m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

6 May 2014, 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, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Tuesday 6 May 2014 commencing at 5:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

IHAP Meeting Procedures

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 6 May 2014

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 - 1 APRIL 2014

 

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.      47 Barwon Street, Lane Cove West. ............................................ 5

 

3.      18 Myee Crescent, Lane Cove......................................................... 23

 

4.      3 O'Connell Street, Greenwich.................................................... 37

 

 

 

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 May 2014

47 Barwon Street, Lane Cove West.

 

 

Subject:          47 Barwon Street, Lane Cove West.     

Record No:     DA13/136-01 - 19927/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Peter Walker 

 

 

Property:                     47 Barwon Road, Lane Cove West.

 

DA No:                        136/2013

 

Date Lodged:              9 September 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $425,000

 

Owner:                        JB & I Lynch

 

Applicant:                    Wesley Benn  

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations & additions to an existing dwelling house & new swimming 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 AFFECTED BY BUSHLAND (SEPP 19)

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a & 10b.

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours      7, 20, 22, 24 Moore Street, 22, 24 & 26a Henley Street and 43 & 45 Barwon Street.    

Ward Councilors             West ward

Progress Association      Lane Cove West Residents Assoc 

Other Interest Groups     Nil

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This development application is referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination given the proposed removal of significant remnant trees.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·        The application proposes alterations and additions to the front & rear of the dwelling house and a new swimming pool;

·        The proposal complies with the height & FSR standards under the Lane Cove LEP2009;

·        The proposal does not comply with Council’s DCP provisions for front & side setbacks, minimum landscaped area requirement and carports;

·        Councils Senior Tree Preservation Officer does not support the removal of two Red Bloodwood trees situated where the rear extension is proposed;

·        No objections were received in response to the notification of the development application; and

·        Due to the proposed removal of both trees and the non-compliances with the DCP, the application is not supported and recommended for refusal.

 

SITE

 

The site is an irregular shaped allotment located on the western side of Barwon Road near the intersection with Moore Street. The site has a frontage of 16.425m side boundaries of 44.05/49.225m tapering to a narrow rear boundary of 9.815m. The site has an overall area of 571.8m².

 

The land displays a moderate to steep fall from the rear of the site to the front boundary, and a sandstone shelf behind the existing house is evident. Two Red Bloodwood trees, identified by Council officers as ‘remnant’ trees and in healthy condition, are located on the rock shelf behind the existing dwelling.  

 

The property is within a Bushfire Prone Land ‘buffer zone’.   Site Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan as shown attached as (AT-1) and (AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks approval for the following alterations & additions:-

 

Lower Ground Floor Level & Carport

 

 

Ground Floor Level

 

 

Upper Floor Level

 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

A development application No. DA98/89 was approved on 27 October 1998.

 

The current application was lodged on 9 September 2013.

 

On the 30 October the applicant submitted details of proposed landscaped area following concern raised by Council officers as to whether the 35% minimum landscaped area requirement would be complied with.

 

Following an unsatisfactory report from Council’s Senior Tree Preservation Officer the applicant was advised to withdraw the application by letter dated 1 November 2013.

 

A follow up letter was sent on the 24 December 2013, again requesting the applicant withdraw the application. (The reason the applicant was advised to withdraw the proposal was that as any amendment would require such a significant redesign of the proposal that a fresh DA would be required).

 

Following a telephone conversation in early March with the owner of the property a second joint inspection of the property occurred with Council’s planner and Senior Tree Preservation Officer.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 - (Low Density Residential)

 

Site Area:       571.8m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

 0.42:1 (238.5m²)

0.5:1      (285.9m²)

Yes

Height of Buildings

7.2m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part C – Residential Development.

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Lower ground:- 5.1m, 8.5 & 10.7m.

8.1m (average)

 

Ground floor:-

3.3m, 5.7m & 6.7m. 5.2m (average)

 

‘Carport’ encroachment to within 650mm of boundary.

 

Balcony encroachment to 650mm of boundary

Consistent with area or 7.5m. Irregular sites assessed on merits.

 

Carport/garages ‘may’ be permitted. Balcony encroachments max 500mm 

 

 

No – Some variations could be permitted however new ‘carport/garage’ is substantially  enclosed with bedroom & balcony above and is essentially a  garage.

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

N/a

2m

-

Side setback (min)

Northwest elevation:-

Lower grn flr- 980mm

-           to 1.8m

Ground flr – 1.2 -1.8m

Rear extension – 1.2m

 

Southeast elevation:-

Lower grn frl -1.3-2.4m

Ground flr  -  1.3 -2.4m

Rear extn  -   4.1- 5.4m

1.2m – single storey

1.5m – two storey

 

No – Playroom encroachment to 980mm.

 

 

 

Yes

Rear setback (min)

11-12m

<1000m²: 8m or 25% of block depth (11.5 av) >1000m²: 10m or 35%

Yes

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

5.5m

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

7.2m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

Existing wall being replaced

1m

-

Number of Storeys (max)

Part 1 /part 2

2

Yes

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

  27.5% (157m²)

35% (200m²)

No –

Deficient 43m²)

Foreshore Building Line     (min)

N/a

-

-

Cut and Fill      (max)

Up to 2m for pool

1m

 

Solar Access

Building extensions located on north west side. 

3 hrs to north-facing windows.

Minimal impact on property to southeast

Provide for view sharing

No significant view impacts

Land & Environment Court principles

Yes

Heritage Conservation

-

-

-

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2.5m front balcony

3m

Yes

Private open space

>24m²

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

Cert No A166374 submitted

Submission of certificate

Yes

 

Fences

 

No fences proposed.

 

Car Parking

 

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

Yes

Driveway width

Existing

3m at the lot boundary

-

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

N/a

3m

-

 

Carports Within the Front Setback and Garages Facing the Street

 

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

Corner of ‘carport’ (garage) <1m

1m from street boundary

No – (Note existing carport is in the same location

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

6.25/6.75m

50% of lot width (8.25m) or 6m, whichever is the lesser – 6m.

No – (Note carport existing, however proposal is more like a garage.

Carport/garage roofs

Balcony over part of structure.

Non trafficable

No – Trafficable balcony.

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Location

Behind building line & excavated into rock.

Behind the front building line and not on elevated decks

Yes

When viewed from waterways and foreshore areas

N/a

Not adversely affect the amenity and outlook of neighbourhood.

-

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

3.5m

3m to waterline

Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

1.2m

1m to waterline

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1.1m

1m

1.8m   

Yes

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

1.2

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

Yes

Setback from trees >5m in height (min)

>3m

3m

Yes

Location of pool pump/ filter

Not indicated on

plans

As far as practical from neighbouring properties.

Can be conditioned.

 

Outbuildings

 

None proposed

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets – 19 September 2013

 

Council’s Development Engineer reports:-

 

‘Refer to the documents for the above mentioned development, received by Council’s Development Engineer. The plans used to check the engineering matters are drawings by BD Group numbered A12-g005 and dated 06-09-13.

 

The proposal is for a new pool and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.

 

The proposed stormwater concept plan is proposing a 10,000L rainwater reuse system to gain exemption from OSD. The proposed stormwater system is acceptable has been conditioned.

 

All vehicles need to egress in a forward direction which has been conditioned in accordance with AS2890.1.

The proposed level of excavation has been conditioned in the interest of all adjoin structures.    

 

Where Council is to issue an approval the following conditions should be applied to the determination.‘

 

Sixteen (16) Conditions were recommended by the Development Engineer.

 

Manager Parks – 1 November 2013

 

Council’s Senior Tree Preservation Officer reports:-

 

‘I have reviewed the documents/Plans and visited the site. The proposed development consists of alterations and additions to the existing house and construction of a pool at the rear of the property. There are two (2) Red Bloodwood trees standing within the footprint of the proposed extension to the rear of the house.

 

I cannot support this application in its current form. Council’s remnant tree map shows the two Red Bloodwood trees. The two trees are in good health and condition therefore they should be retained.’

 

Joint Inspection Between Planning and Open Space Staff (week 3rd - 7th March).

 

A further joint inspection of the property occurred to reassess the two Red Bloodwood trees. The result of the inspection was that the Senior Tree Preservation Officer did not change his earlier opinion of the value of the trees and could not support their removal.

 

From a planning viewpoint, the trees appear to be in good condition and as they are considerably higher than the existing dwelling, are easily visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape, locality and site. The trees would also provide the benefit of refuge to wildlife.

 

It was agreed that the building extension could have been designed in a different manner to accommodate additional rooms for the owners and retain the trees by alterations to the existing house and extending to the rear on the southeastern side.         

 

Manager Bushland

 

N/a.

 

Other (Heritage, Traffic, Waterways etc)

 

N/a

 

Rural Fire Service

 

 Not consulted as an accredited Bush Fire consultants report was submitted. 

The applicant submitted a Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by Building Code & Bushfire Hazard Solutions P/L (Accredited Bush Fire Consultant No. BPD – PA - 09400) and dated 3 July  2013 which has recommended a number of conditions. These recommendations would be imposed as conditions on any consent granted.

 

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

 

In accordance with LEP2009, the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, with a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 and a maximum height of 9.5m, the proposal complies with these requirements. The proposal, for alterations & additions to the existing dwelling house & pool, is  development permissible with consent in the R2 zone in accordance with the Land Use Table within LEP2009.

 

Whilst there are no departures from the statutory requirements of LEP 2009, the LEP does set out certain ‘Aims of the Plan’.

Two of the stated aims of the LEP 2009 are:-

(a)   to establish, as the first land use priority, Lane Cove’s sustainability in environmental, social and economic terms, based on ecologically sustainable development, inter-generational equity, the application of the precautionary principle and the relationship of each property in Lane Cove with its locality; and

(b)   to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies in accordance with the indicated expectations of the community.

 

It is considered the development, which includes the removal of two significant & healthy remnant trees, and, a deficiency in the amount of overall landscaping and setback variations are not consistent with the aims of the LEP stated above.

 

The two Red Bloodwood trees are the only substantial trees of any size on the subject property and their loss will mean the majority of the site is devoid of vegetation and built upon. It is noted adjoining properties have retained substantial trees and it is felt all properties (where possible) should contribute to the landscape character of Lane Cove, as the incremental removal of mature trees will lead to a detrimental change the character of Lane Cove.

 

Further, the LEP2009 contains a number of objectives for the R2 - Low Density Residential zone, including those that seek:-

 

·   To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area; and

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

 

The loss of the two remnant trees and landscaping deficiency would adversely impact the residential amenity of the subject property, local area, and, not ‘enhance’ the residential environment. In the current proposal the loss of the trees and increased site coverage of hard surfaces will mean that landscaping has not been maintained as a ‘major element’ of the residential environment, but relegated to a minor element.   

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Land.

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and adjoining sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination. Accordingly it is considered that contamination of the site is unlikely. 

 


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

 

The plans were accompanied by BASIX Certificate, and the commitments required to be noted at the development application stage are shown on the accompanying plans. A condition would be imposed on any consent granted requiring compliance with the requirements of the certificate. The proposal therefore satisfies the policy and raises no further issues in this regard.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The proposal involves some demolition work to the existing dwelling. Clause 92(1)(b) of the Regulation requires Council to consider the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-1991: The demolition of structures.  The matter may be addressed by conditions of consent, should the application be approved.

 

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

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009

 

C.1 Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

 

1.1 Objectives for Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies

 

The development, as proposed, does not comply with the objective to:-

 

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

 

The building additions & extension to the front of the house are located very close to the front boundary which will create an overbearing effect on the streetscape.    

 

1.2  Streetscape

 

The development, as proposed, does not comply with the objectives 1, 2 & 5 that seek to:-

 

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

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

5.    Ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape.’

 

The front extension is located close to the street, which is not in keeping with general streetscape character of Lane Cove. The removal of existing trees will impact the landscape character of the area as the trees can be easily seen from the street. Their removal would degrade, rather than enhance, the character of the area. The conversion of the carport to a more substantial structure with bedroom & balcony above would tend to dominate the appearance of the building & streetscape, particularly if vegetation on the nature strip dies off or is removed for some reason.         

 

1.3 Setbacks

 

The development, as proposed, does not comply with objectives 7 & 8 that seek to:-

‘7.   Maintain the predominant street setback.

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

           

The additions to the front and side of the house will encroach on the setbacks (setbacks that could easily be complied with in an alternate design), and, the loss of the trees will adversely impact the vegetation corridor which the trees are part of.  

 

1.5 Landscaped Area

 

Objectives

 

The development, as proposed, does not comply with objectives 1, & 2 that seek to:-

 

‘1    To provide privacy and amenity.

2     To retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and to provide continuous vegetation corridors.’

 

The removal of the two Red Bloodwood trees will reduce the visual amenity of the locality, and, does not meet objective 2, which specifically seeks to retain ‘particularly large and medium sized trees’.   

 

Provisions

 

The provisions of this clause also require:-

 

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

 

b)    Proposals should seek to retain significant natural features on the site including mature trees, rocky outcrops and other major vegetation stands (including continuous vegetation corridors to the rear) by careful design of the dwelling and other structures.’

 

The current proposal does not provide the minimum 35% landscaped area (only 27.5% is provided) nor does it seek to retain the mature trees.

 

1.9 Car parking

 

Objectives

 

The development, as proposed, does not comply with objective 2 that seeks to:-

 

‘2         To ensure that the design of car parking structures is consistent with the dwelling and

has minimal impact on the streetscape.’

 

The existing carport has a low visual footprint whereas the proposed additions will change the appearance to more like a garage (albeit not fully enclosed), with bedroom extension and balcony over.

 

Provisions

 

The provisions permit carports within the front setback areas where the carport has an open design and has minimal impact on the streetscape. It is considered the existing carport complies with this whereas the proposed bulky structure will have an adverse impact on the streetscape.

 

The provisions also require the roof to be non trafficable. The proposal contains a balcony over the carport/garage with a privacy screen to one elevation. This privacy screen, in addition to a balustrade will further increase the bulk of the extension impact on the streetscape.

    

This clause also restricts garages and carports facing the street to not exceed 50% of the lot width or 6.0m, (whichever is lesser). Whilst it is appreciated that a carport exists in the same location, its generally open design does not impact the streetscape as much as the current proposal would.

 

Part J  Landscaping

 

J.2 Tree Preservation and Landscape Guidelines

 

The proposal, which would result in the removal of two remnant, Red Bloodwood trees does not meet the objective of the clause which seeks:-  

 

‘1.        The preservation, re-establishment and reinforcement of the part of the environmental character of the Municipality which is related to the large number and significant areas of indigenous trees and other flora still existing and deserving of conservation.’

 

Further, the objective of Clause 2.2 Tree Preservation is:-

 

‘1.      The retention of the maximum possible number of existing trees, particularly native trees,within the Municipality in healthy condition and natural form and shape.’

 

J.3 Preservation of Significant Trees

 

The aims of this clause include:-

 

‘1.      To identify significant trees or tree stands within Lane Cove Municipality.

 

Clause 3.3 states that ‘Remnant indigenous trees of Lane Cove were surveyed and mapped in 1997. These remnant trees form part of the natural heritage of Lane Cove.’

 

Council’s Senior Tree Preservation Officer has identified the two Red Bloodwood trees as ‘remnant trees’ which are indicated on the 1997 map. It is agreed that these trees are ‘significant’ in that they make a positive contribution to the local landscape of Lane Cove and should be retained.

 

The second aim of this clause is:-

 

2.         To adopt planning and conservation strategies for the preservation of these significant trees

or tree stands.’

 

From a planning perspective the trees have streetscape value as well as aesthetic & environmental value to the property and adjoining properties. The loss of the trees is considered unnecessary as an alternate design could have accommodated the modest increase in living space proposed (two bedrooms and a bathroom) in either an addition to the existing dwelling, or, a rear extension on the southeastern side of the house. An alternative design may require the swimming pool to be deleted from the overall proposal although relocation may be possible (subject to the overall landscaped area requirement being complied with).    

 

Variations to the Development Control Plan

 

The policy assessment table within this report identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each of the departures is discussed below.

 


Variation 1

 

Front Setback


Requirement

 

Consistent with area or 7.5m. Irregular sites assessed on merits, carports/garages may be permitted, balcony encroachments to a maximum 500mm.

 

Proposal

 

The existing house is set well forward of the adjoining dwellings (although the rock shelf half way to the rear does constrain the building footprint somewhat). The application proposes a further encroachment to the street of the ground level with bedroom and balcony (setback 2.6m & 650mm respectively) over a ‘carport/garage’ (setback 650mm from the boundary at its closest point).

 

Planning Comment

 

As mentioned above, the existing dwelling is already sited closer to the street than adjoining dwellings (or the ‘standard’ 7.5m setback), with the proposal encroaching even further towards the street. The relatively ‘light’ existing carport/storage area with its metal roof will be converted into a substantial brick structure with bedroom and balcony over. Whilst vegetation and trees exist on Council’s nature strip, the applicants are relying on that landscaping to screen the appearance of the building on the street. Council’s Acting Manager of Open Space has commented (in informal discussions) that the applicants should not rely on vegetation on Council’s property to screen the development now and in the future.

 

Variation 2

 

Side Setback


Requirement

1.2m – single storey 1.5m – two storey additions.

 

Proposal

The lower ground floor playroom is proposed with a projection which will have a setback of 980mm from the northeast side boundary.

 

Planning Comment

The applicants propose to extend the playroom and have called the structure a ‘lightwell’ as they propose windows on each side and glass bricks on the roof. Complying with the required setback and installing windows (or high sill level windows if privacy was an issue) would permit adequate light into the playroom. The setback proposed also results in the remaining setback of 980mm being less than the 1m required for that area to be counted as landscaped area, a ‘knock on’ effect.  It is considered the setback variation proposed has little justification, and is not supported.    

 

Variation 3

 

Landscaped Area


Requirement

 

A minimum 35% of site (or 200.13m²) is to be provided as ‘landscaped area’.

 


Proposal

 

The plans indicate only 27.5% (or 157m²) a deficiency of 43m².

 

Planning Comment

 

The site is not a large one, at 571.8m² (Council’s minimum lot size being generally 550m²), further, the site is relatively narrow towards the rear, has moderate to steep topography and contains a rock shelf with two significant trees. The applicants are proposing extensive alterations, additions and a swimming pool which results in a deficiency in landscaped area remaining. The applicant has included areas less than the 1m width required by the DCP, and, a side path with ‘stepping stones’ whereas the Lane Cove LEP2009 definition of landscaped area is:-

 

‘landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.’

 

The side path with ‘stepping stones’ would not comply with this definition and cannot be included.

It is considered the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site (in terms of site coverage) and the footprint should be reduced to increased the landscaped area provided.

 

Variation 4

 

Carports in the Front Setback


Requirement

 

A 1m setback for the carport posts, and,  a maximum width for carports to 50% of the frontage or 6m (whichever is the lesser). As the frontage is 16.4m (50% being 8.2m) the 6m maximum is relevant.   

 

Proposal

 

The carport & storage area will be substantially enclosed with solid walls and incorporated into the dwelling house with a bedroom & balcony extension over.

 

Planning Comment

 

The objectives of the DCP in regards to carparking are to:-

 

1.         To provide off street parking for residents; and,

2.         To ensure that the design of car parking structures is consistent with the dwelling and has minimal impact on the streetscape.

 

The 1m setback requirement is to provide adequate sight lines for pedestrians, and although the corner of the ‘carport/garage’ is less than 1m, it is considered there is little potential for pedestrian/driver conflict in this location.

 

The proposed substantial enclosure of the carport with solid walls, and, construction of bedroom and balcony over, will significantly alter the appearance of the structure from a relatively ‘light’ metal roofed carport to a much bulkier extension to the dwelling house & sited very close to the front boundary. The width of the altered carport/garage is proposed to be 6.35m (although not parallel to the street). The side of the garage (with enclosed storage area) will also present an offset ‘frontage’ of 6.75m. It is considered that the altered carport/garage will adversely impact the streetscape in terms of bulk. 

 


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

 

No submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  

 

Impacts of the Development (Section 79C Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979)

 

In relation to overlooking, the proposal incorporates obscure glazing and high level windows to minimise overlooking of adjoining properties. In relation to overshadowing, the location of the extension & additions should not result in significant additional overshadowing of adjoining dwellings. Adjoining properties would appear to still receive adequate sunlight.      

 

The proposal would not have any other adverse impacts on any adjoining properties, in relation to overlooking, overshadowing or other impacts that have not been addressed within this report.

 

In relation to design and the appearance of the building, the alterations to the dwelling house,new pool and carport have been assessed against Council’s Development Control Plan 2009 and commented on.   

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with matters for consideration outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to all of the relevant instruments and policies.

 

Whilst the proposal complies with the statutory requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, the proposal (specifically the removal of 2 remnant trees) does not meet all the objectives of the plan, which include promoting ‘ecologically sustainable development & inter-generational equity’, and, the preservation of ‘the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land’.

 

In relation to the requirements of Lane Cove DCP 2009, there are variations to:-

 

 

Part J of the Development Control Plan relates to Landscaping and tree preservation which the proposal does not comply with as the current design proposes the removal of two significant remnant trees.  

 

(It is considered that an alternative design to the existing dwelling house could be developed to provide additional rooms and facilities in such a way as to retain the two Red Bloodwood trees,  however, as such a design would be substantially different to the current proposal, it would require a fresh development application to be submitted.)

 

The current design, as proposed, would result in adverse impacts for the locality and is considered to be contrary to the public interest, accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons listed below.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA136/13 for alterations & additions to an existing dwelling house & new swimming pool on Lot E DP 15678 also known as 47 Barwon Road, Lane Cove West for the following reasons:-

 

  1. The proposal, which includes the removal of two mature trees in good health, does not satisfy Clause 1.2, Aims of Plan of the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

  1. The proposal does not meet the objectives of the R2 - Low Density Residential zone, of the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

  1. The proposal does not satisfy Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part C Residential Development 1.1 ‘Objectives for Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies.’

 

  1. The proposal does not satisfy Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part C   Residential Development, 1.2 –‘Streetscape’ objectives.

 

  1. The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part C Residential Development, 1.3 ‘Setbacks’, as the proposed ground floor front extension encroaches into the minimum 7.5m requirement by over 4.5m.

 

  1. The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part C Residential Development, 1.5 ‘Landscaped Area’, as the proposed development is 43deficient in the minimum amount of landscaping required.

 

  1. The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part C Residential Development, 1.9 ‘Carparking’, as the proposed carport/garage impacts the streetscape and is trafficable.

 

  1. The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009, Part J, Clauses  J.2 - Tree Preservation and Landscape Guidelines, and,  J.3 - Preservation of Significant Trees, as the loss of the two Red Bloodwood trees will impact the locality as they are remnant trees and significantly contribute to the locality.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plans

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Site Location Plans

 



ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plans

 



Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 May 2014

18 Myee Crescent, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          18 Myee Crescent, Lane Cove    

Record No:     DA13/134-01 - 5726/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Norm Fletcher 

 

 

Property:                     18 Myee Crescent, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                        D13/134

 

Date Lodged:              30/8/2013

 

Cost of Work:              $950,000

 

Owner:                        Lin Zhu

 

Applicant:                    Lin Zhu

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Partial demolition of an existing dwelling house and the construction of a new multi level masonry, tiled roof dwelling house with the retention of the existing swimming 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?

Yes

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                             

20, 22, 2, 7, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 8, 16, and 14 Myee Crescent

Ward Councilors’

West               

Progress Association

Lane Cove Residents Association Inc

Other Interest Groups

Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The development application has been referred to Council’s IHAP given the concerns raised by adjoining neighbours in relation to impact upon views.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been notified and two submissions were received following the notification.

 

The applicant, after the initial review of the proposal, was requested to submit additional information and provide height poles to indicate the overall height and bulk of the proposal.

 

The height poles have been erected at the time this report was prepared and following a review of the plans and documents submitted with the application it is considered the proposal in its present form and design is not supported due to the non compliant wall height and the presentation as a three storey building.

 

The modification to the deck balustrade on the top floor at the rear does address some concern about the extent of view loss afforded to number 5 Myee Crescent.

 

The application is recommended for refusal as the height of the wall of the building adjoining the side boundaries exceeds 7 metres above existing ground level and the building presents as a three (3) storey building, the unnecessary impact on existing views and exceeds FSR of the LEP.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of the road and adjoins the foreshore area with the Lane Cove River. The site is presently occupied with a two storey dwelling house and a swimming pool.

 

The site falls from the front boundary to the rear boundary approximately 13.0 metres with rock outcrops located towards the rear.

 

The legal description of the site is Lot 11 in DP 27621 Number 18 Myee Crescent, Lane Cove with a site area of 795 square metres.

 

There is an existing driveway on the eastern side of the front boundary that provides access to a garage and carport located within the front set back.  Site Plan and Notification Plan as shown attached as (AT-1) and (AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to partly demolish the existing two storey dwelling house and construct a new multi level dwelling house.

 

The existing swimming pool is to be retained. The proposed new dwelling house would contain three levels with car parking and large undercroft area at the central and rear portion (indicated on the submission as outdoor covered living areas) with two residential floor levels above the lower ground floor area.

 

The existing driveway entrance be reconfigured to enable access to the car parking/garage area and also incorporates a turning bay area.

 

The proposed lower ground floor area includes a bathroom, laundry, clothes drying area, pool terrace area, storage area, plant and equipment services area and also internal staircase to the levels above.


The proposed ground floor area includes a family room, dining room, kitchen, informal lounge, parents retreat, ensuite, kitchen area, rear terrace, front balcony and main entrance walk-way from the front boundary.

 

The first floor area includes 3 bedrooms, living room, bathroom, lounge, ensuite, front balcony and terrace and a rear terrace.

 

The building is proposed to be masonry construction with concrete floors and a tiled roof.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Review of Council’s files does not indicate any recent development approvals that would impact the proposal.

 

In regards to recent history and the subject application, Council on the 12 November 2013 requested further information being as follows:-

 

1.   Highly visible height poles are to be constructed to demonstrate the building height. These poles are to be surveyed by a surveyor and this survey submitted to Council;

 

2.   Revised horizontal and vertical shadow diagrams; and

 

3.   The calculations referred to in the statement of environmental effects for the gross floor area.

 

The information in regard to the above items was provided.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Site Area (795 m2)

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low density residential

 

Site Area:       795m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.54:1

0.5:1

No

Height of Buildings

9.5 m

9.5 m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

7.5 m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

1.5 m

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

22 m- 24.4 m

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

 

Yes

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

 

Undercroft height (max)

8.5m max

2.4 m

7.0m

 

 

1.0 m max

No

 

 

No

Maximum Ridge height

9.5 m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

2.5 m

1.5m max

No

Number of Storeys (max)

3

2

No

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

51%

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line            (min)

NA

 

NA

Cut and Fill      (max)

Nil

1m

NA

Solar Access

3 hrs to north-facing windows

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

The proposal will impact on the existing views afforded to number 5 Myee Crescent opposite the site.

 

The view loss would include an existing view to Lane Cove river

To ensure that public view corridors between buildings are retained.

 

To minimize the impact of new development on existing public and private views

 

To preserve water views

No – however, if approved a condition being applied to the consent that requires the balustrade on the top floor terrace to be deleted on the western end.

Heritage Conservation

NA

 

NA

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2.985 m

3m

Yes

Private open space

Satisfactory

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

Cert 498238S

Satisfactory

Yes

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front and side return fence (solid and open design) height (max)

900 mm

Solid:   900mm

(solid and open design):           1.2m

Yes

Piers width (max)

NA

350mm

NA

Setback from front boundary if fence is from 1.2m to 1.8m.

NA

Entire fence- 1.0m setback from front boundary

NA

Side and rear fences

1.8 m timber

1.8m

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

yes

Driveway width

4.7 m

3m at the lot boundary

No but Councils engineering section has no objection to the proposal

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

NA

3m

NA

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Location

Existing pool to be retained

Behind the front building line and not on elevated decks

Approved location

existing

When viewed from waterways and foreshore areas

NA

Not adversely affect the amenity and outlook of neighbourhood.

NA

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

Existing

3m to waterline

NA

 


REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

Council’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and has no objections subject to recommended conditions.

 

Manager Bushland

 

Senior Tree Assessment Officer has indicated that the development application does not contain a comprehensive landscape plan for the front of the property.

 

The landscaper area behind the pool remains unchanged and so does not require a landscape plans.

 

The applicant would be required to submit a landscape plan for the front of the dwelling house to the satisfaction of Council’s officer if the application is approved.

 

Rural Fire Service

 

Bushfire Risk assessment submitted by Bushfire Planning Services that addressed the Bushfire Zoning and indicates that the proposal can comply with the intent of the requirements of AS 3959-2009 and planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines.

 

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

 

The applicant indicated in the Statement of Environmental Effects that the calculated Floor Space Ratio is 0.5:1.

 

The calculations have been reviewed and it is considered that the Floor Space is 0.54:1 and therefore does not meet with the control.

 

The objectives as indicated in clause 4.4 (a) of the Local Environmental Plan 2009 indicate that the aim is to:

 

Ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

 

It is considered that the proposed Floor Space Ratio is in excess of the maximum permissible and unacceptable as submitted given that the proposed building would presents as a three (3) storey building and have an adverse impact upon views.

 

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 issues given the circumstances of the case.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The rear boundary of the site adjoins the area identified as being W2 Environmental Protection in the Plan.


The Zone objectives are as follows:-

Zone No W2 Environment Protection

The objectives of this zone are as follows:

a)     to protect the natural and cultural values of waters in this zone;

b)     to prevent damage or the possibility of longer term detrimental impacts to the natural and cultural values of waters in this zone and adjoining foreshores;

c)     to give preference to enhancing and rehabilitating the natural and cultural values of waters in this zone and adjoining foreshores;

d)     to provide for the long-term management of the natural and cultural values of waters in this zone and adjoining foreshores.

 

Comment

 

It is considered that as the existing use of the site is residential and the proposal is to replace an existing dwelling with a new dwelling the impact on the zone would not be altered with the proposal.

 

Development Control Plan for Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The DCP 2005 Map indicates that the site is identified as Urban development with Scattered Trees.

 

It also indicates that the rear boundary adjoins area nominated as Open Forest Type A that also includes future pedestrian access along the foreshore area with the Lane Cove River.

 

The proposal would not impact on the area as indicated in the DCP 2005 map.

 

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

 

LANE COVE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010

The proposal does not meet with a number of control requirements as identified in the Development Control Plan 2010.

 

The areas of non compliance are:-

 

Wall height clause 1.7.1 (a) - Control 7 m

The applicant has indicated on the submitted plans that the wall height is less than 7 m. The height has be to measured from the existing ground level. It is considered that the height exceeds the control as it has been scaled on the east elevation to be 8 m and on the western elevation to be 7.5 m.

 

Undercroft height clause 1.7.1 (b) (e) Control 1 m

The application proposes an undercroft area to a maximum height of 2.4 m above existing ground level.

 

The excessive height of the undercroft area contributes to the bulk and scale of the building and also creates an additional storey that when viewed from the eastern elevation.


The appearance as three storeys would be at the rear section including the rear eastern and western elevation and sides. The presentation to the street would be two and partly three storey dwelling.

 

Provide for View Sharing

Part B4 View sharing indicates the objectives for view sharing are:

to ensure that public view corridors between buildings or along streets are retained and enhanced;

to minimize the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas;

to preserve or fairly share water views for foreshore residents.

 

Council received a submission for the owner of 5 Myee Crescent that raised a concern about the loss of view towards Lane Cove River from the front balcony of 5 Myee Crescent.

 

Council requested details that indicated view lines across the proposal from 5 Myee Crescent and also the erection of height poles that would clearly indicate the bulk of the proposal.

 

The applicant did provide a first floor plan of the proposal with View Corridor across the subject site from the 1st floor balcony of 5 Myee Crescent.

 

The details indicate the extent of view impact or loss from 5 Myee Crescent in regard to the water way of Lane Cove River.

 

The submission provided by the owner of 5 Myee Crescent included photographs of the existing views and also imposed the extent of view loss to that property with the proposal.

 

Photographs were also taken from the balcony of 5 Myee Crescent by Councils Planning staff and it has been concluded that there would be a loss of view to the Lane Cove water way should the development proceed as submitted.

 

Therefore it is concluded that the proposal is in conflict with Part B4 of the Development Control Plan 2011 and the building should be redesigned to maintain some existing views of the Lane Cove River water way presently afforded to the balcony of number 5 Myee Road.

 

The view loss was reviewed with the architect and it was indicated that possibly a way to reduce view impacts would be to delete the balustrade to the first floor deck that would restrict the view across deck from 5 Myee Crescent. The deletion of the balustrade would ensure the deck area cannot be used for recreational uses and view would be retained to some extent. 

 

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

 

Two (2) submissions were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

1.   Number 5 Myee Crescent

 

The proposal with the faux undercroft area creates and excessive floor space ratio and looks out of character with other homes in the area in terms of its vast bulk and block mass. The view diagram is misleading and it falsely purports to depict that the existing property at 18 Myee Crescent already obscures the majority of the view when that is not the case.

 

2.   Number 16 Myee Crescent

 

The submission raises objections to the proposal as follows:-

 

The oversize, bulk and lack of wall articulation of the proposed dwelling, location of the water tanks in the front set back area, the proposed three storey dwelling contravenes the wall height limit of 7.0 m, the level 1 undercroft not counted as a storey and not included in the FSR calculations, the impact on solar access and overshadowing and the impact on privacy.

 

Comment

 

The submissions raising concerns about loss of view appear to be justified.

 

The applicant did provide a height pole as requested by Council however the view line details did not include a down ward view to the Lane Cove River Water Way and therefore it was initially concluded that there would be unacceptable loss of view to 5 Myee Crescent.

 

The applicant subsequently submitted amended view line information that indicates with the removal of the balustrade on the first floor south western end and acceptable level of view will be retained for 5 Myee Crescent.

 

The matters relating to the non compliance with controls for the height of the external walls of the building and number of storeys together with the height of the undercroft have been identified as being reasons why Council should not support the proposal as submitted.

 

The non compliance with the wall height and storeys provision does contribute to the bulk and scale of the building and with the high undercroft it presents as a three storey building towards the rear section.

 

The water tanks within the front yard are proposed to be located adjoining the driveway within the front set back below ground level. The location is considered to be acceptable.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in the DUAP Guidelines in relation to Section 79C considerations have been considered.

 

The identified non compliance with the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 Floor Space Ratio and Lane Cove Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2010 controls that relate to, Wall height, Undercroft height and Number of storeys has been considered as part of the overall assessment of the project.

 

It is considered that the application should not be approved in its present form. 

 

The non compliance with the LEP 2009 and DCP 2009 is not acceptable, particularly in regard to the loss of view and the bulk and scale and impact on the locality and the adjoining properties.

 

The applicants architect did submit a photomontage that proposed amendments to the partial deletion of the balustrade area on the first floor (south western end).

 

These amendments with an increased set back on the top floor on the eastern side would allow view sharing to a certain extent from 5 Myee Crescent Lane Cove towards the Lane Cove River water way.

 

However the applicants Architect has indicated that they do not want to vary the setbacks to the top floor level.

 

The other issue raised by Council’s Senior Tree Protection officer being that the proposal did not include a comprehensive landscape plan for the front of the property it is considered that this is not a substantial reason to delay the determination of the application.

 

It is considered that this issue can be effectively addressed by requiring a fully detailed landscape plan for the site to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s officer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate should the proposal be approved.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Development Application D134/13 for the partial demolition of an existing dwelling house and the construction of a new multi level masonry, tiled roof dwelling house with the retention of the existing swimming pool at 18 Myee Crescent Lane Cove West be refused because of the following reasons:-

 

1.   The proposal exceeds the floor space ratio requirements as indicated in Clause 4.4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the Floor Space Ratio Map;

 

2.   The proposal does not meet with the maximum wall height control of 7 m as indicated in Part C Sub Clause 1.7.1 (a) of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009;

 

3.   The subfloor height to the car parking and the covered open space adjoining the swimming pool exceeds the maximum height of 1.0 m as indicated in Part C Sub Clause 1.7.1 (b) of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009;

 

4.   The building is considered to be a three storey building when viewed from the adjoining residential properties and is in conflict with Part C Sub Clause 1.7.1 (e) of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009;

 

5.   The proposal does not meet with the objectives as indicated in Part C of Clause 1.7 Building Design in that the proposal does not “ Ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions to existing dwellings reinforce the typical bulk and scale of existing dwellings within the street and the area”;

 

6.   The proposal has a direct impact on the existing views afforded to number 5 Myee Crescent as there is a direct loss of water views to the Lane Cove River and fails to meet with the objectives in Part C of Clause 1.7 (4) loss of views and amenity; and

 

7.   Approval of the proposal would not be in the Public Interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Site Location Plans

 





ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plan

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 May 2014

3 O'Connell Street, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          3 O'Connell Street, Greenwich    

Record No:     DA14/15-01 - 16022/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stan Raymont 

 

 

Property:                     3 O’Connell Street, Greenwich

 

DA No:                        D15/14

 

Date Lodged:              14 February 2014

 

Cost of Work:              $1,000,000

 

Owner:                        M W & S Carr

 

Applicant:                    A Liu (D-Studio Architects)

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a dwelling house and front fence

ZONE

R2 (Low Density Residential)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

Yes, Greenwich Conservation Area

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                              1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 O’Connell                                                             Street;  1, 1A, 3, 7, 9 Victoria                                                     Street;  4, 6, 8, 10 George                                                           Street;  and 2, 4, 6 Albert                                                        Street

Ward Councillors                     East Ward

Progress Association              Greenwich Community                                                             Association Inc.

Other Interest Groups             -

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The development application has been referred to Council’s IHAP given the concerns raised by adjoining neighbours in relation to wall height, solar access and loss of privacy.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject site is located on the north eastern side of O’Connell Street.

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage under at the front.

 

Two submissions have been received from the owners of 4 O’Connell Street, and one submission from the owners of 2 O’Connell Street objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

 

1.         Wall height at the front exceeds the 7m DCP wall height by a maximum of 1.2m;

 

2.         Loss of Solar Access; and

 

3.         Loss of Privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to privacy concerns at the rear of the proposed dwelling house being addressed and the imposition of draft conditions designed to minimise environmental impacts.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located on the north eastern side of O’Connell Street.  The land rises to the rear.  Existing improvements on the site consist of a part single storey, part two storey and part three storey stone, painted brick, timber and fibro dwelling house with a part tile and part metal deck roof.  The lowest level at the front is a double garage. Site Location Plans and Neighbour Notification Plans as attached (AT-1) and (AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage under at the front, and a terrace at the front of the first floor level and the second floor level.  The external walls are proposed rendered masonry and the roof is low sloping and covered with colorbond metal decking.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Nil

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2

 

Site Area:       436.3m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1

0.6:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

8.75m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

2025mm – 9122mm

Consistent with area or 7.5m

No

Side setback (min)

1.5m

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

11.2m

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Yes

Wall Height (max)

8.21m

7.0m

No

Subfloor height (max)

N/A

1.5m

N/A

Number of Storeys (max)

3

2

No

Landscaped area (min)

37%

35%

Yes

Solar Access

3 hrs to portion of windows

3 hrs to portion of windows

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2.75m

3m

Yes

Private open space

> 24m2

> 4m

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Cut and fill

1.3m

1m (max)

No

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Solid – 750mm

Timber slats – 700mm

Solid:               900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

No

Setback from front boundary if > 900mm

Zero

1m

No

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 lot boundary

Unchanged

 

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 included the following:-

 

“The proposed development application contains a comprehensive Landscape Plan with screen planting along the northern boundary line.  A Condition of Consent will be set to ensure the screen planting does not interfere with existing neighbouring view lines.”

 

Draft conditions of consent are provided which are included in the recommendation in this report.

 

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

 

Heritage

 

The subject site is not listed as a heritage item, however, the site is located in Greenwich Conservation Area.  5 O’Connell Street, located to the east of the site, has also been listed as an item.

 

A Statement of Heritage Impact of the proposed new dwelling has been submitted with the application from Perumal Murphy Alessi, Heritage Consultants.

 

The Conclusion in that report is as follows:-

 

“In summary the proposed demolition of the existing building at No. 3 O’Connell Street, Greenwich, is considered acceptable from a heritage point of view due to the limited significance of the existing building and its limited contribution to the conservation area.  Whilst it remains as part of the early 20th century development of the local area, the existing building has been compromised by unsympathetic alterations and additions and currently makes no particular visual contribution to the O’Connell Street streetscape or Greenwich Conservation Area.

 

The proposed new building is intended to improve the appearance, use and amenity of the site for ongoing residential use.  The proposed new building is modern and contemporary in architectural scale, form and fabric and will form part of the evolving suburban fabric of the area.

 

The building is appropriately setback from the street frontage and side boundaries and is appropriately scaled and detailed to minimise any potential visual impacts on the area and will have no impact on the historic fabric particularly in O’Connell Street which will continue to be visible and able to be interpreted.

 

On this basis, Council should have no hesitation in approving the proposed works on heritage grounds.”

 

The application was also referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor (Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners) who have submitted Heritage Advice.

 

Their comments include:-

 

“The current proposal involves extending the footprint of the existing building to the east (rear) by approximately 11 metres and substantially reducing the rear garden area.

 

The consistent pattern of development of O’Connell Street has resulted in generous rear gardens and a stepping of the rear building line (in line with the street frontages).  Despite the various modifications that have occurred to the houses along this street, the front and rear alignments of all of the existing buildings appear to have remained consistent with the original/early pattern of development.

 

As such, a reduction to the overall length of the proposal is recommended, in order to bring the rear building line of the proposal into closer alignment with the existing, consistent pattern of development and in order to retain a majority of the rear garden space.”

 

And also:-

 

“As discussed above, O’Connell Street contains only one local heritage item and it appears that there is only one dwelling that retains the form and detailing of the original residential development in this area.  The street is now predominantly of a contemporary architectural character.  As such, the proposed new dwelling is suitable for the context of the current streetscape.

 

However, the majority of the houses along O’Connell Street retain a low, masonry front fence along the street frontage that are either original or reconstructed using suitable materials (i.e. sandstone).  In this case, 3 O’Connell Street retains its original sandstone front fence with retaining walls to either side of the driveway.  The current proposal involves the demolition of the fence and the retaining walls and replacing it with a new stone and timber slat fence.

 

As low masonry fences are a surviving, historic feature in the streetscape, it is therefore recommended that the existing sandstone fence and retaining walls located on the north and south front boundaries be retained (see recommended condition below).

 

It is noted that one of the sandstone retaining walls located in the rear garden is to be demolished and rebuilt using the sandstone from the garage; which is supported.”

 

The Conclusion in the report is as follows:-

 

Overall, the proposal relates to the predominant contemporary architectural character of the streetscape and will have no impacts on the significance of heritage items in the vicinity.  However, there is the potential for the proposal to result in minor impacts on the significance of the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area through the disruption to a consistent development pattern found in the locality and the loss of some historic landscape features in the streetscape.  Consequently the following condition of approval is recommended:-

 

·                   Modification of the proposal as follows to be submitted to Lane Cove Council for approval prior to the submission of the Construction Certificate;

 

 

 

Officer Comment

 

Regarding the reduction in length of the proposed rear wing by a minimum of 1.5m, the rear walls of the dwelling are shown to be setback a minimum of 11.2m from the rear boundary which exceeds the rear boundary setback specified in the DCP and a reduction in length of the proposed rear wing is considered not to be warranted.

 

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:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed dwelling house is 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.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The proposal involves some demolition work.  Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must take into consideration Australian Standard (AS2601 – 1991):  The Demolition of Structures; as in force July 1993.  The matter may be addressed by conditions of consent and has been addressed by conditions in the recommendation section of this report.

 

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.

 

Front Setback

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

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

 

b)     The front setback is to be free of structures such as swimming pools and ancillary elements such as rainwater tanks and air conditioning units.  In certain circumstances carports and garages may be permitted in the front setback; and

 

c)     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.

 

The front boundary is angled across the site.

 

The existing dwelling is one and two storeys with a double garage under at the front.  It varies from a minimum of 1.9m to a maximum of 5.7m from the front boundary.

 

The front terraces of the proposed dwelling house vary from 2025mm to 5.9m from the front boundary.  The wall on the southern side comes to 2025mm from the front boundary.

 

The walls of the dwelling proper comes to a minimum of 3382mm and a maximum of 7549mm from the front boundary at first floor level.

 

The walls of the dwelling proper comes to a minimum of 4884mm and a maximum of 9122mm from the front boundary at second floor level.

 

In support of the front building line the applicant states:-

 

“The front setback of the proposed dwelling house has a varying setback of 3.38m to 9m with some landscaping the same as the existing dwelling house on the site and fits into the existing street building line as specified in the DCP.  The upper 3rd storey on the street frontage steps back from the lower levels which reduces visual scale and bulk on the street front.”

 

The walls of 2 O’Connell Street are shown to come to a minimum of 4.4m from the front boundary with a carport with balcony over coming to 0.5m from the front boundary.

 

4 O’Connell Street has a double carport with balcony over in front of the building line.

 

The front setbacks as proposed are considered satisfactory and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses or the streetscape.

 

Wall Height

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

 

 

The maximum ridge height of 8.75m complies with the DCP.

 

The 7m wall height generally complies with the exception of the front of the proposed dwelling house which varies from 566mm to zero at the front on the northern side, and from 1212mm to zero at the front on the southern side above the 7m wall height line.

 

This street is characterised by large dwelling houses and decks as close to the front boundary as possible.

 

The solar access for the adjoining dwelling house at 4 O’Connell Street is considered to comply with Council’s DCP.

 

The wall height as proposed is considered satisfactory.

 

Number of Storeys

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

 

The proposed dwelling house is three storeys in height at the front (two storeys plus garage under).

 

Whilst this exceeds two storeys the overall height is under 9.5m and this street has several two storey dwelling houses with garages under at the front. The number of storeys as proposed is considered satisfactory in this context and would not to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses or the streetscape.

 

Cut and Fill

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

a)     All dwellings are to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP;

 

b)     The area of the site contained within the building footprint can be excavated or filled only where it is necessary to reasonably construct a dwelling on steeply sloping sites;

 

c)     All dwellings are to adopt a split level approach to the design of the house to minimise excavation and fill and to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site;

 

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

 

e)     In such circumstances, Council may consider increasing the depth of excavation between the underside of the lowest floor to any point on the site where:-

 

a.     large exposed undercroft areas are not created; and

 

b.     the excavation does not create adverse impacts on the stability or amenity of adjoining properties or the public domain;

 

f)       Excavation or fill is not to result in the loss of any significant mature trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.

 

The area at the rear of the garage is shown to have a maximum cut and fill of 1.3m.  This enables the front of the dwelling house to be partly set into the site and is considered satisfactory.

 

Front Fences

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

Solid Fences

 

a)     permitted up to 900mm above ground level (existing) on the front boundary.

 

Part Solid and Predominantly See Through Fences

 

a)     permitted up to 1200mm above ground level (existing) on the front boundary;

 

b)     permitted up to 1800mm above ground level (existing) setback at least 1m from the front boundary with the solid portion no higher than 600mm; and

 

c)     for the see through portion, the width of the spacing between palings must be at least the same as the width of the palings.

 

The proposed front fence consists of removing the existing stone fence and constructing two sections of front fence one on each side.  The northern side is shown to be 1.6m wide and consists of a stone fence 650mm high with a 700mm high timber slat fence on top. The southern side is shown to be 1.85m wide and consists of a stone fence 800mm high with a 700mm high timber slat fence on top.

 

This fence does not comply with Council’s Fence Policy in that it exceeds 1200mm in height, the solid section exceeds 600mm and the timber slats are not shown to be spaced their own width apart.

 

Given that the property is located in the Greenwich Conservation Area, as per the recommendations of Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser the proposed front fence should be deleted and from the plans and the existing sandstone walls located on both sides of the driveway should be retained.  (Refer draft condition 4).

 

Width of Garage

 

Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:-

 

 

The width of the proposed garage is 6.6m.  This is a minor non compliance and is considered not to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses or the streetscape.

 

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

 

Three submissions (two from 4 O’Connell Street – one from the owners and one from their architect, and one from the owners of 2 O’Connell Street) were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows:-

 

First and second Submissions from 4 O’Connell Street – one from the owners and one from their architect

 

Solar Access

 

The proposed building does not allow the required amount of sunlight required by DCP clause 1.8.1 into the principal living spaces of 4 O’Connell Street.

 

Officer Comment

 

No. 4 O’Connell Street is located to the south east of 3 O’Connell Street.

 

The dwelling house on the site has a large front verandah which at the front is shown to be setback 6.2m from the boundary of 3 O’Connell Street, and at the rear the walls of the dwelling house are setback 3.25m from the boundary of 3 O’Connell Street.

 

The walls of the proposed dwelling house at 3 O’Connell Street are shown to be setback 1.8m from the side boundary with 4 O’Connell Street at the front and a minimum of 2m at the rear.

 

At an on-site meeting with Mrs S Crossing and her architect it was advised that the main concern is having sunlight to the rear family room/kitchen side window and glazed door.

 

From a perusal of the horizontal and vertical shadow diagrams submitted with the application, the solar access is considered to comply with the minimum requirements of the DCP.

 

Height

 

The building exceeds the allowable height of 7.0m set in Lane Cove DCP Section C1 clause 1.7.1.(a).  This clause specifically states that the control is set to minimise the bulk and massing of a building, and in this case thereby minimising the overshadowing.

 

The proposal exceeds the control by 1.2m.  No attempt has been made to minimise the effect of this excess on the streetscape, the bulk, the massing, and the overshadowing.

 

Officer Comment

 

Whilst the wall height at the front on the southern side exceeds the 7m wall height by a maximum of 1212mm to a minimum of zero, the area of non compliance is at the front where its overshadowing of the adjoining dwelling house including the adjoining verandah of 4 O’Connell Street is minimal.

 

Having regard to the existing development in O’Connell Street, the wall height as proposed is considered satisfactory and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the streetscape.

 

Privacy

 

The very large window on the western end of the first floor and the tall windows on the ground floor, of the south elevation, allows the occupants to invade the privacy of 4 O’Connell Street by overlooking the verandah and front garden.  No screening or sill level considerations have been made to minimise this situation.

 

Officer Comment

 

At an on-site meeting with the owner and her architect three main areas of concern regarding loss of privacy were raised:-

 

 

 

 

 

A further submission has been received from the owners of 4 O’Connell Street (P E & E S Crossing) referring to the site inspection.  The same three issues are raised:-

 


Height

 

The building is 1.2m higher than the allowable height which adversely effects the bulk, massing, streetscape and the overshadowing of the garden and verandah of the adjoining No. 4 O’Connell Street.  The DCP exists to control these matters.  (Issue unresolved.)

 

Solar Access

 

We strongly object to losing more than half our winter sun in our principal living area, internally (family room and kitchen) and in our courtyard.  The shadow chart provided shows that the new building begins to impact us at 10am.  By 12 noon there is only the upper half of a kitchen window (area approx. 700 x 600, a very small portion of window area) receiving sunlight, our main glassed doors getting no sun at all from that time.  This could not be seen as “reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas”.  Currently this is the nicest part of our house in winter, receiving winter sun all day.  It is also the part of our house most used.

 

Privacy

 

1.         To address the problem of a very large window on our side of the first floor and the tall windows on the ground floor of the side facing our house – overlooking our verandah and front garden, the suggestion that the proponent be asked to raise the sill height of the large window to 1500mm appears to resolve this matter.  Part C, 1.8.2 (a).

 

2.         On further understanding that No. 3’s first floor rear room is to be a family room, leading onto a deck, we also noted our concern about the two sizable vertical windows and the glassed wall section of the deck of the rear upstairs terrace – overlooking our main living area at rear of our house.  Unresolved.

 

The large windows on the south elevation of the building to the lounge room and family room allow direct overlooking in the family room, kitchen, verandah and front garden of No. 4 O’Connell Street.

 

The sills of these windows should be raised to 1500mm above the floor level.

 

The roof over the stair could be lowered to this level, which would also reduce the wall height, lessen the overshadowing on the neighbouring garden, and help the massing, bulk, and streetscape.

 

Alternatively a horizontal and vertical bladed screen could be fixed to the windows to prevent the invasion of the privacy of No. 4 O’Connell Street.

 

Officer Comment

 

See earlier comments regarding these matters.

 

Third Submission from the owners of 2 O’Connell Street

 

They received a copy of the objection lodged on behalf of Mr and Mrs Crossing including that the proposed height of the building will exceed the allowable 7m set in the Lane Cove DCP by 1.2m.  In the absence of any unusual circumstances they do not believe the height envelope should be breached and certainly not to such an extent.

 

Officer Comment

 

Whilst on the southern side of the proposed dwelling house the height at the front exceeds the Lane Cove DCP by a maximum of 1.2m to a minimum of zero, the land rises on the northern side and the encroachment at the front in the northern side varies from a maximum of 566mm to a minimum of zero.  This is considered satisfactory in this context and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the area or the streetscape.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The street is characterised by two storey dwelling houses with garages under.  Having regard to the development in this street and subject to the conditions in the recommendation, the proposal is considered satisfactory and not to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling houses, the streetscape, the Greenwich Conservation Area, the foreshores and waterways.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment  Panel grants development consent to Development Application D15/14 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a dwelling house on Lot 2, DP 721657 and known as 3 O’Connell Street, Greenwich subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 2013:1096-A-00-A, A-01-A, A-02-B, A-03-B, A-04-B, A-05-C, A-06-C, A-07-C, A-08-C, A-09-C, A-10-C, A-11-C dated Aug. 13 by D-Studio; LA01-C and LA-02-C dated 7.02.2014 by Taylor Brammer; and 2013-0398-HDA01/P1, HDA02/P1, HDA03/P1 and HDA04/P1 dated Jan 2014 by Whipps-Wood Consulting Engineers.

 

2.         The proposed two adjoining vertical windows in the southern wall at second floor level of the study and a small part of the family room, and the full height window on the southern wall at second floor level of the family room being fitted with obscure glass to a height of 1.7m above the study/family room floor, or alternatively the sills of these three windows being raised to 1.7m above the study/family room floor level.  Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

3.         A 1.7m high above the deck solid privacy screen being provided to the southern side of the             proposed deck at the rear of the second storey family room.  Plans being altered to             comply prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

4.         As the property is located in the Greenwich Conservation Area, the proposed front fence             which does not comply with Council’s Fence Policy being deleted from the plans, and to             comply with the recommendations of Council’s Consultant Heritage Adviser, the retention of             the existing sandstone walls located on both sides of the driveway access on the street             frontage.  Plans being altered to comply prior to the issue of a Construction             Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

7.         (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.

 

8.         (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.

 

9.         (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.

 

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

 

11.       (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.

 

12.       (36) 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.

 

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.       (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.

 

15.       (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.

 

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

 

17.       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)     The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid;

d)     Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering;

e)     Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering;

f)       Waterproofing of wet areas;

g)     Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling; and

h)     Completion.

 

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

 

a)     Retaining walls;

b)     Footings;

c)     Reinforced concrete work;

d)     Structural steelwork; and

e)     Upper level floor framing.

 

19.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED.  Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

 

20.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile or colourbond corrugated    galvanised or zincalume iron, in a mid to dark colour range.

 

21.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations.

 

22.       (67) 

(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; and

 

(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.

 

23.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

24.       (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

25.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

26.       (75) Use of explosives is not permitted.

 

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

 

28.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

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

 

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

 

31.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with this application.

 

32.       (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 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.

 

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

 

Tree Protection Conditions

 

34.       (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.

 

35.       (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.

 

36.       (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.

 

37.       (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.

 

38.       (317) The Firewheel tree standing in the rear yard shall be retained and protected for the             duration of the development. A 1.8 metre high chain mesh fence shall be erected a radial             distance of not less than 2.4 metres from the trunk of the this tree. The tree protection area             shall not be used for the storage of building materials, machinery, site sheds, or for             advertising and soil levels within the tree protection area shall remain undisturbed.

 

39.       (new) A waterproof sign must be placed on the tree protection zone stating ‘NO ENTRY             TREE PROTECTION ZONE – this fence and sign are not to be removed or relocated for   the work duration.’  Minimum size of the sign is to be A4 portrait with NO ENTRY TREE             PROTECTION ZONE in capital Arial Font size 100, and the rest of the text in Arial font size             65.

 

40.       (new) All tree protection measures and signage must be erected PRIOR TO             COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS. This includes demolition or site preparation works, and             tree protection measures must remain in place for the duration of the development.

 

41.       (new)  The submitted Landscape Plan by Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects dated             15/01/2014 is to the satisfaction of Council and must be adopted as part of the development             consent. All Landscape works must be completed prior to ISSUE OF ANY OCCUPATION             CERTIFICATE.

 

42.       (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.

 

43.       (new) Screen planting adjacent to the north side boundary line must of such a species that             they may be maintained at a mature height of no more than 4 m from soil level. The foliage             of these screen plants shall be maintained at a height of 4 m by ongoing and continuous             pruning annually or more frequently as required.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

44.       (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.

 

45.       (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. 

 

46.       (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.

 

47.       (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.

 

48.       (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.

 

49.       (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.

 

50.       (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’.

 

51.       (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.

 

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

 

53.       (R1) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The proposed rainwater tank is to be installed in             accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards.

Note:-

·        Rainwater draining to the reuse tank is to drain from the roof surfaces only. No “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank.  “On - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system.

·        Mosquito protection & first flush device shall be fitted to the reuse tank.

·        The overflow from the rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system.

 

Engineering Conditions to be Complied With Prior to Construction Certificate

 

54.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed             generally in accordance with plan numbered 2013-0398 prepared by Whipps Wood             Consulting Engineers dated Jan 2014. Certification by a suitably qualified engineer of the             above plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority stating that the design             fully complies with, AS-3500 and Part O, Council's DCP-Stormwater Management. The             plans and certification shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction             Certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the certified plans for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

55.       (T1) Design of Retaining Structures: All retaining structures greater than 1m in height are             to be designed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer. The structural             design is to comply with, all relevant design codes and Australian Standards. The design             and certification shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of             the Construction Certificate

 

56.       (D1) Excavation Greater Than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties             including all Council infrastructures, located within 5 meters of the proposed excavation.

 

The applicant shall:-

 

a.     seek independent advice from a suitably qualified engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties;

b.     detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction; and

c.      provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of  support for the adjoining properties.

 

The above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

(d)        Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer.

 

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed shall be submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

All recommendations of the suitably qualified engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

 

57.       (A10) Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from Council.             These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking,             landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the             Construction Certificate. Note: The finished floor level of the proposed garage shall be             determined by Council.

 

58.       (V1) Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed             to the specifications and levels issued by Council. A ‘Construction of Residential Vehicular             Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the             Construction Certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

59.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a             $2500.00 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

 

60.       (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 shall be maintained             during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering Condition to be Complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate

 

61.       (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. 

 

62.       (V3) Redundant Gutter Crossing:  All redundant gutter and footpath crossings shall be             removed and the kerb, gutter and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Urban             Services Division. These works shall be carried out prior to the issue of the Occupation             Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plans

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Site Location Plans

 



ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plans