m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Inspection Committee Meeting

16 June 2012, 8:30am

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Inspection Committee, to be held in the on site on Saturday 16 June 2012 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 16 June 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

1.       3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove (8:30am).............................................................. 4  

 

 

 

                    


Inspection Committee Meeting 16 June 2012

3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

Ordinary Council at its meeting on 21 May 2012 resolved that the matter be referred to the next Inspection Committee Meeting to held on the 16 June 2012.   

Record No:    DA10/281-01 - 21199/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Peter Walker 

 

 

Property:                     3 Second Ave, Lane Cove.   

DA No:                                    D281/2010 (Section 82a Review of determination)

Date Lodged:              30 January 2012

Cost of Work:              $8,000.

Owner:                                    E Zadeh

Applicant:                    E Zadeh         

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 82A review of determination for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

ZONE

R2 - Low Density Residential under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

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, 10a & 10b.

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                 1,2,5,7& 9 Second Ave, 14,16 & 19 Panorama Road & 46, 48 & 50 Osborne Road.

Ward Councillors       Clr Tudge, Clr Palmer, Clr Brooks-Horn & Clr Gaffney    

Progress Association  Osborne Park Residents Assoc.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Section 82A review of determination of the development application has been called to Council by Councillor Brooks-Horn.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·    The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 13.74m to Second Avenue and has an area of 954.8m˛.  The property has a steep embankment at the street alignment and no onsite parking or driveway.

 

·    The current application is a Section 82A review of determination of the refusal of a development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

·    One submission was received raising concerns with regard to privacy, outlook, setbacks, street character, excavation, no geotechnical report, development cost and suggests that the proposal should be a new application.

 

·    A number of amendments have been submitted which address some of the reasons for refusal. However the proposal does not meet with the requirements of the DCP.

 

·    The applicant suggests that the proposal would result in a more satisfactory outcome in relation to access to the dwelling house from the new garage taking into consideration his current & future mobility needs.

 

·    Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed garage would provide a more convenient access to the dwelling house, there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level. The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house.  

 

·    The proposal is not supported and recommended for refusal. 

 

SITE 

 

The site is located on the western side of Second Avenue. The site and Council’s verge share an embankment parallel to the street which causes the land to rise very steeply from the street for the first 3m and then slope moderately upwards and towards the rear of the property.  Towards the north and south there exist brick dwelling houses.  The Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached as AT-1 and AT-2.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant has requested Council to review it’s determination of refusal of the development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

 

In this review application, the applicant has made the following amendments to the plans that were refused:-

 

·    The proposed retaining wall at the front of the property has been deleted.

·    Engineering Certificate has been provided.

·    Driveway has been setback 1500mm from the northern boundary to protect trees on the adjoining property towards the north.

·    Proposed driveway gradient meets Australian Standards.

·    Garage level has been reduced and an internal stair access from garage has been provided.

·    Double pedestrian doors have been provided to the garage façade reducing the entrance from 4.8m to 3.9m thus converting the double garage to, effectively, a single car garage.

·    The garage FFL has been reduced from 55.700m to 54.800m, with a change in design of the roof to incorporate a low pitched metal roof with a gable feature.  The garage has a void over with a mezzanine level foyer entry.

·    The three windows on the southern elevation and five windows to the curved stairs have been replaced with glazing and an access door.

·    Stairs have been provided from the street level to the front entry of the dwelling house.

·    On the eastern & northern elevations additional windows have been provided to the mezzanine level.

 

Amended plans were lodged to address issues raised by Council’s Development Engineer with regard to driveway gradients and tree related issues raised by Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer.

 

The applicant submitted additional information including plans and photographs of 17 Panorama Road as an example of a steep driveway and significant excavation.

 

The applicant also submitted a copy of his Mobility Parking Scheme Card issued by the Roads & Traffic Authority, to indicate his physical disability.  

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS / HISTORY

 

DA119/2008 -        Construction of a double garage and formation of layback, concrete stairs, path and retaining walls which was approved.  This consent is valid till 10 June 2013. The proposed works have not commenced.

 

DA281/2010 –       Construction of a driveway to the existing dwelling house. This driveway was to be located to the south of the approved garage which has not been constructed. This application was refused by Council under delegated authority for the following reasons:-

 

·    The construction of the large steep driveway across the whole of the street frontage encroaching approximately 2.4m onto Council property is considered undesirable and would adversely impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

·    The proposed excavation works for the driveway near the northern boundary would result in extensive damage to three trees in the neighbour’s property.

·    The driveway crossover is partly outside No.5 Second Avenue which is considered to be undesirable.

·    The gradient of the driveway does not comply with the Australian Standard (AS2890).

·    The proposed driveway requires removal of part or all of the crib block wall and the plans do not clearly and accurately show the extent of the wall that must be removed and how it will be replaced. 

Note:  The owner of No.5 Second Avenue advises that the crib-block walls cannot be cut off but must be reconstructed with the appropriate end or corner units which would involve excavation work well inside his property which he would not allow.

·    A topographic survey has not been submitted with the development application showing exactly the criblock wall in relation to the works and how the disturbance to the wall can be managed without affecting No.5 Second Avenue.  Further accurate cross sections are not shown through the wall.

·    As the proposed driveway requires significant excavation into the existing rock shelf, certification and design from a suitable geotechnical engineer of the proposed excavation has not been submitted to ensure the proposal is achievable and no damage to adjoining properties will occur.

·    The pedestrian entry stairs are not shown on the front elevation.

            Note:  Any further applications submitted for this property must have a realistic cost of proposal.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA / POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 - Low Density Residential

Site Area:       954.8m˛

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.17:1 (159.4 m˛)

0.5

Yes

Height of Buildings

5m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part B - General

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Streetscape

Garages/carports & driveways impact on dwelling or streetscape.

Significant excavation for driveway & garage (retaining walls.)

Ensure garages/carports

& driveways do not dominate dwelling or streetscape.

No – Driveway/garage will have significant impact.

Setbacks

Ensure garages/carports & driveways do not dominate dwelling or streetscape.

Driveway & retaining walls.

Maintain predominant street setback, maintain vegetation, maintain amenity.

No - vegetation loss and adverse visual amenity impacts.

 

Part C - Residential Development

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

7.7-7.8m

Consistent with area or 7.5m where no consistent setback occurs.

No-not consistent with the established setback.

Side setback (min)

1.2m southern & 5.8 northern

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

N/a

<1000m˛: 8m or 25%

>1000m˛: 10m or 35%

-

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

3.7m garage door side above NGL

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

5.8 gable apex

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

1.5m

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

1 + mezzanine

2

Yes

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

610m˛ approx or 64%

35%

Yes

Cut and Fill      (max)

2m

1m  (more permitted for sloping sites)

No – however sloping site.

Solar Access

3 hrs

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

NA

NA

NA

Heritage Conservation

NA

NA

NA

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

NA

3m

NA

Private open space

>24 m˛

>4m depth

24 m˛ (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

NA

NA

NA

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

1

2 per dwelling

No

Driveway width

3m

3m at the lot boundary

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Rural Fire Service    

 

The application was referred to Rural Fire Service who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The application has been referred Council’s Engineer who has advised that On Site Detention system would be required. The proposed excavation has been supported in a report by R & S Consulting Engineers. Draft conditions with regard to excavation and proposed driveway have been provided which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

Manager Parks

 

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

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

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with development consent from Council.

 

The objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is as follows:-

 

To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

 

The proposal involves significant scaring and excavation into the embankment of Council property and of the front garden area of 3 Second Avenue. The driveway and retaining structures would be the major elements in the appearance of the proposal and the existing landscaping would be significantly compromised.    

 


Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Land

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 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, it is considered that contamination of the site is unlikely. 

 

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 in addition to other non compliances with objectives and provisions.

 

Development Control Plan 2009 - Part C Residential Development

 

·      The objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.1 is as follows:-

“Ensure new dwellings and alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.”

Comment:

It is considered that the extensive excavating and paving a significant proportion of the front building setback area to provide for a single car garage is not compatible with the surrounding context and would not enhance the streetscape.  

 

·      The streetscape objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.2 is as follows:-

“Achieve development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character.”

Comment:

The existing streetscape is of garages excavated into the front of properties within steep embankments and dwellings set well back from the street. Driveways exist where the topography allows. It is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the streetscape for this section of Second Avenue.  Council has already approved a double garage on the subject site the consent for which is still valid.

“Ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced.”

Comment:

It is considered the excavation and retaining required for the proposal would not maintain or enhance the landscape character of the area. The landscape character would change to that of hard paved driveway, stairs and retaining structures.

 

“Ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design.”

Comment:

This section of Second Avenue is affected by steep grades up to 1:3. The subject site is more constrained than 1, 5 & 7 Second Avenue and the next adjoining property at 19 Panorama Road.  The proposal does not reinforce the existing topography of the site. The proposal would cut and alter the topography of the site.  Several amendments were required to achieve driveway grades which are barely adequate and require the garage floor level to be excavated up to 2m below ground in addition to the retaining walls and structures for the driveway. 

The applicant submitted pictures of the driveway and garage to 17 Panorama Road to support his proposal. However the difference in the two properties is that the contours at 17 Panorama Road are not as unfavourable and the garage is excavated under the house within the building footprint of the existing building unlike the proposed extension projecting towards the front of the house and within the front setback. The applicant states that this dwelling was constructed 25 years ago, it should be noted that at that time, controls were less comprehensive than as is the case today.       

 

“Ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or Streetscape.”

Comment:

It is considered the appearance of the driveway, garage, and stairs would dominate the streetscape. The current proposal is out of character for this part of the street.

 

·    The setback objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.3 is as follows:-

“Maintain the predominant street setback.

To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side boundaries.”

Comment:

The proposal has changed from a driveway and attached garage to an extension to the front of the dwelling house containing a garage, mezzanine and entry. This extension does not maintain the predominant street setback.

·    The front setback provision indicated in subclause 1.3.1 is as follows:-

“The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street. Where there is no predominant setback within the street, the setback should be a minimum of 7.5m. Irregular sites may be considered on their merits.”

“In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.”

Comment:

Second Avenue has an established predominant street setback and the proposed extension to the house to contain the garage, mezzanine & entry would encroach over 7m into the setback zone.

 

·    The cut and fill objective indicated in clause 1.6 is as follows:-

“Retain the natural ground levels as much as possible of a site and its existing landforms particularly in relation to the street or adjacent private open space areas.

To achieve reasonable landscaping within development.

To minimise the extent of cut and fill and its impact along side boundaries.

To create a consistent relationship between the dwelling and the street.

To ensure that excavation and filling of a site does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings.

To minimise change to water run-off patterns.”

Comment:

The proposal would not retain the natural ground levels or existing landforms within the front setback although it is noted sufficient landscaping is available over the entire site. Substantial cut adjacent to side boundaries would be required for the garage and driveway levels and the proposal would result in amenity impacts to the adjoining dwelling at 5 Second Ave.  

·    Cut and fill provision is as follows:-

“Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation.”

Comment:

The proposal is not considered to relate to the existing topography. The areas for excavation are not contained within the building footprint. The proposed 2m of excavation exceeds Council’s standard 1m requirement and due to the impacts created, it is not considered reasonable.      

·   The objectives of building design are to ensure alterations and additions reinforce the typical bulk and scale of existing dwellings within the street and the area, maintain the integrity of the design and style of the existing building, ensure elevations to the street and public domain are well proportioned and designed and minimise impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties, loss of views and amenity.

Comment:

It is considered the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to the requirement to provide car parking to the site. Extensive cut is required to the site and from some elevations what appears to be a two level extension, to provide a single car garage to the existing dwelling house.

·    Amenity

Comment:

It is considered the proposed garage extension will create some amenity impacts to the adjoining owner to the south. The neighbours do utilise the front verandah of their house and front garden area for passive recreation. The extension, projecting into the front setback will increase overshadow particular in winter afternoon. As the southern elevation consists of eight windows and a door, privacy would be impacted.       

·    Car Parking

Comment:

Currently the dwelling has no on-site car parking.  However, there is a consent for a double garage on the property at the street alignment. The current proposal before Council appears to provide for two car parking spaces in accordance with Council’s requirement.  However, the narrowness of the driveway and garage entrance results in the garage is impractical for 2 vehicles due to the number of movements required. It is considered that only one car would be accommodated. Therefore the proposal does would not comply with Council’s requirement minimum car parking requirement.

 


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

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the development application. The amended plans altered the proposal to a minor extent and as they addressed Council requirements the amendments were not renotified.  The issues raised in the submission from the adjoining owner to the south (5 Second Avenue) are as follows:-

 

·    Proposed garage & structures differ greatly from previous applications and should not be considered a review of determination rather a new development application.

Comment:

Whilst it is agreed that numerous changes have been made to the original proposal, it is possible to submit amended plans in a Section 82A review as long as the development is substantially the same development. The current proposal is still a driveway and an attached garage and so considered substantially the same development.  

 

·    Proposed upper foyer/entry structure extends 3.2-4.3m above ground level, will cause overshadowing and outlook from front porch in conflict with Section 1.3.1 of DCP, regarding setbacks & character of street.

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal would impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property and the streetscape.  These issues have already been addressed within this report.

 

·    Entry structure glazing/windows is unattractive and would create privacy impacts.

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal contains significant glazed areas on the southern elevation with associated privacy impacts which has been indicated with in the report.

 

·    No geotechnical report submitted.

Comment:

A report from a Structural Engineer has been submitted by the applicant. Council’s Development Engineer has considered this report adequate to determine the application.

 

·    Excavation 3m in depth 2m from (No.5) house in excess of Development Control Plan 2010 guidelines and possibly unstable.  

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal does not comply with Council’s Development Control Plan in relation to excavation. With regard to stability, the structural Engineers report has required a further Geotechnical report to be submitted so as not to impede on the neighbouring property.    

 

·    Plans make no reference to other retaining walls or batter slopes next to driveway and pedestrian steps. Plans are diagrammatic and downplay the bulk & scale of earthworks.

Comment:

It is considered that the plans do not fully indicate earthworks and comprehensive details of retaining walls. Batter slopes have not been provided at this stage.

 

·    Crib retaining wall

Comment:

This structure would largely be removed in the event the proposal went ahead.

 

·    Cost of the  proposed development is incorrect

Comment:

It is agreed that the applicant has underestimated the cost of the proposed development. In the event that the Council was to approve the application, the applicant would be required to provide a registered  Quantity Surveyor’s estimate and pay Council the balance of the DA fee as a condition of consent.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The amended proposal has been considered in relation to section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009 and the proposal cannot be supported for a number of reasons including non compliance with Council’s LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009. In relation to access, whilst the garage as proposed will improve convenience to the dwelling, the proposal will still involve 25 steps and is not accessible for people with mobility needs.  Further, it is considered that the construction works above ground (as proposed) on Council’s property, sets an undesirable precedent and should not be supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the determination of development consent  D281/2010, refused on 4 April 2011 for the Construction of an access driveway and a double garage on lot 22 DP19003 and known as 3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove is reaffirmed and the review of the application refused for the following reasons:-

1.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove LEP 2009 objective which requires that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

2.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.

3.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that the scale and appearance should be in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character; ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced; ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design; ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape.

4.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal does not maintain the predominant street setback and encroaches into that predominant setback by up to 7m.

5.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan with regard to cut & fill as the proposal will not retain natural ground levels or existing landforms and substantial cut over 1m adjacent to side boundaries will be required for the garage and driveway levels.

6.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to meet the requirement to provide onsite car parking space.

7.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal would impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling to the south with regard to shadowing and privacy.

8.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan Car Parking requirement as the proposal would provide for only one onsite car parking space. 

9.       The construction of a driveway, retaining structures and stairs on Council’s property is considered undesirable. 

10.     The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house as there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level.  

11.     The proposed development is not in public interest and would set an undesirable precedent.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Site Location Plan

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plan