m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

6 August 2013, 5:00pm

 

 Please note a site inspection will be held at 3pm for panel members only.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, Lane Cove Council, 48 Longueville Rd Lane Cove on Tuesday 6 August 2013 commencing at 5:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

IHAP Meeting Procedures

 

The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) meeting is chaired by The Hon David Lloyd QC. The meetings and other procedures of the Panel will be undertaken in accordance with the Lane Cove Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel Charter and any guidelines issued by the General Manager.

The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless the Panel resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

Members of the public may address the Panel for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons wishing to address the Panel must register prior to the meeting by contacting Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611. Speakers must address the Chair and speakers and Panel Members will not enter into general debate or ask questions during this forum. Where there are a large number of objectors with a common interest, the Panel may, in its absolute discretion, hear a representative of those persons.

Following the conclusion of the public forum the Panel will convene in closed session to conduct deliberations and make decisions. The Panel will announce each decision separately after deliberations on that item have concluded. Furthermore the Panel may close part of a meeting to the public in order to protect commercial information of a confidential nature.

Minutes of IHAP meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Friday following the meeting. If you have any enquiries or wish to obtain information in relation to IHAP, please contact Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611.

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are Webcast. Webcasting allows the community to view proceedings from a computer without the need to attend the meeting. The webcast will include vision and audio of members of the public that speak during the Public Forum. Please ensure while speaking to the Panel that you are respectful to other people and use appropriate language. Lane Cove Council accepts no liability for any defamatory or offensive remarks made during the course of these meetings.

The audio from these meetings is also recorded for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of the minutes and the recordings are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 6 August 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Panel to make a submission.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      INDEPENDENT HEARING AND ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING – 4 JUNE 2013

 

 

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

 

3.       S82A Review Report-15 Austin Street, Lane Cove

 

 

 

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 August 2013

7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA09/155-01 - 34443/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Kristy Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    DA09/155

 

Date Lodged:              25 June 2013

 

Cost of Work:              As per original application

 

Owner:                                    T Cheng

 

Applicant:                    T Cheng

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 modification of DA09/155 which approved the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house and carport. Modifications sought include alterations to the roof form from a flat roof to a curved roof.

ZONE

R2 – Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is permissible within the zone.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

The property is not 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 adjacent to bushland.

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a.

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No.

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   3, 5, 9, 18, & 20 Chisholm Street, 76B, 78, 80, 82 Greenwich Road, 7 Edwin Street

Ward Councillors          East Ward

Progress Association    Nil

Other Interest Groups  Greenwich Community Association

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Section 96 modification report is being referred for determination to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel given concerns raised by the adjoining residents particularly in relation to impact upon existing iconic views.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

-      The original building as approved featured a 3° roof pitch behind a parapet at RL55.90 with a higher central parapet element to the front (east) of the dwelling house at RL56.60, immediately behind which was a centrally located pop-up clerestory window element toward the front of the dwelling house that also featured a maximum height of RL56.60.

 

-      A Section 96 modification was lodged in January 2013 to alter internal levels, remove some areas of roof overhang, and lower the approved higher central parapet to 56.25, a reduction of 350mm. The Section 96 modification was approved 11.2.2013.

 

-      This Section 96 modification to development application DA09/155 proposes to increase the maximum roof level back to RL55.90 as originally approved, and introduces a curved roof form.

 

-      The maximum height of the proposed building is RL56.60 or up to 6.7m, which is a minimum of 2.8m less than the maximum height of buildings permitted on the site under the Lane Cove LEP which is 9.5m. It should also be noted that the maximum height of buildings permitted under Complying Development for the property would be a maximum of 8.5m above ground level (existing).

 

-      A summary of the height of the approved building over time and the modifications sought under this Section 96 application compared with the building height controls is provided in the table below:

 

 

Control

Original approval

Section 96 (January 2013)

Current application

Building height

9.5m

6.85m

6.5m

6.85m

Side wall height (DCP) / Ceiling height (pre-2010 Dwelling House Code)

7.0m

6.5m (Ceiling height control as per Dwelling House Code controls)

6.25m

6.25m

 

-      Concerns raised regarding the modifications sought involve the impact of the proposed curved roof structure on the existing iconic views.

 

-      The application as originally submitted did not give any consideration to the impact of the proposal on views. At Council’s request the applicant has responded to concerns raised regarding views by asserting that the proposal as modified “makes no significant difference to the views their [sic] currently have”.

 

-      Council officers visited the objectors’ properties to ascertain the views available, given the works carried out to date. It was considered that the modifications sought would impact upon the views available to the neighbouring properties, with the most severe impact being on the iconic views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge available from the rear of 78 Greenwich Road. These impacts are considered sufficient to warrant amendments to the design of the amended proposal.

 

-      An additional draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report (draft Condition 1A) requiring the overall height of the structure to be reduced by not less than 250mm in order to ameliorate the impact of the amended structure on the views available to the neighbouring properties to the rear of the site. It is also suggested that the applicant consider a similar curved roof form for the approved carport at the front of the dwelling house to achieve a level of consistency between the two structures.

 

-      The proposal has been considered having regard to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and the view sharing principles set down by the Land and Environment Court. The proposal, if amended as recommended above, is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

 

SITE

 

The site is known as Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 8620 and is located on the western side of Chisholm Street, near the intersection of Chisholm Street and Edwin Street. The site is regular in shape and 363.8 m² in area, with a frontage of 11.94m to Chisholm Street and depth of between 29.77m and 29.9m.

 

Existing development on the site consists of a two storey masonry dwelling house under construction which was approved under DA09/155. Existing development on neighbouring sites consists of a Federation single storey masonry and tile dwelling house at 5 Chisholm Street and a modern two storey masonry dwelling house with metal roof at 9 Chisholm Street. The neighbouring dwelling house at 5 Chisholm Street has been approved for demolition by a Private Certifier under Complying Development (CD13/60).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks consent pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify DA09/155 which approved the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house at 7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich. The modifications sought include:-

 

-      Change in the roof form from a 3° shallow-pitched Colourbond roof with a maximum parapet height of 6.4m (RL56.25) and maximum roof height of 6m to a curved roof form with a maximum height of 6.7m (RL56.60).

-      Alterations to the approved window arrangements, including the deletion of W22 and W18 (first floor, northern side), deletion of W15 and W10 (southern side), and an increase in length of one window at first floor level (W20, northern side).

 

Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

DA09/14:          Demolition of existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house. Withdrawn 30.3.2009.

 

A preliminary assessment of the above application revealed that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on the views of the city and Harbour Bridge available to the neighbouring properties to the rear of the site, particularly 78 Greenwich Road. Amended plans were submitted and a string line was erected to demonstrate the resulting height of the amended proposal. The amended proposal continued to have an unacceptable impact on these views and the applicant was advised that Council could not support the proposal. Council requested that the application be withdrawn, with notification of withdrawal of the application received by Council on 30 March 2009.

 

DA09/155:        Demolition of existing single storey dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house. Approved 11.1.2010.

 

Concerns were raised by neighbouring properties regarding the impact of the proposed dwelling house on the views available to the neighbouring properties to the rear at 76B and 78 Greenwich Road. Due to the view loss concerns raised, amended plans were requested and a stringline was required to be erected on the site. Notwithstanding the amended plans and reasoning provided, the proposal could not be supported.

 

Amended plans were subsequently submitted with a lower roof form and accompanied by a perspective photograph on 4 December 2009. Those amended plans formed the basis of Council’s assessment report of January 2010.   It is important to note that the application was lodged prior to the gazettal of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and was assessed under the provisions of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 and the Dwelling House Code. (Attachment AT3)

 

DA09/155A:      Section 96 Modification of DA09/155 which approved demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling house. Modifications sought include internal reconfiguration, deletion of the clerestory windows and reduction in the height of the approved parapet. Approved 11.2.2013.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the amendments proposed, however as the external amendments proposed served to reduce the height of the structure through the deletion of the approved centrally located pop-up clerestory windows, and lowering the height of the approved parapet by 350mm from RL56.60 to a maximum height of RL 56.25, the proposal was considered to be acceptable. (Attachment AT4)

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

Unchanged

0.5

Unchanged

Height of Buildings

Front: 6.7m

Rear: 6.5m

9.5m

Yes

Yes

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Unchanged

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Unchanged

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

Not applicable

2m

Not applicable

Side setback (min)

Unchanged

1200mm/1500mm

Unchanged

Rear setback (min)

Unchanged

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Unchanged

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

South: 5.5-5.7m

North:  5.5-6.2m

7.0m

Yes

Ridge height

6.7m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

Unchanged

1.5m

Unchanged

Number of Storeys (max)

Unchanged

2

Unchanged

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

Unchanged

35%

Unchanged

Foreshore Building Line            (min)

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

Cut and Fill      (max)

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

Solar Access

Unchanged

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Unchanged

Provide for view sharing

See below

 

Further discussion provided below

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

Unchanged

3m

Unchanged

Private open space

Unchanged

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Unchanged

Basix

Certificate 463112S_05 submitted

Certificate required

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Due to the nature of the modifications sought, no referrals were required to be carried out.

 

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

 

The modifications sought are not contrary to the provision of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and no concerns are raised in this regard.

 

Section 96(2)

 

The application has been considered having regard to the matters for consideration provided by Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and is satisfied of the following:-

 

(a)        that the consent as modified is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b)        Ministerial consultation was not required, and

(c)        the modification application has been notified in accordance with Council’s policies, and

(d)        the submission received concerning the proposed modification was considered in the assessment of this modification application. Discussion of the points raised in the objection received is hereunder.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

The modified proposal was accompanied by a BASIX Certificate and the commitments required to be noted at the development application stage are shown on the accompanying plans. The proposal therefore satisfies the policy and raises no further issues in this regard.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The site is not located within the Foreshores and Waterways Area as defined by the plan and the modified proposal raises no concerns in this regard.

 

PLANNING PRINCIPLE: VIEW SHARING

 

Concerns were raised by two properties to the rear of the site at 76B and 78 Greenwich Road regarding the impact of the proposed amendments to the approved dwelling house on their access to views.  The views available to the two properties differ due to their position in relation to the subject site, the existing built form, and the vegetation present on the site and adjoining sites.  As such, the views from the properties have been assessed separately having regard to the principles set down by the Land and Environment Court in relation to view sharing [Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140]  as follows.

 

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. With regards to 76B Greenwich Road; the views are predominately city skyline views (Plate 1 and 2), although Harbour Bridge views are available from the first floor bathroom (Plate 3), these views are obscured by trees located in Edwin Street.  With regards to 78 Greenwich Road; the views of the city skyline and the Sydney Harbour Bridge are mostly blocked by the curve of the building (as-built) as shown in Plates 4-6 below. Views of the water are obscured by trees.

 

Plate 1: View from the first floor rear balcony of 76B Greenwich Road

Plate 2: View from the first floor rear (eastern) balcony of 76B Greenwich Road, zoomed in

 

Plate 3: View available from the first floor bathroom of 76B Greenwich Road, zoomed in

 

Plate 4: View from 78 Greenwich Road, northeastern bedroom, standing

 

Plate 5: View from 78 Greenwich Road, northeastern bedroom, standing, zoomed in

 

Plate 6: view from 78 Greenwich Road, first floor southeastern bedroom, standing

 

Plate 7: view from 78 Greenwich Road, attic level, standing

 

 

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.

 

In this instance the views are obtained predominantly over the rear boundaries of the affected properties. With regard to 76B Greenwich Road; the windows from which the views are obtained are a first floor bedroom and first floor bathroom.  Views on the first floor can be obtained from a standing position.

 

With regard to 78 Greenwich Road; glimpses of the Harbour Bridge are available from the first floor northeastern bedroom in a standing position, and views of the upper portion of the city skyline are available from both bedrooms including the top of Centrepoint Tower.  These views are available from a standing position for a person of average height. Views of the harbour, Harbour Bridge, and city skyline are available from the attic level rear window (Plate 7), however this room is accessed only by a drop-down attic ladder and is not considered to be a habitable room.

 

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact.

 

View loss is assessed qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating. The assessment of the view loss associated with the original development application (AT3) determined that the proposal “would result in the loss of view of the bottom portion of the Harbour Bridge from the roadway on the northern side of the bridge across to the southernmost point of the upper arch of the bridge where it meets the southern pylon, and obstructing approximately 60% of the existing view of the southern pylon. Further, all existing views of the Opera House would be obstructed. The view loss arising from the amended proposal is considered to be severe.”  The original approval featured a rear parapet height equivalent to the proposed roof level at the side wall, the equivalent of the top rail of the scaffolding currently available on the site.  As shown in Plate 5, it is the new arched element that further obstructs the view of the Harbour Bridge available from 78 Greenwich Road to the point where only a small portion of it remains visible as a result of the modifications sought. Should the roof be constructed as proposed in this Section 96 modification, the remaining view of the Harbour Bridge from the rear first floor bedrooms of 78 Greenwich Rd would be lost. It is therefore considered that the modifications sought would result in a devastating view loss to 78 Greenwich Road of the last element of the Harbour Bridge.

 

Comment

           

Due to the relative location of the site at 76B Greenwich Road and the subject site, the angle from which the view is obtained, and the increase in height forming a curved roof form, it is considered that the impact of the proposal on the views available from the first floor level bathroom of 76B Greenwich Road would be negligible. Further, the loss of that part of the existing view of the city skyline to the southeast of the site below the high point of the curved roof includes a portion of the city skyline but the upper portion, including views of Centrepoint Tower, remain as a result of the modified proposal.  Council’s original assessment report stated that “As most of this view is currently obstructed by the existing roof form of the dwelling house at 7 Chisholm Street, the impact of the proposal on the views available to the rear first floor level of 76B Greenwich Road is considered to be minor.”  The impact of the modifications as sought on the views available to 76B Greenwich Road continue to be considered to be ‘minor’.

 

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.

 

Comment

 

The modifications proposed to the approved dwelling house comply with all of the numerical requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan.  The height of the structure is a minimum of 2.8m below the maximum height of 9.5m permitted under Clause 4.3 of the Lane Cove LEP.  The design of the dwelling house has been formulated with the aim of reducing the overall height and impact on the views available to the neighbouring dwelling houses, whilst providing the occupants with an acceptable level of amenity. The applicants have sought the amendments on advice from their builder as they were made aware of the inherent practical issues associated with a 3° pitch and, rather than propose a steeper pitch, the applicants have sought to include a curved roof form to assist with the dispersal of water and debris from the roof, thus reducing ongoing maintenance and potential waterproofing issues that would arise. Whist this curve could have been achieved using a lower springing point to mitigate the impact of view loss on the neighbouring properties, the work has been partially carried out and is considered having regard to the as-built form.  The introduction of a curved roof to the building would also serve to increase visual interest and elevate the architectural merit of the building.

 

Given the constraints of the site and the work as carried out, it is not considered that a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.  The planning principle states “if the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable”. Rather than a change in design of the as-built structure, lowering of the overall height of the proposed curved roof by not less than 250mm, including lowering the internal springing point accordingly so that the pre-fabricated roof trusses may continue to be used, is considered would be an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the neighbouring properties with regard to views.  It must also be noted that the site is a site on which Complying  Development may be carried out where development may achieve a maximum height of 8.5m with no consideration given to the impact on views available to neighbouring properties.

 

An additional draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report (draft Condition 1A) requiring the overall height of the structure to be reduced by not less than 250mm in order to ameliorate the impact of the amended proposal on the views available to the properties to the rear of the subject site. Given the above and subject to the draft conditions as recommended, it is considered that the proposal accords with the requirements of the planning principle and is acceptable in terms of the view sharing principles set down by the Court.

 

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

 

Nil

 

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

 

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

 

The new proposed amendment and the construction of the curved roof have already started, with the brick form work for the construction of the proposed curved metal roof in place. Concern that the work undertaken will prejudice the case.

 

Comment       

 

Council is permitted to consider modifications to an approved scheme if the works have been wholly or partially carried out. The proposal has been considered having regard to the provisions of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan, Development Control Plan, and the Land and Environment Court’s Planning Principles, and the fact that the work has been partially carried out is not the determining factor in the assessment of the modifications sought.

 

Concerns that the proposed amendment would take away a substantial part of the remaining iconic view for 76B Greenwich Road

 

Comment

 

The impact of the modified proposal on the views available to 76B Greenwich Road have been discussed in detail above.

 

The reasons articulated for having a curved roof are not well founded. The applicant is an engineer and he would know that a properly constructed flat roof will not create any problem.

 

Comment

 

The concern of the applicant is the ongoing maintenance required and avoiding the comment waterproofing issues that arise with very low pitched roof forms.

 

Has the Council or the Certifier taken any action for this unauthorised work?

 

Comment

 

There is no record of any action being taken regarding the works carried out. This is not unusual given the as-built changes to the approved proposal are the subject of this Section 96 modification application.

 

Concerns raised regarding the previous amendment were not considered to warrant any changes to the plans

 

Comment

 

The concerns raised by the owners of 76B Greenwich Road were considered in the assessment report for the Section 96 modification lodged earlier this year (see AT2).  In that report it was noted that the works that would give rise to view loss had been assessed and determined under a previous application.  As with this report, it was only the impact of the amendments proposed that were considered under the previous Section 96 modification.

 

The proposal will increase shadowing into the backyard of 78 Greenwich Road

 

Comment

 

The proposal would not result in any undue increase in overshadowing in the rear yard at mid-winter (21 June) as the property at 78 Greenwich Road is to the northwest of the subject site.

 

Complete obliteration of the wonderful and iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from 78 Greenwich Road. The changes would completely obstruct the view from both rear bedrooms.

 

Comment

 

An assessment of the additional  impact on the views available to 78 Greenwich Road arising from the modified roof form proposed is included in this report, above.  An additional draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report (draft Condition 1A) requiring the overall height of the structure to be reduced by not less than 250mm and, subject to the draft conditions as recommended, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.


Request to see the surveyors report for the to see if the new construction complies with the approved plans

 

Comment

 

The roof line as constructed would not comply with the approved plans as it proposes a different, higher roof form which is the subject of this Section 96 application. The condition imposed on the original approval requiring a check survey certificate (Condition 16) at critical stages still applies to the development and it is the responsibility of the Certifier to ensure that this condition is complied with.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters for consideration in relation to Sections 96(2) and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered in the assessment of the modified scheme, as well as the view sharing principles set down by the Land and Environment Court.

 

The amendments proposed would impinge upon the existing views to a number of windows and viewing opportunities to properties at the rear of the site.  The proposed additional condition would minimise the view loss to an acceptable and reasonable degree. As such, it is recommended that the development proposal be approved subject to the lowering of the roof by no less than 250mm as set out in draft Condition 1A.  Further, consideration should be given to the need to also reflect the architectural element of the curved roof of the dwelling house in the carport roof form, and an appropriate draft condition to accommodate such has been included in the recommendation of this report (Condition 1B). On balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable, subject to the draft conditions as recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel grant approval for the development consent DA09/155 granted on the 15th January 2010 for the demolition and construction of a two storey dwelling house at 7 Chisholm Street, Greenwich to be amended in the following manner:-

 

A         Replace Condition 1 with the following:-

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number DA155-A01 to DA155-A07, inclusive, dated 22/6/13 by Kin S Chan, and drawing number 8132 DA 1, Rev. C, dated 6.10.09 by Vision Dynamics Pty Ltd, except as amended by the following conditions.

 

B         Insert Conditions 1A and 1B as follows:-

 

1A.      The maximum height of the development shall be reduced by not less than 250mm to an overall height of not greater than RL56.35. Internal ceiling arrangements may be amended accordingly.

 

1B.      The roof of the carport shall be amended to feature a curved roof form in keeping with the curved roof form of the dwelling house on the site.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Delegated Authority Report dated 4 February 2013

5 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Delegated Authority Report dated 1 February 2010

17 Pages

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 August 2013

S82A Review Report-15 Austin Street, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          S82A Review Report-15 Austin Street, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA12/133-01 - 35459/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      May Li 

 

 

Property:                     15 Austin Street, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                                    DA 12/133 (Section 82A Review)

 

Date Lodged:              24 May 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $781,500.00

 

Owner:                                    Xue Qin Wang

 

Applicant:                    Tony Polvere

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development application DA 133/2012 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house comprising 18 rooms and caretaker’s accommodation was refused by Council under delegated authority on 15 January 2013.

 

This Section 82A Review application is referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination in accordance with Section 82A (6) (a) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·    Development application DA 12/133 for demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house was lodged with Council on 8 August 2012.

 

·    The application was refused by Council under delegated authority on 15 January 2013.  Refer to Attachment 1 for the Notice of Determination of Development Application (Attached AT1).

 

·    The reasons of refusal were outlined in the development assessment report.  Refer to Attachment 2 of the assessment report (Attached AT2).

 

·    The applicant has lodged an application for review of determination under Section 82A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on 24 May 2013.

 

·    The S82A application has demonstrated that the proposed building meets the building height standard of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and a written request for an exception to the building height standard is no longer required. 

 

·    The applicant has amended the design to comply with the building height standard of the LEP.  However, the proposed building design remains incompatible with the character of the locality which would create adverse impacts on the streetscape. 

 

·    The original decision to refuse the application is recommended to be reaffirmed.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Development application DA 12/133 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house comprising 18 rooms and a caretaker’s accommodation was lodged with Council on 8 August 2013.

 

The application was refused by Council under delegated authority on 15 January 2013 for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed development fails to meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the building height standard of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan.

 

3.         The application fails to address provision of Clause 4.6 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

4.         The proposal fails to meet the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

5.         The proposed design fails to meet the requirements of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

6.         The proposed development would create an adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT3 and AT4).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The S82A of Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 outlines provisions for reviewing determinations of development applications.  A council must, on a request made in accordance with this section, conduct a review. 

 

In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described  in the original application.  As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.

 

The S82A application includes the following amendments to the original development proposal:

 

·    Retention of existing Brushbox street tree and removal of London Plane street tree and relocation of proposed driveway.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The applicant has incorrectly identified the location of the Brushbox tree.  The proposed vehicular crossover is at the location of the Brushbox tree and the construction of proposed driveway would require the removal of the Brushbox street tree. 

 

·    Modification of the northern elevation so as not to impact on the existing drainage easement.

 

 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Council’s stormwater engineer has endorsed the proposed stormwater concept plan.

 

·    Provision of garbage bin storage area.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The garbage bin storage area is located within the front setback area.  A high solid fence at the front boundary is proposed for the screening of the bins.  A high solid fence would not be compatible with the adjoining properties and would create adverse impact to the streetscape. 

 

·    Extension of lift and stairs to the lower ground floor.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The amendment would improve the access to the building.  However, the design does not meet the fire safety provision of Building Code of Australia. 

 

·    Provision of a new common laundry on the lower ground floor.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The proposed laundry room would be an improvement of the proposed development.

 

·    Parking layout revised, storage of bicycles and motorcycle parking spaces indicated.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The layout of the proposed car park does not meet the design standards.  The proposed disabled car space does not meet AS2890.6.  The extent of bicycle and motorcycle parking space indicated are not adequate to accommodate the required number of spaces. 

 

Submission of additional reports for the S82A review:

 

·    Floor Risk Management Report and Stormwater Management Plan.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Council development engineer has endorsed the stormwater management report.

 

·    Boarding House Management Plan

 

Officer’s Comment

 

On site manager is not required for a boarding house with less than 20 boarding rooms in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP).  The proposed boarding house comprises 18 rooms and provides a caretaker’s accommodation for a manager living on the site.

 

The boarding house management plan outlines management of a complaints register, fire safety, communal areas and facility, cleanliness and maintenance, and boarding house rules.

 

However, there is no detail relating to the selection process for lodgers to ensure that there is no negative influence on the general public in the neighborhood given the site is located in close proximity of a primary school, a childcare centre and dwelling houses. 

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The development engineer has assessed the S82A application and provided the following advice:-

 

The proposal is for a new boarding house.  The application cannot be supported due to the non compliance issues with the carpark design and the driveway.

 

The proposed driveway conflicts with an existing street tree.  Confirmation from Council’s Tree Assessment Office is required regarding the tree removal.

 

The proposed parking layout appears non-compliance with AS2890.1.

 

In the event of IHAP approves the application, a new stormwater concept plan would be conditioned to reflect maintaining the existing Council pipeline within the easement and providing adequate freeboard for the ground floor to meet the requirement of Council’s DCP.

 

A new driveway proposed on Council property would be conditioned, subject to Council supporting the existing street tree removal. 

 

The car parking arrangements and driveway would be conditioned to meet the requirements of AS2890.1.

 

 

Manager Parks

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer has reviewed the S82A proposal and provided the following advice:-

 

I have reviewed the amended documents /Plans including the Landscape Plan. I do not support this application in its current form.  The advice and requested additional information outlined in the Landscape comments dated 16th August 2012 have not been addressed.   

 

As mentioned in the previous correspondence, the Brushbox street tree directly adjacent to the subject allotment at the Austin Street frontage forms part of the Local heritage Item No:L32. All the Brushbox street trees in Austin Street should be retained and protected because of their heritage significance.  The amended Plans show the removal of the Brushbox to allow construction of the driveway on the east side of the allotment.  The advice provided said Council would prefer the London Plane tree to be removed to accommodate a driveway from Austin Street into the site. The Brushbox street tree must be retained and, the tree protection zone required for this tree is 5m distance measured from the centre of the trunk of the tree.

 

The Landscape Plan (Drwg No: A105) is not to the satisfaction of Council. The Landscape Plan is vague in nature.  A more detailed Plan must be submitted for assessment. The Landscape Plan should be compiled by a Landscape designer or Landscape Architect.  The Landscape Plan must contain a planting schedule including how many of, and what plant species will be incorporated into the landscape on the site. It is noted that there is very little room for screen planting between the side boundary lines and the building.  

 

Building Surveyor

 

The Senior Building Surveyor has reviewed the S82A proposal and provided that the proposed design does not meet the following provisions of BCA:

 

1.   Windows identified in the accompanying BCA report are required to be enlarged to meet the natural light and natural ventilation provisions of the BCA.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The non-compliance could be addressed by a condition of consent.

 

 

2.   Spot levels and the grade of paths from the property boundary to the front door of the proposal are required to be indicated on the plans to assess compliance with the Premises Standards – 2010 and accessibility provision of the BCA.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

There is an elevated pedestrian pathway proposed between the front boundary and the first floor of the proposed building.  The finished first floor level is at RL69.65 which is approximately 1.2m higher than the existing ground level (RL68.41) at the front boundary. A minimum length of 16.8m pathway is required in accordance with the BCA.  The length of the proposed pedestrian pathway is approximately 8.5m which is insufficient to meet the access gradient of 1:14.  The redesign of the pedestrian pathway is required for the compliance of the BCA standard.

 

3.   The stair located at the Austin Street end of the building connects more than two storeys and is required to be fire isolated.  The current plans indicate that the stairway is not fire isolated.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

An amended design would be required for compliance with the BCA standard.

 

4.   A stairway and fire isolated stair cannot be contained within the same shaft as currently in the case. The plans must comply with clause C2.11 of the BCA in this regard.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

An amended design would be required for the compliance with the BCA standard.

 

5.   The width of the shared space for the disabled car space does not comply with AS2890.6.  The minimum shared space required is 2400mm exclusive of the car space minimum of 2400mm.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

An amended design would be required for the compliance with the AS2890.6.

 

Summary

 

The proposed building in its current design form does not meet the provisions of the BCA.  4 out of 5 non-compliances raised by Council Building Surveyor are unable to be addressed by conditions of consent.  The proposed building would need to be redesigned to meet the BCA provisions. 

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

 

The subject site is located within R3 – Medium Density Residential zone and boarding house developments are permissible with consent. 

 

The aims of the LEP require residential development to be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development. 

 

The northern side of Austin Street is dominated by dwelling houses with front gardens and driveways to the side of the houses. 

 

The S82A application has minor amendments to the original building design which was incompatible with the existing environmental character of the locality. The proposed development would not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development in the following ways:-

 

·    The carpark located on the first floor of the building above the boarding rooms would create adverse impact such noise and vibration on the amenity of the lodgers living on the site.

 

·    The elevated driveway and pedestrian pathway would be highly visible from public domain and create an unattractive visual impact on the streetscape.

 

·    The front setback area would be dominated by two bridges and waste bin storage area behind a high solid fence.

 

·    There is insufficient landscaping within the front setback area.

 

·    The development would result in the removal of a significant street tree.

 

The proposed design does not meet the aims of the LEP.

 

The amended plans meet the building height standard of the LEP.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

 

The original proposal failed to comply with the requirements of the DCP which requires a minimum of 4 accessible rooms.  The S82A proposal contains two accessible rooms and does not meet the requirements of the DCP.

 

The pedestrian access way does not meet the access provisions of the BCA.

 

The non-compliances with the DCP requirements remain unresolved. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP)

 

Clause 30A of the SEPP states that a consent authority must not consent to a boarding house development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

The proposed car park does not meet the parking requirements of the SEPP regarding the bike cycle and motorcycle parking spaces.

 

As discussed in the previous assessment report, the proposed development would be incompatible with the character of the local area.  The S82A review proposal has minor amendments to the original proposal and would not be compatible with the character of the local.

 

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

 

The S82A application was notified between 29 May 2013 and 13 June 2013.  Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The submissions state that the issues raised in their original submissions remain unresolved by the modified proposal submitted with the S82A Review application and their original objections to proposed development retain unchanged. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C and Section 82A provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been taken into consideration during the review process.  The application seeks consent for a boarding house development in an established sub-urban street.  The design of the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the existing residential locality and does not improve the presentation of the natural and built environment. 

 

The proposed development does not respect the topography of the site and also fails to comply with the relevant standards relating to the accesses, driveway, car parking layout and fire safety provision. 

 

The proposed development would not result in a positive outcome to the local environment and would not meet the minimum design standards of BCA relating to access, car parking and fire safety provisions. 

 

The determination of the application is recommended to be reaffirmed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel reaffirm the original decision and refuse the Section 82A Review of Determination application DA 12/133 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a boarding house comprising 19 rooms on Lot 16, DP 529942 and known as 15 Austin Street, Lane Cove for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed development fails to meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars:-

 

a).        The proposal fails to preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land.

 

 

b).        The proposed design is incompatible with the existing environmental character of the locality.

 

c).        The proposed development would not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

d).        The proposal fails to conserve a significant street tree.

 

2.         The proposal fails to meet the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)         The proposed development does not meet the parking requirements of the SEPP relating to the motor bike and bike cycle parking spaces.

 

b)         The proposed development is incompatible to the character of the existing development in relation to the build form, context and streetscape.

 

3.         The proposed design fails to meet the requirements of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)         The proposed design does not meet the access and mobility requirements of the DCP in relation to the access to the outdoor common area and the number of the accessible rooms.

 

4.         The proposed development would create an adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

a).        The proposed development would create over looking impact to the adjoining properties.

 

b).        The degree of the proposed excavation is excessive.

 

c).        The proposed building design would create an unacceptable visual impact to the streetscape.

 

5.         The proposed design fails to meet the provisions of Building Code of Australia.

 

Particulars:-

 

a).        Accessibility.

 

b).        Car parking layout for the disabled car space, bike cycle parking spaces, and motor bike parking spaces.

 

c).        Fire safety.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Letter advising development refusal dated 15 January 2013

3 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Delegated Authority Report dated 3 December 2012

14 Pages