m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Inspection Committee Meeting

5 November 2011, 8:30am

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Inspection Committee, to be held on site on Saturday 5 November 2011 commencing at 8:30am. 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 5 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Referred Reports FROM ORDINARY COUNCIL 17 October 2011

 

1.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 135

SUBJECT: 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove (8:30am)................................................ 4

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

SUBJECT: 19 Glenview Street Greenwich (9:00am).................................... 22

 

3.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

SUBJECT: 456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards (9:30am)................................ 36  

 

 

 

             


Inspection Committee Meeting 5 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 135

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 135

Subject:          9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove

Council after considering this matter at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 October 2011 referred this Report to the Inspection Committee Meeting to be held on the 5 November 2011.   

Record No:    DA11/70-01 - 21940/11

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                                 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove

DA No:                                                DA70/11

Date Lodged:                          Original plans 29 April 2011

                                                Amended plans 11 July 2011

Cost of Work:                          $350,000

Owner:                                                G.E. and R.A. Walker

Applicant:                                Tullipan Homes Pty Ltd

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Construction of a part one, part two storey dwelling house.

ZONE

R2 (low density residential)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes, from 7 June 2011 to 11 July 2011

NOTIFICATION                                                                    

Notified of original and amended proposal

Neighbours                              5, 7, 9, 11 Gamma Road ; 6, 8, 10 Alpha Road; 5, 5A, 7, 9, 11, 13 Beta Road and 1, 2 Delta Road

Ward Councillors                    East Ward and The Mayor

Progress Association              Osborne Park Residents Association Inc.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The application has been called to Council by Councillor Brooks–Horn due to neighbour concerns about impact of the development.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

·     The site was created by the subdivision of 9 Gamma and 10 Alpha Roads.

·     The subdivision was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 13 September 2007 subject to a number of conditions which mostly concerned the retention of two large Sydney Blue Gum trees.

·     The original proposal did not comply with:-

The Land and Environment Court’s conditions for the retention of the trees;

DCP 2009 regarding setbacks from side and rear boundaries;

Amount of cut; and

Impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises.

·     Four submissions were received objecting to the proposal.  Reasons for objection included:-

Non-compliance with Court’s conditions;

Removal of a large gum tree required by Court to be retained;

Loss of privacy and overlooking;

Loss of amenity; and

Side setbacks did not comply.

·     The applicant submitted amended plans on 17 July 2011.  The amended proposal is to construct a part one, part two storey four bedroom brick veneer dwelling house on the site.  The two large trees are shown to remain and the dwelling house has been moved down the site to be 6m from the trees.  The setbacks to the side boundaries comply.  The overall height has been reduced by 785mm to 8.8m.

·     Three submissions have been received in respect of the amended proposal.  Reasons for objection include:-

Non-compliance with Court’s conditions regarding the retention of trees;

Design and location of dwelling house and loss of amenity and privacy; and

Solar access.

·     Subject to a draft condition requiring highlights in the first floor level of the western elevation and a reduction in the deck length the amended proposal is recommended for approval.

SITE

The subject site is a battleaxe allotment located on the northern side of Gamma Road at the rear of 9 Gamma Road.  The land rises from the street and has a retaining wall across and 9m from the rear boundary.  There is a right-of-carriageway over the battleaxe handle in favour of 9 Gamma Road.  The land is vacant and has two large trees towards the rear on the eastern side.  Copies of the Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached as AT-1 and AT-2.


PROPOSAL

The amended proposal is to construct a part one, part two storey, four bedroom brick veneer dwelling house.  There is a double garage proposed at the front and a 3m wide deck at first floor level with a 1.8m high proposed privacy screen at the southern end.  The roof is of a skillion design with a maximum 15o pitch and the roof is pitched with selected colourbond decking.

The two large trees at the rear of the site are shown to remain and the dwelling house has been moved down the site to be 6m from the trees with the exception of a small set of stairs which has a point intrusion into the 6m area.  The dwelling house is shown to be set back 1.5m from the southern and western boundaries, a minimum of 2.6m from the eastern boundary and a minimum of 6m from the rear boundary.  The overall height has been reduced by 785mm to 8.8m, which is less than the 9.5 maximum.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

Council at its meeting of the 4 September 2006 refused consent to subdivide two lots into three lots at 9 Gamma Road and 10 Alpha Road.  A Section 82A review was submitted and Council at its meeting of the 6 August 2007 resolved to reaffirm the original refusal.  The applicants appealed to the Land and Environment Court and the Appeal was upheld, subject to conditions.

Development Application 70/11 was submitted on the 29 April 2011 to construct a part one, part two storey four bedroom house.  There was an attached double garage at the front on the eastern side with a 2.9m wide verandah over.  One of the two large trees was shown to be removed and a future pool to separate DA was shown in the location of the other large tree.

The applicant was advised on the 7 June 2011 that the plans were unsatisfactory and amended plans were submitted on the 11 July 2011.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

LEP 2009

Zoning:           R2                   Site area:        550m2 (excluding access)

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

0.5:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

8.8m

9.5m

Yes

Comprehensive DCP

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Front setback (min)

> 30m (battleaxe lot)

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

1500mm

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

6m

<1000m2: 8m

No

Wall Height (max)

6.7m

7.0m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

2.35m

1.5m

No

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

Landscaped area (min)

38%

35%

Yes

Solar Access

3 hrs to north facing windows

3 hrs to north facing windows

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2.95m

3m

Yes

Private open space

> 24m2

> 4m minimum depth

24m2 (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Cut and fill

1.76m

1m (max)

No

 

Car Parking

 

Proposed

Control

Complies?

Off-street spaces (min)

2

1

Yes

REFERRALS

Development Engineer

The comments of the Development Engineer were requested on the amended proposal and draft conditions of consent were provided and have been included in the recommendation in this report (see draft conditions 30-48).

Tree Assessment Officer

The comments of the Tree Assessment Officer were requested on the amended proposal and he has advised that the two Sydney Blue Gum trees must be retained.

            To ensure the protection of the two Sydney Blue gums, the trees must be encompassed by a tree protection zone of not less than 6m radial distance from the trunk of each of the two trees.

The Plans show a minor incursion into the 6m tree protection zone. The result of this minor incursion into the western quadrant of the tree protection zone would have a negligible impact on the two trees.”

Draft conditions of consent have been provided and are included in the recommendation in this report (see draft conditions 25-29).

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c(1)(a))

The proposal is permissible within the R2 (low density residential) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP 2009 with Council’s consent.

Other Planning Instruments

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

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

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

1.    Rear Setback – Council’s DCP 2009 specifies a minimum rear setback for dwelling houses of 8m or 25% of the site depth (whichever is greater) is to be provided for sites up to 1000m2.  The existing predominant rear setback and site constraints, especially for irregular sites, may be taken into account.

The walls of the rear single storey section of the dwelling house on the western side are shown to be set back 6m from the rear boundary.

In support of the rear setback, the applicant suggests:-

“Setback of 8.0m is required by DCP.  The proposal provides for a setback of 6.0m.  This elevation is single storey only and provides for only a bedroom and ensuite and as such does not result in a loss of privacy to the adjoining properties.

Further the setback provided is sufficient to enable landscaping, an appropriate area of private open space and the setback ensures appropriate visual separation.

The setback also ensures the retention of Trees 6 and 7 as per conditions imposed on the previous consent.”

The objective of rear setbacks is to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation for the dwelling house and its neighbours.

The setback of the single storey section of the dwelling house 6m from the rear boundary in lieu of 8m is brought about by the need to retain the two large trees and to keep at least 6m from their trunks thus allowing a large landscaped area in the northeast corner of the site.  The 6m wide area at the rear of the proposed dwelling house would also be landscaped except for a small concrete path.

The neighbour to the rear does not object to the proposed rear setback.  However, there is an objection to the proposed setback from the owners of 9 Beta Road located on the western side of the site.

The setback of the single storey section from the rear boundary is considered satisfactory having regard to the constraints on this site.

2.    Subfloor Height – Council’s DCP 2009 indicates that the maximum height to the underside of a basement floor or undercroft areas or subfloor above ground level (existing) is to be no greater than 1.5m. 

This site has a retaining wall and a raised section of land at the rear.  The proposed dwelling house is single storey at the rear on the western side and where the dwelling house changes from two storeys to single storey there is an undercroft area which varies from a minimum of 300mm to a maximum of 2.35m.  This is due to the change in the levels and the proposed dwelling is only a maximum of two storeys at any point.  The undercroft area as proposed is considered to be satisfactory.

3.    Cut - Council’s DCP 2009 specifies that:-

·   Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site.

A maximum cut of 1.76m is shown on the eastern side of the dwelling house where part of the rear of the ground floor level is being set into the site.

The maximum cut as proposed allows the rear of the ground floor level of the dwelling house to be set into the site and reduces its impact on the adjoining sites.  The cut as proposed is considered satisfactory.

Court Conditions

This subdivision was approved by the Land and Environment Court on the 13 September 2007 subject to a number of conditions.

The conditions included:-

9.       No excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within six (6) metres of any tree trunk for any future developments.

Comment

The amended plans show the proposed dwelling house to be set back at least 6m from the two trees which are shown to be retained with the exception of a small point intrusion of part of a small stair into the 6m zone.   The Tree Assessment has considered this matter and advised that the intrusion would have a negligible impact on the two trees.

10.     To ensure that there are minimal impacts on the two existing Sydney Blue Gum trees located on the upper level of proposed Lot 2, the following measures are required to be fulfilled prior to any development occurring on Lot 2, namely:-

i)     That the existing retaining wall which bisects the proposed Lot 2 is to be retained and no excavation or disturbance of soil levels are to occur on the upper level other than opening in the retaining wall to enable steps to the upper level; and the demolition of the swimming pool.  (The swimming pool has been filled in).

ii)     That the existing soil levels in the northwest corner of the lower level adjacent to the retaining wall not be changed or disturbed through excavation for a radius of six (6) metres measured from the outside of the trunk of the Sydney Blue Gum tree identified as tree 6 on the Plan of survey prepared by Robert Moore and Associates Pty Limited dated 31 August 2005.

Comment

In support of the dwelling location as now proposed it is stated by Nolan Planning Consultants on behalf of the applicant as follows:-

“Consent (DA322/05) which was issued by the Land and Environment Court required the retention of Tree 6 and 7 and that there was to be no excavation to the upper level of the retaining wall that dissects the site.

In this regard, whilst it was considered that Tree 6 (identified as Tree 2 in the Arborist Report submitted with the current application) was identified as being hazardous and should be removed regardless of any application, the proposal has been amended to ensure the health and retention of both Trees 6 and 7.

Whilst the Consent at Condition 10(i) provided that no excavation was to occur to the north of the existing retaining wall subsequent evidence from the Arborist has indicated that the proposed excavation beyond the retaining wall will not have any detrimental impact on the health of Trees 6 and 7.  The Tree Assessment and Management Report has been submitted under separate cover.

It is noted that Council has the authority to vary conditions of consent imposed by the Land and Environment Court and that subsequent Development Applications can amend such conditions.

Given that the proposed development can be constructed without detrimental impact on the Trees 6 and 7 it is considered that the proposal has achieved the intent of the Conditions previously imposed by the Court.”

A single storey section of the proposed dwelling house on the western side is shown to be constructed 3.5m to the north of the retaining wall, as is a small timber deck and stairs.  The only protrusion into the 6m zone from the two trees is a point intrusion of part of the stairs from the deck.  The Tree Assessment Officer is satisfied with this.

The existing retaining wall should be retained where within the 6m radius of the two trees to be retained.

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

Comment

This is considered should only be applied within the 6m radius zone of the trees to be retained.

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

Comment

The two large trees are to be retained and no excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within 6 metres of the trunks of the two large trees.

19.     It should be noted that any future dwelling house should be sited such that it is away from the mature trees in the northern east corner of Lot 2 and the south-eastern corner of Lot 1.

Comment

The amended plans are considered to comply with the abovementioned condition.

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

Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the amended development application plans.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows:

·     Two submissions object as the proposal does not comply with the Court conditions regarding the retention of trees.

They say that the applicant through his “GROWING MY WAY” report seeks to go against the Land and Environment Court ruling and attempts to justify that excavation within the protection radius is allowable.

Comment

The comments of Council’s Tree Assessment Officer were requested on the tree issues raised by the commenters and also on the amended Tree Assessment and Management Report dated July/April 2011 by “Growing My Way” Tree Services.  The Tree Assessment Officer has advised that subject to the draft conditions specified that the subject trees would be adequately protected.  (See earlier comments under Tree Assessment Officer).

·     Design and location of proposed dwelling house and loss of amenity and privacy.

(i)         The owner of 7 Beta Road is concerned that they would see a continuous wall 18 metres long and 9 metres high across their rear garden area with 5 windows looking into their garden, bathroom and bedroom reducing their amenity solar access and privacy.

Comment

The proposed dwelling house is two storeys at the front and single storey at the rear.  The proposed dwelling is considered to be approximately 1m below where shown on the drawing submitted with the submission showing impact of 9A Gamma Road on 7 Beta Road.  It is considered to prevent loss of privacy that the windows at first floor level of the western elevation should be highlights with their sills at least 1.7m above the first floor level.  Subject to this draft condition the amended plans are considered a reasonable development of this site having regard to the constraints on the site particularly having to retain two large trees.  (See draft condition 2).

(ii)        The owners of 9 Beta Road are concerned at the 6m rear boundary setback as they will look at a brick wall only 1.5m away from their side boundary.  They want an 8m setback as the DCP requires.

Comment

The proposed dwelling house is mostly single storey at the rear where it adjoins 9 Beta Road.  Subject to the windows in the west elevation of the upper floor level of the proposed dwelling house being highlights with a minimum sill height of 1.7m above the upper floor level and having regard to the constraints on this site particularly having to retain two large trees, the amended proposal is considered satisfactory.

(iii)       The owners of 9 Beta Road are also concerned that the double doors off the main bedroom are indicating further plans to add a possible deck and hence cause further disturbing of the soil in this upper area. 

Comment

The bedroom doors are 250mm above ground level and no deck is shown.

(iv)       The owners of 7 Gamma Road have privacy concerns about the balcony area on the eastern side of the proposed dwelling house.  This balcony would look directly over the backyard of 7 Gamma Road and into the main living area which has walls made entirely of glass.  They want a privacy screen added to the balcony on the eastern side of the dwelling house to avoid overlooking into the yard and living area of 7 Gamma Road.

Comment

Council’s DCP 2009 specifies:-

·     Dwellings or additions shall be designed and orientated so that windows, balconies and decks are not situated directly opposite windows of the habitable rooms of any adjoining dwellings, unless privacy can be addressed; and

·     Elevated decks, terraces or balconies greater than 1m above ground level (existing) to living areas are not to exceed a maximum depth of 3.0m of useable area.  Deeper decks may be considered if privacy to adjoining properties is addressed.

The proposed elevated deck is 3m wide and is located 8m from the eastern boundary with the rear yard of 7 Gamma Road.  To help provide privacy for 7 Gamma Road, a draft condition is recommended that the southern end of the proposed deck at first floor level at the south-eastern corner of the proposed dwelling house be set back in line with the southern wall of the family/living room and the balustrade to the proposed deck being of translucent glass or solid material. (See draft condition 3)

·     Solar access and overshadowing – Council’s DCP 2009 specifies:-

            a)         Dwellings or additions shall be so designed and orientated so as to give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational areas of the subject site and adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21st June.  In particular, dwellings are to be so located and designed that a portion of windows of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9am and 3pm on 21st June.

            b)         Council may accept reduction in solar access for the subject site and adjacent development if the topography and lot orientation is such that the 3 hour standard is considered unachievable.

            c)         Where adjacent dwellings and their open space already receive less than 2 hours of sun then new development should seek to maintain this solar access where practicable.

(i)         7 Beta Road has overshadowing concerns.

Comment

Whilst part of the yard of 7 Beta Road would be overshadowed at 9am, the north facing windows of 7 Beta Road would receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice.

(ii)        9 Beta Road is concerned at significant overshadowing particularly of the dwelling house at 9 Gamma Road.

Comment

9 Gamma Road is a single storey dwelling house.  Due to the constraints on this site, the amended plans show the proposed dwelling house moved down the site to be 1500mm from the rear boundary of 9 Gamma Road. 

It is considered that the solar access complies with the requirements of the DCP.  Note:  The owners of 9 Gamma Road have not commented on the amended plans.

·     Floor space ratio – One commenter objects to the floor space ratio as proposed.

Comment

The floor space ratio as proposed complies with Council’s LEP 2009 requirement of 0.5:1.

·     Cut and fill – One commenter objects to the cut and fill as it does not comply with Council’s DCP 2009.

Comment

The maximum cut of 1.76m as proposed allows the rear of the ground floor level to be set into the site and reduces its impact on the adjoining sites.  The proposed cut is not within the 6m zone from the two large trees and is considered satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The matters in the DOPI Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.

The subject site has a number of constraints for the erection of a dwelling house, particularly the retention of the two large trees.  Subject to the conditions in the recommendation, the amended proposal is considered a reasonable development of this site and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

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 D70/11 for the construction of a dwelling house on Lot 2, DP 1155797 and known as 9A Gamma Road, Lane Cove subject to the following conditions:-

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers BT-31-13-B-1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 dated 20.6.11 by Tullipan Homes Pty. Ltd. and 10421-D1B, D2B, D3B dated 7.7.11 by EZE Hydraulic Engineers except as amended by the following conditions.

2.         To prevent loss of privacy all the windows at first floor level of the western elevation of the proposed dwelling house being highlights with their sills at least 1.7m above the first floor level.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

3.         To help provide privacy for 7 Gamma Road, the southern end of the proposed deck at first floor level at the south-eastern corner of the proposed dwelling house being set back in line with the southern wall of the family/living room and the balustrade to the proposed deck being of translucent glass or solid material.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

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

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

6.         (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.

7.         (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 and Developing then Building and 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.

8.         (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.

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

10.       No excavation or trenches are to be undertaken within six (6) metres of the trunks of the two existing Blue Gum trees which are to be retained.

11.       To ensure that there are minimal impacts on the two existing Sydney Blue Gum trees located on the upper level of Lot 2, the existing retaining wall which bisects Lot 2 is to be retained where within 6m of the trunks of the two existing Blue Gum trees.

 12.      (300)  Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area. Clause 5.9(3) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 [the "LEP"], states that a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by development consent or a permit granted by the Council. Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000 or a penalty infringement notice can be issued in respect of the offence, the prescribed penalty being $1,500.00 for an individual and $3,000.00 for a corporation.  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of trees in the urban environment and protection of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

13.       The site is to be property fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

14.       The proposed 1.8m high privacy screen on the south side of the balcony being replaced with a 1.8m high solid permanent privacy screen.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

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.       (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.

17.       (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.

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

a)         The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete.

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

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

e)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)          Waterproofing of wet areas

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

k)         Completion.

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

b)         Retaining walls;

c)         Footings;

d)         Reinforced concrete work;

e)         Structural steelwork;

f)          Upper level floor framing.

20.       (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.

21.       (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

(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.

22.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan approved under this application.

23.       (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.

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

25.       (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.

26.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3 m 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

27.       (317) A 1.8 m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 6m from the trunk of the two Sydney Blue gums located at the rear of the allotment. 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 except for construction of the set of steps.

28.       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 A4 portrait with NO ENTRY TREE PROTECTION ZONE in capital Arial Font size 100, and the rest of the text in Arial font size 65.

29.       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.

General Engineering Conditions

30.       (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.

 

31.       (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. 

32.       (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.

33.       (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.

34.       (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.

35.       (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.

36.       (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’.

37.       (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.

38.       (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.

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

            The following plans shall be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer demonstrating:-

·   Longitudinal section along the extreme wheel paths of the driveway/right of way at a scale of 1:20 demonstrating compliance with the scaping provisions of AS2890.1. It shall include all levels and grades, including those levels stipulated at boundary levels, both existing and proposed. It shall extend from the centre line of the roadway through to the parking area.

40.       (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.

41.       (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a minimum effective capacity of 10,000 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 and 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.

Engineering Conditions to be Complied with Prior to Construction Certificate

42.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed generally in accordance with plan numbered 10421 sheets D1-D3 issue B prepared by EZE Hydraulic Engineers dated 07-07-11.

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

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

43.       (V2) Replacement of Vehicular Crossing: The vehicular crossing servicing the property shall be reconstructed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate as it does not meet Council’s current standards. The 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.

44.       (D1) Excavation Greater Than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures, located within 5 metres 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 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 principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

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

45.       (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

46.       (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

47.       (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 plans prepared by EZE Hydraulic Engineers numbered E1-E3 issue A and dated 30-03-11. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate

48.       (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 Plan

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Services Division Report No. 135 - Site Location Plan

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Environmental Services Division Report No. 135 - Neighbour Notification Plan

 



Inspection Committee Meeting 5 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 285

Subject:          19 Glenview Street Greenwich    

Record No:    DA08/278-01 - 43658/11

Author(s):      Norm Fletcher 

 

 

Property:                     19 Glenview Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    D 278/08 Section 96 Modification

 

Date Lodged:              1/5/2011

 

Cost of Work:              $40,000

 

Owner:                                    H and W Pty Ltd

 

Applicant:                    Valero Holdings Pty Ltd

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Modification of Development Consent 278/08 to existing residential building that includes the provision of a lift, increased site excavation, new retaining wall, new stairway, internal alterations to the layout for dwelling 1,2 and 3.

ZONE

Residential 2(a1) as per Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.

R2 Low Density Residential as per  Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Residential flat buildings are not permitted within this zone. The applicant claims “existing use rights” on the basis that the building is an existing residential flat building.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 1987 – B95

Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009 – I52

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2 (Residential Flats) 7a (Car parking) and 10b Swimming Pool existing

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

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

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

Progress Association      Greenwich Community Association

Other Interest Groups     Lane Cove Historical Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This application is referred to Council at the request of Councillor P Palmer because of the concerns raised by the neighbours and also the original application was determined (consent granted) by the Land and Environment Court Proceedings No 10707 of 2010.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposed modification of the development consent involves:-

 

·    The inclusion of an external lift on the northern (side) façade of the existing residential building providing lift access from the basement car parking level to the ground and first floor levels.

·    Increase in the extent of excavation in the basement car parking area to provide an access tunnel to the proposed lift, redesign the stairs from the basement car park to ground level and increase area for retention of rain water tanks (20,000 litres).

·    Retention and refurbishment of existing utility area on the northern boundary to provide laundry facilities for dwellings 1 and 2.

·    Deletion of existing laundry on southern boundary and inclusion of the floor area into the floor area of apartment 2 as an enlarged media/utility room.

·    Internal alterations to layout apartments 1, 2 and 3.

·    New retaining wall along the rear boundary with replacement privacy screen on top of the wall.

·    New pool pump room in the south western corner of the site to service the new approved swimming pool.

·    Reinstatement of the existing external stairs on the southern boundary to provide alternative fire egress path for apartment 3 and provision of fire exits access gate (open out ward) to match approved privacy screen adjacent.

·    Provision of storage areas within the roof space above flat 3.

·    Provision of skylights to the roof area at the rear of the dwelling above the entry at the rear to unit 3.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the proposed modifications will result in a minor increase in the gross floor area of the approved development.

 

The modification application is recommended for approval with additional draft conditions.

 

SITE

 

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

 

The existing building on the property is a federation style brick and tiled residential building that accommodates three existing residential dwellings.  The building is listed as a heritage item in the Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009 – I52.

 

The adjoining properties are residential dwellings.  Site Location Plan attached (AT-1) and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the modification of the recently approved development that includes both internal and external works.  The modifications as proposed are listed in the preceding executive summary section of this report and also identified in the amended architectural plans prepared by Zeman Architects.  The amendments include both internal including additional site excavation and external works that include a new retaining wall at the rear that would replace an existing privacy screen.

 


PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

The original application was refused by Council however the applicant lodged a Class 1 appeal to the Land and Environment Court. The appeal was case number 10707 of 2010 and the Court granted consent to the proposal subject to conditions.

 

Council received a Construction Certificate (CC 2011/040 dated 28/7/11) issued by Paul Fitzgerald from Fitzgerald Building Certifiers Pty Ltd. The works in regard to the Construction Certificate have commenced on the property. The site is currently a construction zone.

 

Development Consent 134/11 was granted on the 20/9/2011 for a swimming pool enclosure in the rear yard.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the Comprehensive DCP

 

The Councils Data and Policy Compliance requirements in respect of the LEP 2009 and the Comprehensive DCP would apply to the proposal however as the existing building envelope has been established and accepted with the Land and Environment Court decision, the ability to apply the prescriptive controls as indicated in the DCP is limited.

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

 

Site Area:       836.22 m˛

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

144.61 sq m

142.7 sq m (approved)

Minor variation

GFA

 

 

FSR

322,51 sq m

 

 

0.385:1

320.60 sq m

(approved)

 

0.383: (approved)

 

 

Minor variation

 

 

Minor Variation

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

No change

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Existing

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

NA

2m

NA

Side setback (min)

Western side: Nil to staircase.

 

 

Eastern side:

- 547mm to lift.

 

- Nil to laundry

Original approval indicated 1100 mm to the west and 1400 mm to the east

No (Existing structure reinstated)

 

No- Minor variation

 

No (Existing structure reinstated)

Rear setback (min)

No change

<1000m˛: 8m or 25%

>1000m˛: 10m or 35%

NA

Wall Height (max) (maximum parapet of 600mm)

NA

7.0m

NA

Maximum Ridge height

No change

9.5m

NA

Subfloor height (max)

No change

1.5m

NA

Number of Storeys (max)

No change

2

NA

Landscaped area (min)(Minimum width of 1m required to be included in area)

46.8%

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

NA

 

NA

Solar Access

No change

3 hrs to north-facing windows

NA

Provide for view sharing

No change

 

NA

Heritage Conservation

Heritage property

 

Satisfactory see report from advisor

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

No change

3m

NA

Private open space

No change

24 m˛ (min)

4m minimum depth

NA

Basix

Submitted

 

Yes

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front and side return fence (solid and open design) height (max)

NA

Solid:   900mm

(solid and open design):             1.2m

NA

Piers width (max)

NA

350mm

NA

Setback from front boundary if fence is from 1.2m to 1.8m.

NA

Entire fence- 1.0m setback from front boundary

NA

Side fence

 

 

Rear fence

Side fences unchanged

 

Rear fence i.e.: existing privacy screen to be replace

1.8m

 

 

Approved height as shown on Landscape Plans at RL 55.33

NA

 

 

Condition to be applied requiring height at RL 55.33

REFERRALS

Manager Urban Design and Assets

No objections subject to original conditions remaining on any modified consent.

Rural Fire Service

The Rural Fire Service has recommended two additional conditions which have been included in the report.

Heritage

Council’s heritage advisor has no objection to the proposed section 96 modification application.

SECTION 96 AA MODIFICATION BY CONSENT AUTHORITIES OF CONSENTS GRANTED BY THE COURT

The original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court therefore the provisions of Section 96AA apply that indicates the following matters for consideration:

·    Sec 96AA(1)(a) The Development to Which the Consent Relates to is Substantially the Same Development.

The modifications do propose additional site excavation works for the proposed lift and associated access passage and also the rain water storage facility adjoining the car parking basement areas.

The excavation works are largely below ground level and would not add to the external bulk of the development on the site.

The other works including the stairway on the western side of the building, lift access points at the ground and first floor levels and the retaining wall with replacement screening at the rear do marginally increase the external bulk of the building and development on the site.

However, as the approved use is retained as the three dwellings and the majority of works are either below ground level or within the approved building envelope, it is considered that the proposal is substantially the same development as that which was approved by the Land and Environment Court.

·    Sec 96AA (1) (b) The Application is Notified in Accordance with the Regulations and Councils Notification Policy.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for Community Consultation.

·    Sec 96AA (1) (c) Any Submissions Made.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s policy for Community Consultation.

There are twelve (12) submission submitted to Council raising concerns and issues regarding the modification application.

·    Sec 96AA (1) (d) Consideration of Submissions.

The submissions received are reviewed and addressed in the section of this report regarding response to notification.

The site has an existing approval for alterations and additions to the existing building and for new building works. The modifications as proposed would not impact on the suitability of the site for the original approved development.

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

The preceding policy assessment table identified that the proposal generally is consistent with the approved building envelope and overall development on the subject site.

There are two sections, however, that do vary from the approved side boundary set backs and that is with the stairway on the western side and the lift enclosure and landing platforms on the eastern side. Both these sections encroach on the approved side boundary set back.

However it is considered that as the modifications proposed improved the accessibility around the property and also the connectivity between the car parking area and units the variations are acceptable.

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

Twelve (12) submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.


Submission from 5/60-64 Greenwich Rd

Concern regarding the alteration at the rear of the building that now has a wall between 4m and 5m in height.

Comment

The modification proposes a replacement masonry retaining wall with screen above the wall structure. The landscape plan approved by the Court has the height of the screen wall set at RL 55.33.

A draft condition is recommended to be applied to any modified consent to require the top of the screen to also be set at RL 55.33.

Submission from 1/60 Greenwich Rd

Concern regarding erection of privacy screen and whether such were approved and also impact on sunlight.

Comment

The approved landscape plan indicates privacy screening at the rear to RL 55.33 height. Providing the screen height does not exceed the approved height the impact should not be any greater. A draft condition is recommended to ensure height does not exceed approved RL.

Submission from 17 Glenview Street

The submission included the following concerns:-

Comment

The Utility area is generally within the original approved space and extended deck as proposed would enable suitable access to the lift exit point.

The lift is adequately separated from the adjoining dwelling.

The loss of private space to flats 1 and 2 is minimal and as the site has extensive landscape area the loss is acceptable.

Councils Heritage advisor has no objections to the modifications.

The rear retaining wall is considered to be acceptable and the screen is to be set at RL 55.33 as per court approved plans.

The re instatement of the stairs on the western side would improve access around the site and is considered to be acceptable.

The internal layout changes as proposed are not in consistent with the Land and Environment Court approval and plans. A draft condition is recommended to be applied requiring all over land stormwater surface flows are not to be directed onto adjoining properties and to be contained within the site then directed to the street drainage system.

Submission from 12/60-64 Greenwich Road

The submission raises concern about the retaining wall and screen replacement. The concerns indicate that the height has changed and would affect the out look from the units on the above site.

The question has been raised as to why the privacy screen is required.

Comment

It is recommended that a draft condition be applied that restricts the height of the privacy screen to RL 55.33 as indicated on the approved plans.

Submission from 7 Glenview Street

The submission raises similar concerns as submitted by 17 Glenview Street including a comment that the application is scope for creep precedent.

Comment

The Environmental Planning and assessment Act does allow for applications to be modified and such the proposal is considered as such.

Submission by Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers of behalf of 17 Glenview Street

Issues raised include creeping, incremental, piecemeal approach with the final form of structure and well outside the scope of the development approval by the court.

It is not in harmony with the adjoining properties compromise the heritage value of the property, bulk and scale of the development and inappropriateness of an external lift structure to a heritage item.

Comment

Council’s heritage advisor has no objections to the proposal. The additional works as indicated on the application would not unreasonably add to the bulk and scale of the overall approved development.

Submission from  9/60 Greenwich Road

The submission raises concern about the height of the poles in the rear to support privacy screen.

The submission requests that the Council require the height to be reduced as there is no valid reason for its erection.

Comment

The development consent for the original approval indicated a privacy screen along the rear boundary to a set RL of 55.33.

A draft condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

 

Submission from 7/60 Greenwich Road

The submission also raises concerns about the height of the replacement privacy screen and will restrict city viewing and shadowing.

Comment

Condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

Submission from 27 Glenview Street

The submission raises concern that the modified proposal will adversely affect the amenity of the area and also under mine the balance achieved by the Court approved plans.

Comment

The applicant submitted an amended proposal that is permitted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposal would not unreasonably alter the amenity of the locality in any greater extent than the original approval.

Submission from 15/60-64 Greenwich Road

The submission lodges an objection to the height of the fence being 5 metres.

Comment

Condition is recommended to be applied to a modified consent to ensure height of screen does not exceed RL of 55.33.

Submission (no address provided)

The submission raises 8 issues and generally objects to the modifications as proposed to the external areas of the site and building. It also raises a concern that due process is not being observed by Council due to the separate Pool House application and to reverse the previous Land and Environment Court judgements.

Comment

The application is being assessed in accordance with Councils Policies and the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 requirements.

The swimming pool enclosure was a separate application and has been approved by Council.

The modification application as submitted does not aim to reverse the original court approval but to modify some parts of the proposal that is permitted under the Act.

Submission 2 Glenview Street

The submission indicates that the modified application proposes to undermine the Land and Environment Court decision and reinstate aspects of the original consent.

It also indicates that Council should inform itself of the cumulative impact of the pool enclosure and the modification application.

Comment

The modification application is related to the original consent not the pool enclosure. The pool enclosure application has been approved and is not part of the modification application.

The modification application does not propose to undermine the original consent but seeks to modify certain aspects and such is permitted procedure under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

SECTION 79 (C) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

·    Sec 79 (C) (a) (i) The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Residential flats are not permitted within the zone however Land and Environmental Court has granted a consent for the residential building with 3 dwellings.

·    Sec 79 (C) (a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

There are no Draft Planning Instruments that need to be considered.

·    Section 79 (C) (a) (iii) The Provisions of any Development Control Plan

The original application was approved by the Land and Environment Council and the provisions of the Development Control Plan were not a matter of consideration in the Court determination that appeared to be a merit assessment of the proposal.

The proposed modifications do not significantly alter the approved development therefore it is considered that the requirements of the Development Control Plan are largely not relevant to the application.

·    Section 79 (C) (b) The Likely Impacts of the Development

The proposed modifications to the approval should not result in any increased significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining and adjacent developments.

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

The site has an existing approval for alterations and additions for new building works on the property. The modifications as proposed will not impact on the suitability of the site for the original approved development.

·    Sec 79 (C) (d) Any Submissions Made

Council received twelve (12) submissions following the notification of the application. The submissions have been addressed in the section of this report relating to response to notification.

·    Sec 79 (C) (e) The Public Interest

The proposed modifications to the approved development do not create any unreasonable environmental impacts or adversely affect the adjoining properties. As such it is considered that the development is in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The matters in relation to Sections 96 and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the original Land and Environment Court approval and subsequent consent have been assessed as well as the public good and suitability of the site.

The proposed modifications would improve onsite pedestrian access and circulation opportunities for the occupants of the three (3) dwellings on the site. 

The external works would not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality and the internal changes will improve the internal amenity for the occupants.

The concerns raised by adjoining property owners regarding drainage impacts (overland flow) with the new retaining wall and the height of the replaced screen at the rear can be addressed by the application of addition conditions on any consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D278/08 granted on the 15 April 2011 for additions and alterations and the construction of underground car parking at 19 Glenview Street Greenwich is amended with the additional conditions and in the following manner:-

70        The modified development works to be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers S96-01, 02, 03, 04, 05,06, and 07 Issue Rev A date 18/7/2011.

71        The maximum height of the replacement screen fence structure is not to exceed RL 55.33 and registered surveyors certificate to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming the RL prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

72        The over land stormwater and sub surface drainage at the rear of the retaining wall is not to be directed onto adjoining properties and is to be collected on the site and directed to the Glenview Street drainage system at the front of the site.

73        New construction on the northern, eastern and western elevations shall comply with section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959−2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire−prone areas and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

74        New construction on the southern elevation shall comply with section 6 (BAL 19) Australian Standard AS3959−2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire− prone areas and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Services Division Report No. 285 - Site Location Plans

 



ATTACHMENT 2

Environmental Services Division Report No. 285 - Neighbour Notification Plan

 



Inspection Committee Meeting 5 November 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 278

Subject:          456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards    

Record No:    DA11/130-01 - 42941/11

Author(s):      Kristy  Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

 

DA No:                                    DA11/130

 

Date Lodged:              7 July 2011

 

Cost of Work:              $15000

 

Owner:                                    CSF Property Developments Pty Limited

 

Applicant:                    Insight Signs

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Installation of one (1) 12.5m x 3.6m advertising sign on the  southeastern elevation of the existing commercial building

ZONE

B3 – Commercial Core

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is permissible within the zone

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

The property does not contain a listed heritage item

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

The property is not located within a conservation area

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

The property is not located adjacent to bushland

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 5

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                      40 Oxley Street, 452, 460 Pacific Highway, 420, 521, 545, 551 Pacific Highway (North Sydney Council)

Ward Councillors             East Ward

Progress Association       St Leonards-Wollstonecraft Progress Association

Other Interest Groups      North Sydney Council

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This development application is being referred to Council for determination.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     The applicant seeks consent to install a “supersite” advertising sign, 12.5m x 3.6m (45m˛) on the southeastern elevation of the existing commercial building.

·     The sign is considered as a third party sign as the content pertains to a product that is not sold within the premise. In accordance with Part N 2.4(h) of the DCP, “third party advertising is not allowed within the Lane Cove LGA except with special permission from Council”.

·     The proposal was notified to neighbouring properties in both Lane Cove and North Sydney Council areas. One submission was received from North Sydney Council. Concerns raised include the inappropriateness of the sign for this location as this section of Pacific Highway is the gateway into the St Leonards CBD precinct, concern that an Advertising Sign of this type and size would set an unwanted precedence for other signs on multi level buildings in the area and have an adverse impact on the streetscape and character.

·     The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of SEPP 64. Whilst it complies with the numerical requirements of the Plan, it does not accord with the objectives of the Plan as it is not considered to be compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located.

·     The proposal is contrary the provisions of Part N of the DCP, would set an undesirable precedent for future signage in the area, and its proposed location would restrict future development on the neighbouring property at 448 Pacific Highway. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the western side of the Pacific Highway, between Oxley Street and Freidlander Place. The site is 581.7m˛ in area (by DP) with a frontage of 15.551m to the Pacific Highway and depth of 36.373m. Existing development on the site consists of a multi-storey commercial building which houses Casella Wines, the makers of Yellowtail. Existing development on the neighbouring site consists of a multi-storey commercial building to the northwest of the site and a single storey car wash to the southeast of the site.  Site Location Plan attached (AT-1).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks consent to construct a “supersite” advertising sign, 12.5m x 3.6m (45m˛), on the top right portion of the southeastern elevation of the building. Supersite signs are defined in the guidelines to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 as “Large displays around 42 square metres (often 12.66 metres x 3.35 metres) in size. Generally illuminated and located on major arterial roads and national highways.”

 

The sign content includes advertising for Yellowtail wines which made by Casella Wines who are associated with CSF Properties, the owners of the building. No information has been provided regarding illumination.  Depiction of sign attached (AT-2).

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS

 

There are 12 previous applications on Council’s computer records. The five (5) most recent applications are as follows:-

·         DA04/241:    Refurbish façade and rooftop terrace with fixed umbrellas. Approved 21 December 2004

·         DA03/337:    Office Fitout. Withdrawn 17 October 2003

·         CDC02/48:   Installation of alarm signalling equipment. Approved 30 April 2002

·         DA99/580:    Erect internal Gyprock wall. Approved 24 January 2000

·         DA99/487:    Advertising Sign. 7 December 1999

 

It is noted that the advertising sign approved under DA99/487 is an awning fascia sign on the Pacific Highway (front) elevation.

 


APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The proposal was notified to North Sydney Council as part of the notification process. Concerns were raised regarding the size and appropriateness of the proposed sign for the locality, particularly given the orientation of the site and its location at the gateway to the St Leonards CBD. The matter of the appropriateness of the size and location sign was raised with the applicant in Council’s correspondence of 10 August 2011 where the applicant reiterated the proposals compliance with the numerical provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

 

Concerns were raised during preliminary assessment of the application regarding owners consent as the sign is located on the side wall of the building and may overhang the neighbouring property. Further concerns were raised regarding the placement of the sign and the potential restriction of future development on the neighbouring site at 448 Pacific Highway. The applicant responded to the concerns raised, altering the depth of the sign proposed to 12mm to keep the sign within the defined boundary. Furthermore, the applicant stated that “approval to place the signage on the side elevation of the building provides no additional rights to the building owner for protection from future development of the neighbouring property” and that they “understand there will be no restriction on the adjoining property of 448 Pacific Highway developing that property and potentially restricting the view of all or part of the proposed signage”. 

 

REFERRALS

 

Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The proposal was referred to the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for concurrence in accordance with Clause 18 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage. Advice received from the RTA raised no objection to the proposed signage.

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

The proposal has been assessed under the relevant provisions of LEP2009. The proposal is considered contrary to the aim of the Plan to “preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies”, however it is not specifically contrary to the aims, objectives and controls relating to the B3 Commercial Core zone. Signage is listed as being development permissible with development consent in the B3 zone in accordance with the land use table within LEP2009.

 

LANE COVE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

Part N - Advertising and Signage

 

Part N 1.2 defines Second Party Advertising as “Products/goods sold within a premise” and Third Party Advertising as “General advertising – billboards etc”. The content of the proposed signage refers to products by one of the tenants in the building that is produced off-site and not sold at the premise. It therefore does not strictly adhere to the definition of second party advertising in Part N1.2 of the DCP. However, it is also not “general advertising” as the product being promoted is associated with the building’s occupant. It is considered that the signage proposed more closely resembles second party advertising and is considered as such for the purposes of this assessment.

 

The proposed signage does not fall into any of the specific signage categories outlined in Part N of the DCP. As such, the application has been considered on its merits and in accordance with the provisions of Part N2.9 of the DCP. This part requires that signage be “consistent with the appearance, location and scale of signage in the area. Additionally, signage should be consistent with the desired character of the precinct” and should “be consistent with the location of preferred signage shown at figure 2.12”.

 

Character Statement

 

Part N2.1.3 requires Council to consider the location of the proposed signage, particularly whether it is “appropriate in relation to the desired future character of the precinct in which it is proposed to be located”. The Character Statement for the St Leonards Area in Part N2.2 acknowledges the collaboration of the neighbouring council’s in commissioning the St Leonards Strategy. St Leonards is also nominated as a “specialised centre” under the NSW Governments “City of Cities”, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The Lane Cove Council area of the St Leonards Strategy states:

“Western Gateway: South side of Pacific Highway, west of railway line. A primary business precinct with shop and the possibility of hotels. Mixed use is also a possibility. In particular, this precinct will provide for health- related organisations capitalising on proximity to hospitals and general offices capitalising on the high profile locations. p. 30”

Part N2.2 states that “St Leonard’s is an area containing a major hospital, research and business activities that perform vital economic and employment roles across the metropolitan area. The way they interact with the rest of the city is complex. Therefore growth and changes in and around them requires signage and advertising in the St Leonards centre that reflects the changing character of the centre, with high quality and consistent signage for new buildings.

New signage for the existing low-rise buildings is to reduce the visual clutter and create visually consistent signage in relation to size, type and location.”

 

Comment       

 

Notwithstanding the fact that Part N2.7 of the DCP notes that “third Party advertising structures will only be considered in the commercial core of St Leonards”, the proposed signage is not considered to be consistent with the character of the centre in terms of its size, location and content. The location of the proposed signage on the side elevation is inconsistent with the location of preferred signage shown at figure 2.12 in the DCP. As the site is not a corner site, it is not entitled to signage on the side elevation as it is not a street frontage. Concern is also raised that, notwithstanding the undertaking of the applicant received in response to council’s correspondence, the proposal would unreasonably restrict future development on the neighbouring site.

 

Other Planning Instruments 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The proposal has been considered having regard to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64). Clause 3 (1) of SEPP 64 notes that the policy aims:-

“(a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)  provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii)  is of high quality design and finish, and

(b)  to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c)  to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d)  to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e)  to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.”

 

The proposal has been considered having regard to the matters for consideration within Clause 13 of the Plan. Clause 13 requires Council to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the aim of the SEPP, the provisions of Schedule 1 and the Guidelines. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3(1)(a)(i) of SEPP 64 in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area. The proposal has also been considered having regard to the specific assessment criteria as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Policy as follows:

1.    Character of the area: the proposal is not considered to be compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located

2.    Special areas:  the proposal is not located within any of the special areas listed in the Policy. However, it is located opposite the residential component of a mixed use building which would detract from the amenity of these residences in terms of outlook from their balconies and living areas

3.    Views and vistas: the proposal does not obscure or compromise important views, and would not dominate the skyline. As noted above, the proposed signage would be visible from residential properties located close by and would reduce the quality of the outlook from these residences. The proposal does not impinge on the viewing rights of other advertisers.

4.    Streetscape, setting or landscape: As noted above, the proposal is not considered to be appropriate for the streetscape and setting. It is located on a blank wall and may contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, however it does not reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising nor does it screen unsightliness. The proposed sign is wholly located on the elevation and does not protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality, nor does it  require ongoing vegetation management.

5.    Site and building: The proposal is not incompatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which it is to be located and, being located on a side wall, does not interfere with any important features of the site or building. However, the proposal does not show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building.

6.    Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures: no safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos have been designed as an integral part of the signage

7.    Illumination: Council requested information regarding the proposed illumination of the sign, if any. This information has not been provided to Council.

8.    Safety: the RTA has not raised any concerns regarding the impact of the proposed signage on the safety for any public road, for pedestrians or bicyclists, and due to its proposed location the signage would not reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas

 

Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines - Assessing Development Applications Under SEPP 64 (July 2007)

 

Clause 13(3) requires that the provision of public benefits in connection with the display of the advertisement in accordance with the Guidelines. Part 4.2 of the Guidelines states that “The level of public benefit for a given SEPP 64 advertisement is to be negotiated and agreed upon between the consent authority and the applicant.

The public benefit can be provided as a monetary contribution or as an ‘in-kind’ contribution. Both monetary and in-kind contributions must be linked to improvements in local community services and facilities including benefits such as:-

·        Improved traffic safety (road, rail, bicycle and pedestrian);

·        Improved public transport services;

·        Improved public amenity within or adjacent to the transport corridor;

·        Support school safety infrastructure and programs; or

·        Other appropriate community benefits.

 

The applicant has not provided any information with the development application regarding the provision of public benefits described above. Were the proposed signage to be acceptable, the provision of public benefits would be imposed as a condition of consent.

 

The proposal was referred to the RTA for concurrence in accordance with Clause 18 of the SEPP. The RTA raised no concerns regarding the signage proposed and provided no recommended conditions of consent.

 

Clause 22 - Wall Advertisements

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies?

Number of signs

One per elevation

1 per elevation

Yes

Sign area

For elevation >200 m˛, <= 10% of the above ground elevation

Elevation = 611.1 m˛

Sign area = 45 m˛ (7.4%)

Yes

Protrusion from wall

Max 300mm

12mm

Yes

Location of sign

Must not protrude above the parapet or eaves

Must not extend over a window or other opening

Must not obscure significant architectural elements of the building

not located above the parapet or eaves

does not extend over a window or other opening

located on a blank elevation with no architectural elements

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

Other signage

a building identification sign or business identification sign is not displayed on the building elevation

no other signage present on the building elevation

Yes

 

Notwithstanding the numerical compliance of the development with the provisions of SEPP 64 shown in the above compliance table, the proposal is not considered to accord with the aims of the Policy in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area. As such, the proposal fails to satisfy the Assessment Criteria listed in Schedule 1 of the Policy and is not supported.

 

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

 

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

 

North Sydney Council objects to the subject proposal on the grounds that the sign is considered inappropriate for this location. It is noted that this section of Pacific Highway, on the boundary between North Sydney Council and Lane Cove Council, is the gateway into the St Leonards CBD precinct. Council believes that an Advertising Sign of this type and size would set an unwanted precedence for other signs on multi level buildings in the area and have an adverse impact on the streetscape.

 

North Sydney Council’s DCP 2002 policy (sect 16) for the St Leonards area seeks that:-

Outdoor signage in this area should be limited to small scale business identification advertisements at ground level (under awning, fascia, and top hamper) and no new larger illuminated wall and roof signs at upper levels.  A sign of this type would have a considerable impact on the street character and NSC would ask that LCC consider this position in their assessment of the subject DA.

 

 

Comment

           

The concerns raised above have been considered in the assessment of this application. It is agreed that the proposal is inappropriate for the location and would set an undesirable precedent for signage in the St Leonards CBD precinct. As such, the proposal is not supported.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with matters for consideration outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to all of the relevant instruments and policies. While signage is a permissible use within the B3 Commercial Core zone in accordance with the Lane Use Table within Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, the signage proposed is contrary to the provisions of Part N – Signage and Advertising of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan in terms of its size, content and the undesirable precedence such a sign would set for the St Leonards commercial area. Concern is also raised that, notwithstanding the undertaking of the applicant received, the proposal would restrict future development on the neighbouring site.

 

Notwithstanding the numerical compliance of the development with the provisions of SEPP 64 shown in the above compliance table, the proposal is not considered to accord with the aims of the Policy in that it is not compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for signage in the locality. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons listed below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A       That Pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA11/130 for the installation of one (1) 12.5m x 3.6m advertising sign on the  southern elevation of the existing commercial building on lot C in DP 414984 and known as 456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, for the following reasons:-

1.    The proposed sign is third party advertising and is prohibited in accordance with Part N2.4(h) of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan without special permission from Council. Special permission is not recommended in this instance.

2.    The proposal is contrary to the desired future character of the St Leonards area and as such is contrary to the aims and assessment criteria of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

3.    The proposed signage would set an undesirable precedent for future signage in the St Leonards commercial precinct as a whole.

4.    The proposal is contrary to the aim of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan “to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies” in accordance with Clause 1.2(b) of the Plan.

5.    The location of the sign on the side elevation would unduly restrict development potential on the neighbouring site.

6.    The proposal is not in the public interest.

B      That Part N - Signage and Advertising of Council’s signage DCP be reviewed, particularly regarding third party signage in the St Leonards precinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Depiction of Sign

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Services Division Report No. 278 - Site Location Plan

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Environmental Services Division Report No. 278 - Depiction of sign