone. 

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The proposal is permissible and satisfies the relevant objectives of, the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

SEPP 55:  Remediation of Land

 

The subject site, and adjoining sites, is zoned for residential purposes.  Given the types of uses permissible within residential zones, it is unlikely that the subject site would be contaminated.

 

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 Part 3 of this SREP, the proposed development would be consistent with the following relevant clauses.

 

(i)         Clause 21 Biodiversity, Ecology and Environment Protection

 

Subject to the draft conditions recommended by Council’s Development Engineer, the potential adverse impacts from sediment and erosion control would be addressed to ensure that stormwater runoff from the subject site would not have an adverse impact on the quality of water entering Woodford Bay

 

In addition, other draft conditions recommended by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer that would retain and protect significant vegetation on the site, and provide screen planting along part of its rear boundary, which would also help to reduce the potential adverse impact from stormwater runoff into Woodford Bay.

 

 

(ii)        Clause 25 Foreshore and Waterways Scenic Quality

 

The scale of the proposed development is both compatible with the existing dwelling house on the site, and adjoining and adjacent development, and it would not create an adverse visual impact when viewed from Woodford Bay

 

(iii)       Clause 26 Maintenance, Protection and Enhancement of Views

 

The proposed development would not obstruct any significant views or vistas of Woodford Bay

 

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 identified in the SREP, and as such, is subject to the DCP 2005 that complements the SREP.  Comments in relation to the relevant parts of the DCP 2005 follow.

 

(i)         Part 2 Ecological Assessment

 

The proposal would comply with the stated performance criteria under Ecological assessment for the following reasons:-

·     It would not involve the removal of any significant vegetation; and

·     appropriate tree protection and soil erosion measures would be installed prior to any works commencing on the site subject to draft conditions suggested by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer and Council’s Development Engineer.

 

(ii)        Part 3 Landscape Assessment

 

The proposal would achieve the relevant stated performance criteria under the locality’s landscape character category for the following reasons:-

 

·     Existing natural features would be retained; and

·     the proposed development would be of appropriate height, bulk and scale within the context of adjoining and adjacent residential development.

 

(iii)       Part 5 Design Guidelines for Land-Based Developments

 

Under the Guidelines for Land-Based Development, i.e. development that is located above Mean High Water Mark, the following clauses apply.

 

Clause 5.3 Siting of Buildings and Structures

 

The proposal would achieve the relevant criteria under this clause for the following reasons:-

 

·     The proposal would not impact on existing vegetation;

·     the proposal would not obstruct views and vistas from the public domain to Woodford Bay;

·     the development would ensure that the proposed dwelling house would continue to address Woodford Bay; and

·     there would be no significant view loss from adjoining properties.

 

Clause 5.4 Built Form

 

This clause requires buildings to be designed so that they would be sympathetic to their surroundings.  The proposal would satisfy the Guidelines for the following reasons:-

·     Despite the proposed marginal increase in the overall height of the existing roof, neither the established ridgeline, nor the backdrop of significant trees along Northwood Road, would be impinged;

·     the proposed curved roof is a reasonable compromise to a preferred traditional hipped and/or gabled roof because its overall visual impact and level of overshadowing would be less, whilst providing greater opportunity for water views from dwellings on the Northwood Road side of the subject site;

·     the proposed colorbond roof would be consistent with the roof finish of a number of dwelling houses in the area, and the proposed external finishes, of natural colours and stone, would be suitable in the locality.  Draft condition 24 deals with the roof colour and reflectivity; and

·     when viewed from Woodford Bay the proposal would be of similar height, bulk and scale to the existing dwelling house and a number of surrounding developments.

 

Clause 5.6 Planting

 

This part requires remnant native vegetation to be protected and enhanced.  The proposal would retain significant trees on the site which are proposed to be protected by way of draft conditions recommended by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer. In addition screen planting is proposed along  the rear boundary;  this is to be indigenous to Lane Cove under a draft condition.

 

Applicable Regulation

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prescribes safety standards for demolition and requires compliance with Australian Standard 2601-2001.  A draft condition is included to address this requirement.

 

VARIATIONS TO COUNCIL’S CODES/POLICIES

 

The 3 non compliances in relation to the proposed dwelling house are discussed below.  The specific standard for each non-compliance, and a comment on the proposal in relation to that standard, is followed by the relevant objectives for that standard and comments on those objectives. 

 

(i)         Ceiling Height

 

a.         Height Standard 

No dwelling is to exceed a height of:

i.     7.0m to any point on the uppermost ceiling; above natural ground level.

Height shall be measured vertically from the natural ground level at any point.

 


b.         The Proposal

            The proposed dwelling house would have:-

·           a maximum ceiling height of between 8m and 8.9m due to its vaulted design below a curved roof which would allow for high ceilings over the first floor level rooms and this would affect the majority of the first floor level (excluding front and rear decks);

·           the perceived external wall height would be less due to the curved roof; and

·           The overall height of the building complies and the non compliance is a result of the vaulted ceiling design.

 

c.         Height objectives

The Code’s 3 height objectives, and a comment on each objective, follows:-

a.  Control the height, bulk and scale of new dwellings and additions to existing dwellings so that they are in harmony with the surrounding buildings.”

 

Comment

 

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling house would be in harmony for the following reasons:-

·     although it would be 200mm above the existing ridge height, it’s curved roof would mean it would be up to 1.8m lower on the sides than the existing eaves;

·     it would be 30mm above the ridge height of the elevated 2-storey dwelling house to the north of the site at 69 Northwood Road;

·     due to the area’s natural fall from Northwood Road to Woodford Bay, it’s height would be 4.65m below the height of the 2 storey dwelling house at the front of the site, at 67 Northwood Road, and 20mm above the ridge height of the adjoining 1 storey dwelling house to the south, at 75 Northwood Road;

·     its rear 2 storey component would extend 5.5m beyond the footprint of the existing dwelling house, and its front 2 storey component would not extend beyond the existing footprint;

·     its overall height and floor space ratio would comply; and

·     both it’s height, bulk and scale would be similar to the existing dwelling house; the dwelling house to the north and to the east of the site, and other part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling houses on the west side of Northwood overlooking Woodford Bay.

 

“b.    Minimise disruption to existing views or to achieve reasonable view sharing from adjacent developments with the height and bulk of the development.”

 

Comment

 

Although some views from the property at 69 Northwood Road would be reduced, this would be considered reasonable in this circumstance for the following reasons:

 

·     under a Planning principle developed from a judgment of the Land and Environment Court, less weight is given to side views obtained over an adjoining property;

·      views to the south, towards Lane Cove River, are achieved from an attached rear first floor level balcony over the roof of two single storey dwelling houses at 75A and 79 Northwood Road; this view would be likely to be lost with a first floor addition to either of these dwelling houses;

·      acute angled views, to the southwest, from two secondary side bedroom windows at the rear of both the ground and first floor levels, would result in a marginal reduction of water views of Woodford Bay that already are impaired by existing trees;

·      each bedroom has an adjoining attached rear deck with views to the west and south west over Woodford Bay that would be unaffected; and

·      the impact on existing views would be reduced by the articulation of the proposed rear two storey component.

 

“c.     Maintain reasonable solar access and minimise overshadowing of adjacent properties.” 

 

Comment

 

The objective for solar access under the Code is:-

“Provide reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas.”

In summary the standard under the Code is that there should be reasonable sunlight to habitable rooms and recreational areas between 9am and 3pm on June 22.

 

Overshadowing of the two adjoining properties to the south at 75 and 75A Northwood Road would increase.  Although 75 Northwood Road would receive additional overshadowing to its rear yard the increase would be negligible.  75 Northwood Road would be more affected: it has a front courtyard that includes a seating area and clothes line located between a carport and the front of the dwelling house on this site.  The following table summarises the existing and proposed overshadowing to this courtyard as a result of the development on June 22.

 

 

TIME JUNE 22

AREA OF FRONT COURTYARD OF 75A NORTHWOOD ROAD IN SHADOW

EXISTING

PROPOSED

          9am

all

all

         10am

all

all

         11am

nearly all

(1m2 unaffected)

all

         12 noon

2/3

most

         1pm

1/3

most

         2pm

1/10

1/2

         3pm

1/3

similar

 

This table confirms the following:-

·     that from 9am to around 12.30pm all, or more than half, the courtyard is already in shadow;

·     the proposal would increase overshadowing so that more than half the courtyard would be overshadowed for most of the day; and

·     from before 2pm about half the courtyard would be in sun up to 3pm.

 

However this level of overshadowing is acceptable for the following reasons:-

·     the garden at the rear, and the attached rear deck that wraps around on the north side of the dwelling house, would generally not be affected after 10am on 22 June;

·     the dwelling house has no north facing windows that would be affected by shadow; and

·     although additional shadow would be cast by the two storey rear component, this part of the proposed dwelling house would be set back 4.7m from the common boundary which is 3 times more than required under the Code.

 

(ii)        Storeys

 

a.         Standard

 

The Code standard is:

 

            No dwelling will be permitted to exceed two storeys in height above natural ground level at any point.  No dwelling will be permitted to have an elevation of more than three storeys.” 

 

b.         Proposal

 

The proposed dwelling house would have 2 storeys at the front and rear.  Its 3 storey component would be located at the rear of the proposed dwelling house.

 

c.         Objectives

 

Under the Code this comes under the objectives for Height and have been stated previously under the earlier sub-heading (i) Ceiling height above.

 

Comment

 

In addition to comments previously stated, the height objectives would be achieved because:

·     the height and appearance of the proposed dwelling house would be similar to the existing 2-storey dwelling house which is elevated at the rear; and

·     when viewed from the rear, the proposed dwelling house would not have an elevation of more than 3 levels because the first floor level would be set back from the 2 levels below.

 

(iii)       Cut/fill

 

a.         Standards

 

Under the Code the standards are:

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

2.   The preservation of existing trees.

 

b.         Proposal

 

The excavation proposed under the dwelling house would have a length of 12m, with 7.5m of this exceeding 1m in depth ( to a depth of 1.5m),

 

The proposed fill proposed for the rear yard that would exceed 1m would occupy 2 areas: 

·      one below the embankment 1.5m wide and another generally 2m wide located at the bottom of the embankment and in front of the retaining wall along the rear boundary.

 

Both areas would be about 6m long, with the maximum fill up to 1.8m in the centre and reducing towards each side. The fill in both these areas would be retained by 2 separate walls which, because of the stepped nature of the fill, would need to be 1.2m high.  A short set of concrete stairs is proposed along the north side of the larger area; these stairs would provide access from the rear part of the lower level up towards the embankment. Fill along part of the rear boundary would be 13.5m long and up to 1m in height, and would incorporate tree planting.

 

c.         General Objectives – Design, Density, Streetscape

 

The standard for cut and fill comes under the General Objectives of the Code which are addressed below.

 

            “a.  Dwellings be designed with regard to site conditions so as to minimise their impact on the landform.”

 

Comment

 

The proposal would require excavation into a rock outcrop under and towards the front of the existing dwelling house. As such this would not cause a significant impact on the site’s topography.

 

“b.  Dwellings blend into the natural landscape.”

 

Comment

 

As excavation is proposed under the footprint of the existing dwelling house the natural landscape would not be affected.  Standard 2 above would be achieved by the retention of the 2 existing trees in the rear yard and main tree in the front yard.

 

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

 

Comment

 

The proposed design has addressed the amenity of the adjoining properties because of the following:-

·     even though floor to ceiling heights of all 3 levels would exceed the minimum of 2.4m under the Building Code of Australia, maximum height would comply;

·     whilst overshadowing of the front courtyard of 75A Northwood Road would be increased, the proposal would generally not affect solar access to either the rear garden, or the attached rear deck of this property from 10am on 22 June; and

·     by including obscure and/or high-level windows on each side elevation.

 

However, the amenity of adjoining property owners on each side of the site can be improved by draft conditions 2 and 3 requiring the following:

·     the treatment of some other windows on the south side to reduce potential overlooking of the front courtyard of 75A Northwood Road, (see draft condition 2); and

·     privacy screens on the sides of the rear ground and first floor level decks and lower ground floor level patio (see both draft conditions 2 and 3).

 


SECTION 79C(1)(b) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(i)         Natural Impact

 

The site’s natural setting is characterised by:-

·     a mature tree in the front yard and 2 mature trees in the rear yard; and

·     the fall from its front boundary to its rear boundary, a rock embankment in the front of the existing dwelling house, and an embankment with a rock outcrop in the rear yard.

 

Comments

 

a.         Trees

 

The original proposal included a swimming pool adjacent to the rear boundary that would have required the removal of a Jacaranda tree.  Although the pool has been deleted, the proposal shows a dispersal trench requiring this same tree to be removed.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has recommended draft conditions that would:-

·     retain and protect the tree in the front yard and both trees in the rear yard;

·     impose restrictions on excavation close to both trees in the rear yard; and

·     restrict the level of fill next to the Jacaranda tree in the rear yard.

 

b.         Rock Embankments

 

As the front of the proposed dwelling house would occupy the same position as the existing dwelling house, the rock embankment would be retained. 

 

Although a retaining wall is proposed close to the rock embankment in the rear yard – in order to provide a larger more usable lawn area – the rock outcrop would not be affected.

 

Other than the excavation that is proposed under the existing dwelling house footprint – to create a lower ground floor level for the proposed dwelling house – the site’s natural features would be retained.

 

(ii)        Built Impact

 

Although the existing dwelling house is two storeys and elevated at the rear, the application proposes a larger dwelling house on three levels.  As a consequence, the impact of the proposed dwelling house would be greater.  These impacts are discussed below.

 

a.         Overshadowing

 

Overshadowing across both adjoining properties to the south, at 75 and 75A Northwood Road, would increase over part of the rear yard of the former, and over the front yard of the latter.  Despite this both sites would still receive solar access consistent with the objectives and standards of the Code.

 

b.         Overlooking

 

Although the two adjoining properties on each side, at 69 and 75A Northwood Road, are already overlooked, the design and position of the proposed dwelling house would increase this situation, particularly in relation to the rear first floor deck and lower ground floor patio.  Both attached rear decks, and part of the rear yard, of the former site, and the front yard of the latter site, could be overlooked.

 

Whilst some side windows are proposed to be obscured or highlighted, draft conditions 2 and 3 are recommended that would reduce the potential from other windows on each side of the proposed dwelling house, and from its two rear decks and lower ground floor patio, to overlook both adjoining sites.

 

In addition although the rear of the dwelling house at 11 Kellys Esplanade and it’s adjoining yard are already overlooked from the rear of the subject site, the changes to the rear lower level yard would alter, and potentially intensify, this situation by making the area more accessible. To address this, draft condition 4 is also recommended regarding the height of the proposed tree screen along the rear retaining wall.

 

c.         Views

 

Only the views to the south and southwest from an attached rear first floor deck, and two side bedroom windows, respectively, of the dwelling house at 69 Northwood Road would be affected.  Both windows are secondary bedroom windows and have an outlook across the rear yard of the subject site.  In addition each bedroom has a main window with views to the west and southwest.  The acute-angled views from both windows of Woodford Bay would be maintained, whilst the water views from the main bedroom windows across each attached rear deck would be unaffected by the proposal.

 

In summary, subject to draft conditions 2, 3 and 4 that would reduce the potential of the proposed dwelling house to overlook both adjoining sites and the dwelling house on one of these sites, and the rear of 11 Kellys Esplanade from the lower level yard, the built impacts of the proposal in relation to overshadowing, overlooking and loss of views, would be reasonable.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(c) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

 

The site has been used for residential purposes for a number of years and would continue to do so.  Subject to draft conditions that would seek to reduce the potential to overlook an adjoining residential lot on each side and at the rear, the site would be suitable for the proposed development. 

 

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

 

Six property owners made submissions in response to Council’s notification of the application.  The applicants have reviewed and their architect has commented on the submissions.  A summary of the concerns raised and the applicants’ response to the submissions is followed by comments on both documents.

 

1.         Loss of Views

·     Views preserved if dwelling house were located further to east; views affected because proposal would extend beyond the building line with 69 Northwood Road; if moved further east would alleviate concerns;

·     side bedroom views lost from 69 Northwood Road;

·     existing dwelling house has wonderful views to the rear (west); nothing gained by moving dwelling house from this position;

·     design lacks the consideration provided when the 1-storey dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road was built that preserved views from 69 and 71 Northwood Road;

·     surely irrelevant to justify view loss (from 69 Northwood Road) by arguing what may or may not happen to the development potential of other properties, e.g. 75A Northwood Road;

·     request upper level deck is not screened so as to preserve whatever views may remain from 69 Northwood Road; and are consulted regarding planting along the common boundary to this property so views are not reduced;

·     pool would affect views from rear garden of 69 Northwood Road; and

·     views from a proposed first floor extension (at 63 Northwood Road) would be reduced because height exceeds 9.5m and ceiling height exceeds 7m.

 

Applicants’ Response

·     The design achieves a reasonable balance of view sharing;

·     view loss to 69 Northwood Road has been exaggerated only a small portion of water views would be affected;

·     no building line applies to the site which is outside Council’s foreshore area;

·     the dwelling houses at 69 and 71 Northwood Road were built in the 1970s without an agreement/arrangement regarding views and prior to the construction of the dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road, and therefore there was no need to move the house to the west to obtain views; 75A Northwood Road was designed to preserve views from 75 Northwood Road; and

·     a first floor addition at 11 Kellys Esplanade would block out ground floor views. 

 

Officer’s Comments

·     A first floor addition at 75A (and 79) Northwood Road and 11 Kellys Esplanade would affect views from the subject site;

·     the site is not affected by a (foreshore) building line, nor the tests for a foreshore setback line, under Council’s Residential Zones DCP 1987; there is no building line applicable to the site;

·     the impact on views from 69 Northwood Road would not be significant;

·     moving the dwelling house to the east would increase shadow over the rear yard of 75 Northwood Road, and could adversely affect the main tree in the front yard of the subject site;

·     draft conditions 2 and 3 are recommended requiring privacy screens along the sides of the rear decks and the lower ground floor patio; in relation to the request under draft condition  3, the owners of 69 Northwood Road can decide, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, whether they would prefer for there not to be a screen along the north side of either rear deck; and, further, no landscaping is proposed along the site’s north side boundary;

·     the effect on potential view loss due to the pool is no longer an issue as this structure has been deleted from the application; and

·     whilst ceiling height does not comply overall height does; the proposal would have no impact on views from 63 Northwood Road.

 

2.         Overshadowing

·     Shadow plans show extensive overshadowing of the recreational areas of 75 and all, or most, of the courtyard of 75A Northwood Road; this courtyard adjoins a laundry and there is nowhere else to erect a clothesline;

·     would affect sunlight into the principal living area of this same property; adverse effects would be reduced if dwelling house was moved to the east;

·     solar access has not been maximised:  would need to increase setback and lower height to achieve this;

·     proposed height of garage not provided; any increase in it’s height would increase shadow;

·     the pergola over part of the rear first floor deck offers an opportunity for this to be covered at a later date and thereby increase shadow; and

·     pool would overshadow 11 Kellys Esplanade in the morning.

 

Applicants’ Response

·     The dwelling house at 75 Northwood Road would not be overshadowed, only a small area of it’s rear yard; nor would the windows of 75A Northwood Road; and

·     the overall shadow impact would be reasonable.

 

Officer’s Comments

·     There would be a marginal increase in the level of overshadowing of the rear yard of 75 Northwood Road;

·     whilst shadow cast over the front courtyard of 75A Northwood Road would increase, other areas would remain unaffected after 10am on June 22, including the rear yard; no north facing windows would be affected; therefore the increase in overshadowing of this property as a whole would be acceptable under Council’s code;

·     relocating the dwelling house to the east would increase overshadowing of the rear yard of 75 Northwood Road;

·     the garage height has been confirmed and is almost the same as the existing; shadow cast by a single storey structure is not a matter required to be assessed under Council’s relevant code;

·     the maximum height and setback of the proposed dwelling house comply,

·     any alteration to cover the rear first floor level deck would be assessed under an application which would include a shadow assessment; and

·     as the pool has been deleted 11 Kellys Esplanade would not be affected.

 

3.         Overlooking

·     The proposal would overlook the front verandah of 75A Northwood Road, as well as both side bedroom windows and both attached rear decks and the rear yard of 69 Northwood Road; this could be reduced if the proposed dwelling house was located to the east;

·     exacerbated by the proposed rear first floor level deck which does not provide privacy screens and has dimensions greater than 3m and entertaining potential; Council should limit it’s size and provide screens or natural screening;

·     the existing dwelling houses at 69 and 71 Northwood Road were positioned to maximise views and privacy; and

·     the proposed rear first floor level deck would overlook 11 Kellys Esplanade.


 

Applicants’ response

·     The useable area of the rear first floor level deck complies; its reflection pool and planters would only allow a part of the north side of the rear deck at 75 Northwood Road to be overlooked; otherwise the roof over this rear deck would prevent any further overlooking;

·     owners of 69 Northwood Road have requested we do not provide screens to the north side of the rear first floor level deck; and

·     there was no agreement/arrangement regarding the design of either of the dwelling houses at 69 or 71 Northwood Road.

 

Officer’s Comments

·     To reduce the potential to overlook the adjoining neighbours at 69 and 75A Northwood Road, draft conditions 2 and 3 are recommended requiring privacy screens along the sides of the proposed rear decks and lower ground floor level patio (draft condition 3 would allow the owners of the former property to determine if they prefer a privacy screen to be erected), as well as some windows on the south elevation to be treated to reduce overlooking over the front courtyard of 75A Northwood Road;

·     as the proposed rear first floor level deck has a useable width of 3m it complies; and

·     the significant slope on the west side of Northwood would make overlooking of 11 Kellys Esplanade inevitable from the proposed rear deck, as already occurs from the existing deck, and from the existing decks of other sites.

 

4.         Height, Bulk and Scale and Setbacks

·     Proposes a substantial home of 3 storeys, under impression not allowed;

·     would diminish the dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road due to the fall between the two sites, it would tower about 11m above this site’s courtyard;

·     it’s proposed bulk and height, together with the minimum setback of 1.5m from the side boundaries, does nothing to minimise it’s dominance;

·     because of it’s height, the proposed dwelling house should be no closer to (the south) side boundary than existing; question whether minimum setback is appropriate;

·     does not address site: a split-level design would be more appropriate and help to reduce it’s height and bulk; should be refused, or made to comply at least with all standards; insist height poles are erected;

·     design has been justified due to the slope of the site and to make the house “disable friendly”, yet has steps up to front door;

·     ceiling height would be achieved with a stepped design;

·     insist development adheres to height limits without any exemption;

·     viewed from the rear (11 Kellys Esplanade) proposal would be 3 storey

·     the site, and the development’s proposed floor space ratio, provides ample opportunity to distribute the development over a larger footprint;

·     if dwelling house were moved further to the east would eliminate dramatic view loss (to 69 Northwood Road) and overshadowing (of 75A Northwood Road); and

·     does not comply with building envelope control on both side boundaries.

 


Applicants’ response

·     The subject site, and the existing dwelling house  are both larger than the adjoining site and the dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road; the proposed floor space ratio complies;

·     if the dwelling house were built closer to the front this would abandon the site’s most attractive feature; where the site slopes at the rear the lower level would have no views over Woodford Bay because of the proposed dwelling house at 11 Kellys Esplanade;

·     the house at 75A Northwood Road has a blocking effect on water views and is a major factor forcing the design to the rear (west) to maintain reasonable views of Woodford Bay;

·     land in the middle of the site is higher than the dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road; this fact was exacerbated when the adjoining site was excavated to preserve views from 75 Northwood Road;

·     proposed height is similar to existing;

·     since the lower ground floor level would be dug into the site, height won’t change despite the proposed lift linking all three floors;

·     the dwelling house has a minimum side setback of 1.5m, although the rear two storey section is set back further from the side boundaries; and

·     viewed from the rear the proposal would be a two storey split level design; the third storey would be recessed.

 

Officer’s Comments

·     As the existing two storey dwelling house is elevated at the rear, the proposed dwelling house would have a similar impact; whilst overall height would increase by 200mm, the perceived wall height on both sides would be reduced by the proposed curved roof;

·     the proposal’s ridge height; floor space ratio and side setbacks comply;

·     whilst the impact on views and shadow are largely due to the rear two storey component, the side setbacks are 4.7m and 4.9m, or three times more than required under Council’s code;

·     the existing dwelling house has extensive views to the south and southwest from the first floor level which are, in part, achieved over the single storey dwelling houses at 75A and 79 Northwood Road; development on either of these two blocks could significantly reduce these existing views;

·     the extent of the rear two storey component has been marked on the site to assist in the assessment of view loss; the erection of height poles was unnecessary for this purpose; and

·     Council’s code does not have a building envelope control.

 

5.         Other

·     Trees: request Council condition an arborist to be on-site during demolition or excavation close to trees along common boundary to 69 Northwood Road, particularly mature Jacaranda on this property;

·     Right-of-carriageway: as the owners of the access to this site, and other sites, concerned that heavy vehicles may damage this and/or our sandstone retaining walls and gardens (at 65 Northwood Road); in addition concerned by the noise of vehicles and obstruction along the driveway; any damage needs to be rectified in a timely manner; access restricted to appropriate times, and the driveway kept free of building materials;

·     Pre-lodgement discussions:  between the architects for the development on the subject site and at 11 Kellys Esplanade; and

·     Stormwater:  currently flows onto the rear access lane and eventually onto the properties at 11 and 14 Kellys Esplanade; submission does not include a drainage plan to overcome this problem. 

 

Applicants’ response

·     Trees:  no response;

·     Right-of-carriageway:  would require contractors to only use suitable vehicles; this matter has been discussed with the owners of 65 Northwood Road;

·     Pre-lodgement discussions:  neither party alleges any agreement was reached between the respective architects; any previous discussion is no longer relevant; and

·     Stormwater:  The large water tanks proposed would collect more rainwater which would be reused reducing seepage onto the rear access lane.

 

Officer’s Comments

·     Trees: Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has recommended draft conditions that would address works in the vicinity of on-site trees and trees in neighbouring properties;

·     Right-of-carriageway: Council’s Design Engineer has recommended draft conditions regarding access and construction-related matters. Issues relating to damage is a civil matter between the respective parties;

·     Pre-lodgement discussions: Irrespective of any discussions between the architects for the owners of the subject site and the owners of 11 Kellys Esplanade, this report needs only to address any written submission by either property owner; and

·     Stormwater: Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a draft condition requiring the submission of a stormwater design for the development as part of a Construction Certificate. This, and the proposed rainwater storage and reuse system, would control runoff and reduce, if not prevent, seepage onto the access lane and neighbouring properties.

 

6.         Swimming Pool

 

The swimming pool has been deleted from the proposal.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(e) THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

The proposal is for a larger dwelling house on the site for the current owners, whose interests must be weighed against those interests of the 6 adjoining and adjacent property owners who have objected to the application. 

 

Of the adjoining property owners, the owners of 69 Northwood Road to the north, and the owner of 75A Northwood Road to the south, would be the most affected.  Other owners would generally not be adversely affected by the proposal.

This report recommends draft conditions 2, 3 and 4 that would reduce the potential to overlook the three adjoining sites at 69 and 75A Northwood Road and 11 Kellys Esplanade.  Otherwise the impacts on the first two of these sites in relation to loss of views and overshadowing respectively would be reasonable in the circumstance.

 


Further, since the proposed dwelling house would be almost the same height, and occupy a similar position, as the existing dwelling house on the site, the development would not affect its existing visual relationship from Woodford Bay.

 

The retention of the site’s existing 3 significant trees would maintain its natural setting.

 

Consequently, with a relatively limited impact on three adjoining properties, approval of the proposal would not be contrary to the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application is for the demolition of an existing two storey dwelling house that is elevated at the rear, the erection of a part two and three storey dwelling house, alterations to the roof of an existing detached garage, earthworks, and associated retaining walls, in the rear yard; and water tanks.

 

The proposal would result in the following three non-compliances with Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses (the Code):

·     uppermost ceiling height, which at between 8m and 8.9m, would exceed the maximum of 7m for all of the proposed rooms at the first floor level;

·     a third storey, contrary to the limit of two storeys, at the rear of the first floor level; and

·     both a degree of cut (excavation), of up to 1.9m under the dwelling house, and a level of fill, of up to 1.8m over part of the lower level of the rear yard, which would exceed the maximum of 1m.

 

In relation to these three non-compliances the following are relevant:

·     by contrast to the upper most ceiling height, the proposed ridge height would be 200mm above that of the existing dwelling house and would comply with the maximum height of 9.5m allowed under the Code;

·     the three-storey component would be 2.5m long; however, due to the slope of the main curved roof  to each side of the proposed dwelling house, the perceived external wall height would be lower; and

·     the area of excavation would be located under the existing dwelling house, whilst the area of fill would be relatively small and would be retained by two proposed retaining walls with a maximum height of 1.2m situated between the rear embankment and a 1m high retaining wall abutting the site’s rear boundary .

 

The proposed dwelling house would have a similar visual impact viewed from Woodford Bay as the existing dwelling house, and further, it would be similar in height, bulk and scale to some other part two and part three-storey dwelling houses on the west side of Northwood.

 

Consequently as the overall impact of the proposal would be reasonable, and not contrary to the public interest, the development application is recommended for approval.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application D254/09 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house, the erection of a dwelling house on 3 levels, alterations to a garage roof, earthworks and associated retaining walls and water tanks on Lot 3 DP 564291, and known as 71 Northwood Road, Northwood subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

Plans

 

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

 

·     0902/DA01, Issue E, dated 22.1.10 (as amended);

·     0902/DA02, Issue E, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA03, Issue E, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA04, Issue G, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA05, Issue E, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA06, Issue E, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA07, Issue E, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA08, Issue F, dated 26.2.10;

·     0902/DA20, Issue D, dated 16.2.10 (as amended);

·     0902/DA21, Issue A, dated 22.1.10;

·     0902/DA22, Issue B, dated 26.2.10 (as amended);

·     0902/DA23, Issue B, dated 25.3.10;

·     0902/DA24, Issue B, dated 25.3.10; and

·     0902/DA25, Issue A, dated 25.03.10,

                        by Flourish Architectural Services except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Specific

 

2.         In order to reduce the potential to overlook the adjoining courtyard at the front of 75A Northwood Road, the following privacy measures are required:-

·     the ground floor master bedroom window, and the first floor level meals and living room windows on the southern elevation, are to be finished in obscure glass up to a height of 1.7m above the finished floor level of each room or, alternatively, the sill height of each window is to be raised to this same level;

·     a privacy screen 1.7m in height above the finished floor level of the rear first floor level deck and lower ground floor level patio is to be attached along part of their south side. In relation to the deck, the screen is to extend from the adjoining living room wall to the support post of the pergola, i.e. a distance of some 3m; and in relation to the patio, the screen is to extend from the adjoining guest bedroom wall to be in line with the rear of the first floor screen; and

·     a privacy screen 1.7m in height above the finished floor level of each side boundary step is to be attached along its south side or, alternatively, a natural screen is to be planted within this side setback that would achieve the same height when planted.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

3.         In order to reduce the potential to overlook the adjoining property to the north, at 69 Northwood Road, the following privacy measures are required:-                   

·     a privacy screen 1.7m in height above the finished floor level of the rear ground and first floor level decks is to be attached along all of their northern sides unless the owners of this property submit in writing, to the principal certifying authority, to the contrary; and

·     in the event that the existing natural screen along the common boundary is not retained, a physical privacy screen 1.7m above the finished floor level of the rear lower ground floor patio is to be attached along all of its north side.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A              CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

4.         In order to reduce the potential to overlook the rear of the property to the west, at 11 Kellys Esplanade, from the filled areas of the lower level rear yard, the 5 trees within the setback area between the rear boundary and the adjoining retaining wall when planted are to have a height equivalent to 1.7m above the finished ground level of the site retained by this adjoining retaining wall.  PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

5.         In order to reduce their potential impact on views from the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling house to the north, at 69 Northwood Road, the height of the 5 trees along the rear boundary is to be maintained so that it would not exceed 5m.

 

6.         Engineering details of all retaining walls are to be submitted as part of a Construction Certificate.

 

7.         No approval is granted, or implied, for either a dual occupancy or a swimming pool on the site.

 

8.         In order to avoid possible confusion, floor plans submitted with a Construction Certificate are to exclude any reference to works proposed below the 29m contour.

 

9.         In order to prevent any new work encroaching on a neighbouring property, and/or the adjoining right-of-way access, all new work is to be located wholly within the subject site.  If any doubt is raised, Council may request the submission of a survey report.

 

General

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

13.       (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.

 

 

 

 

14.       (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.

 

15.       (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the dwelling house, garage and retaining walls.

 

16.       (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.

 

17.       (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.

 

18.       (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.

 

19.       (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.

 

20.       (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.

 

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

 

22.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED.  Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

 

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

 

24.       (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.

 

25.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile or colorbond corrugated galvanised or zincalume iron, in a mid to dark range colour and having an approved anti-glare finish.

 

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), the principal certifying authority may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

(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.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in the dwelling.

 

            This requirement is satisfied by:-

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in -

            (i)         Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

            (ii)        in Class 1b buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.4 and 3.7.2.5 of the Building Code of Australia

(b)        Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)        Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

 

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in:-

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms -

            (i)         between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

            (ii)        where bedrooms are served by a hallway, in that hallway; and

(b)        any other storey not containing bedrooms.

 

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

 

30.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

31.       (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

32.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

33.       (76) All machinery used on the site during demolition shall have a noise emission no greater than 75dB(A) when measured at a radius of 7.0 metres from the specified item.

 

34.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

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

 

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

 

37.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted under this application.

 

38.       (132)  It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

39.       (141) Long Service Levy  Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

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

 

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

 

41.       (143) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must make written application to Council for the provision of domestic waste services.

 

 

Landscape

 

42.       (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.

 

43.       (302)  Irrespective of this consent, permission from Council must be obtained for the  pruning of any trees protected by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

 

44.       (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.

 

45.       (305)  All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  If during the course of construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

46.       (306) All materials brought onto the site must be weed free.

 

47.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a 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.

 

48.       All trees and shrubs located in existing perimeter garden beds must be retained and protected. A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected on the edge of the perimeter garden beds encompassing all vegetation. The tree and garden protection areas shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection areas shall remain undisturbed.

 

49.       The New Zealand Christmas bush must be retained and protected. A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 3m from the trunk of the New Zealand Christmas bush located in the centre of the front yard. The tree protection area shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection area shall remain undisturbed.

 

50.       The Jacaranda tree, and the Eucalypt tree, at the rear of the site are to be retained and protected.  A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 4m from the trunk of the Jacaranda tree and the Eucalypt tree located in the rear yard. The tree protection area shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for advertising and soil levels within the tree protection area shall remain undisturbed.

 

 

51.       A waterproof sign must be placed on all tree protection zones stating ‘NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE – this fence and sign are not to be removed or relocated for the work duration.’  Minimum size of the sign is to be A3 portrait with NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE in capital Arial Font size 100, and the rest of the text in Arial font size 65.

 

 

52.       All tree protection measures and signage must be erected PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. This includes demolition or site preparation works, and tree protection measures must remain in place for the duration of the development, including construction of the driveway crossing.

 

53.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3m of any tree greater than  4m in height, including neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with no tree roots greater than 40mm diameter to be severed or damaged.

 

54.       (371)  There is to be no excavation, including that required for a dispersal trench,  within 4m of the Jacaranda tree, or the Eucalypt tree, located at the rear of the property.

 

55.       Fill on the east side of the Jacaranda tree must not exceed 200mm in depth within 4m radial distance of the trunk of the tree

 

56.       (382)  The Applicant must ensure that there are sufficient number of groundcovers and low shrubs established in the proposed garden bed adjacent to the rear boundary line. The plant material shall be planted at appropriate distances and depths to eliminate bare mulched gardens areas within twelve (12) months of completion of all landscaping works. The plant material used shall be indigenous to the Lane Cove area.

 

57.       (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

58.       (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.

 

59.       (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. 

 

60.       (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.

 

61.       (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.

 

62.       (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.

 

 

 

 

63.       (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.

 

64.       (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’.

 

65.       (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.

 

66.       (F1) Overland Flow around Buildings To prevent stormwater from entering the building the finished habitable lower ground floor level, and the front/east end of the ground floor level of the dwelling house, must each be a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level.

 

67.       (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a minimum effective capacity of 18,000 Litres. Rainwater tanks are to be installed in accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards. The plumbing requirements are as follows

 

§ Rainwater draining to the reuse tanks 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.

§ Rainwater tank is to be connected to all new toilets, one cold water washing machine tap and one outside tap within the development.

 

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

 

·     All roof areas are to drain to the reuse system with overflow to a dispersal trench

·     All other areas to drain to the dispersal trench

·     Environmental pollution control pit is to be installed just prior to the connection to the dispersal trench

 

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

 

69.       (D1) Drainage Plans new: A stormwater drainage plan prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

70.       (D1) Excavation greater than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5m of the proposed excavation.

 

The applicant shall:-

 

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

(b)  detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction

(c)  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 principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

(d)  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 principal 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.

 

71.       (T1) Design of retaining structures: All retaining structures grater than 1m in height are to be designed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer. The structural design is to comply with, all relevant design codes and Australian Standards. The design and certification shall be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

 

72.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 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 Occupation 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 14 days 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.

 

73.       (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

74.       (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 condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

75.       (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 any 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 Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Inspection Committee Meeting Meeting 5 June 2010

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 189

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 189

Subject:          11 Kellys Esplanade

Planning and Building Committee at its meeting on 17 May 2010 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Inspection Committee Meeting Meeting to held on the 05 June 2010.   

Record No:    DA09/235-01 - 10355/10

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

Property:                                 11 Kellys Esplanade, Northwood

 

DA No:                                     D235/09

 

Date Lodged:                          8.10.09 (Revised plans and additional information received in February and March 2010 and on 6 April 2010)

 

Cost of Work:                          $800,000

 

Owner:                                                M. Chew

 

Applicant:                                Archiworks Architects Pty Ltd

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Demolition of the existing dwelling house, the erection of a dwelling house on 3 levels, a swimming pool, earthworks and associated retaining walls.

ZONE

Zoned part Residential 2(a2) & part un-zoned under LEP 1987.

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes:  12.11.09-16.3.10

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                              4, 6, 8, 9, 10 & 14 Kellys Esplanade, 59-81 Northwood Road, 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4 & 5 James Street, 3 & 7 Holden Street

Ward Councillors                    East

Progress Association             Northwood Action Group

Other Interest Groups             n/a`

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The application is referred to the Planning and Building Committee at the request of Councillor Tudge due to concerns about scale, height and impact.

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     Notwithstanding the recent gazettal of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, this application was submitted under the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP 1987, and Council is required to assess and determine such applications under the planning controls in force at the time of lodgement, i.e. the LEP 1987 and the Dwelling House Code

 

·     The proposal is for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling house and the construction of a 2 storey dwelling house on 3 levels, a swimming pool in the front yard, earthworks and retaining walls in the rear yard.

 

·     Council requested additional information in November 2009 which was received in February/March 2010 and included revised plans which:-

-      introduced a ceiling height of 7m over the highest parts of the proposal so as to comply with Council’s uppermost ceiling height requirement of 7m;         

-      increased the setback of the first floor level ensuite from the rear east boundary from 1.2m to 1.5m so as to comply with Council’s setback requirement; and

-      provided additional landscaped area between the front of the proposed dwelling house and the proposed pool.

 

These revisions did not require renotification.

 

Height poles have been erected to show some corners of the proposed dwelling house and the highest points of the roof.

 

·     On 6 April 2010 the applicants have made a Without Prejudice offer to reduce the highest section of roof (over a foyer) by 600mm, this would lower the maximum height from 9.5m to 8.9m.

 

·     Notwithstanding the applicant’s offer, to further reduce the overall height of the proposal, draft condition 2b is recommended, which would remove the roof over the foyer of the dwelling house.

 

·     The proposal does not comply with the following controls:

-    floor space ratio (the excess would be the equivalent of 1.5m2)

-    cut (excavation) of between 2m and 3.9m for the garage level, and up to 2.91m in the corner of the rear yard

-    2 ground floor terraces would have a width greater than 3m, although privacy would not be an issue

-    the setback of the swimming pool from  the closest property (14 Kellys Esplanade) would be a minimum of 2.8m, although the majority of the pool’s setback would exceed 3m and therefore comply.

 

·     10 adjoining and adjacent property owners have submitted objections to the proposal and their concerns include:-

       -    loss of views;

       -    design;

       -    non-compliances with the Code (i.e. storeys, setback and landscaped area);

       -    overlooking;

       -    overshadowing;

       -    stormwater; and

       -    the pool.

 

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

 

SITE:

 

The subject site is a triangular lot with an arced frontage of 18.5m to Kellys Esplanade and an area of 862m2 that is located at the east end of the cul-de-sac in Kellys Esplanade.

 

The site’s longest boundary of 59.4m, is at the rear and adjoins an unmade access lane that is almost 5m wide that separates this lot and the adjoining lot to the south at 14 Kellys Esplanade, from the residential lots at 69, 71, 75A and 79 Northwood Road.  The site also comprises an unmade section of Kellys Esplanade acquired in 2003.

 

Existing development on the site comprises a single storey dwelling house that is elevated at the front and close to the street.  At the street frontage is a detached garage.

 

The site shares a common boundary with the following 7 residential lots:-

·     9 Kellys Esplanade to the north;

·     5 James Street to the northeast;

·     14 Kellys Esplanade to the south; and

·     69, 71, 75A and 79 Northwood Road to the east. 

 

The dwelling houses at 9 Kellys Esplanade, 1, 1A, 3 and 5 James Street, and 69, 71 and 75a Northwood Road benefit from views over the subject site to Woodford Bay.

 

71 Northwood Road is the subject of a current development application for redevelopment into a part 2, part 3-storey dwelling house (Council reference D254/09).

 

The locality is residential and includes a mix of dwelling houses, some of which are elevated to address the fall from the ridge along Northwood Road to the foreshore of Woodford Bay which many sites overlook.  The Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached as AT1 and AT2.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal includes the following:-

·     the demolition of the existing dwelling house and detached garage;

·     the construction of a rectangular dwelling house on 3 levels with an attached garage in a similar location to the existing garage, and a pedestrian entrance gate at the street frontage, a lift would link the garage level to the 2 residential levels above;

·     the construction of an in ground swimming pool close to the site’s south side boundary; and

·     earthworks in the rear yard.

 

Due to the shape of the site, the proposed dwelling house would have a west front elevation, north and south side elevations, and an east rear elevation.  The building is proposed to have a colourbond skillion roof with a pitch of 7.5o that would fall from the rear to the front.  Above part of this roof would be a foyer roof of the same material and pitch over the main entrance, and below this would be small sections of colourbond roof with a 1.5o pitch.

 

The proposed dwelling house would have attached, and partly elevated, front ground floor level terraces, and attached first floor front level balconies.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

No development records on Council’s computer system in relation to the subject site.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

TABLE 1:        DWELLING HOUSE

 

Site Area (862m2)

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio     (max)

0.502:1 (excess 1.5m2)

0.5:1

no, but conditioned to comply (See draft condition 2a)

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

>  40%

35%

yes

Side Boundary Setback (min)

Dwelling house:

·   east:  1.5m

·   north: 2m (chimney 1.7m)

 

1.5m:  2 storeys

 

yes

Overall Height (m)       (max)

9.5m ( 8.9m as offered on 6.4.10)

9.5m

Yes, but draft condition 2b would remove the foyer roof so that the overall height of the remaining roof would be 8.35m.

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

7.0m (as revised)

7.0m

yes

No of Storeys

2

2

yes (third level below existing ground level)

Building Line    (min)

(i) Dwelling house:

4.6m(to a fin wall)

 

(ii) Swimming pool:

1.3m – 2.8m

7.5m

 

 

 

No stated control

yes as it exceeds existing of between 4.3m and 5.5m

 

-

Cut and Fill    (max)

Cut: 

·   dwelling house:

       2m -3.9m

·   earthworks:

  2.91m in rear yard

Fill: < 1m

 

 

 

1m

 

 

no

 

 

 

 

yes

Deck/Balcony width  (max)

Ground floor:

·     5m -5.8m, and

·     3m – 4m

 

3m (if elevated by >1m)

 

no

Solar Access  (min)

> 3 hours

3 hours to north elevation

yes

BASIX Certificate

supplied

required

yes

 


TABLE 2:        SWIMMING POOL

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House  (min)

Generally 3m, but a 1.5m wide section  would be 2.8m

3m

No  (see draft  condition 3)

Setback from boundary if concourse is <500mm above natural ground level  (min)

n/a

 

n/a

900mm - from internal face of pool

450mm - from edge of concourse

-

 

-

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level  (min)

 

800mm (scaled)

 

          900mm  from edge of concourse

 

No (see draft condition 3)

Setback from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open space   (min)

 

n/a

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

-

Height (max)

2m (at southwest corner)

1800mm

No  (See draft condition 3)

Setback if height is >1800mm (min)

800mm

 

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

No (See draft condition 3)

Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?

yes

Screening required

Yes

 

 * Non – compliance subject to a draft condition that would require numerical compliance.

 

REFERRALS:

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Engineer has considered the proposal and has advised that the site falls within an OSD exclusion zone and that the application proposes a 10,000 litre rainwater reuse system. Draft conditions are suggested that would address rainwater reuse system, carparking design and the proposed vehicular crossing, excavation, retaining walls and erosion and sediment control measures, amongst others.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has advised that the landscape plan would enhance the development, and that the landscape design would fit in with the topography and would not have a detrimental impact on views. Draft conditions are suggested which would restrict proposed tree planting to a height of 8m, amongst other matters.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

section 79c(1)(a) THE PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Applicable Planning Controls

 

Notwithstanding the recent gazettal of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, this application was submitted under the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP 1987, and Council is required to assess and determine such applications under the planning controls in force at the time of lodgement, i.e. the LEP 1987 and the Dwelling House Code

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 (the LEP)

 

The LEP 1987 adopted, for the most part, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Model Provisions 1980.  Under clause 14 Council’s consent is required for development on a public road which, in turn, can only be granted for a purpose that would be permissible on adjoining land. 

 

In conjunction with the owner of the adjoining site at 14 Kellys Esplanade, a previous owner of the subject site purchased the unmade portion of Kellys Esplanade that divided both of these sites and that was intended to link this street to the access lane.

 

Under the LEP 1987 the land previously acquired was unzoned.  The original site area of 695.6m2 was increased to the present site area of 862m2 when the acquisition of the east end of Kellys Esplanade was registered in 2003.

 

Consequently the proposed development is permissible on the unzoned portion of the site under the LEP 1987 because it is permissible under the zoning of the adjoining land which is Residential 2(a2).

 

The proposal is permissible and satisfies the relevant objectives of, the Residential 2(a2) Zone.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The proposal would also be permissible in, and would satisfy the relevant objectives of, the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the unzoned land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential of the new LEP 2009.

 

SEPP 55:  Remediation of Land

 

The subject site, and adjoining sites, is zoned for residential purposes.  Given the types of uses permissible within residential zones, it is unlikely that the subject site would be contaminated.  The applicant has confirmed that site contamination is not an issue for this site.

 

Applicable Regulation

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prescribes safety standards for demolition and requires compliance with AS 2601-2001.  A draft condition is included to address this requirement. 

 

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 Part 3 of this SREP, the proposed development would be consistent with the following relevant clauses.

 

(i)         Clause 21 Biodiversity, Ecology and Environment Protection

 

Subject to the draft conditions recommended by Council’s Development Engineer, the potential adverse impacts from sediment and erosion control are addressed to ensure that stormwater runoff from the subject site would not have an adverse impact on the quality of water entering Woodford Bay

 

In addition, other draft conditions are recommended by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer that would provide planting around the site that would also help to reduce the potential adverse impact from stormwater runoff into Woodford Bay.

 

 

(ii)        Clause 25 Foreshore and Waterways Scenic Quality

 

The scale of the proposed development is compatible with some adjoining and adjacent development, and it would not create an adverse visual impact viewed from Woodford Bay

 

(iii)       Clause 26 Maintenance, Protection and Enhancement of Views

 

The proposed development would not obstruct any significant views or vistas of Woodford Bay

 

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 identified in the SREP, and as such, is subject to the DCP 2005 that complements the SREP.  Comments in relation to the relevant parts of the DCP 2005 follow.

 

(i)         Part 2 Ecological Assessment

 

The proposal complies with the stated performance criteria under Ecological assessment for the following reasons:-

·     the site has no significant vegetation; and

·     sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to any works commencing on the site subject to draft conditions recommended by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

(ii)        Part 3 Landscape Assessment

 

The proposal complies with the performance criteria under the locality’s landscape character category for the following reasons:-

·     the existing rock outcrop at the street frontage would largely be retained; and

·     the proposed development would be of appropriate height, bulk and scale within the context of some adjoining and adjacent residential development.

 

(iii)       Part 5 Design Guidelines for Land-Based Developments

 

Under the Guidelines for Land-Based Development, i.e. development that is located above Mean High Water Mark, the following clauses apply.

 

Clause 5.3 Siting of Buildings and Structures

 

The proposal achieves the relevant criteria under this clause for the following reasons:-

·     The proposal would not impact on existing vegetation;

·     the proposal would not obstruct views and vistas from the public domain to Woodford Bay;

·     the development would ensure that the proposed dwelling house would continue to address Woodford Bay; and

·     there would be no significant view loss from adjoining properties.

 


Clause 5.4 Built Form

 

This clause requires buildings to be designed so that they would be sympathetic to their surroundings.  The proposal satisfies the Guidelines for the following reasons:-

·     despite the increase in the overall height of the proposed dwelling house compared to the existing dwelling house, neither the established ridgeline, nor the backdrop of significant trees along Northwood Road, would be impinged;

·     the proposed articulated skillion roof is a reasonable compromise to a preferred traditional hipped and/or gabled roof because its overall visual impact and level of overshadowing would be less, whilst providing greater opportunity for water views from residential lots at the rear of the subject site;

·     the proposed colourbond roof would be consistent with the roof finish of a number of dwelling houses in the area; and 

·     viewed from Woodford Bay, the proposal would be of similar height, bulk and scale to a number of neighbouring developments.

 

Clause 5.6 Planting

 

Whilst this part requires remnant native vegetation to be protected and enhanced, the site has no significant trees.  Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has endorsed the proposed landscaping of the site.

 

VARIATIONS TO COUNCIL’S CODES/POLICIES

 

Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses (the Code) has objectives and standards in relation to specific controls.  The non-compliances are discussed below.  The specific standard for each non-compliance, and a comment on the proposal in relation to that standard, is followed by the relevant objectives for that standard and comments on those objectives. 

 

TABLE 1:        DWELLING HOUSE

 

(i)         Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

 

The floor space ratio for the site is limited to 0.5:1 and the application appears to exceed this by 1.5 m2. The proposal has been conditioned to comply, with details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.  (See draft condition 2a).

 

(ii)        Building Line

 

a.         Standard

Council’s minimum building line for a dwelling house is 7.5m but a  “….variation may be considered where unusual site constraints exist, or if there is an established building line of less than 7.5m and the proposal will have minimal impact on the streetscape.”

 

b.         The Proposal

 

The proposed dwelling house would have a greater setback from the front boundary compared to the existing dwelling house. However at its western end the proposed pool would be set back between 1.3m and 2.8m from the street, which would also be at it’s highest point (i.e. at 2m above ground level).

 


c.         Building Line Objectives

 

Although 2 objectives relate to a dwelling house, their intent is relevant to the proposed pool, the objectives are:

 

            “a.       Minimise the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape.

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

           

Comment

 

In relation to the standard, whilst the Code may allow a carport, or a garage, forward of the building line, it is silent on other structures, including swimming pools.  This has been addressed in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 which prohibits swimming pools forward of the building line.

 

Regarding the intent of both objectives draft condition 3 is recommended requiring the pool to be set back a minimum of 5m from the front boundary i.e. behind the minimum setback of the dwelling house, and the area between the pool and the street boundary landscaped to screen its west facade. Subject to this draft condition the pool would satisfy both objectives.

 

(iii)       Cut / Fill

 

a.         Standards

 

Under the Code the standards are:

 

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

2.   The preservation of existing trees.

 

b.         The Proposal

 

The compliance table confirms the following:-

·     the proposed cut (excavation) under the dwelling house for parking, and in the northeast corner of the rear yard, would not comply.

 

The cut (earthworks) required for the garage level would be 3.9m and 2m for the adjoining ancillary storage.

 

The cut proposed for the rear yard would be 2.91m at the northeast corner of the site where there is a rock outcrop. This would require 2 separate retaining walls along part of both sides of the rear yard. The terraces proposed in this area would also have (lower) retaining walls extending across the site that would incorporate tree planting.

 

c.         General Objectives – Design, Density, Streetscape

 

The standard for cut and fill comes under the General Objectives of the Code which are addressed below.

 

            “a.  Dwellings be designed with regard to site conditions so as to minimise their impact on the landform.”

 


Comment

 

Since the cut for the garage level would not be visible - only that part required for the front entrance next to the garage – it would have a relatively minor visual impact. Cut required at the northeast corner of the site would have a minor impact on a rock outcrop and therefore not cause a significant impact on the site’s topography.  The cut would also reduce the perception of bulk and scale of the structure on the land and is supported.

 

“b.  Dwellings blend into the natural landscape.”

 

Comment

 

Although the proposed dwelling house would require the removal of 3 trees, none are significant.

 

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

 

Comment

 

The proposed design has addressed the amenity of the adjoining properties by the following:-

·     even though floor to ceiling heights of both levels would exceed the minimum of 2.4m under the Building Code of Australia, maximum height would comply;

·     whilst overshadowing of one existing north facing window, and part of the rear yard, of the adjoining property to the south, at 14 Kellys Esplanade, would increase, this property would receive solar access that would satisfy the requirement under the Code; and

·     by including high level windows on the north elevation.

 

However, the amenity of the adjoining property owners to the north and south of the site, can be further improved by draft conditions 4 and 5 requiring the following:-

·     a privacy screen on the north side of the garden stairs, and on the same side of the first floor balcony off Bedroom 4, so as to reduce the potential to overlook the front verandah of 9 Kellys Esplanade (ie. draft condition 5); and

·     the deletion of the front first floor balcony off the main bedroom, and the treatment of the adjoining ensuite windows, so as to reduce the potential to overlook the north facing kitchen window and the rear courtyard respectively of 14 Kellys Esplanade (ie. draft condition 4).

 

(iv)      Deck/Balcony Width

 

a.         Standard

 

The Code states:-

 

            “3.       Elevated decks, terraces or balconies greater than 1m above natural ground level are not to exceed a width of 3.0m of useable area.  This clause does not comply where privacy is not an issue.”

 

b.         The Proposal

 

Under the proposal decks, terraces and balconies are proposed at the front of both the ground and first floor levels.  Whilst all of the first floor balconies would be 1.5m or less in width, 2 ground floor terraces would between 5m and 5.8m, and between 3m and 4m, in width.


 

c.         Privacy and Overlooking Objective

 

The Code’s Privacy and Overlooking objective is:

 

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

 

Comment

 

Both ground floor terraces are acceptable for the following reasons:-

·     the privacy of each adjoining property, i.e. at 9 Kellys Esplanade, to the north, and at 14 Kellys Esplanade, to the south, would not be an issue because:-

                   -           less than half of the front part of one terrace, and only the front corner of the other

terrace, would be elevated more than 1m;

            -           in relation to the former site, the dining room terrace would be set back 16.5m from the common boundary, and the northwest outlook in this direction would be blocked by an adjoining  2.2m high side wall to the front entry and a further 2.2m high side wall to the living room terrace; and

            -           in relation to the latter site, the family room terrace would be set back almost 6m from the south boundary, and it’s outlook would be over the roof of this adjoining property;

·     about half of the dining room terrace would be recessed behind walls; and

·     if the width of each terrace was reduced to 3m to comply (e.g. by increasing the adjoining grassed area in front of each terrace), the outlook from both would be the same, and a similar level of activity possible because the adjoining lawn area would be at the same level as each terrace.

 

TABLE 2:        SWIMMING POOL

 

a.         General Requirements

 

The Code has General Requirements, rather than standards, in relation to swimming pools and spas and these are summarised in Table 2.

 

b.         The Proposal

 

The proposed pool would have the following characteristics:-

·     a length of 20m and a variable width of between 2.3m and 4m;

·     a height of 2m at its west end closest to the street, and 650mm -1.12m at its east end facing the access lane; and

·     it would have a concourse along its north, west and part of its east sides, and a path for maintenance along part of its east and south sides at a level about 1.8m below the proposed level of its concourse.

 

c.         Objective

 

            “To promote good pool design which recognises site constraints and enhances the natural and built environment.”




Comment

 

The footprint of the proposed dwelling house, and the shape and overlooking of the rear yard, limits the location for a pool.  The proposed pool is located where most of it would be screened by the proposed dwelling house.

 

In a submission from the owner of the site on the south side of the pool, and closest to it, the author has requested that the pool should comply.

 

As the proximity and height of the pool to both the streetscape and the adjoining owner are of concern from both a visual and use issue, a draft condition is recommended that would require the following:-

·     the pool to be set back a minimum of 5m from the front boundary and 900mm from the south boundary; and

·     for the façade at the west end of the pool to be landscaped.

 

By requiring the pool to be set back further from the front boundary it would be consistent with the proposed setback of the dwelling house and its maximum height would be reduced to 1.8m (see draft condition 3).

 

Subject to this draft condition the proposed pool would satisfy all of the Code requirements, whilst its potential visual impact on the street and the adjoining neighbour would be significantly reduced.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(b) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(i)         Natural Impact

 

The site’s natural setting is characterised by its open front and rear yards which include small trees and bushes. The front yard is located above a 3m rock outcrop that forms an arc to the site’s street frontage.

 

The architectural plans show that all trees, except some at the street frontage, would be removed.  However, the landscape plan shows the 3 trees along the north side boundary to be retained.  Council’s Tree Assessment Officer raises no objection to the removal of the trees from the site.

 

Some landscaped terraces are proposed at the northeast corner of the site that would require retaining walls along part of the site’s north and east boundaries.  The relatively small portion of the existing rock outcrop that would be removed would not be significant.

 

Conclusion

 

Other than the rock outcrop at the front boundary which would largely be retained, there are no significant natural features on the site.

 

(ii)        Built Impact

 

Although the existing dwelling house is single storey and elevated at the front, the application proposes a larger dwelling house on 3 levels.  As a consequence, the impact of the proposed dwelling house would be greater.  These impacts are discussed below:


 

a.         Overshadowing

 

Overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south, at 14 Kellys Esplanade, would increase in the morning on June 22 over a north facing secondary window and glass roof of an enclosed seating area and over part of its rear yard.  However, this site would receive solar access consistent with the objectives and standards of the Code.

 

b.         Overlooking

 

Although the 2 adjoining properties at 9 Kellys Esplanade to the north and 14 Kellys Esplanade to the south are already overlooked from the subject site, the design and position of the proposed dwelling house would increase this situation.

 

The existing front ground floor verandah and a first floor level side bedroom window of the dwelling house at 9 Kellys Esplanade could be overlooked from the side stairs and a front first floor balcony respectively.  In addition the north facing kitchen window of the dwelling house at 14 Kellys Esplanade could be overlooked from the balcony off the first floor main bedroom, and the rear yard could be overlooked from the adjoining ensuite windows.

 

Draft conditions 4 and 5, are recommended that would require privacy screens for those features that would affect 9 Kellys Esplanade, and the deletion of the bedroom balcony and the treatment of the ensuite windows as they would affect 14 Kellys Esplanade.

 

c.         Loss of Views

 

In determining what impact on views would result from a development, the Land and Environment Court case Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) NSW LEC 140 has become the basis for the Planning Principle used to examine view sharing. In this the Senior Commissioner framed a series of questions which should be addressed in assessing the impact on views.  These questions, and an assessment of the impact on existing views as a result of the proposal, follows:- 

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

2.         From what part of the property are views obtained?  Assess views sitting and standing. The protection of sitting views across side boundaries are more difficult than from front and rear boundaries.

3.         Assess the extent of the impact for the whole of the property, not just the affected view.  Views from living areas (including kitchen areas) are more significant than from bedrooms. While the impact could be assessed quantitatively, it is more useful to look at the issue in a qualitative sense and ask whether the view loss is negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

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. Importantly, the Senior Commissioner said that “where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable”. View impact from a complying development would probably be considered acceptable, and view sharing reasonable.

 


The owners of the following properties raised concerns in relation to a potential loss of some of their existing views:

·     9 Kellys Esplanade;

·     5 James Street; and

·     69, 71, 75, 75a and 79 Northwood Road.

 

Of these the proposal would not have an impact on any significant views from the properties at 75 and 79 Northwood Road.

 

In relation to the other properties mentioned, a view assessment has been carried out with the benefit of the height poles erected on the site that address the general outline of the proposal including its corners, highest ridgeline and main roof line.  Comments on this view assessment follows.

 

9 Kellys Esplanade

 

This site is located to the north and has an elevated 2 storey dwelling house.  The proposal would only affect a ground floor side window of a dining area off a kitchen; whilst the entire view would be lost, it is obtained across the front yard of the subject site through a gap in those trees along its north side boundary which are kept trimmed for this purpose.

 

Extensive views of Woodford Bay from rooms at both levels at the front of the dwelling house would be unaffected.

 

In conclusion the view loss would be minor and is considered acceptable.

 

5 James Street

 

This site is located to the northeast and has a 3 storey dwelling house that has extensive views over the site in front at 9 Kellys Esplanade and the subject site from all 3 levels.

 

The proposal would cause the loss of most of the existing water views and general outlook from a deck adjoining two lower level bedrooms, a study and a courtyard, however, these existing views are significantly impaired by existing trees and bushes, and would be impaired by a larger single storey dwelling house extending into the northeast corner of the subject site.

 

The general outlook and water views from the main family rooms, including a kitchen and adjacent dining area (and adjoining balcony) and lounge room at the middle ground floor level, would be marginally affected by up to 1/4 in a south-southwest direction, whilst the general views to the west over Woodford Bay would not be affected.

 

At the upper level a study and adjoining main terrace, with extensive views of the Lane Cove River to the south and southwest and views of Woodford Bay, would largely be unaffected.

 

In conclusion whilst the impact on the lower level views would be severe the use of these rooms for sleep and study is not as significant a reduction as the views from the family rooms above.  Since the outlook from the main family rooms would be moderately affected, whilst the outlook from the upper level would largely be unaffected, the overall impact on the loss of views would be moderate and would not be considered adverse to the point where a refusal or further amendment could be supported.


69 Northwood Road

 

This site is located to the east and has a 2 storey dwelling house that is elevated at the rear. It has acute-angled views to the south and southwest, across the rear yard of 71 and 75A Northwood Road, in addition to views of Woodford Bay to the southwest and west over the subject site.

 

The most significant impact would be a loss of views from the middle and lower garden levels.

 

The general outlook would be maintained from the rear first floor level balcony off the main bedroom.

 

Up to 1/3 of the existing water views would be lost from the rear ground floor balcony, although the general outlook would be maintained.  Up to 1/2 of the water views from a sitting position inside the adjoining lounge would be lost, although this view is already impaired by an existing timber balcony balustrade.

 

It is noted that the view is obtained across 2 adjoining rear yards and part of the rear yard of the subject site. 

 

71 Northwood Road

 

This is a 2 storey dwelling house that is elevated at the rear and located to the east of the site.  It has extensive water views of the Lane Cove River to the south and southwest, and to the west across Woodford Bay from the upper level balcony adjoining family rooms.  The views of Woodford Bay are supplemented from 2 rear ground floor bedrooms, although this outlook is impaired by trees and bushes in the rear yard of this property, as well as the existing dwelling house on the subject site and large native trees close to the foreshore of Woodford Bay.

 

In conclusion whilst the first floor level views would be retained, up to 1/3 of the water views would be lost from the ground floor level bedrooms.

In conclusion as the views lost would be from bedrooms whilst the family room views at the first floor level would be retained, the overall view impact would be moderate.

 

75A Northwood Road

 

This site is located to the east and has a single storey dwelling house with views of Woodford Bay to the west obtained over the south part of the subject site, in addition to views of Woodford Bay to the southwest. 

 

This dwelling house has water views from the rear kitchen, the adjoining lounge and dining rooms, a bedroom at the south end of the dwelling house, and a main attached rear terrace that wraps around in front of the recessed kitchen located at its north end.

 

From a standing position inside the kitchen the acute angled general view would be reduced by 1/2, whilst the water view would be almost entirely removed. When sitting water views from the dining room would be reduced by 3/4, and 2/3 when standing.  The loss of water views from the rear doors of the lounge room would be up to 1/5, whilst those from sitting on the adjoining main terrace would be up to 1/3.

 

The outlook from the rear bedroom would be unaffected.

 

In conclusion whilst the general outlook from the kitchen would be severe, the impact on views from the adjoining terrace and 2 other rooms would be moderate.  Consequently the overall impact on the views available from this dwelling house would be moderate.

 


Height Reduction Offer

 

The applicants have offered (on a Without Prejudice basis) to lower the highest section of roof over the foyer by 600mm.  Generally this reduction would marginally improve the outlook of the dwelling houses further to the north, not the outlook from 75A Northwood Road.  The main outlook from the rear of the dwelling house at 75A Northwood Road would generally be over the south end of the proposed dwelling house roof which would have a maximum height of 8m. Although the original proposal  satisfies Council’s maximum height limit of 9.5m, the applicant’s offer would reduce the maximum height to 8.9m.

 

Notwithstanding the numerical height compliance that the design offers, view loss from a number of adjoining residences would be problematic.  To address this circumstance draft condition 2b is recommended which would remove the highest section of roof over the main foyer entrance.

 

Subject to draft conditions that would reduce the potential of the proposed dwelling house to overlook the 2 adjoining sites at 9 and 14 Kellys Esplanade, and remove the foyer roof, the built impacts of the proposal in relation to overshadowing, overlooking and loss of views, would be reasonable and overall the proposed dwelling house would satisfy the requirements of Council’s Code in relation to view sharing. 

 

SECTION 79C(1)(c) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

 

The site has 3 major constraints to its development, namely:-

·     capturing morning sun which is made difficult by the higher position of dwelling houses to the north and northeast;

·     it is a triangle; and

·     it adjoins 7 residential lots, of which 5 enjoy views over it of Woodford Bay and/or the Lane Cove River.

 

The house has been designed:-

·     so as to receive morning sun;

·     so as to maximise views of Woodford Bay from a number of rooms at both levels; and

·     so that its highest section is located towards the site’s northeast corner, where there are neighbouring trees that would help to reduce its visual impact (notwithstanding the recent pruning of trees in this area).

 

With a significant number of dwelling houses adjoining the site, some adverse impacts on some adjoining residential lots, of which 5 have views of Woodford Bay over the site, would be likely.  Whilst the views from all 5 neighbouring dwelling houses would be affected, and with 2 dwelling houses subject to some degree of overlooking, the extent of the former is not so significant as to require the proposal to be refused, or redesigned, the extent of both impacts can be reduced to a reasonable level by draft conditions.

 

The site has been used for residential purposes for a number of years and would continue to do so.  Subject to draft conditions that would seek to reduce both the proposal’s overall height impact, and its potential to overlook an adjoining dwelling house to the north, and another to the south, the site would be suitable for the proposed development. 

 


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

 

10 property owners have made submissions in response to Council’s notification of the application.  The applicants have reviewed and commented on the submissions.  A summary of the concerns raised, and the applicants’ response to the submissions, is followed by comments on both documents.

 

1.         Loss of Views (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Would affect the following 8 residential sites:  69, 71, 75, 75A and 79 Northwood Road, 3 and 5 James Street, and 9 Kellys Esplanade;

·     In relation to 69 Northwood Road:  would have a significant and dramatic effect on views and amenity, were not consulted, would affect garden views, don’t want landscaping to block views – wish to nominate species to achieve screening;

·     71 Northwood Road:  request 1m height  reduction;

·     75 Northwood Road:  would block distant views;

·     75A Northwood Road: as views of Woodford Bay would be dramatically reduced this would substantially diminish value of dwelling house;

·     5 James Street:  would block views from lower level bedrooms and the living rooms above;

·     9 Kellys Esplanade:  would lose side view and an open and leafy outlook of the rear yard of the subject site;

·     Excavate further to achieve reasonable view sharing, and slope roof down to the east, not up from the east;

·     Height and overall size should be significantly reduced;

·     Design should be stepped with the low portion at the southern end; and

·     The southern end should be 1 storey.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     Neighbours concerned about maintaining and maximising own views at the expense of restricting and objecting to the rights of the site owners to redevelop their property;

·     Adjoining owners do not have exclusive rights over outlooks and views, owners of site deserve a share of the available views;

·     Dwelling houses at the rear are on higher ground and overlook the site;

·     Ensuite of main bedroom (at south end) revised, this would improve views;

·     Height poles would determine degree of view loss, if any, to 5 James Street, existing large trees already obstruct any views;

·     Does not affect views from 3 James Street;

·     As 75 Northwood Road is higher, view loss would be minimal, if at all;

·     The majority of the views to the west and southwest from 75A Northwood Road would be largely unaffected;

·     The site is a unique shape and has 7 neighbouring lots, therefore objections likely, but Council’s Code applies equally;

·     Would be a marginal view loss from 9 Kellys Esplanade:  this side view is narrow and temporary due to trimming of tree foliage, views to the west would be unaffected; and

·     As objectors’ sites are not water frontage they can be built out and therefore future developments will affect existing views.

 

Comment

·     Height poles have been erected on the site and an assessment of view loss undertaken.  Whilst only the views from the properties at 69, 71 and 75A Northwood Road, 3 and 5 James Street, and 9 Kellys Esplanade would be affected, the view assessment has found the overall view loss to be reasonable;

·     The applicant has submitted a Without Prejudice offer to reduce the height of the roof over the highest points of the development by 600mm, although the proposed maximum height of 9.5m complies with the Code, the revised height would reduce this to 8.9m; subject to draft condition 2b that requires the roof over the foyer entrance to be removed, overall view loss can be further reduced to overcome the problematic effects of view loss on a number of adjoining residences;

·     Trees are proposed to be planted on the site and Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has recommended a draft condition that would limit the height of all trees so as to provide some screening of the proposal without adversely affecting water views; and

·     This report recommends that a development consent be subject to confirmation that the proposal would not exceed the maximum floor space under the Code and that the foyer roof is removed.

 

2.         Design (Objector’s concerns)

·     Triangular lot does not support a dwelling house of this size and should be refused;

·     An alternative split level design would achieve a ridge height approximately the same as the existing;

·     Out of character;

·     Query overall cost;

·     Should not deviate from height controls;

·     Request development is pegged out and height poles erected;

·     Use of glass on west facing façade is contrary to the Code’s objectives in relation to Energy Efficiency, should plant large deciduous tree;

·     Roof colour not specified, concerned with glare;

·     May block the light to the lower bedroom level of 5 Kellys Esplanade;

·     Anticipate increased noise levels from rear windows;

·     Does not blend into the landscape; and

·     Would cause a loss of trees at the front.

 

Applicant’s response

·     Designed to comply to minimise effect;

·     Design provides a balance between the proposal and surrounding dwelling houses;

·     Dwelling house would be lower due to excavation;

·     The proposed design is the best outcome for the owners and neighbours: a split level design and a sloping roof would not follow the topography of the site and would be uninspiring, outdated and unsuitable;

·     Won’t block light to 5 Kellys Esplanade as it is located on higher ground and to the north;

·     Noise generation is a reality of family life, the design is not a pub or a building for a public venue;

·     Is more articulated that surrounding dwelling houses;

·     The area has a mixed design character and therefore the proposal would easily fit in;

·     Logically blends in as it is designed along the length of the site and set further back from the street;

·     As the roof would slope away from neighbours, roof glare would not be an issue;

·     Relocating the main bedroom ensuite (to the northeast corner) would affect other properties;

·     Stepping the design up from the south to the north would not be acceptable to neighbours closer to the north side;

·     Glass on the west façade is a feature of other dwelling houses including 9 Kellys Esplanade and allows views to be captured; and

·     In regard to energy efficiency, the site constraints, setback and outlook, have predetermined the proposal along an east-west access, it is reasonable to maximise views, would expect the owners of dwelling houses at the rear of the site to do this as indicated by their view concerns, complies with BASIX requirements.

 

Comment

·     The site has unique features including its shape, elevation above the street and proximity to an access lane and a number of adjoining properties, it is recognised that any 2 storey dwelling house on the site would be likely to have some adverse impacts on some adjoining property owners including potential loss of views;

·     The proposed 2 storey dwelling house is permissible on the site and there is no requirement that a design should reflect the ridge height of the existing 1 storey dwelling house;

·     The design, including a number of windows and metal roof, reflects contemporary trends, particularly where water views can be obtained, the cost estimate is reasonable;

·     The BASIX Certificate confirms that the proposal would comply with the required energy, thermal  comfort and water targets set by the State government, a large tree planted in front of the dwelling house could affect water views from adjoining properties;

·     A draft condition is recommended requiring the metal roof to have an approved antiglare finish in a mid to dark colour range;

·     All boundary setbacks comply; and

·     Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has raised no concern with the removal of trees from the site.

 

3.         Non-compliances (Objector’s concerns)

·     3 storeys;

·     Insufficient landscaped area;

·     East setback (to access lane) only 700mm; and

·     Allow 1storey at south end as a compromise to non-compliances.

 

 

 

Applicant’s Response

·     As the third level would be below ground satisfies the Code definition of a storey, hence only 2 storeys proposed;

·     Height and size comply:  the majority of roofline is more than 1m below maximum height of 9.5m;

·     The setback of the first floor level ensuite has been revised to comply;

·     The 700mm setback from the east boundary is to the roof overhang, not the external wall, the overhang helps to break up the building;

·     East setback (from access lane) is 1.5m or more;

·     Proposed landscaped area satisfies the Code and is an improvement on the existing,  landscape plan confirms planting; and

·     The setback from the north side complies as the minimum would exceed 1.5m.

 

Comment

·     The applicant’s response is endorsed.

 

4.         Access Lane (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Retaining wall would be a danger to use; and

·     Fencing should comply with the Code requirement for land adjoining bushland.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     Where the fall would exceed 1m a permanent safety fence would be erected as required under the Building Code of Australia; and

·     The survey confirms the Right-of-Way has no fencing on the side adjoining the subject site.

 

Comment

·     A draft condition is recommended requiring all aspects of the development to satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, including safety fencing; and

·     The subject site does not adjoin bushland.

 

5.         Overlooking (Objector’s concerns)

·     Now height poles are in place concerned the rear garden and verandah (of 14 Kellys Esplanade) could be overlooked from the first floor level main bedroom and adjoining ensuite; and

·     Due to the slope at the rear of 71 Northwood Road, concerned the rear rooms would overlook this dwelling house (despite the 23m setback and the 10m difference in level).

 

Applicant’s Response

·     Mo response to the first concern which was received after the notification period; and

·     The design incorporates highlight windows at the rear, this, plus a separation exceeding 9m, would not create an overlooking problem to 71 Northwood Road.

 

Comment

·     Draft condition 4 is recommended requiring the deletion of the front first floor balcony off the main bedroom and treatment of the adjoining ensuite windows; and

·     The applicant’s response in relation to the concerns raised by the owners of 71 Northwood Road is endorsed.

 

6.         Overshadowing (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Drying area at the rear of 14 Kellys Esplanade, is not currently overshadowed in winter, but would be; and

·     As the roof of 14 Kellys Esplanade would be overshadowed request the roofline is lowered.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     No response as the concern was received after the notification period.

 

Comment

·     Whilst the proposed development would create additional overshadowing of this property it would be within the requirements of the Code.

 

7.         Swimming Pool (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Request pool fully complies with the Code; and

·     Query whether the concourse has a safety issue as no fence is shown along pool edge or boundary.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     The landscape plan includes a 1m high glass balustrade along the common boundary to this property.

 

Comment

·     Draft condition 3 is recommended requiring full compliance with the Code including an increase in the setback of the pool from the site’s south boundary, a front setback consistent with the proposed building line of the dwelling house and the treatment of the pool façade; and

·     A draft condition requires the pool fence to comply with the requirements of the relevant swimming pool legislation and regulation, and Australian Standard.

 

8.         Stormwater (Objector’s concerns)

 

·     Main concern (to 14 Kellys Esplanade) is runoff; and

·     Also concerned with overflow from swimming pool (as it is very close to the common boundary with 14 Kellys Esplanade).

 

Applicant’s Response

·     The proposed landscaped area complies and in addition, the proposed 10,000 litre rainwater tank would collect roof water as required by the submitted BASIX Certificate; and

·     Landscape plan shows planting along the border to 14 Kellys Esplanade.

 

Comment

·     Council’s Development Engineer has recommended draft conditions that would require site drainage, including the pool concourse, to be directed into the development’s drainage system, whilst any overflow from the pool would be required to drain to the sewer as required by Sydney Water under a separate draft condition.  Subject to these, and other conditions relating to the development’s proposed 10,000 litre rainwater reuse tank, there should be less runoff from the site than existing; and

·     The submitted landscape plan shows a natural/soft area that exceeds the requirement of the Code.

 

9.         Landscaping (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Would not be able to screen east side due to narrow setback; and

·     Don’t want landscaping to block views:  would like to nominate species to achieve screening.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     There would be adequate morning sun for plant growth along the east setback;

·     Landscaping has been designed to address the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan and its DCP requirements; and

·     Landscaping adjacent to 9 Kellys Esplanade would be retained.

Comment

·     Council’s Tree Assessment Officer recommends that the submitted landscape plan is approved, and a draft condition restricts the height of tree planting; and

·     The landscape plan confirms trees adjacent to the common boundary with 9 Kellys Esplanade would be removed.

 

10.       Traffic (Objector’s Concerns)

·     Both the demolition and construction stages would seriously disrupt all those people using Kellys Esplanade.

 

Applicant’s Response

·     Disruption to Kellys Esplanade would be unavoidable.

 

Comment

·     Council’s Development Engineer has confirmed that a construction management plan, or the like, is not required for the redevelopment of a site for a dwelling house.  Some disruption to Kellys Esplanade would be unavoidable, but breaches of parking regulations can be enforced by Council’s Rangers.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(e) THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

The property owners who have raised concerns about the proposal include 7 adjoining owners:  i.e. 1 to the south, 2 to the north, and 4 to the east.  In addition the proposal’ s visual impact viewed from Woodford Bay must also be assessed.

 

Of the adjoining property owners, the owners of 14 Kellys Esplanade to the south, 9 Kellys Esplanade and 5 James Street to the north, and 69 and 75A Northwood Road to the east, would be the most affected.  Other owners would generally not be adversely affected by the proposal.

 

This report recommends draft conditions 4 and 5 that would reduce the potential to overlook the 2  adjoining properties at 9 and14 Kellys Esplanade.

 

Of most concern to the majority of objectors is the proposal’s impact on their existing views of Woodford Bay.  Although the impact on some of the views from the owners of 5 James Street and the owners of 69 and 75A Northwood Road would be severe to devastating, this would be limited to some rooms, not all rooms, or in one case, the rear yard.  Each of these 3 properties, as well as others where the views would be less affected, would retain significant water views from other rooms and/or adjoining decks, balconies or terraces.  Based on the Land and Environment Court’s Planning Principle in relation to view sharing, and taking into account the generally complying nature of the development in relation to Council’s Code, and the unique character of the site, and a draft condition (2b) that would require the foyer roof to be deleted, the proposal’s impact on existing views would be acceptable.

 

Whilst the proposal would be more visible from Woodford Bay than the existing dwelling house, its overall height, bulk and scale would be similar to many existing part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling houses on the west side of Northwood Road, including those dwelling houses adjacent to the foreshore.  Viewed from some locations around Woodford Bay, the proposal would be screened to a significant extent by existing trees adjacent to the foreshore.  The proposal’s visual impact would be partly due to the lack of existing on-site trees. Although tree planting is proposed, Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has recommended a draft condition that would restrict the height of new trees so as to reduce the proposal’s impact on existing views. 

 

Although the proposal’s impact on existing views from adjoining properties would generally be reasonable, draft conditions 2a and 2b are recommended and would reduce this impact and address its potential to overlook 2 adjoining properties, respectively, the development would not be contrary to the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application is for the demolition of an existing 1 storey dwelling house, and the erection of a 2 storey dwelling house on 3 levels with a swimming pool in the front yard and earthworks and associated retaining walls in the rear yard.

 

The subject site is irregular in shape and topography and problematic from a view sharing perspective.

 

As part of the assessment process discussions with the applicant took place.  As a result of these discussions the applicant has offered to reduce the highest section of the roof by 600mm, draft condition 2b is recommended which requires this (foyer) roof to be deleted.

 

The proposal would result in the following non-compliances with Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses (the Code):-

·     a floor space ratio of 0.502:1, which equates to a 1.5m2 excess over the maximum floor space permissible (draft condition 2a requires compliance);

·     cut (excavation) of between 2m and 3.9m to create the garage level and up to 2.91m in the northeast corner of the rear yard, this is considered satisfactory as it reduces bulk and height;

·     2 front ground floor terraces that would be partly elevated above 1m and that would exceed a maximum width of 3m (draft conditions 4 and 5 are proposed to address impact); and

·     part of the proposed swimming pool would not be set back the minimum distance from the adjoining dwelling house and common boundary.(see draft condition 3).

 

In relation to these non-compliances the following are relevant:-

·     the floor space excess is recommended to be subject to a draft condition 2a so as to ensure that the proposal would not exceed the maximum permissible floor space allowed on the site;

·     the area of excavation in the rear yard would address its initial significant fall, whilst that proposed at the front of the site would be acceptable because it would reduce on-street congestion by providing a 4 car garage in a narrow street with limited parking;

·     as one ground floor terrace would have a restricted outlook to each side, whilst its setback from both side boundaries would be significant, and the outlook from the other terrace would be over the roof of an adjoining dwelling house, overlooking would not be an issue; and

·     draft condition 3 would require all of the proposed swimming pool (concourse) to be set back a minimum of 3m from the dwelling house and 900mm from the common boundary to 14 Kellys Esplanade, in addition to requiring the pool to be setback further from the street.

 

Of the 10 property owners who have made a submission, 7 are adjoining owners.  The main concerns raised are in relation to loss of views, non-compliance with the Code, overlooking and overshadowing. The majority of adjoining owners have views over the subject site. The proposed 2 storey dwelling house would have some impact on these views. 

 

The proposed dwelling house would satisfy the objectives for the zoning of the site at the time the DA was submitted, and the current zoning of the site under the Lane Cove LEP 2009, because it would:-

·     retain existing residential amenity; and

·     not be highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River (i.e. Woodford Bay).

 

Whilst the proposed dwelling house would have a more significant visual impact viewed from Woodford Bay compared to the existing dwelling house, it would be similar in height, bulk and scale to some other part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling houses on the west side of Northwood Road, including some close to the foreshore.

 

Consequently as the overall impact of the proposal would be reasonable, and not contrary to the public interest, the development application is recommended for approval.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application D235/09 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house, the erection of a dwelling house on 3 levels, a swimming pool,  and earthworks and associated retaining walls on Lot 1 DP 1045331 and known as 11 Kellys Esplanade, Northwood subject to the following:-

 

Plans

 

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

·     D1a, dated September 2009 as amended up to 11.2.10;

·     D2a, dated September 2009 as amended up to 11.2.10 and including references to pool fencing and the conversion of part of a terrace to lawn area;

·     D3a, dated September 2009 as amended up to 11.2.10;

·     D4a,dated September 2009 as amended up to 11.2.10 and including references to grated drains;

·     D5a and D6a,dated September 2009 as amended up to 11.2.10;

·     D7a, undated but as amended up to 11.2.10;

·     D8, dated March 2010, by Archiworks Architects Pty. Ltd;

·     D2SK, dated February 2010; and

·     LA-01, Revision C, dated 20.2.10, by Caldesign, as amended by drawing D2a listed above, except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Specific

 

2.         a.         The building being restricted to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.              Proof to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

           b.          The highest section of roof (ie. over the main foyer entrance and adjoining rooms) is to be deleted.  PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

3.         In order to reduce its potential impact on both the streetscape and the adjoining property to the south, at 14 Kellys Esplanade, and to ensure that it satisfies the minimum requirements under Council’s relevant code, the pool (including it’s concourse) is to be:-

·     set back a minimum of 5m from the front boundary, i.e. a position similar to the top of the existing stair access from this adjoining property and where the height of the pool would not exceed 1.8m, and the setback area landscaped to screen it’s adjoining façade;

·     set back a minimum of 3m from any point on the north facing wall of the adjoining dwelling house to the south, at 14 Kellys Esplanade; and

·     set back a minimum of 900mm from the south boundary of the site.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

4.         In order to reduce the potential to overlook the adjoining property to the south, at 14 Kellys Esplanade, the following privacy measures are required unless the owner of this property confirms in writing to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate to the contrary:-

 

·     both front first floor ensuite windows of the main bedroom are to be finished in obscure glass up to a height of 1.7m above the finished floor level, or alternatively, the sill height of each window is to be raised to this same level; and

·     the balcony off the main bedroom is to be deleted.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

5.         In order to reduce the potential to overlook the front terrace of the adjoining property to the north, at 9 Kellys Esplanade, the following privacy measures are required unless the owner of this property confirms in writing to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate to the contrary:-

·     a privacy screen 1.7m in height above the finished floor level of each step of the exterior boundary stairs is to be attached along all of it’s north side; and

·     either the existing fin wall is to be fully extended, or a privacy screen 1.7m in height above the finished floor level of the front first floor level balcony off bedroom 4, is to be attached along the open portion on its north side.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

6.         All relevant plans submitted with a Construction Certificate are to include the following reduced levels:-

·     the finished floor level;

·     the uppermost ceiling height; and

·     the maximum ridge height of each portion of the roof.

 

7.         In order to prevent any new work encroaching on a neighbouring property, and/or the adjoining right-of-way access, all new work is to be located wholly within the subject site.  If any doubt is raised, Council may request the submission of a survey report.

 

8.         Engineering details of all retaining walls are to be submitted as part of a Construction Certificate.

 

General

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12.       (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.

 

13.       (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.

 

14.       (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the dwelling house, swimming pool and retaining walls.

 

 

 

15.       (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.

 

16.       (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.

 

17.       (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.

 

18.       (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.

 

19.       (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.

 

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

 

21.       (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 Pools Act, 1992, and the Australian Standard AS1926.1 – 2007 Swimming Pool Safety, Part 1: Safety barriers for swimming pools.

 

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

 

22.       (53) The filter and pump 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.

 

23.       (54) In accordance with the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations thereunder 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".

 

24.       (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".

 

25.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED.  Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

 

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

 

27.       (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.

 

28.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile or colourbond corrugated galvanised or zincalume iron, in a mid to dark range colour and having an approved anti-glare finish.

 

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

a          Dampcourse level;

b          The establishment of the first floor level;

c          The roof framing;

            d.         All ridge levels; and

            e.         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.

 

30.       (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.

 

31.       (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), the principal certifying authority may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

(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.

 

32.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in the dwelling.

 

            This requirement is satisfied by:-

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in -

            (i)         Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

            (ii)        in Class 1b buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.4 and 3.7.2.5 of the Building Code of Australia

(b)        Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)        Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

 

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in -

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms -

            (i)         between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

            (ii)        where bedrooms are served by a hallway, in that hallway; and

(b)        any other storey not containing bedrooms.

 

33.       (70) Protection of the dwelling house and swimming pool against subterranean termites must be carried out in accordance with AS.3660.

 

34.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

35.       (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

36.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

37.       (76) All machinery used on the site during demolition shall have a noise emission no greater than 75dB(A) when measured at a radius of 7.0 metres from the specified item.

 

38.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

41.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan (as revised) submitted under this application.

 

42.       (132)  It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

43.       (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.

 

44.       (141) Long Service Levy Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

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

 

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

 

46.       (143) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must make written application to Council for the provision of domestic waste services.

 

Landscape

 

47.       (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.

 

48.       Irrespective of this consent, permission from Council must be obtained for the pruning of any trees located in the adjacent easement on the east side of the allotment including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

 

49.       (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, reserve or easement.

 

50.       (305)  All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  If during the course of construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

 

51.       (306) All materials brought onto the site must be weed free.

 

52.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a 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.

 

53.       (322)  No access to the property is allowed via the adjoining easement, public open space or public bushland area.

 

54.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 4m of any tree greater than  4m in height, including neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with no tree roots greater than 40mm diameter to be severed or damaged.

 

55.       The proposed Plant Schedule on the approved landscape plan may be modified to suit site conditions.

 

56.       All proposed hedging plants and trees incorporated into the landscape shall not exceed 8m at maturity. The foliage of these hedge plants and trees shall be maintained at a height of 8m or less by ongoing and continuous pruning annually or more frequently as required.

 

57.       (382)  The Applicant must ensure that there are sufficient number of groundcovers and low shrubs, planted at appropriate distances and depths to eliminate bare mulched gardens areas as part of the landscape works.

 

58.       (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

59.       (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.

 

60.       (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. 

 

61.       (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.

 

62.       (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.

 

63.       (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.

 

 

64.       (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.

 

65.       (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’.

 

66.       (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.

 

67.       (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.

 

68.       (R1) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The proposed rainwater tanks are 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.

 

69.       (V8) Car parking. All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series.

 

70.       (F1) Overland Flow around Buildings To prevent stormwater from entering the building the finished habitable ground floor level of the building must be a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level.

 

71.       (W2) Pool construction stormwater: The stormwater runoff from the new impervious areas surrounding the pool shall be connected to the proposed drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP Stormwater Management.

 

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

·     All roof areas are to drain to the reuse system with overflow to the street;

·     All other areas to drain to the street; and

·     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

 

73.       (D1) Drainage Plans new: A stormwater drainage plan prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

74.       (W1) Pool construction The pool design shall ensure that either during construction or upon completion, surface water is not be directed or diverted so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

Council accepts no liability for any damage to the pool as a result of overland flows or high tide inundation. The property owner shall submit written acceptance of liability of any damages prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

75.       (T1) Design of retaining structures: All retaining structures greater than 1m in height are to be designed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer. The structural design is to comply with all relevant design codes and Australian  Standards. The design and certification shall be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

 

76.       (V1) Proposed Vehicular Crossing. The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. 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 Occupation Certificate

 

77.       (D1) Excavation greater than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5m of the proposed excavation.

 

The applicant shall:-

 

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

(b)  detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction; and

(c)  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 the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

(d)  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 Principal 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.

 

78.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 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 Occupation 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 14 days 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.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

79.       (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 sediment control plan. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

80.       (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 any 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 Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page