m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

17 June 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, Lane Cove Council, 48 Longueville Rd Lane Cove on Tuesday 17 June 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 17 June 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 - 3 JUNE 2014

 

 

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       2 Henley Street, Lane Cove West (Section 82A Review)

 

3.       20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich

 

 

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 17 June 2014

2 Henley Street, Lane Cove West (Section 82A Review)

 

 

Subject:          2 Henley Street, Lane Cove West (Section 82A Review)    

Record No:    DA13/177-01 - 22128/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Norm Fletcher 

 

 

Property:                     2 Henley Street, Lane Cove West

 

DA No:                                    D177/13 (Section 82A Review)

 

Date Lodged:              18/3/2014

 

Cost of Work:              Nil

 

Owner:                                    John & Janet Flower

 

Applicant:                    John Flower

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Torrens title subdivision, resulting in proposed Lot 32  with a site area of 345 m2  and proposed Lot 32A with a site area of 375 m2

ZONE

R2 Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

The proposal is inconsistent with the minimum allotment size for a Torrens Title subdivision as per Clause 4.1 and the Lot size map in the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

The application was not notified as it is application seeking the review of the original determination.

 

REASON FOR REFERAL

 

The original application considered that the requested subdivision of the existing dual occupancy into two Torrens Title allotment would create a precedent and also be in conflict with the Clause 4.1 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 in regard to minimum Lot size for subdivision.

 

      Under Section 82 A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 an application seeking a review of a determination that was made by a delegate of Council, (the original application was determined under delegation by the Manager) the review must be made by the Council or another delegate of the Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination.

 

     Therefore the application is referred to IHAP for review and determination.

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is a Section 82A review of the original determination that was refused for 6 reasons.

 

The application and the supporting submission prepared by Calder Flower Architects, has been reviewed and it is considered that the reasons of refusal should remain unchanged and therefore the original determination should remain.

 

SITE

 

The site is known as Lot 32 in DP 6886, 2 Henley Street and 23 Barwon Street, Lane Cove West. The site has frontage to Henley Street and Barwon Street and has a total site area of 720m². The site has a 15.75m frontage to Henley Street and Barwon Street. The land slopes from RL43.95 at the Henley Street frontage and slopes to RL39.31 towards the Barwon Road frontage.

 

The property comprises a part one and part two storey dual occupancy development on the subject site and each dwelling has direct street frontage and vehicular access.

 

The site is surrounded by low density residential development namely dwelling houses. The property is identified as being on bushfire prone land.  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The original proposal that was refused by Council on 9 January 2014 was for the subdivision of an existing Dual Occupancy on the subject property.

 

The new application is a Section 82A review of the determination and the applicant has submitted information supporting the review application and also an argument why the proposal should be approved.

 

The applicant submitted the following reasons as to why the application should be approved:-

 

1.   Our application is not for the construction, use or alteration of dwellings. Rather it is for subdivision of land on which the dwellings exist. It may be that underlying Council staff’s Reason No. 1 is a concern regarding the need to maintain a consistency in the urban fabric of the area surrounding my home. If this is the case, it will be immediately apparent to the Council that the result of approving the subdivision sought in the development application will be no change of any kind in the improvements on, or use of, the property and no other change of any kind in the urban fabric of the locality;

 

2.   Our application will in no way amend the urban character of the locality indeed if successful we will be maintaining the low-density residential character that predominates here;

 

3.   Objectives of zone - Our application fulfils all of those requirements (except points 2 & 4 which are not relevant) and consequently we are requesting that the development standard be varied in this very particular instance because the subdivision which is sought is entirely consistent with the existing approved improvements and use of both residences. We fulfil entirely the objectives of the zone and are making no change to the urban fabric;

 

4.   The subdivision pattern within close proximity to our property in fact reflects that for which we seek approval. The first degree of proximity involved is the site itself. As mentioned above, the proposed subdivision is entirely consistent with the improvements and current use of both houses. The second degree of proximity is the subdivision pattern in the locality immediately proximate to the site. Set out below is a map of the subdivision pattern in that locality. The map clearly shows a land parcel abutting ours on our southern boundary that is 285sm. immediately opposite, and across Barwon Road to the south west, is a property of 244sm and two doors up along Barwon Road is a property of 322sm. At approximately 375sm our proposal for Barwon Road is variously 30.5%, 52. 4% and 15.5% larger than the immediate neighbours. While along Henley Street our proposal is smaller than similar lots, our frontage is twice their width thus reinforcing the apparent subdivision pattern and dwelling form intended under the objectives of the zone;

 

5.   Questions of setback are most appropriately dealt with in connection with applications to construct improvements rather than, as in the present case, when no approval for construction of any improvements is sought. While it would be readily arguable that this consideration in the DCP does not envisage attached dwellings on a property with individual street frontages, it is more important to discuss the intention of this requirement. This requirement is intended to ensure that residents have adequate private open space that is not compromised by adjoining dwellings. That is to say, it is a requirement concerned with privacy. In this respect, it will be apparent that the design of the two houses on this property has been carefully designed to ensure that privacy. The photograph below is from the large terrace of the house facing Henley Street. Great care was taken in the design to ensure that residents of the Barwon Street house had unimpeded use of their private open space. More importantly for us we have taken great care to ensure that those residents did not interfere with our privacy. As can be seen from the photograph it is not possible for us to see into their yard, nor is it possible for them to see into ours;

 

 

 

6.   The DCP requires 35% landscape area. For the Henley Street proposal the landscape area is 31.4% while the Barwon Street proposal is 43.4%. Our proposal conforms to all of these objectives as required for landscape area but falls short on the Henley Street parcel by about 11sm, a deficit of 3% of that required under the DCP. As we are enhancing the landscape character of the Henley Street parcel it would appear reasonable that such a shortfall should be acceptable with regard to the overriding objectives of the requirement and this parcel has another 38sm of hard landscape area for privacy and amenity. Our proposal conforms to all of these objectives but falls short on the Henley Street parcel by about 11sm, a deficit of 3% of that required under the DCP. As we are enhancing the landscape character of the Henley Street parcel it would appear reasonable that such a shortfall should be acceptable with regard to the overriding objectives of the requirement and this parcel has another 38sm of hard landscape area for privacy and amenity; and

 

7.   The public interest is a difficult thing to quantify. However, we suggest that it is more in the public interest to make this property available for use by a family or other dwellers than to have it stand idle. We also suggest that it is strongly in the public interest that we be able to create independent land titles as there is no material detriment of any kind to the community or Council from approving the proposed subdivision.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

BA452/83A – Approval was granted on the 26 March 1985 for a dual occupancy development. The proposal involved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house which resulted in a dual occupancy development.

 

DA20/99 – Approval was granted on 8 March 1999 for alterations and additions to the dwelling fronting Henley Street.

 

DA4/12 – Approval was granted on 17 April 2012 for the demolition of the dwelling fronting Henley Street, construction of a new dwelling in its place and alterations and additions to the dwelling fronting Barwon Road. This application was subsequently amended to include an internal reconfiguration of rooms in the dwelling fronting Barwon Road. No change to the floor space ratio or building footprint was proposed. Approval was granted for the modified development on 17 May 2013.

 

DA 177/13 – The application for the proposed subdivision of the dual occupancy was refused on the 9 January 2014.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

 

Site Area:       720m², proposed Lot 32 345m2 and proposed Lot 32A 375m2.

 

 

Proposed Lot 32

Proposed Lot 32A

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.44:1

 

(151m2 GFA)

 

0.36:1

 

(134m2 GFA)

 

The above is based on the approved development DA4/12

 

0.5:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

No change

No change

9.5m

NA

Minimum lot size

345m2

375m2

550m2

NO

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part C – Residential Development

 

The proposed Torrens title subdivision would result in semi detached dwellings, with each lot containing a dwelling. The following assessment has regard for the relevant controls applicable to dwelling houses as there are no specific controls within the DCP for semi-detached dwellings.

 

 

Proposed Lot 32

Proposed Lot 32A

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Existing 3.4m

Existing 7.95m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

 

No change to existing development on site

Acceptable

 

Side setback (min)

Works approved as per DA12/4 min 1.2m

Works approved as per DA12/4 min 1.2m

 

1200mm

No change to existing dwellings on-site.

 

Acceptable

Rear setback (min)

Nil

Nil

8m

No

 

Wall Height (max) parapet of 600mm)

No change

No change

7.0m

NA

Maximum Ridge height

No change

No change

9.5m

NA

Subfloor height (max)

No change

No change

1.5m

NA

Number of Storeys (max)

No change

No change

2

NA

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

34%

 

(117m2)

36%

 

(136m2)

35%

No

Considered to meet the requirement

Cut and Fill      (max)

No change

No change

1m

NA

Solar Access

No change

No change

3 hrs to north-facing windows

NA

Provide for view sharing

No change

No change

Provide for view sharing

 

NA

Private open space

39m2

136m2

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed Lot 32

Proposed Lot 32A

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

1

2

2

No change to existing dwelling on-site.

 

Acceptable

 

Driveway width

3m

5m

3m at the lot boundary

No change to existing driveway on-site.

Acceptable

 

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

NA

 

Manager Parks

 

NA

 

Manager Bushland

 

NA

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal does not meet with the requirements of Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision Lot size and Clause 4.4 Floor Space ratio as indicated in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

The Section 82 A submission does not provide any substantive reasons why Council should vary the abovementioned Standards.

 

Council considered a Clause 4.6 Exception to the development standards with the original application. The Section 82 A review submission does not provide any other information or detailed reasons that should alter Councils view that the exception to the standards should not be supported.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

 

The proposed subdivision is integrated development as it requires approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service in accordance with Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The NSW RFS require the site be managed as an inner protection area. This requirement would be incorporated into any development consent. 

 

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

 

The original application and assessment of that proposal identified a number of controls where the proposal did not comply with or satisfy.

 

They are as follows:-

 

1.   Land use table – LEP

 

The proposed Torrens title subdivision would result in the development being defined as semi-detached dwellings. Within the R2 Low Density Residential zone, semi-detached dwellings are not listed within items 2 or 3 of the land use table and are therefore prohibited development. The proposal cannot be supported.

 

2.   Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size – LEP

 

Clause 4.1 of the LEP requires that the lot size of any land resulting from a subdivision is not to be less than 550m2. The proposal seeks consent for two allotments which would be less than 550m2, being proposed Lot 32 being 345m2 and proposed Lot 32A being 375m2. The proposed lots are inconsistent with the LEP and cannot be supported.

 

3.   DCP – Part C.1 Rear Setback

 

            The proposed subdivision would result in the development being defined as semi-detached           dwellings. In lieu of          specific controls for semi-detached dwellings, the setback controls for        a dwelling house were considered. The minimum rear setback required for a dwelling        house is 8m. The proposed development would result in a nil rear setback as this is the          section of the dwellings which are attached. Rear setbacks are required by the DCP to           facilitate ventilation and provide physical separation for amenity purposes between             dwellings.

 

4.   Landscaping 

 

The DCP requires dwelling houses provide a minimum of 35% of the site area for the purposes of landscaped area. The proposed subdivision would result in proposed Lot 32 having 34% of the site for landscaping.

 

Officers Comment (Section 82A review)

 

The application for review did not provide any modification to the proposal or any substantial reasons as to why the non compliance with the controls should be accepted by Council.

 

The application submission indicates that the proposal does meet with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Zone in the LEP 2009 and the Objectives of the landscape provisions in the DCP 2009.

 

The submission also suggests that the proposal is more in the Public Interest to make the property available for use by a family or other dwellers than to have it stand idle.

 

The information as submitted does not justify the non compliance with the relevant objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the Landscape provision of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009.

 

In regard to the comments relating to Public Interest the development can still be occupied irrespective whether it is subdivided or not.

 

It is considered that the proposal irrespective of what has been provided in the supporting information for review still does not meet with the relevant objectives, standards and controls of both the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the Landscape provisions.

 

Therefore it is considered that the original reasons for refusal are still applicable.

 

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

 

The application was not notified as the proposal did not offer any changes to the original application.

CONCLUSION

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is as follows:-

 

82A     (1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application.

            (2)  A council must, on a request made in accordance with this section, conduct a review.

            (3A)  in requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

            (4)  The council may review the determination if:

                        (a)        It has notified the request for review in accordance with:

                                    (i) The regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) A development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b)        it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c)        In the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

            (4A)  As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.

            (6)  If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a)        If the determination was made by a delegate of the council – the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or

                        (b)        If the determination was made by the council – the council.

 

Officers Comments

 

The application submitted for the 82A review is considered to be substantially the same development as the development described in the original application that was refused.

 

The reasons and supporting documentation that was submitted by the applicant that sought a review of the determination have been considered in regard to the LEP 2009 and the DCP 2009.

 

It is concluded that the original reasons for refusal still apply and the request to approve the proposal is not supported.

 

The application is submitted to the IHAP for review and determination as it is considered that if the application was approved it would become a precedent for the locality.


 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the review of the determination of development consent D177/13 granted on 9th January 2014 for the Torrens Title subdivision, resulting in proposed Lot 32 and proposed Lot 32A at 2 Henley Street Lane Cove West has been assessed and recommended to be refused with the original reasons that applied to the determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Subdivision Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 17 June 2014

20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA13/207-01 - 19492/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Kristy Wellfare 

 

 

Property:                     20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich

 

DA No:                                    DA13/207

 

Date Lodged:              20 December 2013

 

Cost of Work:              $850,000

 

Owner:                                    F L Cave

 

Applicant:                    DBCF Pty Ltd

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alteration and first floor addition to the existing house, alterations to garage and construction of a swimming pool.

ZONE

R2 – Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

Yes, Item I149

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a and 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes, 59 days

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                   11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 24 Wilona Avenue, 15-19 Greendale Street

Ward Councillors          East ward

Progress Association    Greenwich Community Association

Other Interest Groups  Lane Cove Historical Society

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This development application is referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination due to the concerns raised by the neighbouring properties.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal is for major alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, including first floor additions, alterations and additions to the existing garage and laundry, construction of a swimming pool and removal of one tree. The application was notified to the neighbouring properties and objections were received from five (5) neighbouring properties. Concerns raised by the neighbouring properties included bulk and scale, privacy, compliance with DCP, overshadowing, amenity impacts from the proposed swimming pool, removal of trees, heat and glare from glazing, streetscape and design character, and heritage impacts.

 

Council raised the following concerns subsequent to the preliminary assessment of the application:-

·    Side wall heights;

·    Heritage impact and detailing;

·    Stormwater; and

·    Privacy.

 

Amended plans were received which lowered the height of the proposed building by 600mm and incorporated amendments to satisfy Councils heritage concerns. External operable blinds were proposed in the amended plans to address privacy concerns.

Notification of the amended plans was carried out and objections were received from four (4) properties. Concerns raised in the second notification included: privacy impacts, heritage impacts, compliance with DCP, visual and acoustic privacy impacts from the proposed swimming pool.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate draft conditions.

 

SITE

 

The site is located on the southern side of Wilona Avenue, at the cul-de-sac end of the street where the roadway is divided. The site is known as Lot 5 in DP 27279. The site is irregular in shape due to the cul-de-sac at the front boundary, with an area of 713.7 m². The site has an irregular street frontage of 14.835m, a rear boundary of 18.9m, side boundaries of 39.08m to the west and an irregular eastern side boundary of 40.14m. The existing development on the site consists of the garage and former gardener’s cottage which are listed heritage items, (Item I149) and a modern era extension to the gardener’s cottage to accommodate the remainder of the dwelling house on the site.

 

The heritage inventory entry for the subject site identifies the listed items as being the “early coach house and stable buildings built in the style of Wilona, which they once served.” It notes that “a later house has incorporated the earlier coach house and garage of Wilona. The original structure in brick with hipped roof, slate with ornamental terracotta crest tiles and finials with timber barge details survive as evidence of the substantial nature of the Wilona Estate.”  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

Neighbouring Sites

 

The site is associated with the neighbouring heritage listed property known as "Wilona" at number 18 Wilona Avenue located to the east of the site (Item I148). “Wilona” is a listed item of local significance in accordance with Schedule 5 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan and is described in the heritage inventory as “one of the fine Federation villas of Lane Cove with picturesque turrets and roof lanterns and a number of fine architectural details.” The inventory notes that the building is a “large two-storey Federation villa built by Mr Wilson c1900.” The original entrance to the property was from River Road. The building also features:-

 

·    “Asymmetrical interesting roof massing with copper-roofed turret from which 360º views can be obtained”

·    “ A large central rectangular roof lantern and smaller square lantern both slate roofed with ornamental terracotta crest tiles.” 

·    “Tall brick chimneys with terracotta chimney pots.”

·    “The timber detailing is well crafted with ornate barge boards, timber valance and arched verandah entry to garden.”

·    “The original coach house and stables are now at No.20.”

·    “ Later wrought iron arched entry with Wilona emblazoned across fate dates from period of surrounding subdivision.” These gates were subsequently replaced by wooden gates with federation detailing.

 

The heritage listed dwelling house 18 Wilona Avenue had alterations and additions approved in 1999 as part of DA99/98.

 

Existing development to the west of the site consists of a two storey masonry and tile dwelling house at 22 Wilona Avenue which is located on the far side of 3.658m wide a Council owned drainage reserve and pedestrian accessway. The two storey dwelling house on the site at 22 Wilona Avenue was approved under DA06/352.

 

To the south of the site are dwelling houses fronting onto Greendale Street. Numbers 15 and 17 share part or all of their rear boundary with the subject site and number 19 is located on the far side of the pedestrian accessway. 15 Greendale Street has approval for the construction of a new two storey dwelling house on the site approved under complying development certificate CD2014/27 and a garage with internal stair access approved under DA14/31.

 

17 Greendale Street is a two storey masonry and tile dwelling house which had substantial alterations and additions approved in 2010 (amended in 2012) as part of DA10/12. 19 Greendale Street is a two storey masonry and tile dwelling house elevated at the street DA00/414.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant seeks consent to carry out major alterations and additions to the existing heritage listed  dwelling house and garage, construction of a swimming pool and removal of one tree.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

DA09/38 – Construct front fence and gate. Approved 11.3.2009

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2

 

Site Area:       713.7 m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.43:1

0.5

Yes

Height of Buildings

8m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

House: 9.8m

Garage: 0.6m

Consistent with area or 7.5m

House: Yes

Garage: No. Existing non-compliance

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

Not applicable

2m

Not applicable

Side setback (min)

Ground:

1200mm

 

 

East:   1.0m

East: No. Continues Existing non-compliance

 

West: 1300mm

West: Yes

 

First:

1500mm

 

 

East: 7.7m

East: Yes

 

West:1.5m

West: Yes

Rear setback (min)

9.8m

<1000m²: 9.77m or 25% of 39.08

Yes

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

7.93m

7.0m + 0.6m parapet

No

Maximum Ridge height

7.93m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1.93m

1.0m

No

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

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

34%

35%

No. Addressed by condition.

Foreshore Building Line            (min)

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

Cut and Fill      (max)

Nil

1m

Nil

Solar Access

3 hours to north

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3.0m

3m

Yes

Private open space

Min 24 m²

4m min depth

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Yes

Basix

A178955

Certificate required

Yes

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

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

1.8m

Solid:   900mm

(solid and open design):             1.2m

No. Existing non-compliance.

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

Nil. Unchanged

Entire fence- 1.0m setback from front boundary

Unchanged

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

Yes

Driveway width

Unchanged

3m at the lot boundary

Unchanged

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

Not applicable

3m

Not applicable

 


Carports within the front setback & Garages facing the Street

 

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

Not applicable

1m from street boundary

Not applicable

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

45.7% at street frontage /6.5m

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

No.

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Location

Within rear yard and not on an elevated deck

Behind the front building line and not on elevated decks

Yes

When viewed from waterways and foreshore areas

Not applicable

Not adversely affect the amenity and outlook of neighbourhood.

Not applicable

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

11m to garage at no.18, 19m to no.22.

3m to waterline

Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

2m

1m to waterline

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1m

1m

1.8m   

Yes

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

1.1m

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

Yes

Setback from trees >5m in height (min)

Approx 10m

3m

Yes

Location of pool pump/ filter

Not specified

As far as practical from neighbouring properties.

To be addressed by condition

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. On review of the stormwater plans originally submitted with the application, Council’s Development Engineer sought written confirmation as to whether any existing stormwater pipes are located within the “proposed drainage easement” area and if any upstream properties are using this area to drain their properties.

 

The applicant’s investigations did not provide any evidence of stormwater pipes over the property, and as such an amended stormwater concept plan was submitted to Council for assessment. These amended plans were referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment.

 

Council’s Development Engineer noted that a new 10,000L rainwater reuse system is proposed to gain exemption from OSD. Draft conditions have been provided by Council’s Development Engineer regarding the proposed stormwater system. It was also noted that a new driveway on Council property is proposed and draft conditions have been provided by Council’s Development Engineer regarding the proposed driveway. The proposed level of excavation is also the subject of draft conditions in the interest of adjoining structures. Subject to the draft conditions as recommended (draft conditions 33-51), the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

 

Manager Parks

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer for comment. Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer reviewed the documents and plans and visited the site. Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer noted that the plans show the retention of all trees on the site, except the tree known as Tree 6. No objections were raised by Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer to the removal of this tree given its close proximity to the proposed building line. It was considered that its removal would have a negligible negative impact on the streetscape.  

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer noted that the project arborist Cheryl Mackay recommends removal of Tree 3, the Stone Pine standing in the northwest corner of the site, yet the plans show its retention. Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer was in agreement with the arborist’s comments relating to this tree. 

 

The tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report for all trees designated for retention shall apply to the development. As a matter of precaution, draft tree protection conditions were provided by Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer for inclusion in the recommendation of this report (draft conditions 52-64). Subject to the draft conditions as recommended, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.   

 

Heritage

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor for comment. The following matters were raised by Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor in response to the original proposal:-

 

·        Inconsistency in the conservation approach regarding the treatment of the Cottage compared with the extension of the garage and glazed connection on the north side obscures the structure, particularly as viewed from the street;

·        Request that the existing wardrobe on the east of the Cottage (proposed to be retained and re-built) be removed and the elevation restored in accordance with the photographic evidence that of the original elevation;

·        Further information was required regarding the window openings on the western elevation of the cottage, facing the courtyard, and a recommendation that these be amended to reflect the size and materials of the original structure; and

·        Council’s Heritage Advisor requested design clarification in terms of providing clear differentiation between what is essentially the restoration of the cottage and the placement of the new dwelling, including:-

 

o   Reduction of the garage width facing the street to allow for a minimum width double car garage, which still retains the original remnant fabric of the stables as well as increase visibility of the cottage from the street;

o   Removal of the connecting structure to the cottage from the garage so as the original can be viewed as a standalone structure;

o   The removal of the existing wardrobe, which can be viewed as an intrusive element, to allow for restoration based on evidence;

o   Either the reinstatement of the window location based on the point above or the new location, with a design based on the existing timber windows in the eastern wall. Note Window W25 remains as designed with D4; and

o   The paint colours of “Wilona” are based on traditional heritage colours and can be utilized for the paint colours of the cottage, garage and fence as a form of interpretation and connection with the original estate. 

 

Amended plans were submitted which removed the wardrobe accretion and proposed restoration of the eastern elevation opening, amended the cottage western elevation openings, and reduced the link to the garage to a glazed awning rather than a full-height glazed link. These amended plans, and the supporting arguments from the applicants planning consultant were forwarded to Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor for further consideration.

 

Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor noted that:-

 

·   “The garage width facing the street has been reduced;

·   The connecting structure to the Cottage from the garage has been removed except for a simple glass roof. This is acceptable.

·   The removal of the existing intrusive wardrobe on the eastern side of the cottage has been removed, and will allow restoration with the reinstatement of a door (D6). This is acceptable with a qualification below under Recommendations.

·   The existing openings on the western side of the Cottage have been reused as French doors (D11 & D12). This is acceptable with a qualification below under Recommendations.

·   We note the comments in the SJB letter on 'Wilona' paint colours as being contrary to our original recommendations. We reiterate that our comment on colours applies only to the original Cottage, garage and fence and are not intended to apply to the new flat roofed structure, as may be implied from the SJB letter. The fact that the brickwork of the Cottage has been painted is irrelevant. Using traditional colours on a traditional structure is not a 'pastiche' but is basic restoration. We can however understand that using 'Wilona' colours may limit the use of colours on the new flat roofed structure.”

 

On balance, Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor raised no objection to the amended application on heritage grounds and provided the following recommendation regarding the amended proposal:-

 

·   “Given the intent is to restore The Cottage, the proposed new doors (D6, D11 & D12) should be detailed to have a lock rail approximately the same height as the bottom rail as is the case in traditional joinery.

·   Our advice is that the 'Wilona' colours can be used as a palette from which to choose colours for the traditional structures. Lighter tones can be used in preference, but this advice is not intended to imply that the location of colours has to be a copy of those on 'Wilona'.”

 

The recommendations provided by Council’s Consultant Heritage Advisor have been reworked into draft conditions of consent (draft conditions 31 and 32). Subject to the draft conditions as recommended, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

 

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

 

In accordance with LEP2009, the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Dwelling houses are listed as a permissible land use in the R2 zone in accordance with the Land Use Table within LEP2009. The proposal is permissible, has been assessed under the relevant provisions of LEP2009, and is neither contrary to the aims of the Plan, nor the aims, objectives and controls relating to the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory.

 

As the property is a listed heritage item, the proposal has been considered having particular regard to the Heritage conservation provisions of Clause 5.10 of the LEP. A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with the application and was forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment. The proposal is considered to accord with the objectives of the Clause, and, subject to the draft conditions as recommended, would not result in any undue impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item. The proposal is therefore considered to be satisfactory.

 


Lane Cove DEVELOPMENT CONTROL Plan

 

The proposal has been considered having regard to the relevant provisions of the DCP. The proposal accords with the objectives of the Plan, and further discussion is provided regarding the following specific provisions.

 

Part B 9.0 - Heritage

 

The site is a listed heritage item and is within the vicinity of a listed heritage item being the adjacent dwelling house at 18 Wilona Avenue. A heritage impact statement was submitted with the application and the proposal has been favourably considered by Council’s Heritage Advisor. The proposal has been considered having regard to the provisions of Part B9.0 of the DCP, and is satisfactory. The following is noted:-

 

·    The proposed additions are an appropriate response to the scale of the item and the location of the two storey element away from the single storey listed items is considered to be acceptable;

·    The proposed alterations and additions to the listed buildings are clearly discernible from the heritage fabric in form and finish without being incompatible or intrusive;

·    A Conservation Management Plan and/or Specific Element Conservation Policy (SECP) was not required to be submitted for the item; and

·    The heritage value of the adjacent heritage items is unlikely to be unduly affected by the proposed works, particularly given the location of the two storey element on the opposite side of the site to the neighbouring heritage item. The proposed two storey addition on part of the site provides an appropriate transition between the heritage item on the neighbouring site to the east, the single storey heritage items on the site, and the two storey development westward along Wilona Avenue.

 

Part C - Residential Development

 

As noted in the table above, the proposal complies with the numerical requirements of the DCP with the exception of the garage setback, eastern side setback, side wall height, subfloor height and landscaped area. These non-compliances are discussed hereunder. Notwithstanding these non-compliances, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the objectives of the DCP in general and Part C Residential Development in particular. The proposal is considered to be acceptable.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Lands

 

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, an examination of Council’s computer records and information provided by the applicant indicates a history of residential development on the site and adjoining sites. The proposal does not raise any concerns in relation to SEPP55 and further investigation is not required in this instance.

 

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

 

The plans were accompanied by BASIX Certificate A178955, and the commitments required to be noted at the development application stage are shown on the accompanying plans. The proposal therefore satisfies the policy and raises no further issues.

 

 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The proposal raises no issues regarding the provisions of policy.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The proposal involves minor demolition work. Clause 92(1)(b) of the Regulation requires Council to consider the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-2001: The demolition of structures.  The matter may be addressed by a condition of consent, which is included in the recommendation 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.

 

Garage Front Setback and Width

 

This is an existing non-compliance and the majority of the existing structure is to remain. The works proposed involve minor alterations to the existing structure to extend its width and alter the laundry section, with the majority of the fabric of the building (greater than 50%) being retained. It is therefore not considered reasonable to require the 7.5m front setback to be applied in this instance and the variation to the front setback requirement is considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposed width of the garage meets the maximum 50% requirement of the DCP but does not comply with the maximum 6m width requirements as the garage door is 6.0m in width. The original proposal sought a wider garage which has been reduced to 6.5m in response to Council’s concerns. The proposal is an unusual situation with an irregular site and involves an existing structure which is a listed heritage item that is sought to be upgraded to accommodate the width of two modern vehicles.

 

The additional width proposed to the garage resulting in the non-compliance proposed is considered to result in minimal impact on the streetscape.  It is not considered that varying the width requirements of the DCP would result in an undesirable precedent for this type of development and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

Ground Floor Eastern Side Setback

 

The proposed wall is in the same location as that of the existing dwelling house, utilising the existing wall to create a resulting wall that is 300mm higher and 150mm longer than the existing wall. It is not considered that the extension of this wall would have any undue amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwelling houses, particularly the dwelling house immediately to the east at 18 Wilona Avenue. The variation to the eastern side setback at ground floor level is therefore supported.

 

Side Wall Height

 

The original application proposed a side wall height of up to 8.7m. In response to the concerns raised by council regarding this non-compliance, the proposal was amended to include a maximum side wall height of 7.93m through the reduction of the proposed floor-ceiling heights by 300mm at each level. The amended scheme exceeds the side wall height requirement for building that incorporate parapets by 400mm. It is noted that the RL label for the side wall height on the plan 74.18 was incorrect and has since been updated by the applicant in plans submitted to Council on 4 April 2014 with the corrected RL of 73.94.

 

The applicant has submitted that this breach of the side wall height control would not result in any adverse impacts as follows:-

 

·    The maximum building height remains well below the maximum permitted by the Lane Cove LEP; and

·    The resulting building is consistent with the objectives of the building design provisions as:-

The building is consistent with the typical bulk and scale of dwellings in the street and area;

The proposed additions maintain the integrity and heritage significance of the existing building;

The proposed additions have minimal impact on the streetscape and public domain; and

The minor breach of the wall height control results in no adverse impacts relating to overshadowing, privacy, light spill, loss of views or residential amenity.

 

The area of non-compliance extends for 5.3m along the western elevation with a maximum depth of non-compliance of 330mm and for 1.8m along the rear elevation. It is agreed that the extent and area of the non-compliance is minor. The location of the site immediately adjacent to a >3m wide drainage reserve serves to ameliorate any the potential impact of the bulk resulting from the non-complying side wall height on the neighbouring properties to the west at 22 Wilona Avenue and 19 Greendale Street. The non-complying rear corner of the building is setback approximately 25m to the rear of 19 Greendale Street and set back 23m to the rear of number 17 and the shadow diagrams submitted indicate that the length of shadow cast by the proposed building, including the non-complying rear corner, would not result in any undue loss of solar access to the properties at 19 and 17 Greendale.

 

Subfloor Height

 

The proposed additions include a subfloor height of up to 1.93m which does not comply with the 1m requirement of the DCP. The subfloor height proposed is a result of the designers desire to relate the finished floor levels of the ground floor level addition to that of the heritage item on the site and maintain a consistent internal floor level throughout. 6.6m of the 16.1m wide ground floor level (41%) would, at the rear of the proposed extension, result in a subfloor height of greater than 1.0m of which 3.5m would achieve a subfloor height of greater than 1.4m to the finished floor level of the ground floor level above.

 

The applicant has provided justification for the proposed non-compliance, stating that:-

 

 

The side wall height and subfloor height controls form part of the Building Design controls contained within Part C1.7 of the Lane Cove DCP. The proposal has been considered having regard to the objectives of the Building Design controls and the following is noted:-

 

 

A draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring that the subfloor area not be used for habitable purposes to ensure that the proposal does not give rise to a part-three storey dwelling house (draft condition 5). Subject to the draft condition as recommended, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

 

Landscaped Area

 

The proposal achieves a landscaped area of 242.155 m² or 34% of the site which does not comply with the 35% landscaped area requirement of Part C1.5 of the DCP and represents a shortfall of 7.64m². There is ample opportunity to provide this additional area on the site be reconfiguring the hardstand areas proposed and as such a draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring the provision of 249.8m² of soft landscaped area (draft condition 4). Subject to the draft conditions as recommended, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

 

Fence Height

 

The proposal involves the creation of a new entry on the western side of the site with a gate and stone pillar detail up to 1.8m in height with pillars 500mm in width. The existing fence in this location is 1.8m in height and it is not considered reasonable to apply the 1.2m requirements to the new entry when the remainder of the up to 2.0m high fence is to be retained. The height of the proposed entryway is equivalent to the existing fence height and would not unduly alter the appearance of the site from the street. The proposed variation is therefore considered to be acceptable in this instance.

 

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

 

The original plans submitted were notified to the neighbouring properties from 3 January to 31 January 2014, and five submissions were received. The amended plans were notified to the neighbouring properties from 24 March to 7 April 2014, and four submissions were received. The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

First Notification

 

The roof line i.e. the eves (especially as it adjoins our property [22 Wilona Avenue]) is too high. The eaves are just under 5 metres above the floor of our first level deck at the back of the house.

 

Comment

 

The roof and eaves level requirements relate to their height above ground level (existing) and do not relate to the floor or roof levels of the neighbouring dwelling houses.

 

Bulk and scale of the proposed extension in comparison to the neighbouring properties at 22 Wilona, 19 Greendale Street, appearance as a “large shed with a an (sic) expanse of glass”

 

Comment

 

The proposed addition is two storeys in scale and complies with the building height and floor space requirements of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Many of the dwelling houses within Wilona Avenue and Greendale Street are two storeys in scale and the proposed development is considered to be in keeping with this. Furthermore, the design of the proposal has been favourably considered by Council’s consultant heritage advisor.

 

The backyard of 22 Wilona will be in shadow for most of the day as indicated by the shadow drawings.

 

Comment

 

The site at 22 Wilona is oriented north-south with north to the street. The additional shadow cast by the proposed development on the rear yard of 22 Wilona Avenue is proportionally small, and the dwelling house at 22 Wilona would continue to receive the three hours of solar access to the northern elevation window openings in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

The only way the architect has been able to fit within the envelope (and therefore obtain that height at the eves) is by using a flat roof. When we applied for a DA to build our current house we submitted plans with a flat Colourbond roof but they were rejected by Council's heritage planner because they were not in keeping with the heritage house "Wliona" at number 18. This required that we have a pitched roof. While architecturally we are in favour of flat roofs, it is inconsistent if 20 Wilona obtains a benefit that we were not able to enjoy.

 

Comment

 

The development application for the construction of the dwelling house at 22 Wilona Avenue was assessed in 2006-7. Council’s Consultant heritage advisor has considered the proposed development on the subject site on its merits and considered the use of the modern roof form as an appropriate response to the heritage items on the site, creating a clear juxtaposition between the heritage item and the extension.

 

We propose that the height at the eves adjoining our property be set on the basis of pitched roof while allowing a flat roof. We also note that the floor to ceiling heights are 3m in the rooms and therefore there is plenty of room to compromise. We have not calculated how much the eaves need to drop by based on using a pitched roof but we suggest that the roof be lowered by at least 1m.

 

Comment

 

The amended plans submitted lower the ceiling heights by 300mm on both floors to 2.7m, resulting in a 600mm reduction in the overall height and side wall height of the proposed development. The proposal is for a flat roofed addition and must be assessed as such.

 

The rear of the building projects about 2.0 m past the deck or about 4.5 m past the end of the rear wall of 22 Wilona Avnue. This is inconsistent with the houses on the southern side of Wilona Ave which are all roughly in alignment (especially 22 and 24). This property will substantially extend beyond the other residential buildings. Propose that the rear of the building be moved back towards the street in alignment with the other properties.

 

Comment

 

The proposal complies with the rear setback requirements of Part C1.3.4 of the Lane Cove DCP.

 

Privacy impacts on the upstairs bedrooms and bathrooms and family room of 19 Greendale Street and cumulative impact on privacy given the developments at 22 and 24 Wilona Avenue.

 

Comment

 

The rear of the proposed first floor is set back from the rear boundary in accordance with the requirements of the DCP and the applicant has proposed external blinds in the amended plans to address the privacy concerns raised by the neighbouring properties. The external blinds proposed are not fixed and are controlled wholly by the occupants of the dwelling house. As such, Council has included a draft condition in the recommendation of this report requiring fixed screening to these windows to address these concerns.

 

Overshadowing impacts on the rear yard of 19 Greendale Street which will be in shadow from 9am.

 

Comment

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the shadows cast from the proposed development would leave the rear yard of 19 Greendale Street before 12pm. The reduction in height of the proposal as provided in the amended plans submitted reduce the length of the shadow to the rear yard of 19 Greendale street at 9am. The proposal does not prevent 3 hours solar access being available to a portion of the rear yard of 19 Greendale Street in 21 June and is considered to comply with the requirements of the DCP in this regard.

 

Noise levels must be a consideration, the development is an elevated open space on two levels, houses below will be affected by noise from within the house.

 

Comment

 

The proposed alterations and additions do not seek to construct large elevated decks in excess of the requirements of the Lane Cove DCP. It is not considered that the proposed use of the dwelling house would give rise to any undue noise impacts. Noise impacts arising from issues other than the normal use of a dwelling house should be directed to the local Police.

 

Request that Council demand privacy screening panels outside on the sides and lower half of the glass panels in order that some privacy may be obtain

 

Comment       

 

A draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring screening to the upper level southern elevation glazed areas to a height of 1.7m to address privacy concerns.

 

There are a number of concerns with this plan where the height of the swimming pool plan appears to be sitting at the level of the rear fence of the property below:-

•    Water leaking from the construction could impact the properties below; and

•    Noise and safety is a big problem around a swimming pool, the current design is too close to the rear boundary.

 

Comment

 

The level of the swimming pool is not at that of the rear fence, but at a level of approximately 450mm lower than the level of the 1.8m high rear boundary fence. The proposed pool complies with the setback requirements to adjoining boundaries and draft conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report regarding pool safety. The matter of water leaking from the construction site is a matter for the Certifier regarding the management of the construction site and any concerns arising during constriction works should be forwarded to the PCA for investigation as they arise.

 

The proposed design is out of character with the existing streetscape, the shear [sic] bulk of the proposed building design will have adverse visual impact.

 


Comment

 

Whilst the design differs from the pitched roof form dwelling houses prevalent in the locality the proposal is similar in bulk and scale and is considered to be an appropriate response to the heritage items on the site and would not result in any adverse visual impact.

 

Concern that glare and generated heat will be reflected from the large expanse of glass from the proposed building.

 

Comment

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the glazed finish would give rise to any undue heat or glare impacts on the neighbouring dwelling houses.

 

Second notification

 

Privacy (visual and acoustic) concerns regarding the level of the pool relative to our rear yard [15 Greendale Street] and the 1800mm high boundary fence, the nature and extent of the proposed 1800mm glass screen fence in plan around the southern edge and sides of the pool concourse, and the potential for these vagaries to affect the privacy afforded to 15 Greendale Street.

 

Comment

 

As noted above in response to the first notification, the level of the pool coping is RL66.90 and the level of the rear boundary is RL65.55, a difference of 1.35m, with the pool coping being 450mm lower than the level of the 1.8m high rear boundary fence. The Lane Cove DCP contains provisions regarding the level of the pool in relation to the ground level (existing), not the property boundaries and the relative levels of the neighbouring properties, and the proposal complies with these DCP requirements.

 

Request that conditions be imposed to lower the level of the pool, on the opacity and extent of the screen fence around the pool concourse and the level of acoustic amelioration of the fence type.

 

Comment

 

The proposal complies with the height and setback requirements of the Lane Cove DCP pertaining to swimming pools. As such, the imposition of conditions requiring the level of the pool to be lowered or requiring additional visual and acoustic screening is not warranted in this instance.

 

Loss of privacy to 18 Wilona Avenue arising from the proposed first floor level east elevation windows, doors, and deck. No changes have been made in the amended plans to mitigate the loss of privacy, and an additional door opening is proposed near the boundary common to 18/20 Wilona.

 

Comment

 

The removal of the previously proposed link between the bathroom and the media room has been included in the amended plans in order to remove an accretion and reveal a previous external opening for which there is photographic evidence of its presence on the eastern elevation at ground floor level. This amendment was recommended by Council’s Heritage Advisor and is considered to be acceptable on heritage grounds. Furthermore, the opening is at ground floor level, is set back 2.5m from the side boundary, and services a bathroom which is a low-use room that is generally interested in maintaining visual privacy. It is unlikely that the reinstated external opening would result in any undue privacy impacts on the neighbouring property at 18 Wilona Avenue and is considered to be acceptable.

 

Objection to a solid masonry/metal double garage on the front boundary−line and concerns that the heritage value of degraded fabric is being used to justify non-complying garage, thus undermining the integrity and value of heritage items recognising and recording heritage.

 

Comment

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed extension of the existing garage does not comply with the setback requirements of the DCP and that there are no other garages of this type within the locality. However, the extension proposed is considered minor in that is constitutes 1.2m extension taking the existing 5.2m wide garage to a serviceable double garage width of 6.5m (6m internal clearance). It is not reasonable to require an outbuilding that predates both the DCP controls and the 1950’s subdivision to be removed in order to achieve strict compliance with the DCP requirements.

 

The amended plans reduce the width of the resulting garage from 7m to 6.5m in response to concerns raised by Council and provide an internal clearance of 6.0m which is considered reasonable for a double garage to accommodate modern vehicles. It is not considered that the proposal would unduly impede views to or from the heritage item and is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Furthermore, the preservation of fabric through the extension of the building to accommodate a double garage is considered to accord with the Burra Charter principles in that it does as much as necessary to provide the additional parking sought by the owners and as little as possible to the extant fabric from the original stables, much of which was removed as part of the subdivision.  

 

Objection to the introduction of a light−weight glassed roof over the pedestrian link between the proposed masonry double garage and door northern door to the heritage building and concern that this element would detract from the original form of the gardeners cottage when viewed from the street and from “Wilona” with the potential to become unsightly from environmental fallout (leaves, droppings etc.)

 

Comment

 

The original proposal included an enclosed glass atrium linking the laundry to the dwelling house. Council’s Heritage Advisor did not consider this to be an appropriate element to introduce within the front setback between the listed buildings on the site, and the applicant amended this to the glass-roofed link in the amended plans in an attempt to address council’s concerns whilst continuing to provide a covered accessway from the laundry to the dwelling house. It is not designed to serve the main entry which is located on the opposite side of the proposed building in the new wing. Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the amendment to this proposed element and found it to be acceptable on heritage grounds. The maintenance of this structure is in the interest of the owners to maintain the presentation of the dwelling house and is not considered to warrant the imposition of conditions of consent.

 

The arborist report dated 20 November 2013 states that approval has already been granted for removal of an unnamed species of tree [it is a liquid amber]; and that it is proposed to remove two other trees a Stone Pine [front] and a White Cyprus Pine [north−western corner] in addition to the liquid amber near the single garage.) Preservation of the trees is strongly encouraged within the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

Comment

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no concerns regarding the proposal and the trees to be removed.

 

Preservation of the existing Drainage Easement through 20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich.

 

Comment

 

The applicant was unable to confirm the existence of the drainage easements and as such has amended the stormwater plan to discharge into the Council drainage pipe which runs through the pedestrian access pathway immediately adjacent to the site on the western boundary. Council’s Development Engineer reviewed the amended proposal and considered the proposed drainage arrangements to be satisfactory. Furthermore, a draft condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring that the approved plans be forwarded to Sydney Water for their approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Storm water run−off appears to have been a recurring concern for residents south of Wilona Avenue. The natural course for storm water is downhill towards Greendale Street.

 

Comment

 

A stormwater concept plan was submitted with the amended application and no concerns were raised by Council’s Development Engineer in this regard.

 

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. The proposal complies with the objectives of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, will not result in any adverse impacts for the locality and is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application DA13/207 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a swimming pool on lot 5 in DP 27279 and known as 20 Wilona Avenue, Greenwich, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with the following drawing numbers, except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Document

Prepared by

Number

Dated

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

DBCF Pty Ltd

103A

21.02.14

Proposed First  Floor Plan

DBCF Pty Ltd

104A

21.02.14

Proposed Roof Plan

DBCF Pty Ltd

105A

21.02.14

North Elevation

DBCF Pty Ltd

106B

21.02.14

South Elevation

DBCF Pty Ltd

107C

21.02.14

East Elevation

DBCF Pty Ltd

108B

21.02.14

West Elevation

DBCF Pty Ltd

109B

21.02.2014

Section A-A

DBCF Pty Ltd

110B

21.02.14

Section B-B

DBCF Pty Ltd

111A

01.11.13

 

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

 

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

 

4.         A minimum of 35% of the site, or not less than 249.8 m², shall be provided as soft landscaped area.

 

5.         The subfloor of the dwelling house shall not be used for habitable purposes.

 

6.         Privacy screening shall be provided to the upper level southern elevation glazed areas to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level to address privacy concerns. This screening may take the form of fixed obscure glazing or fixed external screening designed to limit overlooking to the private open space of the neighbouring dwelling houses.

 

7.         (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.

 

8.         (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.

 

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

 

10.       (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.

 

11.       (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.

 

12.       (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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992, and the Australian Standard AS1926 – 2007, “Swimming Pool Safety”.

 

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

 

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

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

 

15.       (53) The filter and pump being located in a position where it will create no noise nuisance at any time or, alternatively, being enclosed in an approved soundproof enclosure.  If noise generated as a result of the development results in an offensive noise, Council may prohibit the use of the unit under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

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

 

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

 

17.       (55) Fibrecrete Swimming Pool Shell being constructed in accordance with AS.2783-1985 "Concrete Swimming Pool Code, AS 3600-1988 - "Concrete Structure" and "AW1 Fibresteel Technical Manual, November 1981".

 

18.       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)         Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete;

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

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling; and

j)          Completion.

 

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

 

a)         footings;

b)         reinforced concrete work;

c)         structural steelwork; and

d)         upper level floor framing.

 

20.       (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.

 

21.       (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.

 

22.       Standard Condition (64) A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

 

a)         Dampcourse level;

b)         The establishment of the first floor level;

c)         The roof framing; and

d)         The completion of works.

 

Note:   All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

23.       (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.  Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.       (138) All overflow water and drainage including backwash from filter washing from the swimming pool must be directed to the sewer in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements.

 

28.       (140) If at the commencement of, or during the demolition stage of the development, it becomes apparent that all or any of the existing structures that were to be retained may require demolition, works are to cease immediately. The Principal Certifying Authority is to advise Council of the status of the works and the proposed method of rectification. It should be noted that any variations to the approved consent will require the lodgement of a new Development Application.

 

29.       (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.

 

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

 

HERITAGE CONDITIONS

 

31.     The new doors (D6, D11 & D12) to the Cottage shall be detailed to include a lock rail of approximately the same height as the bottom rail of the door, as is the case in traditional joinery.

 

32.     The 'Wilona' colours may be used as a palette from which colours for the traditional structures on the site to be retained may be chosen. Lighter tones may be used in preference. Please be advised that this condition is not intended to require that the use of colours be a copy of those on 'Wilona'.

 

General Engineering Conditions

33.     (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.

 

34.     (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. 

 

35.     (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.

 

36.     (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.

 

37.     (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.

 

38.     (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.

 

39.     (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’.

 

40.     (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.

 

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

 

42.     (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a minimum effective capacity of 10,000 Litres. Rainwater tanks are to be installed in accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards. The plumbing requirements are as follows:-

 

·         Rainwater draining to the reuse tanks are 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; and

·         Rainwater tank is to be connected to all new toilets, one cold water washing machine tap and one outside tap within the development.

 

Engineering Conditions to be Complied With Prior to Construction Certificate

 

43.     (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed generally in accordance with plan numbered 13.051-SMP-1 Rev C prepared by GNG Design dated 4-3-14. 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.

 

44.     (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.

 

45.     (E5) Construction adjacent to or parallel to a drainage Easement / pipeline:  The footings of the proposed structure adjacent to the Council drainage easement shall be taken below the zone of influence of the Council stormwater line. The location and depth of the footings in relation to the stormwater line, along with the design of the footings, are to be detailed on engineering plans. The engineering plans are to be completed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer and be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

On completion of the works and prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate the design engineer shall certify that structure has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and is within acceptable construction tolerances. The certification is to include a Work as Executed plan. The Work-as-Executed must show the location of all structures in the vicinity of the Council drainage easement, indicating that all footings are located below the zone of influence of the Council stormwater line.

 

46.     (W1) Pool Construction: The pool design shall ensure that either during construction or upon completion, surface water is not be directed or diverted so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

Council accepts no liability for any damage to the pool as a result of overland flows or high tide inundation. The property owner shall submit written acceptance of liability of any damages PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

47.     (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

 

48.     (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.

 

49.     (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.

 

Engineering Condition to be Complied With Prior to Commencement of Construction

 

50.     (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

 

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

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

 

TREE PRESERVATION CONDITIONS

 

52.     (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.

 

53.     (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.

 

54.     (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.

 

55.     (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.

 

56.     (new)  A copy of the Predevelopment Tree Assessment Report prepared by Cheryl Mackay dated 20th November 2013 shall be kept on Site at all times for the duration of the Development works. Any Tradesperson working within 5 m of trees to be retained shall be made aware of and work in accordance with tree protection specifications in the Arborist Report.

 

57.     (new) Trees numbered 1-2-3-4-5-7-8 and 9 shall be retained and protected for the duration of the development. Tree protection specifications for each tree outlined in Table 3 and Appendix 4; the ‘Tree Management Plan’ in the Arborist Report by Cheryl Mackay dated 20th November 2013 must be installed prior to commencement of all work.

 

58.     (307) The trunk of Tree 3 must be protected up to 2 m from the ground during the construction period by a trunk guard.  The trunk guard must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Section 4.5.2.

  

59.     (new) A waterproof sign must be placed on all tree protection zones 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.

 

60.     (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.

 

61.     (new)  The project arborist Cheryl Mackay must supervise all digging / excavation for footings within 5 metres radius of Tree 5.  The project arborist shall certify this work has not caused damage to Tree 5. This certification must be submitted to the Authorized Private Certifier prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

 

Bond on Street & Council Trees

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Analysis Plan and Landscaping

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plans

2 Pages