m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

3 September 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 3 September 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 3 September 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 - 6 AUGUST 2013

 

 

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       6 Gay Street, Lane Cove North

 

3.       28 George Street, Greenwich (S96 Modification B)

 

 

 

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 3 September 2013

6 Gay Street, Lane Cove North

 

 

Subject:          6 Gay Street, Lane Cove North    

Record No:    DA12/156-01 - 37681/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Rebecka Groth 

 

 

Property:                     6 Gay Street, Lane Cove North

 

DA No:                                    DA156/12 (section 82A Review)

 

Date Lodged:              3 July 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $400,000.00

 

Owner:                                    P & P W J Wanduragala

 

Applicant:                    Mark Abbey

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development Application DA2012/156 for alterations and additions to an existing child care centre and an increase in the number of children from 23 to 40 was refused by Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting of 5 March 2013.

 

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

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·     Development Application DA2012/156 for alterations and additions to an existing child care centre and an increase in the number of children from 23 to 40 was lodged with Council on 14 September 2012.

 

·     The application was refused by the IHAP on 5 March 2013. The reasons for refusal were outlined in the notice of determination. The Notice of Determination of Development Application is attached (AT1).

 

·     The applicant lodged an application for review of determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on 3 July 2013.

 

·     The applicant provided amended plans and a revised traffic assessment report to support the development application.

 

·     The reasons for refusal have been reviewed, based on Council’s own vehicular surveys and observations of motorist behavior within proximity to the site.

 

·     In response to the notification period 60 submissions were received, comprising 43 submissions in support and 17 submissions opposed, including two petitions with a total of 24 signatures. The main issues raised in the submissions in support of the proposal include the need for more childcare, social benefits to the community; and patrons of the childcare centre have not experienced adverse traffic related issues when visiting the site. The main issues raised in opposition to the proposal include increased unacceptable vehicular related impacts, inadequate on-site parking, suitability of the site and noise concerns.

·     The original decision to refuse the application is recommended to be reconsidered in light of the additional information produced and the observations of staff.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Development application DA12/156 sought approval for alterations and additions to the child care centre and increase in the number of children from 23 to 40. 5 on-site car spaces were proposed. This application was lodged on 14 September 2012.

 

The proposed works included:-

 

Lower Ground Level

 

·     Extension of the existing double garage for car parking with access to Roslyn Street. 

 

·     The car park to accommodate 4 car parking spaces.

 

Ground Floor Level

 

·     Conversion of the existing single garage and the attached store room to an indoor play area with a store room.

 

·     Conversion of part of the existing driveway to the north of the existing house behind the building line into an outdoor play area.

 

·     Conversion of the front garden area into a car park for 3 cars.

 

·     Conversion of ground floor of the dwelling house to provide for additional space for the childcare centre.

 

·     Rear extension to the existing building to provide for additional indoor play area.

 

·     Conversion of the swimming pool to an On Site Stormwater Detention System (OSD) and an outdoor play area.

 

First Floor

 

·     Conversion of three bedrooms of the dwelling house to a two bedroom caretaker’s flat.

 

Note:-

 

·     The caretaker’s flat would share the main entrance with the child care centre.

 

·     There is no on-site parking provision proposed for the caretaker’s flat in the original development proposal.

 

Council at its meeting of 18 February 2013 resolved to approve 4 x 15 minute on-street car spaces in Roslyn Street between 7.30am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. These spaces are to be used for the drop-off and pick-up for the child care centre during peak periods.

 

The Development Application was determined by the IHAP at its meeting of 5 March 2013. The IHAP resolved that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

 

1.    The existing child care centre is at present resulting in a significant and unacceptable level of traffic and parking in Gay Street, Roslyn Street and Kariola Street at peak drop-off and pick-up times, which include:

 

·          The parking of vehicles on both sides of the street, thus preventing the flow of two-way traffic;

·           The double parking of vehicles;

·           The parking of vehicles across the driveways of private dwellings;

·           The parking of vehicles too close to the corner of Gay, Kariola and Roslyn Street;

·           Prolonged periods of running engines;

·           A reduction in the availability of kerbside parking for nearby residents.

 

2.    The proposal to lift the present limit of 23 children to 40 children will inevitably result in additional traffic and exacerbate the existing unacceptable level of traffic and parking in an otherwise residential area.

 

3.    The number of on-site parking spaces, namely 5, is inadequate having regard to the minimum car parking required under the Lane Cove DCP of 11 spaces, which will in turn lead to a further  loss of kerbside parking for nearby residents.

 

Site plan and Notification Plan attached (AT2 and AT3).

 

PLANNING PROCESS

 

The S82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 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.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The S82A application includes the following amendments and further information in response to the reasons for refusal:-

 

1.    The existing child care centre is at present resulting in a significant and unacceptable level of traffic and parking in Gay Street, Roslyn Street and Kariola Street at peak drop-off and pick-up times, which include:-

 

·        The parking of vehicles on both sides of the street, thus preventing the flow of two-way traffic;

·        The double parking of vehicles;

·        The parking of vehicles across the driveways of private dwellings;

·        The parking of vehicles too close to the corner of Gay, Kariola and Roslyn Street;

·        Prolonged periods of running engines; and

·        A reduction in the availability of kerbside parking for nearby residents.

 

 

 

 

Applicant’s Response

 

A revised traffic report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning including a parking survey undertaken in the morning and evening for a period of 5 days, has been prepared to support the increase in the children numbers in the child care centre attached (AT4).

 

The report addresses each of the points raised above.

 

·     The parking of vehicles on both sides of the street, thus preventing the flow of two-way traffic

 

Roslyn Street and Gay Street are typical local roads which have a pavement width of approximately 8m. That pavement width allows for parking on both sides of the road, leaving one traffic lane available in the middle of the road.

 

It is inevitable that from time-to-time 2 cars will be parked opposite each other, such that there will only be room for 1 car at a time to pass between the 2 parked cars.

 

This is acceptable on quiet, local residential streets where the likelihood of 2 vehicles travelling in opposite directions meeting each other between 2 parked cars would be infrequent, and any resultant delays very brief. On busier collector roads carrying up to 500 vehicles per hour such delays might warrant the installation of parking restrictions on one side of the road. However, both Gay Street and Roslyn Street are quiet, local residential streets carrying less than 100 vehicles per hour.

 

This is reflected in the survey results which found that traffic flow was not blocked on any occasion in any of the streets adjacent to the childcare centre.

 

·     The double parking of vehicles

 

The survey indicates that at no stage throughout the 5-day duration of the surveys were there any cars double parked in either Roslyn Street, Gay Street or Kariola Street. 

 

·     The parking of vehicles across the driveways of private dwellings

 

The surveys specifically identified the driveways to Numbers 27, 29, 32 Roslyn Street, Numbers 2 and 4 Gay Street and Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 Kariola Street to determine whether those driveways were blocked.

 

The surveys found that none of the driveways located in the vicinity of the site were blocked at any stage throughout the 5-day duration of the surveys.

 

·     The parking of vehicles too close to the corner of Gay, Kariola and Roslyn Street

 

The surveys did not identify any car being parked on the above corners throughout the 5-day duration of the surveys.

 

 

 

·     Prolonged periods of running engines

 

The surveyors were not able to identify whether engines had been left running in parked cars, however it is counter intuitive that parents dropping-off and picking-up children at the childcare centre would leave the keys in the ignition with the engine running in an unattended car, even for a brief moment.

 

·     A reduction in the availability of kerbside parking for nearby residents

 

A survey of on-street parking accumulations was conducted throughout the 5-day duration of the surveys to identify the number of cars parked on the street in the vicinity of the site by both residents and childcare centre parents.

 

The surveys found that the average parking demand generated by the childcare centre was typically in the order of 2 to 4 parking spaces, with a peak parking demand of 6 or 7 spaces that occurred on just 4 occasions throughout the week (each time for less than 10 minutes).

 

Significantly, the parking accumulation survey also found that:-

 

·     All the cars associated with the childcare centre parked on Roslyn Street, in an area where there is a kerbside parking capacity of 23 spaces, and

·     None of the cars associated with the childcare centre parked in either Gay Street or Kariola Street where a further 23 kerbside parking spaces are located.

 

The parking accumulation survey shows that in an area where there are a total of 46 kerbside parking spaces, an average of only 2 and 4 of those parking spaces were used by the childcare centre. Accordingly, the survey shows that substantial spare carparking capacity remained readily available in the street for the use of local residents.

 

Furthermore, if the survey results are extrapolated to take into account the 17 additional children, the 11 spaces proposed in the revised application could accommodate the 95th percentile parking demand that would be generated by the expanded childcare centre (refer to AT4).

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager did not object to the findings of the traffic report. Council conducted its own traffic survey to provide an independent evaluation for comparison with the applicant’s reports.

 

Council’s own parking survey observations of the current childcare centre revealed no instances of vehicles double parking, vehicles parking across driveways of private dwellings, vehicles parking within the statutory no stopping distance and no instances of prolonged periods of running engines.

 

2.    The proposal to lift the present limit of 23 children to 40 children will inevitably result in additional traffic and exacerbate the existing unacceptable level of traffic and parking in an otherwise residential area.

 

Applicant’s Response

 

A revised traffic report and survey has been prepared to support the increase in the children numbers in the child care centre.

 

Analysis of the survey results indicates that:

·     The increased parking demands expected to be generated by the expansion proposal could be accommodated in the proposed 11 spaces on all but 5% of occasions, and

·     The expansion proposal would generate an additional 6 vehicles per hour traveling to and from the site.

 

The traffic report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning concludes that the projected additional traffic flows are statically insignificant and will clearly not result in any congestion or delays occurring on the local road network in the vicinity of the site.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The increase in children attending the childcare would result in additional vehicular movements to and from the site. The information provided by the applicant and independent observations and surveys undertaken by council officers indicate that there is an acceptable level of traffic and parking in this residential area and the proposed expansion of the childcare centre would not unreasonably impact upon traffic.

 

3.    The number of on-site parking spaces, namely 5, is inadequate having regard to the minimum car parking required under the Lane Cove DCP of 11 spaces, which will in turn lead to a further  loss of kerbside parking for nearby residents.

 

Applicant’s Response

 

Two (2) additional car spaces on-site are proposed within the garage, resulting in a total of 7 on-site car spaces being available. In addition, Council resolved to provide 4 x 15 minute on-street car spaces in Roslyn Street between 7.30am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. These spaces are to be used for the drop-off and pick-up for the child care centre during its peak periods.

 

Therefore there will be a total of 11 spaces available for the use of the childcare centre.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The proposed 7 on-site car spaces would result in a shortfall from the required 11 spaces as per the DCP. Despite this, the DCP permits flexibility regarding on-site parking requirements.

 

Clause 1.5 (d) Car Parking/Traffic states: Consideration may be given to reducing the on-site parking requirements, in terms of drop off/pick up component, where convenient and safe on-street parking is available (eg, indented parking bays) in streets which experience low traffic volumes subject to not adversely affecting the safety and amenity of the adjacent area or causing traffic problems.

 

Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager advises: The Traffic Committee considered the original application and considered the off and on street parking provision to be acceptable, given the availability of on-street parking and the proximity to local bus routes on Mowbray Road. As discussed in detail in the following section of this report, Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager considers the traffic generation of the child care centre to represent an acceptable level of traffic on Gay St. The weekday peak does not exceed the environmental goal for a local road of 200 vehicles per hour.

 

The number of on-site and on-street car spaces provided, are considered to be acceptable in this instance.

 

 

 

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Traffic and Transport

 

Council’s Manager Traffic and Transport provided the following advice:-

We have conducted traffic counts on Gay St and Roslyn St between Tuesday 30 July and Tuesday 6 August (attached) which show the following:

 

The peak hour traffic flow on Gay St occurred on Wed 31 July between 1700 -1800 - 53 vehicles. The peak hour traffic flow on Roslyn St occurred on Sat 3 August between 1430 -1530 - 31 vehicles (this traffic cannot be attributed to the child care centre, which is not open at the weekend).

 

In terms of the impact of the child care centre on the volume of traffic using Gay St, this can be estimated by comparing the weekday peak hour of 53 vehicles with the corresponding time at the weekend. On Sat 3 August between 1700 - 1800 there were 27 vehicles counted. This means that traffic generation of the child care centre is conservatively estimated at 26 in the peak hour, or less than one car every two minutes. This does not, in my opinion, represent an "unacceptable level of traffic" on Gay St. Nor does the weekday peak exceed the environmental goal for a local road of 200 vehicles per hour.

 

In regard to point (3) of the reasons for refusal above, the Traffic Committee considered the original application and considered the off and on street parking provision to be acceptable, given the availability of on-street parking and the proximity to local bus routes on Mowbray Road (traffic survey attached (AT5).

 

Council officers have now conducted parking surveys on the following dates:-

 

Wed 7 August 5.00 - 5.30pm

Thur 8 August 7.45 - 8.30am

Fri 9 August 5.15 - 5.45pm

Tuesday 13 August 8.30 - 9.30am

 

During the four survey periods my traffic engineer reported:-

 

•           0 instances of two way traffic flow being impeded, beyond what would normally be expected on a narrow residential street with parking permitted on both sides;

•           0 instances of vehicles double parking;

•           0 instances of vehicles parking across driveways of private dwellings. The majority of vehicles turning in Roslyn St used the Child Care Centre driveway (double garage entrance);

•           0 instances of vehicles parking within the statutory No Stopping distance (within 10m of the Roslyn / Gay intersection);

•           0 instances of prolonged periods of running engines;

•           Furthermore, the average wait time for parents dropping off and picking up was around 5 mins or less. A reduction in the availability of kerbside parking for nearby residents occurred only between the times of 7.50am - 8.30am and 5.30pm - 6.00pm. The short average dwell time and subsequent high turnover of parked vehicles associated with the child care centre ensured that there was always on-street parking availability on nearby streets. In my traffic engineer's professional opinion, there is sufficient on-street parking available on Roslyn Street (to the east of the site) and Gay Street to accommodate an increase in drop-off and pick-up in this area.

 

The applicant submitted a review of traffic and parking issues, a response to matters raised in the submissions prepared by Christopher Hallam and Associates and a Plan to address Traffic Management attached (AT6 and AT7).   Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport reviewed the Plan, concluded that it provided little additional insight to the Vagar report and that  several conditions of consent should be included requiring the centre to request vehicle registration details of parents/guardians and keep a record of all complaints (refer to draft conditions 10 - 13).

 

Building Surveyor

 

The Senior Building Surveyor has reviewed the S82A proposal and advised:-

 

I have assessed the proposal against the deemed to satisfy provisions of the BCA and advise that there is no objection to the proposal other than the requirement for a pedestrian door being installed to the garage. The BCA requires an exit from each storey to facilitate egress in the event of a fire. The definition of an exit outlined in the BCA is a doorway and a garage door is not a doorway and goes against the intent of the BCA.

 

Draft Condition No. 3 requires a pedestrian door to be installed to the garage. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the S82A proposal and raised no objection subject to the previously recommended conditions of consent.

 

Manager Parks

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer and Landscape Architect reviewed the S82A proposal and advised no changes are required to the previously recommended conditions of consent.

 

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

 

The subject site is located within a R2 Low Density Residential zone and child care centres are permissible within the zone.  The previous assessment indicated the proposal was consistent with the maximum permissible floor space ratio and building height. The review does not seek to alter the floor space ratio or building height. 

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

Part I of the DCP outlines the objectives and the requirements for child care centre developments.  The relevant sections of the DCP are addressed below.  

 

Clause 1.6 objectives of this section of the DCP

 

Objective

 

1.    To encourage the provision of Child Care Centres in the Lane Cove Local Government Area which meet the needs of the community, in particular with the provision of spaces for 0-2 year olds.

 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed child care centre would provide 40 care places including 12 places for 0-2 year olds which accords with the needs of Lane Cove community.  The proposal meets the objective of the DCP.

 

2.         To ensure that sites containing Child Care Centres are appropriate for that purpose and provide a functional and pleasant environment for their users.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed development meets the indoor and outdoor play area requirements of the DCP.  The pedestrian access to the main entry is separated with the vehicular driveway which would create a safe environment for the parents and children.

 

3.         To ensure that sites containing Child Care Centres are compatible with the environment in which they are situated, particularly in terms of visual character, landscaping etc.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

All surrounding properties in Gay Street and Roslyn Street are dominated by front gardens.  The front setback area to Gay Street would be maintained for landscaping which would reinforce the predominant residential streetscape.

 

4.         To ensure that potential adverse impacts from Child Care Centres on surrounding residential areas, such as those created by noise, traffic generation and on-street parking, are minimized.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed development does not meet the on-site parking requirement of the DCP as discussed in this report. However it is considered that the on-street parking would meet the increase in demand. 

 

Council’s Manager Community Services advises of the two (2) childcare centres operated by Council, one (1) complies with on-site parking. The Manager further advises there is a need for childcare within Lane Cove and there is a high demand for the 0-2 year old age group.

 

Clause 1.5 Car Parking and Traffic

 

The table below provides a summary of on-site parking requirements for the site.

 

Development Application

On-site Parking Required

On-site Parking Provided

DA06/278 – 23 children & a dwelling house

 

5 car spaces

5 spaces

DA12/156 – 40 children & a caretakers flat

 

11 car spaces

5 car spaces

DA12/156 – review of determination – 40 children & a caretakers flat

 

11 car spaces

7 car spaces

 

The review of determination plans includes the provision for 7 car spaces on-site.  According to the above assessment, there would be a deficiency of 4 on-site car spaces. 

 

Council in its meeting of 18 February 2013 resolve to approve 4 x 15 minute on-street car spaces in Roslyn Street between 7.30am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. These spaces are to be used for the drop-off and pick-up for the child care centre during its peak periods.

Given the above, the car parking provide for the child care centre is considered to be acceptable.

 

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

 

The departure to the DCP has been discussed previously within this report.

 

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

 

60 submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application. Copies of all submissions have been provided to the IHAP.

 

43 submissions in support of the proposed development have been received.  The submissions state that there is a high demand for child care services in the area, the proposed development would create social benefits to Lane Cove community and they have not experienced adverse traffic related issues when visiting the site.

 

17 submissions opposed to the proposed development have been received, including two petitions with a total of 24 signatures. The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.

 

·     The expansion of children numbers will add to the existing unacceptable vehicular related impacts experienced being additional traffic and on-street parking demands.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The information provided by the applicant and observations and surveys undertaken by council officers indicate that there is an acceptable level of traffic capacity, maneuverability and parking experienced in this residential area. The expansion of children numbers would

 add to vehicular movements and on-street parking demand, however, these can readily be accommodated easily within this area.

 

·     The Traffic Report refers to four staff using public transport to get to and from work. This does not appear to be accurate as six staff car spaces are proposed in the basement.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

According to the applicant, a maximum of 11 staff will be employed with the expanded centre. The traffic report states the 6 parking spaces proposed on the lower level will be used by staff only.

 

·     The 4 x 15 minute on-street car spaces are inadequate to cater for the peak periods.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Council in its meeting of 18 February 2013 resolve to approve 4 x 15 minute on-street car spaces in Roslyn Street between 7.30am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. These spaces are to be used for the drop-off and pick-up for the child care centre during its peak periods. Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager advised in my traffic engineer's professional opinion, there is sufficient on-street parking available on Roslyn Street (to the east of the site) and Gay Street to accommodate an increase in drop-off and pick-up in this area.

 

·     Concern is raised that the child care centre does not comply with the Docs licensing provisions for unencumbered play space per child.

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Condition No. 4 requires that the applicant obtain the appropriate license from the New South Wales Department of Community Services license prior to operation of the proposed extension.

 

·     The addition of two tandem car spaces results in the development not complying with the DCP which requires 11 spaces.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

As discussed within the report, the proposal incorporates 7 on-site car spaces. There would be a deficiency of 4 on-site car spaces as per Council’s DCP. However, the DCP permits flexibility to the reduction of on-site car spaces in certain cases. In this instance, both Council and the Traffic Committee have supported a variation to the parking arrangements for the childcare centre.

 

·     The proposal is a commercial development that is out of place within a residential area.

 

·     The noise from the childcare centre is significant and will be increased, affecting the amenity of residents.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The childcare centre is permissible within this zone and has had approval to operate at this site since 1987. Acoustic fencing is proposed along the north, east and southern boundaries to minimise noise impact to the adjoining properties.

 

·     Concern raised regarding works commencing on-site without approval.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Council officers undertook an inspection of the property regarding this matter. Work had previously been undertaken on-site which Council officers are aware of. No further action will be undertaken until a decision regarding the application is made.

 

One submission was received after the finalisation of this report and was therefore not included in the above review. This submission will be forwarded to Council’s Manager Traffic and Transport for review and will be forwarded to the Panel.  

 

As discussed previously, in response to the matters raised in the submissions, the applicant submitted a review of traffic and parking issues, a response to the submissions prepared by Christopher Hallam and Associates and a Plan to address Traffic Management attached (AT6 and AT7).   As discussed, Council’s Manager Traffic and Transport recommended several conditions of consent in lieu of adopting the applicant’s plan to address traffic management.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Act have been considered.

 

The proposal complies with the provisions of Lane Cove Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2009. The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

The previous determination outlined several reasons for refusal relating to an existing traffic and parking impacts in Gay Street, Roslyn Street and Kariola Street which would be exacerbated and insufficient on-site car spaces which would result in a further loss of kerbside parking. The supporting information provided by the applicant and Council’s independent traffic counts and parking survey conclude the existing vehicular and future vehicular movements can be accommodated within the local road network, there is sufficient on-street parking available for local residents, the on-site parking arrangement is considered satisfactory in this instance and adverse vehicular related behavior was not observed. It is recommended that the IHAP consider the steps taken to address the reasons for refusal of the original application.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel grants development consent to Development Application DA 12/156 for the alteration and addition to the existing building for the extension of an existing child care centre and increase in  the number of children from 23 to 40 on Lot 3, DP 391077 and known as 6 Gay Street, Lane Cove North subject to the following conditions:-

 

General Conditions

 

1.         That the development be strictly in accordance with the following drawings dated 13.01.2013, prepared by Harry Stone Architects except as amended by the following conditions:-

 

-           Site & Ground Plan, A01, Rev C1, dated 30.5.2013;

-           Garage & First Floor Plan, A02, Rev C1, dated 30.5.2013;

-           Elevations, A03, Rev C1, dated 30.5.2013;

-           Sections AA & BB, A04, Rev C1, dated 30.5.2013;

-           Boundary Fence Elevation, A12;

-           Landscape Plan, 12LA1B, dated May 2012.

 

2.         A secondary entrance into the child care centre is provided to enable access into the site immediately from Roslyn Street.

 

3.         Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, the plans shall be amended and submitted to the PCA demonstrating a pedestrian door to the garage in accordance with the BCA.

 

4.         Prior to the operation of the proposal, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate license from the New South Wales Department of Community Services.

 

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

 

6.         All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

7.         The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met.  Plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au see Your Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must:-

 

·          Ensure that a Quick Check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

8.         An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the building.

 

Traffic and Parking conditions

 

9.         The on-street pick-up/drop-off facility on Roslyn Street approved by Council’s Traffic Committee on 22 January 2013 must be implemented at the cost of the applicant prior to the operation of the increase in children numbers.   The on-street pick-up/drop-off facility shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Council officers.

 

10.       The Centre shall provide a contact phone number of the Manager of the Centre to those persons who reside in Gay Street, Roslyn Street and Kariola Street for the purposes of  complaints regarding traffic related matters.

 

11.       Upon enrolment in the childcare centre, details of vehicles (make, model, colour, rego no.) of parents/guardians shall be recorded by the Centre in a log that is updated annually. Any complaints received by Council or the Child Care Centre shall be traced back to individuals and appropriate advice and/or sanctions arranged.

 

12.       Complaints made to the Centre or to Council regarding traffic or parking issues shall be recorded by the Centre.

 

13.       On enrolment the Centre shall provide information to all parents/guardians regarding responsible parking behavior when dropping off or picking up children. This information is also to be displayed on a noticeboard or similar prominent location in the childcare centre and can be obtained from Council’s Road Safety Officer.

 

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

 

15.       Access and parking spaces for disabled persons being provided in accordance with Part D.3 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

16.       All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                              7.00am to 4.00pm

 

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

17.       Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

18.       The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

19.                   All advertising signs/structures being the subject of a separate development application.

 

20.                   7 on-site carparking spaces must be provided for the use at all times.

 

21.       Any gates to the garage must remain open during the hours of operation of the child care centre.

 

22.       A “Fire Safety Schedule” specifying the fire safety measures that are currently implemented in the building premises and the fire safety measures proposed or required to be implemented in the building premises as required by Clause 168 – Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 are to be submitted and approved PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

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

 

24.       Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         retaining walls;

b)         footings;

c)         reinforced concrete work;

d)         structural steelwork;

e)         upper level floor framing.

 

25.       The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations. Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

26.         The use of mechanical rock pick machines.

 

(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.

 

27.                   The proposed works must be confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

28.       The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

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

 

30.       All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

31.       The site must be properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

32.                   Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

33.                   Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application.

 

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

 

35.       The hours of operation being restricted to between the hours of

 

Monday to Friday:                                           7.00am to 6.00pm.

Saturday, Sunday and public holidays:          Closed.

 

36.       Lane Cove Council charges a fee of $36 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.

 

37.       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 installments, the first installment 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.

 

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

 

39.       The caretaker’s flat must not be used as a separate dwelling without prior development consent from Council.

 

40.       The proposed development must comply with the recommendation of the Childcare Centre – Noise Assessment dated March 2012, prepared by Noise and Sound Services.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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. 

 

43.       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 hoarding applications, 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.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       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.

 

46.       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.

 

47.       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’.

 

48.       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.

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

49.       Drainage Plans New: A new stormwater drainage plan in accordance with the approved architectural plans needs to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Part O, Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

50.       Positive Covenant Bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 cash bond to cover the registration of a Positive Covenant over the on-site detention system. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

51.       Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. A ‘Construction of Residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

52.       Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment and new footpath shall be obtained from Council. These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking, landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

53.       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

 

54.       Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $2000.00 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. Lodgment of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

55.       Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Engineering Condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

56.       Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with the approved plan satisfying condition ‘(C1) Erosion and sediment control plan’ [OR] ‘(C1) Soil and Water Management Plan’. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering Condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

57.       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. 

 

58.       Positive Covenant OSD:  Documents giving effect to the creation of a positive covenant over the on-site detention system shall be registered on the title of the property prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The wording of the terms of the positive covenant shall be in accordance with Part O, Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

Tree Protection and Landscaping Conditions

 

59.       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.

 

60.       The applicant must obtain written authority prior to pruning or removal of any trees greater than 4m in height, located on the property or in neighbouring properties including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40mm in diameter. The three (3) street trees to be removed are exempt from this condition.

 

61.       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.

 

62.       Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3m of neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with no tree roots greater than 40mm diameter to be severed or damaged.

 

63.       A 1.8m high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial distance of not less than 1.2m from the trunk of the Water gum street tree closest to the corner. 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.

 

64.       A waterproof sign must be placed on the tree protection zone 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.

 

65.       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.

 

Bond on Street & Council Trees

 

66.       Pursuant to Section 80A(6)(a) and (7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant must, prior to the issue of the first construction certificate, provide security in the amount of $2,000 (by way of cash deposit with the Council, or a guarantee satisfactory to the Council) for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to the Water gum street tree that is on the public road reserve immediately adjoining the land subject of this development consent.

 

The Council may apply funds realised from the security to meet the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to the said tree. If the cost of making good any damage caused to the said tree as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates exceeds the amount of the security provided by the applicant additional security must be provided by the applicant to the Council to cover that cost and the Council may apply funds realised from the additional security to meet the total cost of making good the damage."

 

The bond shall be refundable following issue of the Occupation Certificate. The owner must notify Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer who will inspect the street tree and organize the bond refund.

 

67.       The two Bottlebrush street trees and the one (1) Water gum street tree adjacent to the driveway crossing shall be removed and the stumps ground out as part of the development works. This work will be the responsibility of the land owners.

 

68.       The owner shall pay Council the sum of $500.00 for the cost and labour to establish two (2) replacement street trees directly adjacent to the site. Payment must be received PRIOR TO ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. If the tree dies within a period of 3 years from establishment the owner shall pay for a replacement tree.

 

69.       The proposed Landscape Plan DWG No: 12 LA 1 B dated May 2012 is to the satisfaction of Council and must be adopted as part of the development consent.   The staff car spaces No. 1 and 2 within the Gay Street frontage do not form part of this consent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Determination letter to applicant dated 13 March 2013

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Neighbour Notification Plan plus any previous commentors

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Varga Traffic Planning Report dated 13 June 2013

28 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Traffic survey by Lane Cove Council

7 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Review by Christopher Hallam & Associates P/L

12 Pages

 

AT‑7 View

Plan of traffic management by Neustein Urban Planning Design Architecture

6 Pages

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 3 September 2013

28 George Street, Greenwich (S96 Modification B)

 

 

Subject:          28 George Street, Greenwich (S96 Modification B)    

Record No:    DA07/304-01 - 41160/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                     28 George Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    D304/07

 

Date Lodged:              22 July 2013

 

Cost of Work:              As previous

 

Owner:                                    P.C. & A.F. Bennett

 

Applicant:                    P. & A. Bennett

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations and additions to dwelling house and construction of carport (Section 96 Modification B)

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?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                              26, 27, 29, 31, 33 George                                                       Street; 2, 4, 6 Mitchell Street                                                 and 7, 9 Richard Street

Ward Councillors                    East Ward & The Mayor

Progress Association              Greenwich community                                                           Association Inc.

Other Interest Groups             Lane Cove Historical Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Section 96 Application 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, privacy and noise.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council at its meeting of the 4 August 2008 considered amended plans for alterations and additions.

 

Numerous objections were received regarding loss of views of the Harbour Bridge, an iconic view and loss of privacy from the proposed balconies.

 

It was resolved that the application be approved subject to conditions which included conditions 2, 3 and 4 as follows:-

 

“2.   The first floor balcony towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be reduced to a depth of 1.8m.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

 

3.    The proposed external staircase towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be deleted.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

 

4.    The proposed first floor shall not project beyond the line of the existing south facing external wall towards the rear of the dwelling house.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.”

 

Under Delegated Authority approval, subject to conditions was granted on the 20 March 2012 to a Section 96 Applications which included the following modifications:

 

“1.   Carry out alterations and additions to the ground floor including deleting the brick addition to the rear and constructing a new 3m wide balcony with pergola over.

 

2.    Carry out alterations and additions to the first floor including deleting the timber addition and roof to the rear and constructing a new 2.2m wide balcony with a timber awning over.”

 

Conditions 1a and 2 of the approval given were:-

 

“1a. The provision of a 1.1m wide by 1.8m high horizontal louvre privacy screen matching the construction of the screen on the western elevation extending out in a southerly direction from the wall of the dwelling house on the eastern side of the first floor rear balcony.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

2.    The first floor balcony towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be a depth of 2.2m.”

 

Another Section 96 Application has been submitted which includes the following modifications:-

 

·          Extend the approved 3m wide ground floor rear timber deck 1m in a southerly direction.

 

·          Extend the approved 2.2m wide rear timber deck by 800mm to 3m in a southerly direction.

 

Four submissions, one each from 2, 4, 6 Mitchell Street and 26 George Street were submitted.

 

2, 4 and 6 Mitchell Street drew Council’s attention to the long and exhaustive process Council had went through to determine the first floor deck width as 2.2m.

 

2 Mitchell Street objected very strongly to the request for an additional 800mm onto the approved 2.2m deck, on the grounds of noise nuisance, loss of privacy and obstruction of their Harbour Bridge (iconic view) and harbour views.

 

4 and 6 Mitchell Street also objected to loss of privacy.

 

26 George Street objected to loss of privacy.

There is a line of shrubs on both side boundaries.  The 2 balconies extensions are proposed to be setback 1.18m from the eastern boundary.

 

It is recommended that the extension of the first floor balcony from the approved 2.2m to 3m be refused, and the extension of the ground floor balcony from 3m to 4m be approved subject to the approved 3m privacy screen on the eastern side of the ground floor balcony being extended out by 1m to 4m in width.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the southern side of George Street, is rectangular in shape and falls steeply away from the street.  Existing improvements are a two storey dwelling house with a three storey section at the rear, a steep roof pitch and a detached garage towards the rear along the western side boundary.  Neighbouring to east is a two storey brick dwelling house and towards the west is the rear of a two storey dwelling house.  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The Section 96 Application proposes the following modifications:-

 

Ground Floor

 

·        Rearrange the kitchen/laundry layout, construct a new WC in lieu of a bathroom, replace existing windows with stackable doors, and provide two new windows on the eastern side for the revised internal layout.

 

·        Extend the approved 3m wide ground floor rear timber deck by 1m in a southerly direction.

 

First Floor

 

·        Refurbish the existing bathroom, add a new ensuite off the main bedroom and replace one existing window to the ensuite and one to the refurbished bathroom with new frosted glass windows.

 

·        Extend the approved 2.2m wide rear timber deck by 800mm to 3m in a southerly direction.

 

A submission has been received from the applicants setting out the reasons for the changes, impact upon neighbours and Council’s guidelines and precedence.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Council at its meeting of the 4 August 2008 considered amended plans for Development Application D304/07 for:-

 

1.    Alterations and additions to the existing ground floor including extension towards the rear.  The rear dining and kitchen were stepped down.  Towards the rear was proposed a 3.0m wide deck.  The deck was accessible from a proposed external staircase adjoining the deck.

 

2.    Alterations and additions to the existing first floor including extension towards the rear to create a bed room and a walk in robe.  The bedroom opened on to a 3.0m wide balcony which was also accessible from the same external staircase adjoining the deck towards the rear.

 

3.    An attic, accessible from the existing internal staircase was proposed within the existing roof space.

 

4.    The existing garage towards the rear of the property was proposed to be extended to accommodate a WC.  The alterations included the provision of three French Doors which opened towards the rear open space.  It was proposed to use the garage as a studio.

 

5.    A carport, with a roof pitch to match the existing dwelling house, was proposed in front of the existing building line.

 

6.    A new pedestrian opening and gate was proposed in the existing front fence to access the dwelling house from the street.

 

Five objections were received in response to the amended proposal. The resident of 2 Mitchell Street objected to loss of view of the Harbour Bridge, an iconic view and excessive building bulk.

 

Residents of other adjoining properties, including No. 2 Mitchell Street, objected to loss of privacy from the proposed rear balconies, particularly because the rear balconies were accessible from a proposed external staircase which would enable the balconies to be use for entertainment purposes.

 

It was resolved that the application be approved subject to conditions which included conditions 2, 3 and 4 as follows:

 

“2.   The first floor balcony towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be reduced to a depth of 1.8m.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

 

3.    The proposed external staircase towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be deleted.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

 

4.    The proposed first floor shall not project beyond the line of the existing south facing external wall towards the rear of the dwelling house.  Amended plans shall be submitted prior to issue of Construction Certificate.”

 

A copy of this report is attached (AT-3).

 

Under Delegated Authority approval, subject to conditions was granted on the 20 March 2012 to a Section 96 Application which included the following modifications:-

 

“1.   Carry out alterations and additions to the ground floor including deleting the brick addition to the rear and constructing a new 3m wide balcony with pergola over, stackable sliding windows, a new kitchen, new bathroom and laundry and bricking up a window in the eastern elevation at the rear.

 

2.    Carry out alterations and additions to the first floor including deleting the timber addition and roof to the rear and constructing a new 2.2m wide balcony with a timber awning over removing two windows and providing two new windows in the eastern elevation and refurbishing the bathroom.

 

3.    Alter the proposed southern side of the proposed carport so the tiled roof shape matches the existing dwelling house’s pitched roof.”

 

Conditions 1a and 2 of the approval given were:-

 

“1a. The provision of a 1.1m wide by 1.8m high horizontal louvre privacy screen matching the construction of the screen on the western elevation extending out in a southerly direction from the wall of the dwelling house on the eastern side of the first floor rear balcony.  PLANS BEING ALTERED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

2.    The first floor balcony towards the rear of the dwelling house is to be a depth of 2.2m.”

 

A copy of this report is attached (AT-4).

 

Work has commenced on the footing pads for the proposed rear balconies.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2

 

Site Area:       566.5m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

Unchanged

0.5:1

Unchanged

Height of Buildings

Unchanged

9.5m

Unchanged

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Unchanged

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Unchanged

Side setback (min)

Ground Floor and First Floor Decks – 1.18m

1200mm/1500mm

No

Rear setback (min)

Ground Floor Deck – 12.3m

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Yes

Wall Height (max)

Unchanged

7.0m

Unchanged

Subfloor height (max)

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

Number of Storeys (max)

Unchanged

2

Unchanged

Landscaped area (min)

Unchanged

35%

Unchanged

Solar Access

3 hrs to north-facing windows

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

Ground Floor – 4m

First Floor – 3m

3m

Ground Floor – No

First Floor – Yes

Private open space

> 24m2

> 4m minimum depth

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Cut and fill

Unchanged

1m (max)

Unchanged

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Unchanged

Solid:               900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

Unchanged

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

Unchanged

2

Unchanged

Driveway width

Unchanged

3m at the kerb

Unchanged

 

Carports within the front setback & Garages facing the Street

 

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

% of Allotment Width (carports)

Unchanged

50% of lot width or 6m, whichever is the lesser

Unchanged

 

Outbuildings

 

 

Proposed

Code

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

Unchanged

3.6m

Unchanged

External wall height (max)

Unchanged

2.1m

Unchanged

Maximum floor space

Unchanged

50 m²

Unchanged

No of Storeys

Unchanged

1

Unchanged

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

N/A

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

N/A

 

Manager Bushland

 

N/A

 

Other (Heritage, Traffic, Waterways, Rural Fire Service)

 

The premises are located in the Greenwich Conservation Area and also has a heritage listed property at the rear.  However, the external and internal modifications proposed are minor only and are considered to have no additional impact on the Conservation Area or the heritage building at the rear.

 

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

 

The Section 96 Modification 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.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP) and Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan for the SREP (the DCP).

 

The Lane Cove Local Government Area is identified as being within the Sydney Harbour Catchment of the SREP.  The subject site is also located within the Foreshores and Waterways Area as indicated on the Foreshores and Waterways Area map contained within this SREP, and as such, is subject to the DCP that complements the SREP.

 

The SREP aims to recognise, protect, enhance and maintain the catchment, foreshores and waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour and to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment.  Part 3 of the SREP addresses the Foreshores and Waterways Area.  Within Part 3, Division 2 sets out Matters for consideration which Council is to consider in assessing new development.  Of the clauses 20-27 listed for consideration, it is considered that the proposed works would not raise any significant issues.

 

Under the DCP the proposed works are Land Based Development and therefore subject to Section 5. It is considered that the proposed works would not raise any significant issues in relation to the two relevant sub-sections, i.e. 5.3 (Siting of buildings and structures) and 5.4 (Built form).

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Nil.

 

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.         Side Setbacks – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies that a side setback is to be a minimum of 1.2m for a single storey dwelling and 1.5m for a two storey dwelling.

 

First floor additions are to meet the above setback requirements.  Where it can be demonstrated that there are no unreasonable amenity impacts, additions can maintain the existing setback of the floor below.

 

A lesser setback may be considered for open carports, garages, verandahs, steps and landings no more than 300mm above ground level (finished), where it can be demonstrated that there will be no unreasonable amenity impacts.

 

·    First Floor Rear Balcony

 

The 2.2m wide approved first floor rear balcony is shown to be setback 1.18m from the eastern side boundary.  The proposed increase in width to 3m would also be setback 1.18m from the eastern boundary which does not comply with the DCP requirement of 1.5m.

 

The proposed first floor rear balcony extension from 2.2m to 3m setback 1.1m from the eastern side boundary is considered unsatisfactory and likely to have an unreasonable amenity impact on 26 George Street allowing direct views of the rear yard, living areas and master bedroom.

 

 

 

·    Ground Floor Rear Balcony

 

The ground floor rear balcony which is 1.18m from the eastern boundary and has been approved to be 3m wide is now shown to be increased to 4m wide.  Whilst this is slightly less than the 1.2m DCP requirement it follows the line of the eastern wall of the dwelling house.  The increase to 4m wide is considered not to materially alter the situation subject to the approved 1.6m high privacy screen on the eastern side of the ground floor rear balcony being increased in width to 4m.

 

2.         Elevated Decks – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

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.  Deeper decks may be considered if privacy to adjoining properties is addressed.

 

The proposed width of the ground floor deck is 4m.  Whilst the width of the deck as now proposed is greater than 3m it is at a low level (varies in height from a minimum of 2m to a maximum of 2.2m above the existing ground level on the eastern side) and would have a privacy screen 1.6m high by 3m in length on the eastern side.  The proposed 4m wide rear ground floor deck is considered to have adequately addressed privacy to the adjoining properties subject to the 1.6m high privacy screen approved along the eastern side of the proposed 3m wide ground floor deck being continued out along the eastern side of the proposed deck for an additional metre to 4m in width.

 

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

 

Five submissions (four objecting and one supporting) were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.

 

·    First submission from the owners of 2 Mitchell Street.

 

Drew Council’s attention to the long, expensive and exhausting process the neighbours and Council went through with the original application (D304/07) to arrive at a 1.8m wide first floor rear deck and then the compromises made for the Section 96 Modification to increase the deck size to 2.2m.

 

They objected very strongly to this request for an additional 800mm on to the 2.2m approved first floor balcony based on the size and area it will offer for noise nuisance, the amount of people that will congregate there and the obstruction to their Harbour Bridge and harbour views.  It will be an intrusion into their privacy as their entertaining area is directly in view – at present they have no overlooking into their house/balcony but of course fully realise that there would be some changes in privacy already with the 2.2m balcony construction.

 

They urge the Council and perhaps any Committee to review the full history of this application and give due consideration to the objections from the surrounding three to four neighbours who will be strongly affected by this larger balcony (upstairs and downstairs).

 

·    Second submission from the owners of 4 Mitchell Street.

 

Again attention is drawn to the long and exhaustive process gone through to limit the width to 2.2m.

 

D304/07 was granted with a condition limiting the upper decks depth to 1.8m.  All the factors and reasons, which lead to this condition, are still in existence today – they have not changed.

 

After considerations of the proximity of their living areas and private open spaces the Council limited the applicant’s upper deck depth to reduce overlooking and the noise impact on neighbouring properties.  Greenwich Point is a relatively quiet area so noise coming from an open elevated platform will carry and severely impact the amenity of neighbouring properties.  They believe that both their acoustic and visual privacy will be adversely impacted on by an increase in either or both of the upper and lower deck’s depth.

 

The applicant has approval for a 2.2m by 7.7m upper deck and a larger lower deck.  Without any further increase these decks will already provide lovely entertaining areas with fantastic views.  In order for the applicant to go from these two generous sized decks to two very large decks the amenity of five other neighbours will be severely reduced.  Please stand by the decisions already made by Council regarding this property.

 

·  Third submission from the owners of 6 Mitchell Street.

 

They wish to state their objection to the DA modification lodged with Lane Cove Council on the 25 July 2013 on the following grounds:-

-           The modifications sought contradict the conditions previously granted by Council on 20 March 2012.

-           They had previously not commented on the DA process as it had appeared to be conducted in a manner consistent with due process.

-           Their concern that the modifications sought to the decks will be a prelude to the same decks being enclosed in the near future.

-           Upon review of the long running DA process, they can find no record of a Council requirement to paint or finish the extensions or existing dwelling in finishes sympathetic with the surrounding environment and neighbouring dwellings.

 

Officer’s Comments on the above three Submissions

 

There was a long and exhaustive process involved in both D304/07 and the Section 96 Modification to increase the size of the first floor balcony from the original Council approved 1.8m to the presently approved 2.2m.  It is considered that the first floor balcony as already approved with a width of 2.2m is large enough (it is off sunroom 1, bedroom 1 and sunroom 2, bedroom 2) and any further increase in width in a southerly direction is not supported on the grounds of loss of view, loss of privacy and potential to change the nature of the deck from a quiet

area enjoyed by the occupants to a viewing platform at New Year’s Eve and other times thereby creating a noise nuisance to the neighbours.

 

·     Fourth submission from Nolan Planning Consultants on behalf of the owners of 26 George Street.

 

Loss of Privacy

 

First Floor Deck

 

It is considered that this increase in depth to the first floor deck is unreasonable and not in accordance with the objectives of Clause 1.8.2 of the DCP for the following reasons:-

·        The deck is setback 1.1m to the sites eastern side boundary.  This setback does not comply with Clause 1.3.2 which requires a setback of 1.5m for two storey components.  This balcony could be considered a third storey component.  The loss of privacy from this balcony is exacerbated by the non-compliance with the side boundary setback, allowing people to stand and entertain within 1.1m of the side boundary of his client’s property.  Clause 1.3.2 states that a reduction in side boundary setbacks may be considered where it can be demonstrated that there are no unreasonable amenity impacts.  Whilst they understand that the deck is currently approved at a setback of 1.1m it is unreasonable to allow any further increase in the depth of this deck as it would allow for an unreasonable loss of privacy.

·        This deck provides views towards Sydney CBD which further increases the likelihood of this deck being utilised for entertainment and outdoor recreation.

·        The amendment to the deck has no regard for the privacy of his client’s at No. 26 George Street.  The balcony will allow direct views into the rear yard, living areas and master bedroom of No. 26 George Street.  This is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary given the large deck area at the ground floor level.

·        It is considered that a deck of such great depth can be utilised for outdoor entertaining.  The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the Section 96 Modification application indicates that the amendments are sought to increase light and ventilation to the subject property.  However an increase in depth to the upper level deck in their opinion is to allow for outdoor entertaining and recreation at this level.  Further the Statement of Environmental Effects does not provide an assessment of the proposal against Council’s DCP particularly in relation to privacy.

 

Ground Floor Deck

 

In relation to the ground floor deck, it is noted that Council’s DCP in Clause 1.8.2 provides:-

 

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.  Deeper decks may be considered if privacy to adjoining properties is addressed.

 

The proposed amendment to the ground floor deck clearly does not comply with Clause 1.8.2 of the DCP and in their opinion does not meet the objectives of this clause for the following reasons:

·          The ground floor deck has a height of up to 2.0m which is above fence height and as such can directly overlook into the rear yard and living areas of No. 26 George Street.

·          This balcony serves high use living areas and is an extension of the internal living area.  Therefore it can only be assumed that this deck will be utilised for outdoor living and entertaining resulting in a loss of both visual and acoustic privacy.

·          The detrimental impact of increasing the width of this deck is unreasonable.

·          The increase width will result in further direct overlooking of the private open space of No. 26 George Street.

·          The extension of this deck extends beyond the rear of the dwelling at No. 26 George Street and therefore will also allow views back into the internal living areas and master bedroom of No. 26 George Street.

·          The ground floor deck is setback 1.1m from the side boundary which does not comply with Clause 1.3.2 and would require a setback of 1.5m for two storey components.  Given the height above ground level it is considered that the deck should be considered as a two storey component.  An extension of the deck so close to the side boundary and in non-compliance with the maximum depth controls is unreasonable and should not be supported.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

First Floor Deck

 

It is agreed that the proposed first floor deck extension from 2.2m to 3m with a setback of 1.1m from the eastern side boundary is unsatisfactory and likely to have an unreasonable amenity impact on No. 26 George Street allowing direct views of the rear yard, living areas and master bedroom, and to loss of acoustic privacy.  It should be noted that the width of the first floor deck at 26 George Street where it protrudes out the walls of the master bedroom in a southerly direction is 1.9m.

 

Ground Floor Deck

 

There are screening shrubs along both side boundaries of this site.

 

The approved 3m wide ground floor level deck has approval that requires a 1.6m high privacy screen along the eastern side and subject to this privacy screen being increased by 1m to the edge of the proposed ground floor deck, the increase of the size of this deck to 4m is considered reasonable and would not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

 

·    Fifth submission from the owners of 24 George Street supporting the Section 96 Modification.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been satisfied.

 

The extension of the first floor rear deck from 2.2m wide to 3m wide is considered to be unsatisfactory and is recommended for refusal on the following grounds:-

 

“1.        Council has already carried out a long and exhaustive process to determine the width of this deck to be 2.2m.

 

2.         The proposed increase in size of this deck from 2.2m to 3m is considered to:

a.         Cause a partial loss of an iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from 2 Mitchell Street.

b.         Cause a loss of visual and acoustic privacy to 2, 4, 6 Mitchell Street and 26 George Street.

c.         It is not setback 1.5m from the eastern side boundary as specified in Council’s DCP 2010 for a two storey extension.”

 

Subject to the draft conditions in the recommendation the remainder of the application is considered reasonable and would not to adversely impact on the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

 

 

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 grants approval to amend development consent D304/07 granted on 11 August 2008 for alterations and additions to dwelling house and construction of a carport on Lot 5, DP 72088 and known as 28 George Street, Greenwich in the following manner:-

 

A.         By amending conditions 1 and 2 to read:-

 

            1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers DA01 to                         DA06, Issue B dated Feb. 08 by Vienna Designs as amended by AC0380-S96-02A,                         S96-Areas A, dated Oct. 11, AC0380-S96-00B, S96-01B, S96-03B, S96-04B, S96-                        05B, S96-06B, S96-07A, S96-08A, S96-09A, S96-10A dated Jan. 12 by Vienna                            Design Pty Ltd, further amended by AC0380-S96-00-A, S96-01-A, S96-02-A, S96-                        03-A, S96-04-A, S96-05-A, S96-06-A dated July 13 by Vienna Design Pty Ltd and                         except as amended by the following conditions.

 

            2b.       The extension of the 2.2m wide approved first floor rear balcony to 3m in width is                         refused on the following grounds:-

 

                        i.          Council has already carried out a long and exhaustive process to determine                         the width of this deck to be 2.2m.

 

                        ii.          The proposed increase in size of this deck from 2.2m to 3m is considered to:

                                    a.         Cause a partial loss of an iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from 2                                                 Mitchell Street.

                        b.         Cause a loss of visual and acoustic privacy to 2, 4, 6 Mitchell Street                         and 26 George Street.

                        c.         It is not setback 1.5m from the eastern side boundary as specified in                         Council’s DCP 2010 for a two storey extension.

 

                        Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

            2c.       The approved privacy screen 1.6m high by 3m long on the eastern side of the                               approved ground floor balcony being extended out a further metre to 4m in length.

 

                        Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Council Report No. 324 of 4 August 2008

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Delegated Authority Report No. 321 dated 5 December 2011

11 Pages