m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

3 December 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 December 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 December 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 - 5 NOVEMBER 2013

 

 

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       1 Edwin Street, Greenwich

 

3.       48 Phoenix Street, Lane Cove

 

4.       9 Mafeking Avenue, Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day  

 

 

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 3 December 2013

1 Edwin Street, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          1 Edwin Street, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA13/137-01 - 53013/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                     1 Edwin Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    D137/13

 

Date Lodged:              9 September 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $300,500

 

Owner:                                    M Aitken

 

Applicant:                    M Aitken

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations to dwelling house, terrace extensions, stairs, double garage and elevated walkway to pool

ZONE

R2 (Low Density Residential)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                              2, 3, 5 Edwin Street; 19, 21,                                                   23, 25, 27 Vista Street; and                                                    16A Chisholm Street

Ward Councillors                    East Ward

Progress Association              Greenwich Community                                                          Association Inc.

Other Interest Groups             -

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application has been referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination given the number and extent of variations and significant concerns raised by the neighbours. 

 

The application proposes a range of alterations and additions which seek to extend the current footprint and entertainment area of the existing two storey brick dwelling house with a double garage underneath.

 

Four submissions have been received objecting to the proposed double garage with a trafficable roof, the extension of the front terraces on the grounds of loss of view and privacy, the rear upper floor terrace, the elevated rear walkway, and the extension of the pool terrace to meet the elevated rear walkway.

 

The proposed double garage with trafficable roof over, the proposed front stair and gate, the proposed front terrace extensions on the western side of the ground floor and upper floor and the elevated walkway from the rear of the upper terrace to the pool concourse are recommended for refusal.

 

Subject to the proposed roof over the eastern side of the upper floor terrace not protruding past the edge of the upper floor terrace and the provision of a privacy screen on the eastern side of the proposed rear upper floor terrace extension which matches the existing privacy screen on the eastern side of the existing first floor rear terrace, the remainder of the application is recommended for approval.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Edwin Street.  Existing improvements on the site consist of a two storey brick dwelling house with a pitched tiled roof and a double garage under at the front on the eastern side.  The land slopes towards the street and has a swimming pool in the rear yard with a timber deck on the eastern and western sides. The Site Plan and Notification Plan are shown attached as (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to:-

 

1.         Remove two sections of internal walling from the existing double garage, provide two new windows in the eastern wall and use this area as a workshop and storage area.  Also construct a wall to form part of a wine cellar on the western side under the front of the building;

 

2.         Construct a new brick double garage at the front of the existing garage with a new entry stair and gate on the western side.  The proposed garage has a flat reinforced concrete roof with a planter around it on three sides and is an extension of the elevated ground floor terrace which is a minimum of 2.2m wide.  The garage terrace is 4.35m wide by 4.2m long making a total width of 6.55m;

 

3.         Construct a new ground floor terrace extension 1.8m x 2m in size on the western side of the ground floor;

 

4.         Carry out alterations to the ground floor level of the dwelling house including removing and constructing new internal walls;

 

5.         Construct an upper floor front terrace extension 1.85m x 4.5m in size on the western side of the first floor;

 

6.         Construct a tiled roofed upper floor rear terrace extension 1.8m wide by 4.2m long on the western side of the upper floor;

 

7.         Construct a pitched tiled roof over the eastern side of the existing upper floor terrace;

 

8.         Carry out internal alterations to the upper floor level including a new door unit to the upper floor, removing walls, constructing new walls and a new skylight structure over the stairs;

 

9.         Construct a 1m wide elevated timber walkway from the pool deck with stairs leading to the upper floor level of the rear terrace of the dwelling house;

 

10.       Upgrade the existing failed swimming pool timber deck structure into a tiled reinforced concrete structure with a small extension on the western side to meet the proposed elevated walkway; and

 

11.       Extend the existing rear ground floor terrace and construct a new stair.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Nil

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2

 

Site Area:       643.78m²

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.7:1

0.5:1

No

Height of Buildings

9.3m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Garage – 1m

Ground and upper floor terrace extensions – 6.1m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Garage – No

Ground and upper floor terrace extensions – No

Side setback (min)

Elevated walkway – 1.1m

Upper floor terrace extension – 1.6m

1200mm/1500mm

Elevated walkway – No

Upper floor terrace extension – Yes

Rear setback (min)

Upper floor rear terrace extension – 17.1m

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Yes

Wall Height (max)

Unchanged

7.0m

Unchanged

Subfloor height (max)

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

Number of Storeys (max)

Unchanged (3)

2

Unchanged

Landscaped area (min)

Approximately 17%

35%

No

Solar Access

3 hrs to north-facing windows

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

4.15m

3m

No

Private open space

> 24m2

> 4m minimum depth

 

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Cut and fill

Cut – 300mm

1m (max)

Yes

 

 

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Part demolished

Solid:               900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

Unchanged

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

Part demolished

1m

Unchanged

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

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)

N/A

1m from street boundary

N/A

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

6.3m

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

No

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

Unchanged

3m to waterline

Unchanged

Setback to boundary (min)

Unchanged

1m to waterline

Unchanged

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

Unchanged

1m

1.8m   

Unchanged

Setback from boundary if coping is above ground level (existing)(min)

1.1m

Coping to be set back at a ratio of 1:1

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

The comments of the Development Engineer were requested on the proposal and draft conditions of consent are provided which are included in the recommendation in this report.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

The comments of the Tree Assessment Officer were requested on the proposal and draft conditions of consent are provided which are included in the recommendation in this report.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

The premises are partly located on bushfire prone land as identified in the Bush Fire Risk Management Plan.  A Bush Fire Assessment Report has been submitted by the architect for the proposal.  The recommendation in that report has been adopted for the part of this application recommended for approval.

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible within the R2 (low density residential) zoning under the Lane Cove LEP 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.

 

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways area specified in SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.  Part 2 of the SREP sets out planning principles for land within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and Part 3 of the SREP set out matters for consideration.

 

The DCP for the SREP sets out Performance Criteria for this area as follows:-

 

·          it is sited so remaining rock outcrops, clifflines or vegetated shorelines are protected and not obscured;

·          it is sited to ensure that the continuous line of any natural feature is preserved and remains the dominant feature in the landscape;

·          it is sited and designed to maintain the vegetation cover on the upper slopes and ridgelines; major points and entrances to the bays are preserved in their natural state;

·          existing character, natural, cultural and heritage features of the islands are retained; and

·          colours should match native vegetation as closely as possible with trim colours drawn from natural elements such as tree trunks and stone.

 

The proposed alterations and additions would not adversely impact on the foreshores and waterways and are considered to comply with the planning principles and matters for consideration contained within the SREP and also to comply with the performance criteria in the DCP for the SREP.

 

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 departure is discussed below:-

 

1.         Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal includes the construction of a new double garage at the front of the existing garage and converting the existing garage to workshop and storage.  The ceiling height in this area is 2.2m.  The dwelling house is considered to be 3 storey at the front as the lowest level is not considered to be a basement as it is not predominantly below ground level (existing) and the floor above is not less than 1m above ground level (existing).

 

The floor space ratio including the proposed workshop and storage area and the wine cellar on the western side have been calculated as being 0.7:1 which is well in excess of Council’s maximum FSR of 0.5:1.

 

 

 

2.         Garage with trafficable roof over in front of Building Line – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies that:

 

·          Only open carports are permitted in front of the building line.

 

·          On sloping sites, garages may be permitted in front of the building line if at least two thirds of the garage is below ground level (existing).  The garage shall have a minimum setback of 1m from the street alignment and not have a trafficable roof.

 

·          Garage roofs are to be non-trafficable.

 

The proposed garage does not comply with the above requirements.

 

3.         Front Setback – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:

 

·          The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street.  Where there is no predominant setback within the street, the setback should be a minimum of 7.5m.

 

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

 

(i)         Front Stairs:

 

The proposed front stairs in front of the building line are considered too intrusive and likely to adversely impact on the amenity of the area and the streetscape.

 

(ii)        Ground and Upper Floor terrace extensions:

 

The proposal is for terrace extensions at ground floor level 1.8m x 2m in size and at upper floor level 1.8m x 4.5m on the western side to extend the terraces out in line with the existing terraces at the front of 1 Edwin Street on the eastern side which have an existing building line of 6.1m.

 

The other two dwelling houses on this side of Edwin Street (3 and 5 Edwin Street) have a building line of 7.5m.

 

It is considered that the existing building line of the front terraces of the subject property (ie. 7.9m on the western side and 6.1m on the eastern side) should be retained.

 

Note:  the extension of the tiled roof over the existing upper floor terrace is considered to be satisfactory subject to the tiled roof not protruding past the edge of the upper floor terrace.

 

4.         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.

 

The elevated walkway is shown to be setback 1.1m from the western side boundary.

 

The elevated walkway extends from the rear of the first floor level to the pool level as extended.

 

Even though the proposed elevated walkway follows the line of the existing stairway at upper floor level the setback from the side boundary is less than 1.5m and is considered unsatisfactory.

 

5.         Soft Landscaped Area – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies that:-

 

A minimum of 35% of the site is to be soft landscaped.  A minimum width of 1m is required for inclusion as landscaped area.

 

The soft landscaped area is considered to be approximately 17% which is well less that the required minimum.  If the front stair and the front terrace extensions are refused then it is considered that there is no significant alteration to the existing soft landscaped area.

 

6.         Elevated Terraces – 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 satisfactorily addressed.

 

(i)         Rear Upper Floor Terrace Extension:-

 

There is a 2.35m wide elevated terrace at upper floor level which runs across the rear of the dwelling house.  It is proposed to construct a 1.8m wide by 4m long terrace extension on the western side of the terrace.  This makes the terrace as extended in this area 4.15m wide which exceeds Council’s DCP maximum of 3m.  The applicant has advised on site that he is prepared to put up a privacy screen on the eastern side of the proposed elevated rear terrace extension to match the existing privacy screen at the eastern end of the existing upper floor rear terrace.

 

Subject to the proposed privacy screen being provided and a 1.8m high privacy screen being provided on the western side of the terrace extension, privacy is considered to have been satisfactorily addressed.

 

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

 

Four submissions (one each from 3, 5 Edwin Street and 21, 27 Vista Street) were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows:-

 

1.         All four submissions object to the proposed double garage with terrace over as the Council’s DCP does not allow garages with trafficable roofs over, the garage adds an existing area which surely exceeds the 0.5:1 floor space ratio and would adversely impact on the amenity of the area and the landscape.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The garage and terrace do not comply with Council’s DCP and are recommended for refusal.

 

2.         Two submissions object to the proposed first floor rear terrace on the grounds of overlooking and noise.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

See above comments under Rear Upper Floor Terrace Extension.

 

3.         Two submissions object to the elevated walkway from the upper floor level of the rear of the dwelling house to the pool on the grounds of overlooking their backyards and looking into the rear windows of 21 Vista Street.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

While there is an existing line of bamboo in the adjoining property 3 Edwin Street, it is considered that the elevated walkway is too high and likely to adversely impact on privacy both visual and acoustic of 3 Edwin Street and 21 Vista Street.

 

4.         One submission objects to the proposed extension of the pool terrace to connect to the proposed elevated walkway.  The proposed extension is shown to be setback 300mm from the western boundary.  The proposed pool terrace is considered to be approximately a maximum of 1.5m above ground level.  The grounds for the objection are that the new extension of the deck would elevate the surface upon which persons walk/stand by approximately 1.5m above ground level proximal to their side boundary, thus allowing persons to easily look into their backyard.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

There is a screen of bamboo along the eastern boundary of 3 Edwin Street and also a Murraya hedge screen along the western boundary of the subject property.

 

The proposed small extension of the pool terrace is shown to be setback at least 1.1m from the side boundary and is considered to comply with Council’s DCP requirement for swimming pool decks that they be setback from the side boundary on a 1:1 basis, it is recommended for approval.

 

5.         One submission objects to the front terraces’ extensions as follows:

 

The extension proposed to the front terraces will severely impose on their views of the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge.  They therefore strongly object to the extension of both the lower and upper level terraces.

 

The existing front terraces already encroach the front setback zones, which according to S 1.3.1 are required to be minimum of 7.5m.  The proposed front terrace extensions are entirely within the setback zone.  They appear to extend the upper and lower terraces to within 6m of the front boundary.

 

The proposed upper terrace extension would severely impose their views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge from their living room and their front terrace.  The existing upper front terrace, proximal to their house, already extends further forward than theirs, by about 0.3m.  Extending the depth of the terrace would enable persons to congregate and easily look into their entire living and dining room, creating a severe invasion of privacy.  The erection of any screen or provision of any plants, etc. to mitigate this occurring, would obstruct their Sydney Harbour Bridge views.

 

In relation to the proposed extension to the lower front terrace, this would also impede their views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge from their master bedroom.  Their master bedroom window has been architecturally designed to specifically face and capture the view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, with the understanding that this could not be built out due to front setback restrictions.  Furthermore, if the lower front terrace is extended, this would result in the ability for persons to congregate and peer directly into their bedroom, causing an extreme invasion of personal privacy.  As the proposed extension would allow provision of a seating or dining area, it would also potentially result in significant noise immediately adjacent to their primary sleeping area.  Any screening to attempt to mitigate these visual and acoustic privacy issues would obstruct their existing Sydney Harbour Bridge views.

 

The proposed front terrace extension, on both the upper and lower levels, are in clear contravention of S 1.3.1 which states that no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone, so they strongly object.

Officer’s Comments

 

3 Edwin Street has panorama views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the City skyline.  When sitting in the living/dining room area the upper terrace extension is not considered to create unreasonable view obstructions for 3 Edwin Street.

 

The terrace extension on the ground floor also is not considered to create unreasonable view obstructions from the main bedroom.

 

Regarding the front setback the balconies of 3 and 5 Edwin Street are setback 7.5m.  1 Edwin Street on the western side of the front terrace is setback 7.9m and the eastern side setback 6.1m from the front.  It is proposed to extend the western side terraces at ground and upper floor level out to 6.1m.

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies a general building line of 7.5m.  It is considered that the building line as existing is the correct one and the terrace extensions should be refused as they encroach on Council’s Building Line of 7.5m.  Notwithstanding the concern on interrupted views the proposal would not create unreasonable obstructions for adjoining properties.

 

6.         Window in Eastern Elevation.  The submission from 21 Vista Street points out that an additional window is shown on the eastern elevation.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

This window is not shown on the plan view and should be deleted from the plans.

 

The applicants/owners of 1 Edwin Street have submitted a reply to the submissions from the neighbors and have also submitted a reply to Council’s letter of the 24 October 2013.  A copy of the letters is shown attached as (AT3 and AT4) and Council’s letter of the 24 October 2013 is shown attached as (AT5).

 

The issues raised in the two letters from the applicants/owners may be summarised as follows:-

 

First Letter Replying to Submissions

 

1.         The majority of their immediate neighbors have no concerns with their plans.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Four submissions have been received.

 

2.         Submission from owners of 3 Edwin Street:

 

a)         Front Terrace Extensions

 

They are not seeking to place a roof over the extended terrace at the front on the western side and the proposed plantings at upper level would not be of a considerable height since this would block their views.  They find it difficult to understand how repositioning the stairs away from 3 Edwin Street would create an additional invasion of privacy or impact the view of the Harbour Bridge.

 

There are already five of eight properties on Edwin Street that provide setbacks similar to the one proposed.  It may therefore be considered the “consistent prevailing setback along the street”.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The existing prevailing setback on this side of Edwin Street is considered to be that of 3 and 5 Edwin Street which are setback 7.5m from the front boundary.

 

b)         Walkway to Pool (also objected to by 21 Vista Street)

 

They note that the elevated platform already exists and sits above the boundary fence at the end of a staircase sitting between the two properties.  A hedge of bamboo provides a screen to 3 Edwin Street limiting noise and views.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The privacy both visual and acoustic of 3 Edwin Street and particularly 21 Vista Street is considered to be adversely impacted by the elevated walkway.

 

c)         Modifications of Pool Deck with a Small Extension

 

In view of the bamboo screen and as the modifications seek to address maintenance issues with an existing timber structure and with no change in design, scale, height, area, etc., they consider the modification of the pool deck does not result in additional issues.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The replacement of the timber swimming pool deck with concrete and the small extension of the deck to meet the proposed elevated walkway are considered satisfactory.

 

d)         Extension of Rear Upper Level Terrace (also objected to by 21 Vista Street)

 

In view of the bamboo hedge over 7m in height which limits noise and view, it appears difficult to agree that the extension of the upper terrace would adversely impact on 3 Edwin Street.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Subject to a privacy screen being provided on both the eastern and western sides of the rear upper level terrace extension, it is considered satisfactory and would not unreasonably adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

e)         Rear Roof Extension

 

It seems unlikely that the upper level rear roof extension would inhibit solar access and create overshadowing to their property in view of the massive bamboo hedge in 3 Edwin Street.

 

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The solar access that would be provided by the rear roof extension is considered satisfactory and complies with Council’s DCP.

 

f)          Front Roof Extension

 

They consider that the front building line is not 7.5m.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The existing setback of the upper terrace on the eastern side is 6.1m and subject to the proposed terrace roof not protruding closer to the front boundary then the existing terrace, the proposed roof over the eastern side of the front upper terrace is considered satisfactory.

 

g)         Double Garage with Trafficable Roof (also objected to by 1 Edwin Street, 21 Vista Street and 27 Vista Street)

 

The perimeter planting seeks to respond to the Council design intent of limiting vertical overlooking to the streetface.  Numerous examples of this exist throughout the Municipality.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Council’s Policy is not to approve garages in front of the building line and the proposed double garage with trafficable roof is recommended for refusal.

 

Second Letter Replying to Council’s Letter of 24 October 2013

 

1.         The existing garage area under the dwelling house does not have an adequate height.  They would have to excavate into rock and their structural engineer has advised against this option.

 

Council has advised it is not a basement but the applicant asserts when it was built it was a basement.

 

They submit that the floor space ratio has to increase by the amount of the basement as a proportion of the total property size.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Council’s DCP only allows open carports in front of the Building Line which do not constitute Gross Floor Area and therefore do not add to the Floor Space Ratio.  The existing garage area does not comply with the definition of a basement in Council’s LEP.

 

2.         They are happy to make the garage a non trafficable roof.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The garage is recommended for refusal.

 

3.         A cursory visit to the street will make it obvious that 1, 3 and 5 Edwin Street are out of alignment with the rest of the street, 7 and 2 in particular where garages are on a zero setback.  Further, Edwin Street is a short street which means that four other properties traverse two streets.  However, as pointed out when you were here, two of these four properties, namely 25 and 27 Vista Street have their main and ancillary entrances on Edwin Street and in consequence they submit it is disingenuous to argue that they do not front Edwin Street because they have addresses in other streets.  Further two properties, 7 Edwin and 27 Vista are clearly in breach of the 7.5m setback even from their so called main frontages on the other streets.

 

Finally they ask you to take notice of the three properties that are not sixty metres from them that face them from Vista Street (from the opposite side of the street to 25 and 27 Vista).  All three have garages on zero setback.  They submit that 4 of the 7 properties that have their primary entrances on Edwin Street have setbacks of between 0 and 1 metre.  Three other properties that face them from Vista Street also have garages that face them at zero setback.  In consequence they submit that their application complies with the key condition of the LEP, namely, that it is “.. consistent with the front setback in the street”.  They note that your letter talks about the setback “.. in this section of Edwin Street” and they note that the LEP makes no mention of sections of the street.  Your visit should now have confirmed the prevailing setback in the street and the immediate surrounds.

 

 

 

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Council’s current LEP is dated 2009 and the DCP is dated 2010.  All the work on the properties referred to above is considered to have been carried out before the latest LEP and DCP came into force.

 

4.         (i)         They note that there is no impact on the ability of the owners of 3 Edwin Street to see the harbour bridge, and if there is any impact at their bedroom level, it is from a pre-existing tree which they would be happy to remove if all parties (in particular Council) agreed.  They also note that there will be no imposition from the upper balcony and that all they are seeking to do is extend the right side (as you face the street) to 2.8 metres, the same as the left side presently.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

It is considered that any small obstructions to the view would not create unreasonable obstructions for adjoining properties.

 

(ii)        They also note an error in 4(ii).  The front balcony at its widest point is 2.8 metres not 3.55 metres.  Their request is therefore to extend one side of the balcony from its current 1.5 metres to 2.8 metres to match the other side.  As they read the code, balconies of less than 3 metres are within the code.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The error is in the Architect’s plans as submitted which scale 3.55m.

 

5.         In connection with changes at the back of the property, it should have been clear from your visit that there is no impact to the privacy of 3 Edwin Street.  They also submit that in extending the left hand side of the deck to 4 metres (not 4.1) that they can improve the privacy between them and 21 Vista Street.  Currently, they have a privacy screen at the eastern end of the deck which provides full privacy between them and 23 Vista Street.  They are prepared to install a similar privacy screen on the eastern side of the extended deck and significantly reduce the privacy issues that currently exist between them and 21 Vista Street.

Officer’s Comments

 

Subject to the privacy screen being provided on the eastern side and also a 1.8m high privacy screen to the western side of the rear upper floor terrace extensions, it is considered to have satisfactorily addressed privacy.

 

6.         The walkway between the back deck and the pool deck is approximately 1.5 metres above the ground level and is fully private as against 3 Edwin Street as a result of extended plantings on both sides of the fence.  Even if 3 Edwin took their plantings down (which is highly unlikely given their stated need for privacy) their own Murraya hedge with two feet of additional growth will fully cover 90% of the proposed walkway to a height of six feet from the walking surface.  Further, as the proposed walkway is on the western boundary it offers little if any privacy issue to 21 which is on the eastern boundary.  In this sense it is important to appreciate that it is a walkway not a viewing platform or entertainment area.  On these areas they have proposed solutions (see 5 above) to the current privacy issue between 21 Vista and themselves.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The elevated walkway is considered to be too high and would adversely impact on privacy both visual and acoustic for 3 Edwin Street and particularly 21 Vista Street.

 

7.         As your site visit noted, the concrete concourse is 1.1 metres from the western boundary.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Noted.

 

8.         They are prepared to include an extra 50/75 square metres of green space by greening the entire walkway between them and 3 Edwin Street (40 square metres) and greening 15-20 square metres of the pool deck area.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

Noted.

 

9.         There is no additional window on the eastern elevation.

 

Officer’s Comments

 

The plans do show an additional window on the upper floor eastern elevation and this should be deleted from the plans.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

Generally it is considered that the range of alterations and additions being sought by the applicant are excessive and would adversely impact upon the streetscape and the reasonable amenity of the of its adjoining neighbors.

 

In particular, it is considered that the double garage with the trafficable deck, the front stairs and gate, the front terrace extensions on the western side at ground and upper floor level and the elevated walkway should be refused for the following reasons:-

 

1.         Council’s DCP does not permit the proposed double garage with trafficable roof in front of the building line.

 

2.         The proposed front stairs and gate in front of Council’s DCP building line are considered too intrusive and likely to adversely impact on the amenity of the area and the streetscape.

 

3.         The proposed front terrace extensions on the western side at ground and upper floor level intrude on Council’s DCP building line of 7.5m and adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses and the streetscape.

 

4.         The proposed elevated walkway is too high and is likely to adversely impact on privacy both visual and acoustic for 3 Edwin Street and particularly 21 Vista Street.

 

Notwithstanding the above concerns, it is considered reasonable that the remainder of the application be recommended for approval subject to draft conditions indicated in the report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Part A

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel refuses development consent to that part of the Development Application D137/13 comprising the proposed double garage with the trafficable roof over, the proposed front stairs and gate, the proposed front terrace extensions at ground and upper floor level and the elevated walkway on Lot 16, DP16669 and known as 1 Edwin Street, Greenwich for the following reasons:-

 

1.         By adding a double garage at the front of the site, the existing garage area now proposed to be used as a workshop and storage area becomes gross floor area and the floor space ratio has been calculated as being 0.7:1, which is well in excess of the 0.5:1 maximum specified in the LEP.

 

Note:  The lowest floor level does not fall within the definition of a basement in the LEP.

 

2.         Garages are not permissible in front of the building line unless on sloping sites.  Garages may be permitted if at least two thirds of the garage is below existing ground level and does not have a trafficable roof.  This is not the present case.

 

3.         The proposed front stairs and gate are considered to intrude on Council’s building line of 7.5m and adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses and the streetscape.

 

4.         The front terrace extensions at ground and first floor levels on the western side of the existing dwelling house would reduce the existing building line to 6.1m (same as on eastern side of dwelling house) but does not comply with the general building line in this section of Edwin Street of 7.5m.

 

            Note:   The width of the ground floor and upper floor front terraces incorrectly scale 3.55m             whereas an on-site measurement was 2.87m.

 

5.         The proposed elevated walkway from the rear of the upper floor terrace to the pool deck as             proposed to be extended:

 

            (i)         is considered to be too high and likely to have an adverse impact on privacy both             visual and acoustic for 3 Edwin Street and particularly 21 Vista Street; and

 

            (ii)        the proposed setback of 1.1m from the western boundary is considered                                         unsatisfactory.

 

Part B

 

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 the remainder of Development Application D137/13 on Lot 16, DP16669 and known as 1 Edwin Street subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number DA-01, DA-02, DA-03, DA-04, DA-05, DA-06 and DA-07 dated 20/8/13 by Tom Crebar & Associates.

 

2.         The proposed tiled roof extension at upper floor level on the eastern side not protruding             past the edge of the upper floor terrace.  Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a construction Certificate.

 

3.         The provision of a privacy screen on the eastern side of the rear upper floor terrace             extension matching the existing privacy screen on the eastern side of the existing rear             upper floor terrace and the provision of a 1.8m high privacy screen on the western side of             the rear upper floor terrace extension.  Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue             of a Construction Certificate.

 

4.         The additional window shown on the upper floor eastern elevation being deleted from the plans prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

5.                     As the premises are partly on bushfire prone land the recommendation in the report from    Tom Crebar & Associates be adopted that a BAL – 12.5 construction level as set out in             AS3959 be provided.

 

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

 

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

 

8.         (137)  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.

 

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

 

 

10.       (12) Approval is subject to the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work.  It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council or the PCA that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the PCA will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance or an owner builder permit is submitted. THE ABOVE CONDITION DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, OWNER BUILDER WORKS LESS THAN $5000 OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS LESS THAN $20,000.

 

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

 

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

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                         7.00am to 4.00pm

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

 

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

 

14.       (46) Continuous balustrading is to be provided to all balconies, decks, terraces, landings and the like where more than 1 metre above the ground or floor surface beneath.  Such balustrading is to have a minimum height of 1 metre.  Openings in the balustrade must not allow a 125mm sphere to pass through and where the floor is more than 4 metres above the ground or floor surface below, any horizontal or near horizontal elements within the balustrade between 150mm and 760mm above the floor must not facilitate climbing.

 

15.       (47) Continuous balustrading is to be provided to all stairways and ramps where more than 1 metre or 5 risers above the ground or floor surface beneath.

 

The balustrade is to have a height of not less than 865mm above the nosings of the stair treads or the floor level of the ramp or landing and any opening does not permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it and for stairs, the sphere is tested above the nosings.

 

16.       (48) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

17.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

a)         the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority;

b)         the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)         a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

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

 

19.       (52) The swimming pool being surrounded by a fence:-

 

a) That forms a barrier between the swimming pool; and

 

i)          any residential building or movable dwelling situated on the premises; and

ii)         any place (whether public or private) adjacent to or adjoining the premises; and

 

b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992, and the relevant Australian Standard.

 

            SUCH FENCE IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE FILLING OF THE SWIMMING POOL

 

            ADVICE: In accordance with the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012, the swimming pool or spa is required to be registered on the NSW Government State wide Swimming Pool Register when completed.

            The register can be found at www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

 

20.       (54) In accordance with the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations thereunder a warning notice is to be displayed in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool at all times.

 

The notice must be in accordance with the standards of the Australian Resuscitation Council for instructional posters and resuscitation techniques and must contain a warning "YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS POOL".

 

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

 

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

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

d)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering.

e)         Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

f)          The swimming pool safety fence and the provision of the resuscitation poster prior to filling of the pool with water.

g)         Completion.

 

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

 

a)         Footings.

b)         Reinforced concrete work.

c)         Structural steelwork.

 

23.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in the dwelling.

 

            This requirement is satisfied by:-

 

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in—

                        (i)         Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

(b)                    Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)                    Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

 

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in—

 

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms—

                        (i)         between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

(b)                    any other storey not containing bedrooms.

 

24.       (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

25.       (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

26.       (141) Long Service Levy  Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by 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.

 

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

 

Tree Protection Conditions

 

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

 

29.       (302)  The applicant must obtain written authority prior to pruning or removal of any trees             greater than 4 metres in height, located on the property or in neighbouring properties             including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter. Trees shown on the             approved Plans for removal are exempt from this condition.

 

30.       (303)  There must be no stockpiling of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or any other             construction material or building rubbish on any nature strip, footpath, road or public open             space park or reserve.

           

31.       (354)  Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3 metres of any tree greater than 4 metres             in height; including neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with             no tree roots greater than 40 mm diameter to be severed or damaged.

 

32.       (new) If the Magnolia tree is removed one (1) replacement tree must be planted in the front             yard of the property. The tree must be healthy, good quality nursery stock, grown to at least             35 Litre container size, being free of girdling roots and other defects and have a height at             maturity of at least 6m. The replacement tree shall be established PRIOR TO ISSUE OF             THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE. Residents are strongly encouraged to use local native             plant species in their gardens.  A species list of local native plants suitable for gardens is             available from Council.

 

33.       (new)  The Applicant must ensure that all landscaping is completed to a professional             standard, free of any hazards or unnecessary maintenance problems and that all plants are             consistent with NATSPEC specifications.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

34.       (A1) Design and Construction Standards:  All engineering plans and work shall be             carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans             except as amended by other conditions.

 

35.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of Council             land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers             or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be             occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

36.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban             Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This             shall include 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.

 

37.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on             the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to             Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related             works.  Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

38.       (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times.             Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs             associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

39.       (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the             development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the             alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or             removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

40.       (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram             access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS-1742.3,             ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

41.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto             any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is             located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where             necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works.             All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the             applicant.

 

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

 

Engineering Conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

43.       (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered             impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage             system in accordance with the requirements of Part O, Lane Cove Council’s DCP-            Stormwater Management.

 

44.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a             $1000.00 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to             Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the             development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If             Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant             will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the             notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond             will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is             required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Engineering Condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

45.       (C2) Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment             control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in         accordance with erosion and sediment control plan prepared by Tom Crebar & Associates             numbered DA07 and dated 20-08-13. The devices shall be maintained during the             construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering Condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

46.                   (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and                         licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following                         matters. The    plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the                              certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying                         Authority prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate.

·                      Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with                         the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Letter addressing concerns from neighbours dated 24 October 2013

6 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Letter addressing concerns from neighbours 31 October 2013

3 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Letter to applicant from Council dated 24 October 2013

2 Pages

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 3 December 2013

48 Phoenix Street, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          48 Phoenix Street, Lane Cove     

Record No:    DA13/146-01 - 53484/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Rebecka Groth 

 

 

Property:                     48 Phoenix Street, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                                    DA13/146

 

Date Lodged:              18/9/2013

 

Cost of Work:              $550,000

 

Owner:                                    Lane Cove Council

 

Applicant:                    Lane Cove Council

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations and additions to an existing child care centre

ZONE

R2 Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 9B

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes

NOTIFICATION

Notification was undertaken in accordance with Council’s notification policy. Refer to the file for details.

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Pursuant to the Charter of the Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, the application is referred to Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination as the value of Council’s application is over $100,000. 

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing 58 place long day care centre, commonly known as Kindy Cove Child Care Centre, to provide improved compliance with the current Building Code of Australia, access and licensing requirements.

 

The proposal is consistent with the Lane Cove Local Environmental plan 2009, particularly in relation to height and floor space ratio and is generally consistent with the Development Control Plan 2010.

 

One submission has been received in response to the notification period. The main issues raised in the submission include minimal setback, loss of views and reduced access to sunlight.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to draft conditions of consent.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is situated on the eastern side of Phoenix Street, Lane Cove.

 

The site has frontage to Pheonix Street and Kimberley Avenue and comprises three allotments, having a total area of 1985.5m2. The site comprises an existing single storey child care centre, landscaped areas and mature trees. Due to the slope of the site, the child care centre is terraced from Phoenix Street up to Kimberley Avenue.

 

The site plan and notification plan is shown attached as (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves upgrading an existing 58 place long day care centre to provide improved compliance with the current Building Code of Australia, access and licensing requirements.

The proposal includes:-

 

·    Ground floor extension to the dining/craft area (14.4m2 increase in GFA);

·    Ground floor extensions to provide new staff room, accessible toilet and storeroom (39.8m2 increase in GFA);

·    Extension to Playroom 1 (8.9m2 increase in GFA), relocation of washroom, replacement of existing doors and windows, new accessible entry and exit doors;

·    Playroom No. 2 – removal of mezzanine area, extension of south western washroom and conversion of north eastern washroom to a storeroom, replacement of existing doors and windows, new accessible entry and exit doors;

·    Playroom No. 3 – reconfiguration of indoor play area and associated cot room, stretcher room and storage areas, refurbishment of existing washroom, replacement of existing doors and windows, new accessible entry and exit doors;

·    Extension to Director’s office using part of Playroom 2’s washroom, installation of a new accessible entry door;

·    Refurbishment of kitchen including conversion of cleaner’s store to pantry and new opening to dining area;

·    Relocation of cleaner’s store to existing staff toilet;

·    Access upgrade including mobility between Playroom No. 1 and No. 2, new handrails to stairs and ramps, regarding of ramp No. 2, wheelchair accessible doors, accessible toilet;

·    Fire safety upgrade including new exit doors, exit and emergency lighting, fire extinguishers, protection of openings within 3m of boundary;

·    Site works – new pergola adjacent to dining/craft area doors and new rainwater tanks on, south eastern boundary along new staff room wall and removal of stairs from Kimberley Avenue;

·    External finishes – new painted brickwork and colourbond steel roofing to match existing, new powder coated metal doors and windows, new painted light weight cladding, powder coated metal pergola; and

·    Tree removal in rear courtyard area.

 

No change to the children or staff numbers is proposed. As such, there is no change proposed to the current parking arrangements.

 

 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There are no recent applications for this site relevant to the current application.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential. Child care centres are permissible within the zone.

 

Site Area:       1985.5m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.27:1

 

GFA approximately 545.65m2

 

0.5:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

3.7m

9.5m

Yes

 

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

Part C – Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies

 

In lieu of specific setback requirements for child care centres, the relevant provisions from Part C of the DCP have been used as a guide.

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback – Phoenix Street

Complies

Consistent with area or 7.5m

 

Yes

Secondary Street setback – Kimberley Street

 

Complies

Consistent with area or 7.5m

 

Yes

Side setback – north-east

1.2m achieved

1.2m

 

Yes

Side setback – south-east

 

1.1m

 

1.2m

 

Acceptable. Refer to variation assessment

 

Wall Height

 

Maximum 3.7m

7.0m

Yes

Provide for view sharing

No significant views observed from the site

 

Enable view sharing

Yes

 


Part I – Child Care Centres

 

Part I of the DCP outlines the objectives and the requirements for child care centre developments. 

 

Objectives

 

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 centre is a 58 place long day care centre, comprising 16 children aged between 0-2 years and 14

staff. No changes are proposed to children numbers.

 

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. 

 

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

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing child care centre. The proposal is

compatible with the surrounding dwellings.

 

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

 

There are no additional children or staff proposed in conjunction with this proposal, therefore additional on-site parking is not required. The current parking arrangements include four (4) tandem car spaces on-site accessed from Kimberley Avenue and a 15 minute on-street pick up and drop off area between 7.30am to 9.30am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday in Phoenix Street. This area is not line marked, however approximately three (3) vehicles could use this space at any one time.

 

The following assessment table considers the other relevant provisions of Part I.

 

 

Provision

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

I.3.1  Indoor play area

3.25m2/child

 

(total 188.5m2 required)

 

4m2/child

 

(total 232.87m2)

Yes

I.3.2  Other indoor space

Minimum 5m2 for each employee

(14 staff x 5m2 = 70m2 required)

 

Administration room required

88m2

 

 

 

Office is existing

 

Yes

I.3.3  Outdoor play area

7m2/child

(406m2 required)

 

 

 

30% Natural Planting area (excluding turf)

9m2/child

(approximately 545.84m2)

 

 

30% achieved

 

 

Yes

I.4  Built form & building appearance

The design and layout of the child care centres must respond to the character of the existing neighbourhood and streetscape.  Existing residential character of the locality must be maintained through the use of appropriate finishes, materials, landscaping, fencing and plantings. 

 

In low density residential areas, childcare centres are to be single storey in height for reasons of safety and access.  In the case of 2 storey buildings, the second storey should only be used for the purposes of storage and staff facilities.

 

The proposal is compatible with the surrounding dwelling houses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The additions to the child care are located on the ground floor

Yes

I.5  Car parking / traffic

A minimum ratio of parking spaces to children of 1:4. 

(Minimum of 14.5 car spaces required)

 

The centre should not be located on a road which carries traffic volumes in excess of 1000 vehicles per hours.

 

The current parking arrangements include four (4) tandem car spaceson-site accessed from Kimberley Avenue and a 15 minute on-street pick up and drop off area between 7.30am to 9.30am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday in Phoenix Street. This area is not line marked, however approximately three (3) vehicles could use this space at any one time.

 

 

No changes to the existing parking arrangement required

NA

I.6  Accessibility 

Access should be in accordance with Australian Standard 1428.1 to 4 to comply with Part D of the Building Code of Australia

 

A condition of consent has been included to ensure compliance with AS1428

Yes

I.7  Safety/security/fencing

a)  Floor should be of a non-slip surface and easy to clean

 

b)  Fire safety precautions must be provided in accordance with BCA and AS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

c)  Every gate should be provided with a childproof self-locking mechanism, but must still be accessible for adults in wheelchairs.

 

d)  Child care centres which are not entirely located at ground level must satisfy Council as to their high safety level relating to fence/balcony heights, reduced window opening size etc. 

 

e)  Any part of the child care centre is designed for outdoor play space must be fenced on all sides.

 

f)  Any side of a stairway, ramp, corridor, hallway or external balcony that is not abutting a wall must be enclosed to prevent a child being trapped or falling through. 

 

g)  Fences should be designed to minimise noise transmission (on busy roads), improve privacy and must not dominate the streetscape.  Materials and finishes for fences may be used that complement the surrounding streetscape

 

Not shown on the plans (refer to Condition 6).

 

Council’s Senior Building Surveyor reviewed the proposal and required a condition stating the proposal shall comply with the BCA (refer to

Condition 10). 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Yes

 

 

Yes

I.8  Environmental hazards/air quality

 

a)   Child care centre located on busy, exposure to air and noise pollution sources should be minimised by the use of air conditioning and the location of outdoor play areas.

 

b)   To avoid mosquito bite infections Council may require that all doors and windows should be screened.  Mosquito breeding must be minimized by ensuring that drains and gutters are cleared and/or covered and that dark, damp areas are clear of vegetation and clutter.

 

The child care centre is not located on a busy road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant advises screening of doors is impractical.

(Refer to Condition 6)

Yes

I.9 Landscaping /planting

 

a)   Planting should be used for its quality of shading, screening and decorating outdoor areas.  Trees located on the northern and western boundary will shade the place during the hottest part of day.

 

b)   The planting and vegetation should provide educational features.

 

c)   Where the outdoor play area is proposed above ground level natural plants are to be provided in pots.

 

 

No change to existing plantings and shade structures. Tree removal is proposed

NA

I.10  Privacy and Noise Minimisation

 

a)   Effect should be made to reduce any possible adverse noise impact into the child care centre.  In certain situations, this may require double-glazing of windows or appropriate location of windows.

 

 

b)   The development application should demonstrate that privacy and noise minimisation for neighbouring properties have been considered in designing the centre.

 

The child care centre is situated in a quiet residential street and the additions to the centre. It is not considered that the proposal will result in adverse noise impacts.

 A noise impact assessment was not considered necessary given the minor nature of the proposal.

 

 

 

Yes

I.11

Sustainability

Applications in residential zonings need to indicate that they fulfil any requirements for a BASIX Certificate which may have been introduced by the State government for relating to water and energy efficiency etc 

 

The child care centre is an existing building which pre-dates Basix. The proposed extensions and alterations will assist to improve the thermal efficiency of the building.

 

Yes

I.12 Hours of Operation

The maximum hours of operation shall be between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday till Friday, in a residential zone

The centre currently operates from 7.30am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

 

No changes are proposed to the hours of operation

NA

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Development Assessment

 

Council’s Senior Building Surveyor assessed the proposal against the Building Code of Australia and Access to Premises Standards – 2010. The Surveyor advises that the access report states a number of alternate solutions will be explored for non compliances with the BCA and Premises Standards in relation to accessibility and compliance with AS1428.1-2009. The Surveyor supports the proposal subject to standard conditions being imposed and a condition requiring the toilet to comply with AS1428.1-2009. All recommended conditions are included in the report.

 

Manager Community Services

 

Council’s Community Development Aged Officer advises that there are non-compliances with the proposal in relation to the Australian Standard 1428 series. The officer recommends that the applicant comply with AS 1428 series or provide alternative solution for the accessible toilet and ramps, the doorway of the store room and other internal rooms meet the minimum widths of 850mm and tactile indicators are in place which comply with AS1428.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Conditions have been recommended requiring compliance with AS1428 for the ramps and tactile indicators. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that on-site detention is not required in this instance as the increase in the impervious area is minimal. The officer notes a suitable engineer has certified that the proposal meets the requirements of the DCP. All new impervious areas shall drain to the existing stormwater system. The recommended conditions of consent are included in the report.

 

Manager Parks

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer has reviewed the proposal and has advised that the proposed works necessitates the removal of one medium sized Callistemon salignus and two small tree ferns. The officer has no objections to the removal of the abovementioned trees to enable construction. No replacement trees would be required given the large amount of trees on the site. The recommended conditions of consent are included in the report.

 

Manager Traffic and Transport

 

Council’s Manager Traffic and Transport has reviewed the proposal and has advised that given that there are no changes proposed to the children or staff numbers, no comment from the traffic section is warranted.

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone. The proposal is consistent with the LEP, specifically in relation to height and floor space provisions.

 

Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

 

Three (3) trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the construction of the new staff room. No other trees are proposed to be removed. Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer reviewed the proposal and raised no objection to the removal of the trees. No replacement trees are required due to the large number of the existing trees on-site.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

The NSW Department of Family and Community Services (the Department) is responsible for the licensing of a child care centre, according to the DCP under the Children Services Regulation 2004 and under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.  The child care centre is currently operating with the relevant licensing. It is requirement as per Condition 9 that the applicant obtain the appropriate licensing from the Department.

 

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

 

The preceding assessment identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with.

 

1.   Clause 1.3 Setbacks

 

In the absence of specific setback control for child care centres, the control for dwelling houses are being used as a reference. The DCP requires a minimum 1.2m setback from side boundaries for single storey dwellings. The north-east side setback proposed is 1.1m.

 

The relevant objective of Clause 1.3 relevant to side setbacks is as follows:

 

            Side and rear setbacks are to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation, public views (if appropriate) for the dwelling and its neighbours.

 

The proposed 1.1m side setback provides building separation between the child care centre and the adjoining dwelling house, No. 41 Kimberley Street. Access to sunlight and landscaping is limited given the proposed retaining wall and dividing fence which are needed as a result of the difference in site levels between the Centre and No. 41 Kimberley Street.

 

The child care centre is situated at a lower level than the dwelling house and its primary balcony (balcony RL66.35m). The proposed ridge of the extension is RL 66.02m and as such there is no opportunity to overlooking into No. 41 Kimberley Street.

 

Further, the proposal is compliant with the Building Code of Australia and is considered to be reasonable as it would continue the setback of the remainder of the centre from the north-east boundary.

 

In view of the above, the proposed side setback is supported.

 

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

 

One (1) submission has been received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows.

 

            There is a minimal setback between 41 Kimberly Avenue and the proposed extension

 

Officer’s comment

 

The extension is proposed to be setback 1.1m from the north-eastern side boundary. The proposed setback is considered to be acceptable given that the proposal would not affect the privacy of the adjoining dwelling house with regards to overlooking. 

 

            The proposed roof would block the view from my balcony situated on the north east side

 

Officer’s comment

 

The assessing officer undertook an inspection of 41 Kimberley Avenue. During the inspection, the resident advised the view which would be lost is the view of the current water tanks and roof of the shed. It is considered that views are of a general nature are enjoyed from No. 41 Kimberley Avenue over the child care centre site.

 

            The proposal would reduce the sun to part of my balcony especially during the autumn and          winter

 

Officer’s comment

 

 Shadow diagrams were not required for the proposal, given it involves ground/single storey extensions. Given the roof of the proposed staffroom (RL 66.02m) is situated at a lower level than the balcony of 41 Kimberley Avenue  (RL66.35m),  it is considered that the balcony would not be unreasonably overshadowed as a result of the proposal. 

 

            The proposal would affect the property value

 

Officer’s comment

 

This matter cannot be considered in the assessment of the application as it does not form a consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

            Support given for the tree to be removed, however trees adjoining 41 Kimberly Avenue     should also be removed

 

 

Officer’s comment

 

Only trees which are required to be removed to facilitate the extension to the Centre are proposed to be removed. The resident has been advised to contact Council separately regarding requests for additional tree removal.

 

The applicant has provided a response to the above submission which is shown attached (AT3).  This response has been provided to the resident making the above submission.

 

 

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 proposal would enable a significant upgrade to Kindy Cove, resulting in improved compliance with the current Building Code of Australia, access and licensing requirements. It is considered that the amenity of children and staff would be improved as a result of the proposed development.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel grant development consent to Development Application DA13/146 for alterations and additions to a child care centre at No.48 Phoenix Street, Lane Cove, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         That the development be strictly in accordance with the following drawings by Dillon and Savage Architects:-

 

            DA01 Rev B, dated 13/9/2013;

            DA02 Rev D, dated 13/9/2013; and

            DA03 Rev C, dated 13/9/2013.

           

            except as amended by the following conditions.

 

2.         The proposed accessible toilet shall comply with AS1428.1-2009.

 

3.         Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, the certifying authority shall confirm that the plans comply with AS 1428 series or provide alternative solution for the ramps.

 

4.         Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, the certifying authority shall confirm that the plans include tactile indicators which comply with AS1428.

 

5.         All new windows shall be screened to avoid mosquito bite infections. All new drains and gutters shall be cleared and/or covered to minimise mosquito breeding.

 

6.         All new flooring shall be of a non-slip surface and easy to clean.

 

7.         All new roofs shall match the colour and texture of the existing roof. 

 

8.         The applicant shall obtain the appropriate license/s from the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

13.       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                                                   8.00am to 12noon

 

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

           

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that existing building is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

18.       (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.

 

19.       The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

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

 

21.       Pedestrians' portion of footpath to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.

 

22.       The provision of hose reels and portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the provision of Part E1 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Hydraulic engineers details of the hose reel installation, certified as complying with these requirements, are to be submitted PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCING.

 

23.       The provision of hydrants, hose reels and portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the provisions of Part E1 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

24.       The Early Fire Hazard Indices of materials and assemblies must comply with the provision of Specification C1.10 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

25.       Illuminated exit and direction signs complying with the requirements of Part E4 of the Building Code of Australia are to be provided.

 

26.       A system of emergency lighting complying with the requirements of Part E4 and the Building Code of Australia is to be provided to all fire isolated stairways, ramps and passageways and in all other areas specified in the Building Code of Australia.

 

27.       Lane Cove Council charges a fee 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.

 

28.       Long Service Levy Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

29.       (A1) Design and Construction Standards:  All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

30.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of Council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

31.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include 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.

 

32.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

33.       (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

 

34.       (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, as a result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

35.       (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS-1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

36.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the applicant.

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

37.       (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Part O of Lane Cove Council’s DCP -Stormwater Management.

 

38.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

39.       (C1) 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

 

40.       (C2) Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with the approved 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

 

41.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters. The plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

            Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the             relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP - Stormwater Management. 

 

Tree Preservation

 

42.       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.

 

43.       The applicant must obtain written authority prior to pruning or removal of any trees greater than 4 metres in height, located on the property or in neighbouring properties including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter. Trees shown on the approved Plans for removal are exempt from this condition.

 

44.       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.

 

45.       Footing, trench or excavation that is within 3 metres of any tree greater than 4 metres in height; including neighbouring trees, must be carried out using hand held tools only with no tree roots greater than 40 mm diameter to be severed or damaged.

 

46.       There must not be any stockpiling of building materials or other materials or storage of materials to occur within 3 metres of the canopy extension of trees within the site or street trees which do not have tree protection fencing. The driveway from Kimberley Avenue may be used as a storage area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Applicant's response to concerns raised by commentor

2 Pages

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 3 December 2013

9 Mafeking Avenue, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          9 Mafeking Avenue, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA13/143-01 - 58291/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      May Li 

 

 

 Property:                    9 Mafeking Avenue, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                                    DA 13/143

 

Date Lodged:              18 September 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $18,056,400.00

 

Owner:                                    General Computer Corp Pty Ltd

 

Applicant:                    Winim Developments Pty Limited

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Construction of a residential flat building comprising 58 dwellings with basement car park for 93 cars

ZONE

R4 – High Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2b, 7a & 10b

 

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes – 12 days

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours      1-11, 2-4 Gatacre Ave, 2-14 Kimberley Ave, 2-10 and 15 Mafeking Ave, 11-21, 6-28 Longueville Rd, 382-398 Pacific Hwy, Lane Cove.

 

All Councillors

 

Progress Association: Greenwich Community Association, Lane Cove Alive, Osborne Park Residents Association, RASAD, Stringybark Creek Residents Association

 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application has been referred to the Lane Cove Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (LC IHAP) for determination as the proposal involves the construction of a residential flat building at a prominent location, seeks significant variations to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP) and the draft LEP development standards, variations to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) setback and landscaping requirements and there are significant objections to the proposal. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The original development proposal involved demolition of all existing structures on the site and construction of a residential flat building comprising 58 dwellings with basement car park for 93 cars. 

 

During the assessment process, the applicant withdrew the demolition portion of the proposal and lodged a separated development application (DA 13/166) for the demolition of the existing structures on site.  The assessment of DA 13/166 is currently in process. 

 

The site is located within R4 – High Density Residential zone and residential flat buildings are permissible within the zone. 

 

The current LEP development standard for the site relating to the building height is 12m and the floor space ratio (FSR) is 4.1.  These two development standards are incompatible with each other as the FSR of 4.1: 1 is not achievable within a maximum building height of 12m. 

 

A draft LEP relating to amendments to the building height (25m) and floor space ratio (2:1) for the site is currently with NSW Department of Planning for gazettal.  The department has advised Council that the gazettal of the amended LEP is imminent. 

 

Council assessment officers advised the applicant to give more weight to the development standards of the draft amended LEP during the preparation of the application given that the draft LEP was in the final stages and close to gazettal. 

 

The proposal meets the building height standard, however exceeds the FSR of the draft LEP.  The proposal has an FSR of 2.4:1 which exceeds the maximum permitted GFA by approximately 798m2 and is more than the floor area of any one level of the proposed building. 

 

The excessive GFA reflects insufficient building setbacks and a larger footprint of the basement car parking for the accommodation of the required car spaces. 

 

The proposal fails to meet the following Lane Cove Development Control Plan requirements:-

 

·              Accessibility;

·              building depth;

·              car parking;

·              setbacks;

·              excavation ;

·              number of dwellings with southerly aspect; and

·              landscaping.

 

Council’s consulting architect has advised that the proposed design does not adequately meet the design principles of the Residential Design Code (SEPP 65).  The insufficient setback and overshadowing impacts would compromise the development potential of adjoining sites which is contrary to the objectives of the design principles.  The proposed design does not comply with 5 out of 10 design principles relating to context, scale, built form, landscaping and amenity.

 

The applicant has lodged a written request for the exceptions to the development standards of the LEP and the draft LEP.

 

The request for exception to the FSR standard of the draft LEP is not supported as the additional GFA would result in an over development with poor and unacceptable setbacks and landscaping on the site. 

 

The proposed development would have insufficient deep soil area for planting of large trees.  The insufficient setback would result in insufficient building separation between the proposed building and the adjoining residential flat building at 6-8 Longueville Road and would create an unreasonable constraint for future development on adjoining sites to the east.  Supporting the variation would not achieve a better planning outcome. 

 

23 submissions from nearby residents have been received during the notification of the development proposal.  The main concerns raised in the submissions relate to the scale of the proposed development which would create adverse impacts to on street parking, over shadowing and loss of privacy to the nearby properties. 

 

The development application is recommended for refusal. 

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located at the south-western corner of Longueville Road and Pacific Highway.  It comprises three allotments including Lot 10, 11 and 12 of DP 1056023 with site area of 1997.1m2.  The site is also previously known as 2-4 Longueville Road and 400 Pacific Highway, Lane Cove. 

 

The site has an RMS (NSW Roads & Maritime Service) easement for tunnels and appurtenant structures covering the whole site below the horizontal plane at RL 88.9m.  An RMS easement for ground anchors exists below a plane at RL 90m.

 

An existing single storey commercial building is located on the site. 

 

Surrounding development comprises low rise commercial premises in an R4 zone along Pacific Highway, residential flat buildings in R4 zone along Longueville Road and dwelling houses in R2 zone towards the southern side of Mafeking Avenue.   Site Plan and Notification Plans are shown attached as AT-1 and AT-2.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The original proposal involves demolition of all existing structures and construction of a residential flat building with basement car park for 93 cars. 

 

The proposal has been amended by the deletion of the demolition portion of the application.  The applicant has lodged a separate development application (DA 13/166) for the demolition of all existing structures on the site on 17 October 2013.  The application is currently being processed. 

 

The amended proposal retains the original design for the construction of a 7 storey residential flat building comprising 58 dwellings with basement car park on two levels for 93 cars. 

 


The distribution of the dwellings is summarised in the following table:-

 

Level

1 bedroom unit

2 bedroom unit

3 bedroom unit

Total

G

5

2

1

8

1

4

4

1

9

2

4

4

1

9

3

3

4

1

8

4

3

4

1

8

5

3

4

1

8

6

3

4

1

8

Total

25 (43%)

26 (45%)

7 (12%)

58 (110%)

 

12 dwellings are designed to be adaptable.  Adaptable dwellings include 5x1 bedroom dwellings and 7x2 bedroom dwellings. 

 

92 car spaces including 13 disabled car spaces and a car wash bay are proposed in the basement comprising two levels.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Given that the proposed development would require demolition of all existing structures, any previous applications would not be relevant.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Site Area: 1997.1 m2

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Provisions

LEP

Draft LEP

Proposed

Compliance

Zone

R4 – High density residential

R4

Residential flat building development

Yes

Max FSR

4.1:1

2:1

2.4:1

The proposal meets the LEP standard however, does not meet the standard of the draft LEP.

Max building height

12m

25m

23.6m

The proposal does not meet the standard of the LEP however, meets the standard of the draft LEP. 

 

The building height and FSR standards in the current LEP are incompatible to each other as the FSR of 4.1:1 is unachievable within a maximum building height of 12m.  The draft LEP has amended the two standards to be more compatible to each other by lowering the FSR to 2.1:1 and increasing the building height to 25m.  Council officers advised the applicant to comply with the development standards of the draft amended LEP in the pre-lodgment advisory meeting prior to the submission of the development application given the draft amended LEP is imminent and close to gazettal. 

The proposal with a maximum building height of 23.6m and a FSR of 2.4:1 meets the FSR, however significantly exceeds the building height standard of the currently LEP.  It meets the building height, however exceeds the FSR of the draft LEP.

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

Part B General Controls

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

B3 Site Amalgamation & Isolated site

To encourage site consolidation of allotments for development in order to promote the desired urban design outcomes and the efficient use of land and to avoid the creation of isolated sites.

 

Consolidation of 3 allotments for a residential flat building development

The proposed development would not create isolated sites.

Yes

 

 

Yes

B8 Safety & security

 

Ground floor dwellings have direct access or entries from the street and at least one habitable room with windows facing the street

The building has a pedestrian entry from Pacific Highway and balconies face to Pacific Hwy, Longueville Rd and Mafeking Ave

 

Yes

 

Part C3 Residential Flat Buildings

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

3.2 Density

Minimum site area 1500m2

Area of site approx 1997.1m2 

 

Yes

3.3 Building depth

18m exclusive of any balcony

 

24m

No

 

3.4 Building width

40m maximum fronting the street

31m fronting Longueville Rd

Yes

 

3.5 Setback

Front

 

Side

 

 

 

Minimum 7.5m

 

6m up to 4 storeys

 

9m for 5-8 storeys

 

7.5m with a minor encroachment

4.5m

 

4.5

 

Acceptable

 

No

 

No

3.5.3 Parking Podium Height

 

Height adjoining front boundary

 

Height adjoining east boundary

 

Height adjoining west boundary

Height adjoining rear boundary

 

 

1.2

 

 

1.2m

 

 

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

 

0.3m

 

 

Nil

 

 

0.8m

 

Nil

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

3.6 Building separation within development

9m between non-habitable rooms and blank wall to any other window, well or balcony for 5-8 storeys up to 25m

 

N/A

N/A.  There is only one building proposed on the site.

3.8 Excavation

Encroachments into setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level.

 

Nil to the all site boundaries

No

 

3.9 Design of roof top area

Detailed landscape plan required for roof top area

 

No roof top terrace proposed

 

N/A

3.10 Size & mix of dwellings

Minimum 40m2

 

 

A mixture of 1, 2, & 3 bedroom dwellings should be provided

 

At least 10% of each unit type is to be provided

Minimum 51.66m2 (Unit 1.08).

 

The proposal comprises 25X1 bedroom and 26X2 bedroom and 7x3 bedroom dwellings.

1 bedroom: 43%

2 bedroom 45%

3 bedroom 12%

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

3.11 Private open space

Primary balconies - 10m2 with minimum depth 2m

Primary terrace - 16m2 with minimum depth 4m

 

Balconies meet minimum dimensions

Private terraces meet minimum dimensions

Yes

 

Yes

3.12 Number of car parking, motorcycle and bicycle spaces

 

25 x 1 bedroom dwellings = 25 spaces (25x1)

 

26 x 2 bedroom dwellings = 39 spaces (26x1.5)

 

7 x 3 bedroom dwellings = 14 spaces (7x2)

Visitor 1 per 4 dwellings = 14.5 spaces (58/4)

 

Required car parking space: 93

 

 

1 motor cycle space per 25 car spaces (4 spaces required)

 

1 bike locker per 10 dwellings (6 lockers required)

 

1 Bike rail per 12 dwellings (5 rails required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92 car spaces and a car wash bay are proposed

 

4 Motor cycle spaces proposed on B1 Level

 

 

5 bike lockers are proposed in the Basement 1 & 2 levels

 

7 Rails are proposed on B2 & Ground levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.  A car wash bay should not be included for a car parking space

 

Yes

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

Yes

3.13 Ceiling heights

 

Minimum 2.7m

2.7m

Yes

 

3.14 Storage

 

6mper 1 bedroom dwelling

 

8m3 per 2 bedroom dwelling

 

10m3 per 2 bedroom dwelling

 

Total required= 428m3

 

50% of the storage volume within the dwelling

Designated storage areas  equivalent to 370m3  are proposed on the Basement 1 & 2 Levels

 

Internal storage areas are proposed within the dwellings.  The internal space of the dwellings would be sufficient to meet the requirements of storage volume (214m3)

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

3.15 Solar access

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of 70% of the units to receive 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am 3pm on 21 June

 

Maximum 10% dwellings with a southerly aspect

 

76% of dwellings would receive more than 3 hours solar access (44 dwellings)

 

 

14% of dwellings have a southerly aspect (8 dwellings)

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

3.16 Natural ventilation

 

Minimum 60% of the dwellings should have cross ventilation.

 

 

Minimum 25% of kitchens have access to natural ventilation

 

60.3% of dwellings would have cross ventilation (35 dwellings)

 

36% of kitchen would access to natural ventilation (21 dwellings)

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.17 Visual privacy

 

Provide visual privacy between the adjoining properties

Privacy screens are not proposed to all windows directly facing each other in the building

 

No (the proposed building does not have sufficient separation to an adjoining residential flat building at 6-8 Longueville Rd. 

 

3.18 Communal open space

 

Minimum 25%

23% proposed

No

 

3.19 Landscaped area

25% provided at ground level and up to15% provided on structures (40% required)

4% landscaped area proposed

No

The proposed basement occupies the entire site and there is little deep soil for planting trees.

 


Part F - Access and Mobility

 

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

Adaptable housing to be provided at the rate of 1 dwelling per 5 dwellings (20%) (Minimum of 12 dwellings are required)

12 adaptable dwellings are  shown on the plans

Yes

Provide 1 accessible parking space for each adaptable housing unit (minimum of 12 spaces required)

13 accessible parking spaces provided on B1, B2 Levels car park

No.  The number of disabled car spaces meets the DCP requirements.  However, 5 disabled car spaces do not meet the design standard AS 2890.6

 

 

REFERRALS

 

Strategic Planning

 

Council’s strategic planners have provided the following advices:-

 

The proposal includes a floor space of 4791sqm which equates to a floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.4:1. The current LEP includes an FSR for the subject site of 4.1:1.

 

Relevant Planning Proposal

 

It is important to note that a planning proposal is nearing completion for the site which seeks to amend the FSR from 4.1:1 and to 2:1. The planning proposal also seeks to amend the height over the site from 12m to 25m.

 

The EPA Act requires that any draft planning instrument be taken into account when assessing a proposal.  Moreover, it is understood that the more imminent a planning proposal is, the greater the weight given to that instrument.

 

On 14 March 2012 Gateway approval was received to exhibit the proposed changes to the LEP, relevant to this site and surrounding sites. The draft instrument was exhibited, then put before Council, where it was supported, and then submitted to the Department of Planning for gazettal. Accordingly, it is considered that the planning proposal is very advanced in terms of the process and only awaits gazettal with the Department.

 

Given the progress of the planning proposal, the draft controls of 2:1 and 25m are very important in the assessment of the DA. The proposed controls aim for a built form which has taller, slimmer buildings than permitted by the existing controls which would tend to yield buildings which are short but would need to be boundary to boundary to achieve their FSR.

 

The proposal’s height of 23.6m far exceeds the existing control (12m) and is just under the draft control (25m). The proposed FSR (2.4:1) meets the existing control (4.1:1) but exceeds the proposed control (2:1). The new controls work in tandem to produce a certain built form outcome. Picking and choosing between current and draft controls is not supported as the worst case scenario results in a taller, wider building.

LEP Objective of the Floor Space Ratio Control

 

In the LEP, the objective of the floor space ratio controls is to:-

 

“to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.”

 

It is acknowledged that the objectives is difficult to apply in this case as the area along this portion of the Highway is in transition and is also adjacent to a low density residential zone. However, the bulk and scale cannot be said to be compatible with the locality which includes a leafy character and substantial building separation/setbacks.

 

Proposed FSR and DCP Compliance

 

The proposed FSR is considered to be excessive as it yields a building which:

 

-           Does not allow enough space for substantial deep soil landscaping.

-           Does not meet building setback and separation requirements.

 

The DCP requires landscaped area, including 25% deep soil landscaping. The proposal includes 7% deep soil area, which is substantially below the DCP requirement. The lack of setbacks for the basement levels appears to be the main contributor to the omission of deep soil area. Deep soil area allows the planting of substantive vegetation which softens the appearance of a building and enhances Lane Cove’s leafy character and assists in stormwater absorption.

 

It is not only the almost boundary to boundary basement breaching the setback requirements, it is also the residential levels. The building is non-compliant with the southern setback requirements for levels 1-4, and then both the western and southern building facades protrude into the setback requirement from level 5 and above. (This is further discussed later in the report under Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies.

 

Conclusion

 

The height and FSR included in the planning proposal are highly relevant to the proposed development and operate together. That is, a combination of existing and draft control cannot be supported.

 

The proposed FSR exceeds the new control for the site which is to be gazetted imminently. The effect of the non-compliant FSR is evident in the inability of the development to meet deep soil and setback requirements.

 

The proposal is not supported in its current form. 

 

Community Development Officer

 

The community development officer does not support the proposal with the following reasons:

 

1).        Part F of Lane Cove DCP requires adaptive units to be able to be adapted / modified with minimal cost.  The Access Report submitted with the development application has identified that the current design requires significant modification of the bathrooms.

 

2).        Positioning of the Letterboxes on Basement 2 does not meet AS 4299.

 

 

 

 

Building Surveyor

 

The senior building surveyor has assessed the proposal against the deemed to satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the Premises Standards -2010 and advised the BCA statement that accompanied the application stating that where BCA non compliances have been identified, the proponent will explore alternate solutions under the performance criteria of the BCA.  However, the shared zones for the accessible car parking on both levels of basement car park do not comply with Clause 2.2 of Australian Standard As 2890.6-2009 which requires a minimum of 2400mm width for a share zone.  5 out of 13 proposed accessible car spaces do not meet the BCA requirements.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The non-compliance issues relating to the proposed accessible car spaces need to be addressed at the DA stage, given they might require more space within the basement for their share zones. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

Council’s development engineer does not support the proposal and has provided the following advice:

 

The site has an RMS easement for tunnels and appurtenant structures covering the whole site below the horizontal plane at RL 88.9m AHD.  A RMS easement for ground anchors exists below a plane at RL90m.

 

As a result of the above mentioned, easements the information provided with this application is inconclusive whether this proposal is achievable from a structural perspective.

 

In order for Council to be able to support this proposal, a detailed analysis of the proposed development needs to be prepared and approved by the RMS to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on their infrastructure.

 

The proposed stormwater concept plan needs to provide more detailed information in accordance with Part O Council DCP – Stormwater Management. The design needs to include the following.

-           A rainwater tank to meet the Basix requirement

-           The pump out system for the basement carpark

-           Control of ground water around the site

 

The applicant submitted additional information to address the engineering concerns on 29 October 2013.

 

Council engineer further advised the additional information has addressed the proposed stormwater concept plan requirements.  However, application is unable to be supported until a response from RMS is provided to Council supporting the proposal. 

 

Landscape Architect

 

Council’s landscape architect does not support the proposal and has provided the following advice:

 

The application states that the deep soil provision is 7% of the site and that the proposal provides good quality on structure soil profiles to support the planting schedule illustrated in the landscape plans.

 

I have examined the proposed On-structure/ podium planting provision. These separate components of the landscape proposal stated that they would provide adequate soil volume as per Council on structure design expectations.  However there is insufficient cross-sectional detail on the proposed landscape plans showing these statements will be achieved in the end outcome.

 

The proposed on-structure planting opportunities do not provide a satisfactory replacement for the lack of “true deep soil” at grade, on this site.

 

Regardless of the existing use and appearance of the subject site, the deep soil requirement of 25% is a minimum requirement.  The floor plan for underground car parking eliminates the ability to provide ample deep soil currently.

 

Communal open space has been considered to an acceptable level in this proposal with the site constraints stated.  Plant selection is generally in keeping with our landscape policy.

 

This is a prominent site and should have a landscape presence that can accommodate a better allocation of deep soil for some large canopy trees to grow in true growing conditions.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s senior tree assessment officer has provided the following advice:-

 

The proposed Development consists of the construction of a residential Apartment building with basement parking and mostly on structure landscaping.

 

The site currently contains eight (8) trees consisting of locally native Eucalyptus trees and Angophora costata.  All trees on the site have been planted and range from six metres to eighteen metres tall with the majority of the trees under ten metres in height.

 

The Plans indicate all eight trees will be removed.  Of the eight trees only one large Ironbark is worthy retention because of its large size.  However, this tree is standing in an untenable location within two metres of the existing building and any redevelopment of the site will require its removal.

 

Consequently no objections are raised to the removal of the Ironbark or the other trees on the site given their modest size and low amenity value.

 

It is noted that the basement footprint consumes nearly the entire site.  This fact leaves little opportunity to plant large scale trees that would be in scale with the proposed Apartment block.

 

Traffic Manager

 

Council traffic engineer has assessed the proposal and has provided the following advice:-

 

Additional information has been requested as it is anticipated that a proportion of the development traffic would use the Pacific Highway / Osborne Road intersection to travel southbound on Pacific Highway.  Therefore, SIDRA analysis of the Pacific Highway / Osborne Road signalised intersection should be undertaken to assess the impact of development traffic (particularly right turners out of Osborne Rd heading east on Pacific Hwy).  Trip generation rates for ‘medium density residential flat building’ should be used, (as per the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, 2002) in order to consider a worst-case scenario.

 

Each adaptable unit requires a disabled parking space compliant with AS 2890.6.  Accessible parking spaces (as per AS 4299) are not acceptable. The 3 accessible parking spaces provided on Basement 2 and the 2 accessible parking spaces provided on Basement 1 are to be replaced by disabled parking spaces (AS2890.6).

 

In relation to the noncompliance with the AS 2890.6, the applicant has advised Council that further design review and certification would be undertaken following DA approval, as part of the necessary Construction Certificate design development process.

 

Council Traffic Engineer has stated that any non compliance with relevant standards relating to car park design must be addressed or justified at DA stage to Council staff's satisfaction.  This is not a matter for a private certifier to address at a later stage.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The concerns raised by the traffic engineers are supported and the non-compliance issues relating to the proposed accessible car spaces need to be addressed at the DA stage, given they might require more space within the basement for their share zones and there are limited space within the basement. 

 

Waste Service

 

The waste contract coordinator has endorsed the proposal as the proposed design meets the requirements of Part Q of the DCP relating to ongoing waste management.  Draft conditions have been recommended in the event of approval of the application.

 

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

 

The development proposal was referred to RMS for comment under State Environmental Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

The RMS comments should be included in the conditions of consent if IHAP approve the application. 

 

It is noted that RMS has not granted concurrence to the proposed development relating to the stratum easements. 

 

Refer to the Attachments for RMS comment as shown attached as AT- 3.

 

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

 

The LEP aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Lane Cove in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings

 

The building height standard for the site is 12m in accordance with the current LEP.  The maximum proposed building height is 23.6m.  The proposal does not meet the standard. 

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio

 

The FSR standard for the site is 4.1:1 in accordance with the current LEP and the proposal meets the standard.

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

 

The clause outlines the provisions of exceptions to development standards of the LEP.  The applicant has lodged a written request for the exception to the building height standard of the current LEP in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) submitted with the development application.

The SEE states that the draft LEP amendments to change the maximum  building height standard from 12m to 25m has been significantly progressed, it is understood that it is with Parliamentary Council and its gazettal was considered by Council to be imminent.  In addition to this, Council has advised that determining weight would be given to the draft controls which reflect Council’s current policy in relation to maximum height on the site. 

 

The SEE also stated that it is unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the current control, given the amendments are imminent. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The public notification of the LEP amendments for the increasing the building height from 12m to 25m the sites including 388 to 400 Pacific Highway, 2-4 Longueville Road and 3-7 Gatacre Avenue was completed and the draft LEP is imminent and close to gazettal. 

 

The proposal would meet the building height standard of the draft LEP.  Compliance with the building height of the draft LEP would consistent with the building character of future developments in its adjoining sites to the south east. 

 

It is considered there are sufficient planning grounds to support the exception of the building height standard of the currently LEP and the exception of this standard would achieve a better outcome. 

 

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The amended LEP would increase the building height standard for the site from 12m to 25m.  It would also reduce the FSR from 4.1:1 to 2.0:1.

 

The proposal would meet the building height, however fails to comply with the FSR of the draft LEP.

 

A written request for the exception to the FSR standard of the draft LEP was also included in the SEE.

 

The SEE stated the following reasons for the exception of the FSR standard of the draft LEP:

 

·              The departure from strict compliance with the development standard would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects.

 

·              The numerical noncompliance would not undermine the public benefit and no matters of State or regional planning would be affected by varying the standard.

 

·              There is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the standard.

 

·              Strict compliance with the 2.0:1 does not recognize the particular constraints which are unique to the site. 

 

·              The strict application of the 2:1 FSR would not achieve the economic and orderly use of the site.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

Given the incompatibility between the FSR and building height standards of currently LEP and the draft LEP being imminent, weight has been given to the standards of the draft LEP during the assessment.  The proposal with FSR of 2.4:1 exceeds the maximum GFA for the site by approximately 798m2 which is more than the GFA of any one level of the proposed building.  The proposal also fails to meet the landscaping and setback requirements of the DCP.

 

The excessive GFA reflects that the building encroaches within the setback areas and requires a larger footprint of the basement for the accommodation of the required car spaces. 

 

The building footprint encroaching within the side setback areas would result in multiple insufficient separations between the proposed building and the adjoining sites, which would create privacy impacts to the adjoining property.

 

The large footprint of the basement occupies the almost the entire site with no space for tree planting along the east, west and north boundaries of the site. 

 

The proposed design would result in an over development on the site and create adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining sites and streetscape and restrict reasonable development on the adjoining sites. 

 

The request for the exception to the FSR standard of the draft LEP is not supported as it does not meet the objectives of Clause 4.6 and would not achieve a better planning outcome.

 

The proposal fails to meet the aims of the LEP in relation to residential development as the proposed design does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

The DCP provides objectives and provisions for developments within in the Lane Cove Local Government Area.  The provisions of the DCP have assisted achieving high quality development that is responsive to the existing and desired future character of the area, best practice urban design and quality community outcomes for all neighbourhoods and centres within Lane Cove LGA.

 

Part C.3 - Residential Flat Buildings outlines the objectives and provisions for residential flat building developments and the compliances with the provisions of the DCP have been consistently required since the DCP was adopted in February 2010.

 

The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of the DCP and would not achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

 

Part 2 of SEPP 65 sets out ten design quality principles as a guide to assess a residential flat development.  The “Residential Flat Design Code” (the Code) is referred to as an accepted guide as to how the principles are to be achieved.

 

Council’s consulting architect has advised that the proposed design does not comply with 5 out of 10 design principles relating to context, scale, built form, landscaping and amenity.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 - SEPP 65 assessment advice as shown attached as AT-4.

 

 

 

Section 94 Contribution Plan

 

Lane Cove Section 94 Contribution Plan applies to the proposal as it would increase of population in the area as a consequence of the development.  The Section 94 contribution is calculated in the following manner:

 

The development as proposed requires the following Section 94 Contribution.

 

No. of bedrooms

Average occupation rate

Population

25 x 1 bedroom

1.2

30 (1.2x25)

26 x 2 bedroom

1.9

49.4 (26 x 1.9)

7 x 3 bedroom

2.4

16.8 (7 x2.4)

Total proposed population

 

96.2

 

The Section 94 contribution applicable for 96.2 persons at the current rate of $9391.00/person (2013-2014) is $903,414.20 (or $15,576.11 per dwelling).  The required Section 94 contribution is less than $20,000 per dwelling and it would not exceed the cap of the Reforms of the Local Development Contributions.

 

A credit of the S94 to the existing commercial building for traffic management and streetscape improvement at a rate of $94.87/m2 has taken into consideration.  The GFA of the existing commercial building is 530.70m2.  The credit of the existing building is calculated as the follows:

 

$94.87/m2 x 530.7m2 = $50,347.51

 

If the development consent is granted, the required S94 contribution is $853, 066.69 ($903,414.20-$50,347.51) in accordance with the current (2013-2014) rates of S94 contribution. 

 

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.

 

As outlined in the DCP compliance table, the proposal does not meet various provisions of Part C.3 of the DCP.

 

Clause 3.3       Building depth

 

The objectives of the clause are:-

 

·              To ensure that the bulk of the development is in accordance with the existing or desire future context.

·              To provide adequate amenity for building occupants in terms of sun access, daylight and natural ventilation.

·              To provided for dual aspect dwellings.

 

The provision of the clause states a maximum residential flat building depth is to be 18m.

 

The site is within R4- High Density Residential zone and a properly designed residential flat building development would meet the desire future context. 

 

The proposed building depth with a maximum depth of 24m does not meet the provision and too many dwellings have southern aspect (14 out of 58).  However, the proposal meets the solar access and natural ventilation requirements of the DCP. 

 

Clause 3.5       Setbacks

 

The objectives of the clause are:-

 

·              To establish the desired spatial proportions of the street and define the street edge and provide a transition between public and private space.

·              To assist in achieve visual privacy to dwellings from the street.

·              To allow for street landscape character.

 

The provisions of the clause require a minimum site and rear setback are:-

 

·              To the boundary within R4 zone, the minimum side and rear setback shall be 6m up to 4 storeys and 9m for 5-8 storeys.

 

·              To the boundary share with R2 zone, the minimum setback will be 9m if habitable rooms/balconies orient this side. 

 

The subject site adjoins properties in R4 zone at its eastern and western boundaries and adjoins R2 zone at Mafeking Avenue.

 

The majority of the building setback to the eastern boundary adjoining 398 Pacific Highway is 6m from Ground level to Level 6 with a small section of the building with 4.4m to the boundary. 

 

The proposed setbacks to the western boundary adjoining 6-8 Longueville Road is 6m from Ground level to Level 3 which meets the DCP requirements.

 

The minimum proposed setback from Level 4 to Level 6 is 7.5m, levels 5 and 6 fail to meet the DCP requirement of 9.0m.

 

The applicant states that the proposed building has a highly articulated alignment and the variations to the side setback provisions of the DCP should be supported.

 

It is noted that the existing residential flat building on 6-8 Longueville Road has a minimum setback of 4.5m to its eastern boundary adjoining the subject site.  Sufficient separation between the proposed development and the existing residential flat building on the adjoining site would not be achieved by the proposed design.  The DCP has set minimum setback provisions for the residential flat building developments in R4 zones to ensure sufficient building separation is achieved. 

 

It is not unreasonable to require residential flat buildings, even with good articulation, to meet the minimum side setback requirements of the DCP.  Supporting a variation to the minimum setback provisions of the DCP in this circumstance is likely to create an unreasonable constraint on future development of the adjoining sites and also would restrict building design on the adjoining sites. 

 

The site adjoins dwelling houses in R2 – Low Density Residential at Mafeking Avenue.  The minimum setback of 8m is proposed.  Given the site has a small section of its boundary facing Mafeking Avenue and it is separated with the nearby dwelling houses by Mafeking Street, the variation to the side setback requirement is considered minor and is considered acceptable. 

 

Clause 3.8       Excavation

 

The objectives of the clause states:-

 

·              To minimum the impact of excavation on surrounding properties

·              To achieve reasonable landscaping within development

·              To ensure development relates to the streetscape and the topography.

 

The provisions of the DCP requires excavation for major development is to be contained as closed as practicable to the footprint of the development and the extent of excavation proposed for underground uses should not compromise the provision of deep soil area or landscaped areas for residential flat buildings.

 

Almost the entire site would be excavated for the construction of the basement car park for the accommodation of the required car spaces for the proposed 58 dwellings.  The deep soil area is less than 4% of the site which is well below the minimum requirement of 25% of the DCP.

 

The application states that the stratum easements of the site restrict excavation of the site to no more than two levels and result in a large footprint of basement. 

 

It is acknowledged that the easement of the site restricts the depth of the excavation of the site for the construction of the basement.  However, the excessive GFA proposed for the site requires additional car spaces in the basement for the compliance with the DCP car parking requirements.  If the proposal meets the FSR standard of the draft LEP, the car parking provisions of the development would be significantly reduced and the footprint of the basement would be reduced.  The deep soil area of the proposed development would also be improved. 

 

Clause 3.12     Number of car parking, motorcycle and bicycle spaces

 

The proposed development requires a minimum of 93 car parking spaces.  92 car spaces and a car wash bay are proposed.  Given the proposed car wash bay shall not be allocated for any dwellings in the development and it may not be available for visitors at all time, the proposed car wash bay is not included in the number of car spaces and the proposal is one car space short of the minimum car spaces requirement. 

 

Clause 3.18     Communal open space

 

The DCP requires a minimum 25% of the site area as communal open space.  The proposed communal open space is approximately 23% and is proposed on podiums above the basement car park. 

 

Clause 3.19     Landscaped area

 

The DCP requires a minimum 40% of the site to be planted, comprising 25% landscaped area and a further minimum 15% planting on structures or landscaped area.  The proposed landscaped area exclusive the OSD is less than 4%, which is well below the minimum DCP requirement.

 

The applicant states that the existing site conditions could not provide any significant areas of deep soil, with the site largely built and the proposal would improve the landscape amenity of the site.  The applicant notes that the proposed deep soil area on the site is limited and confirms that the deep soil is 7% of the overall site.  The applicant stated the podium areas have been landscaped with planters for planting.  The RMS surface stratum and rock anchor easements constrains the depth of the basement limited to two levels. 

 

The applicant’s landscape statement is not supported as the basement has nil setbacks to its western and southern site boundaries and is 1.1m from its northern boundary facing Longueville Road.  The OSD is designed for the storage of rain water collected from the site and is unable to allow tree planting.  The proposal has insufficient space along the boundaries for large trees to grow.  This leaves little opportunity for large trees to be planted which would complement the scale of the proposed 7 storey building. 

 

The proposed landscaping of the existing commercial site is unsatisfactory. The inadequate landscaping of the existing site should not be a justification for variation to the current DCP landscaping requirements.  The additional car spaces for the GFA exceeding the maximum permitted GFA of the draft LEP contributes to additional footprint of the proposed basement. 

 

The variation to the landscaping requirement of the DCP is significant and would set an undesirable precedent for developments in Lane Cove LGA and is not supported. 

 

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

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council notification policy between 24 September 2013 and 8 October 2013.  23 submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

·              The proposal is contrary to the intent of the draft LEP.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed design does not comply with the FSR standard of the draft LEP.

 

·              The proposal would reduce solar access and create shadowing impacts to the adjoining sites.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application indicate that the proposed building would not cast any shadow on the dwelling houses towards the southern side of Mafeking Avenue from 12 noon onwards in midwinter.  However, the proposed building would cast a shadow on the adjoining site at 398 Pacific Highway from 9am to 3pm.

 

·              It would create privacy impacts to the surrounding site. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

It is acknowledged that there could be adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining sites given that the proposed building does not meet the side setback requirements of the DCP and has insufficient separation to an adjoining residential flat building at 6-8 Longueville Road. 

 

·              The scale of the proposed development is unacceptable

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The excessive GFA has contributed to additional bulk to the proposed development.

 

·              The proposal fails to meet the setback requirements of the DCP.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed building would not meet the side setback requirements of DCP.

 

·              The minimum open space and landscaped area requirements are not met.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not meet the landscaping requirements of the DCP.

 

·              The proposal to removal all trees from the site and replace with a driveway and roller door would result in loss of amenity, outlook and green view from Mafeking Avenue.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposal would remove all existing trees for the construction of the proposed basement which would occupy the entire site.  There would be no opportunity for large tree planting along Longueville Road and Mafeking Avenue boundaries. 

 

·              The depth of the building does not meet the DCP requirement.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The maximum proposed building depth is 24m and exceeds the maximum building depth requirement of the DCP.

 

·              The proposed development would create additional parking demands on Mafeking Avenue and nearby streets. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposal does not meet the minimum parking requirements of the DCP and the insufficient parking on site would create additional street parking demands.  

 

·              The proposed excavation is too close to the property boundaries and concerns relating to subsidence and structural impacts to the adjoining buildings are raised.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The proposed basement has nil setbacks to two side boundaries of the site and does not meet the DCP requirements.  The concerns are reasonable and conditions addressing the issues raised should be included in the conditions of consent if IHAP were to support the application. 

 

·              It is not a good enough reason for the non-compliances to be acceptable due to site constraints.

 

Officer’s Comment

 

The applicant indicates that the noncompliance with the side setback and landscaping requirements of the DCP are a result of the site constraints which include RMS easements.  However, the applicant is silent on the additional parking requirement generated by the FSR in excess of the draft LEP standard. 

 

The above concerns raised in the submissions are valid.  The submissions support Council’s planning controls and indicate the proposed development fails to meet varies provisions of the LEP, the draft LEP and the DCP.  Supporting the variations would not be in public interest. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C considerations of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been assessed. 

 

The proposed development does not meet the aims and objectives of Lane Cove LEP 2009 and the proposed design would result in an over development on the site and create unreasonable adverse impacts to the adjoining properties and the streetscape. 

 

The exception to the building height of the current LEP is supported as the proposed building height would be compatible with the future building character of the precinct.

 

The exception to the FSR standard of the draft LEP is not supported as it would not achieve a better planning outcome. 

 

All submissions have been taken into consideration during the development assessment and the submissions supported Council development controls and outlined the adverse impacts would be created by the non-compliances.

 

The development application is recommended for refusal. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel refuses development consent to Development Application DA 13/143 for the Construction of a residential flat building comprising 58 dwellings with basement for 93 cars on Lot 10, 11 and 12 of DP 1056023 and known as 9 Mafeking Avenue, Lane Cove for the following reasons:-

 

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

 

Particulars:-

 

a.         The proposed building would not be compatible with the environmental character of the locality.

 

b.         The proposal would not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with the adjoining developments.

 

c.         It fails to meet the requirements of accessible dwellings.

 

2.         The proposal exceeds the FSR standard of the draft LEP.

 

Particulars:-

 

a.         The proposed development has an FSR of 2.4:1 which exceeds the maximum permitted FSR of 2.0:1 in accordance with the draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan.

 

b.         The draft LEP is imminent and close to gazettal and the standards of the draft LEP should be complied with.

 

c.         The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted GFA of the draft LEP by approximately 798m2, which would unreasonably increase the bulk and scale of the building structure and would be an over development of the site.

 

d.         The additional dwellings from the excessive GFA require additional on site car parking spaces and have resulted in a larger basement car park footprint, reducing deep soil landscaping opportunities. 

 

e.         The proposed building is excessive in building bulk and scale. 

 

3.         The proposal fails to meet the objectives of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

Particulars:-

 

a.         It does not meet the side setback requirements and would create poor amenity for future occupants and the residents of the adjoining properties.

 

b.         The proposal provides insufficient deep soil areas for large trees on the site and would not create a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

c.         The proposal fails to provide a sufficient number and type of car spaces for the proposed dwellings and would create adverse impact upon on street parking in nearby residential streets. 

 

d.         5 of the disabled car spaces do not meet the AS2890.6.

 

e.         It fails to meet the accessibility requirements of the DCP relating to the location of letter box and the design of adaptable dwellings. 

 

4.         The proposal design fails to meet 5 out of 10 design principles of the Residential Flat Building Code under State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).

 

Particulars:-

 

a.         The design fails to meet the principle of context as it has no respect for the adjoining properties to the south east and west.

 

b.         The design fails to meet the principle of scale as the proposed building would impact on the privacy and solar access potential of the site to the south east and the privacy of the property to the west. 

 

c.         The design fails to meet the built form principle as the building is too wide.

 

d.         The design fails to meet the landscaping principle as the car parking footprint occupies nearly the entire site and there is insufficient deep soil for large trees to grow along Longueville Road.

 

e.         The design fails to meet the principle of amenity as the proposed building would impact on the privacy and solar access of the adjoining sites. 

 

5.         There is insufficient information in the development application for a proper development assessment:

 

Particulars:-

 

a.         The traffic management report has not included analysis of the Pacific Highway / Osborne Road signalised intersection assessing the impact of development traffic (particularly right turners out of Osborne Rd heading east on Pacific Hwy). 

 

b.         A detailed analysis of the proposed development is required to be prepared and approved by the Roads and Maritime Services to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on their infrastructure (Lane Cove Tunnel). 

 

6.         The proposed development in its current form is not in public interest. 

 

a.         The proposed development would create adverse impact on the adjoining properties and would not contribute positively to streetscape.

 

b.         The valid concerns raised by the submissions.

 

*           Contrary to the objectives of the draft LEP;

*           Overshadowing impacts;

*           Overlooking impacts;

*           Excessive building bulk and scale;

*           Insufficient side setbacks;

*           Insufficient landscaping;

*           Increasing street parking demand; and

*           Non-compliances with the requirements of DCP.

 

c.         Supporting of the exception of the FSR of the draft LEP and significant variations to the landscaping and setback requirements of the DCP would undermine the DCP and set unacceptable precedents to other developments in this precinct and Lane Cove in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Letter from NSW Transport Roads & Maritime Services 4 October 2013

3 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

SEPP 65 Report from Tim Williams Architects 21 October 2013

8 Pages