Logo Watermark




















Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

2 October 2012, 5:00pm


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 2 October 2012





PRESENT:  Mr Trevor Bly (Chairperson), Mr Eugene Sarich (Expert) , Mr David Johnson (Expert), Ms Jane Blackmore (Community Representative)


ALSO PRESENT:  Mr Michael Mason (Executive Manager, Environmental Services), Mr Rajiv Shankar (Manager, Development Assessment), Mr Peter Walker (Town Planner), Mr Adrian Moore (Senior Building Surveyor)


APOLOGIES:  The Hon David Lloyd, QC


DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:  There were no declarations of interest.



The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being webcast.


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports


 Item 1:  456 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards





S82A Review of Council’s determination of the development application by Casella Wines for the installation of an advertising sign at 456 Pacific Highway, St Leonards.


(a)        Mr Mason provided an overview of Item 1.


(b)        Public speakers – Nil


(c)        Applicant’s speaker – Mr C Blyth, Consultant Town Planner on behalf of the applicant.


(d)        The site and the locality of the proposed sign were inspected by the panel members.




In reaching its decision in relation to this proposed sign, the panel took into account:


(a)  The Council officer’s report including the reasons for the original refusal.

(b)  The oral submissions of Mr Blyth.

(c)  A letter of objection from Mr P Hopkins, 460 Pacific Highway.

(d)  A letter of objection from the North Sydney Council.


The panel particularly noted the fact that the proposed sign would be predominantly observed from within the adjacent North Sydney Council area and thus gave significant weight to Council’s concern that it would have an adverse impact on the streetscape of the Pacific Highway in this “gateway location” into the St Leonard’s centre.  Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the North Sydney Development Control Plan that seeks to limit signage to “small scale business identification advertisements at ground level”.


The Panel resolved unanimously that the S82A review should not be successful and reaffirms Council’s decision that the application be refused because the proposed sign would not be consistent with the existing character of this “Eastern Gateway” section of St Leonards that is presently relatively free from visually cluttering, elevated signage. 


ITEM 2 - 8 Bayview Street, Northwood





Modification of DA325/07 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at 8 Bayview Street, Northwood.


(a)        Mr Mason provided an overview of Item 2.


(b)        Public speakers:  Simon Clatworthy, Peter Tabrett, Michael Guthrie and Glenda Burridge.


(c)        The applicant was not present.  The Panel was assured that every reasonable attempt was made to notify him of this meeting.


(d)        The site was inspected by the Panel members in company with Council officers.




Having taken into account the Assessment officer’s report and the resident’s submissions, the Panel resolved, unanimously, that the modification application be refused for the following reasons:


1.         Absence of owner’s consent.


2.         The floor space ratio in cl 4.4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 is significantly exceeded and the associated objective requiring that the bulk and scale of the modified building be compatible with the character of the locality is not met.  Also, the applicant has not submitted a cl 4.6 variation to justify the non compliance.


3.         The proposal fails to meet the requirements of Part C of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan with respect to:


·         front setback;

·         external building height and number of storeys;

·         width of front terrace;

·         front fence;

·         soft landscape area and landscape plans;

·         excavation;

·         on-site parking.


4.         The objectives of the R2 Low Density Zone in the Local Environmental Plan are not met given the overshadowing and overlooking of No.6 Bayview Street, together with the deficiency of landscaping.




5.         The amenity of neighbours would be adversely affected in terms of:


·         privacy;

·         overshadowing;

·         building bulk;

·         stormwater runoff.







The meeting closed at 8.30pm.









********* END OF MINUTES *********