Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

5 April 2016, 5:00pm

 

LC_WebBanner

 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove  on Tuesday 5 April 2016 commencing at 5:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours 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 5 April 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      INDEPENDENT HEARING AND ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 1 MARCH 2016

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       402/27 Mars Road, Lane Cove West .................................................................. 6

 

3.       58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich........................................................... 28

 

4.       78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.................................................................... 42

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel   5 April 2016

402/27 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

 

 

Subject:          402/27 Mars Road, Lane Cove West     

Record No:    DA15/179-01 - 15947/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Andrew Thomas 

 

 

 

 

Property:

402/27 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

DA No:

D179/15

Date Lodged:

17.12.15 

Cost of Work:

$5,000

Owner:

Alanaya Lane Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Deepak Munsami

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Change of use to tattoo machine manufacturing, merchandising and tattooing (skin penetration).

Zone

IN2 Light Industrial

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Machine manufacturing and merchandising are, but tattooing (skin penetration) is not.

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 8

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

The s.82A application for review was notified as per the DA.

 

SITE

 

Property

Unit 402/ 27 Mars Road being Lot  33  SP 83285

Area

The subject site has an area of nearly 5,450m2 . The proposed use would have a floor space of 118.5m2  and 3 car parking spaces. Along the front of the upper floor is a common terrace accessible to four units including unit 402.

Site location

The subject site is located on the upper level/Level 4 of 27 Mars Road which is an industrial building on the north side of Mars Road between Banksia Close to the east and Chaplin Drive to the west.

Existing improvements

An industrial building of up to 5 levels known as Compass Business Park. 

Shape

The subject site is rectangular.

Adjoining properties

Industrial and/or warehouse premises adjoin the site on both sides, at the rear and on the opposite, south side of Mars Road. Adjoining the industrial building on the east side of the site are dwelling houses with either a frontage to Banksia Close or Avalon Avenue. 

 


 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

1. 289/07

 

In 2008 Council approved D289/07 for the construction of an industrial building with up to 5 levels on the site.

 

2. D179/15

 

Original DA proposal

 

On 11 November 2015 the applicant submitted a proposal for a change of use of existing unit from a office space to a tattoo studio under D179/15. The proposed use would:

 

·      have 3 car parking spaces located on the ground floor level            

·      operate: -    weekdays  9.00am to 5.00pm, and

       Saturdays 10.00am to 3.00pm  

·      have up to 4 staff

·      have deliveries carried out by a courier in a standard ute or a van every three weeks 

·      provide a tattoo service by appointment only.

 

By letter of 15 December 2015 Council refused this proposal for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development is a prohibited use in the zoning of the site.

 

2.    The proposed development would not meet the zoning objectives of IN2 – Light Industrial in accordance with Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

3.    The proposed use is a commercial use and is inconsistent with the definition of light industrial in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

S.82A Review

 

By contrast the proposal submitted by the same applicant requesting a s.82A Review of Council’s determination is described as a:

 

Change of use of office to a studio for tattoo machine manufacturing, merchandise manufacturing and skin penetration”.

 

A summary of the applicant’s response to Council’s reasons for refusal states:-

·     Two Council town planners confirmed that a Tattoo Parlour was permissible.

·     Due to this written confirmation I did not see the necessity of over complicating the DA process by stating the entire nature of our business. I was under the impression that since I'm lodging a DA for Skin Penetration, their was no need to discuss the light industry aspect of my business as this clearly falls within permissible use for the IN2 zoning.

·     I lodged the DA as a Tattoo Parlour, but did not mention that we are a light industrial business as well, since we manufacture and assemble small machinery (Custom Tattoo Machines) and clothing we believe that we fall into the category of Light Industrial.

·     The use can be separated into three parts: tattoos, manufacturing of tattoo machines and the sale of merchandise.

·     Currently the use operates from a licensed tattoo studio at 1/5 Victoria Rd, Parramatta and tattoo machines are assembled in Cherrybrook.

·     The premises are needed because of  “ ....the volume of tattoo machines orders and necessity of machine testing...  as well as skin penetration.....”.

·     The business operates by receiving a website request for a tattoo machine and consulting with the customer to determine their needs.

·     The majority of the working parts are sourced from local and international suppliers. Once we receive the parts we assemble the machine and tune it for individual use.

·     Before these machines can be sent to customers they need to be tested and tuned under real conditions to ensure they are of the utmost quality. In order for us to tune and test these machines we have to perform a tattoo with them to ensure they work. It is for this reason that we have lodged a skin penetration DA.

·     Currently all testing takes place in Parramatta, however we need a premises that will allow us to assemble and test machines to streamline our business. It is for this reason we believe our business is in fact a Light Industry.

·     Hats and T- shirts are screen printed and sold on line, at tattoo conventions and other tattoo parlours.

·     Since the clothing and tattoo machines we intend to produce are light industry products that are produced for end users rather than as intermediates for use by other industries we believe that the proposed development would meet the Zoning objectives of 1N2.

 

(i)   Floor plans

 

The DA floor plans resubmitted with the s.82A Review show two internal changes:

 

·      an additional hand wash basin required under health regulations; and

·      the removal of a carpet and its replacement by an impervious flooring.

 

The floor plans show a solid wall dividing the subject unit from the adjoining unit, unit 401, being Lot 32 in the same Strata plan, and in the same ownership. However this wall does not exist. The partial wall that divides both units would need to be filled in to ensure it is a properly fire rated wall.

 

CD27/16

 

Under Complying Development 27/16 (CD27/16) the owner’s certifier of both units issued a Complying Development Certificate (CDC) on 4 February 2016 for Internal alterations to existing tenancy (infill of walls). The CDC confirms that the Building Code of Australia classification is 5 and the cost of works is $10,000. However, the owners corporation did not provide its consent to these proposed works.   

 

(ii)  Parking

 

The same car parking spaces shown on the DA are shown on the s.82A plans: one car space would be for staff, and the other two spaces for clients.

 

(iii)  Original and revised description of the proposed use

 

In the DA the applicant’s SEE stated that the proposed use:

 

            “ … falls within the zoned commercial usage of the site.”

By contrast, in the s.82A Review, the applicant’s amended SEE states that the proposed use:

 

            “…falls within the zoning of IN2 - Light Industrial.”

 

This amended SEE also states that:

 

·      “… We require a skin penetration premises so we can test and tune our machines in real life scenarios.” 

 

·      “ Although tattooing is one arm of our business, the production of tattoo machines and merchandise are just as important and integral to our business. We believe that in 2 years, the production and light industry aspect of business will surpass the tattooing aspect.”

 

The Applicant’s amended Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) confirms that the existing premises are a vacant office and that the proposed use is for ”… the production of .. tattoo machines, production of merchandise and tattooing”.

 

The use would operate as The Tattoo Movement, and its proposed hours of operation, staff numbers, car parking spaces and deliveries are unchanged from the DA.

 

Items stored within the premises would include tattooing inks, needles and general cleaning supplies, hand tools, tattoo machine parts, paints and merchandise (T - shirts and hats).The SEE confirms that :

 

·      tattoo machines   “….are well within decibel permitted levels”

·      paints used for screen printing of T- shirts “.. are non hazardous and have no odour

·      screen printing and iron on painting are both silent processes

·      machines and merchandising produced on the premises would be posted out to customers. 

 

Access to the premises is via an internal stair, or lift. The unit itself has a kitchen area and an accessible bathroom. 

 

Approximately 2 x 25 litre bins of waste would be generated daily. Used tattoo needles and cartridges would be disposed of in sharps containers and collected by a medical waste contractor.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/COMPLIANCE : Lane Cove LEP 2009 and DCP 2009

 

LEP 

 

The proposed development does not raise any concerns in relation to the overall Height and Floor Space Ratio being development standards of the LEP because all proposed and required works would be internal.

 

DCP – Part R Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

With a net internal floor space of 118.5m2, the proposed use would require one car space per 77m2 of light industrial area which equals 1.54 i.e. 2 car spaces. As 3 car spaces are allocated for the proposed use at the ground floor level of the building its car parking requirement is satisfied. 

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Engineer reviewed the proposed development and did not raise any objections subject to draft conditions included in the recommendations.

 


 

Manager Environmental Health

 

In relation to the DA recommended draft conditions that addressed the proposed use of the unit as a tattoo studio and the waste generated by that use. As tattooing is not an industrial use only the waste - related draft condition is relevant and this is included under the sub - heading Environmental health in the Recommendation to this report.

 

Senior Building Surveyor

 

Did not comment on the DA. In relation to the s.82A Review states that:

 

·     Currently there is an alternate solution for the roof of the building to be constructed without FRLs (fire resistant level) and for the building’s central stairway not to be enclosed in a fire isolated shaft.

·     The proposed use would be classified under the Building Code of Australia as Class 6 (tattooing) and Class 8 (for tattoo machines and merchandising) -  if the predominate use is the production of tattoo machines and merchandising, the use would be Class 8.

·     The unit was approved (under D289/07 in 2008) as warehousing and office.

·     As the Construction Certificate (CC) issued in relation to that DA did not provide relevant details it is assumed that the walls and floor have the required fire rating for a warehouse (generally double that of an office) - the CC indicated bounding construction to have a FRL of 240/240/240 in line with a warehouse but the floors have no FRL.

·     On the DA plans a wall separated both units. Under the CC this wall indicated large openings between both units making one large unit. Recently a Complying Development Certificate (CDC) has been issued to infill this wall without regard to the required FRLs of 240/240/240. Consequently this CDC is not valid if the proposed use is approved because the FRLs are not confirmed for the wall approved under this CDC.

·     The proposed use requires a step ramp to access the premises from the adjoining common passageway and also to access the unit’s accessible toilet, kitchen area and common terrace.

·     Recommends draft conditions that:

-      address the FRLs of the floor and walls of the unit;

-      require an engineer’s certificate to confirm that the building is structural capable of supporting the proposed use;

-      require the unit to be accessible; and further,

-      requires approval for a common wall required to separate both units because of the FRL that is commensurate with the classification of the proposed unit.

 

These draft conditions are numbered 6 - 8 under Part B of the Recommendation to this report, whilst approval of the common wall is the subject of a deferred commencement consent under Part A.  

 

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

 

1.   Zone

 

The site is located within Zone IN2 Light Industrial. The objectives of this zone, and the uses that are permissible within it, follow (some words have been highlighted).

 

(i) Objectives

 

•    To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

 

•    To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

•    To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

 

•    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

 

•    To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

 

•    To ensure that landscaping is a significant element in development viewed from the public domain and neighbouring properties.

 

•    To recognise the close proximity of this zone to adjoining residential areas and seek to mitigate potential conflict between industrial and residential uses.

 

(ii) Permissible uses

All land uses that are permissible use in this zone require consent and these uses are:

Car parks; Child care centres; Community facilities; Depots; Food and drink premises; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Industrial training facilities; Light industries; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Respite day care centres; Roads; Self-storage units; Sex services premises; Signage; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres.

 

Development that is not listed as being permissible is prohibited.

 

2. DA Assessment

 

The assessment report for the DA stated that:

 

The proposed use does not match with any of the permitted uses in IN2 zone.  A Tattoo studio is commercial activity and is not a permissible use in IN2 – Light Industrial zone.  The proposal would not meet the zoning objectives of the site in accordance with the provisions Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

The assessment report addressed the following definitions under the LEP (some words have been highlighted):

 

Industrial activity means the manufacturing, production, assembling, altering, formulating, repairing, renovating, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, washing, dismantling, transforming, processing, recycling, adapting or servicing, of, or the research and development of, any goods, substances, food, products or articles for commercial purposes, and includes any storage or transportation associated with any such activity.

 

Industry means any of the following:

 

(a)   general industry,

(b)   heavy industry,

(c)   light industry,

 

but does not include:

 

(d)   rural industry, or

(e)   extractive industry, or

(f)    mining.

 

Light industry means a building or place used to carry out an industrial activity that does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, girt or oil, or otherwise, and includes any of the following:

 

(a)   high technology industry,

(b)   home industry.

 

High technology industry means a building or place predominantly used to carry out an industrial activity that involves any of the following:

(a)   electronic or micro-electronic systems, goods or components,

(b)   information technology (such as computer software or hardware),

(c)   instrumentation or instruments of a scientific, industrial, technological, medical or similar nature,

(d)   biological, pharmaceutical, medical or paramedical systems, goods or components,

(e)   film, television or multi-media technologies, including any post production systems, goods or components,

(f)    telecommunications systems, goods or components,

(g)   sustainable energy technologies,

(h)   any other goods, systems or components intended for use in a science or technology related field,

 

but does not include a building or place used to carry out an industrial activity that presents a hazard or potential hazard to the neighbourhood or that, because of the scale and nature of the processes involved, interferes with the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

Note. High technology industries are a type of light industry—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

 

The assessment report stated that the  …….. proposed tattoo studio does not meet the definition of light industry. It is therefore considered as an impermissible development within the zone of the land.

 

3. Section 82A Review

 

The assessment of the DA confirmed that:

 

·   the proposed use was not permissible in the IN2 Light Industrial zone because it was a commercial activity and not a light industrial use, and

·   it did not meet the objectives of the zone.

 

By contrast the use proposed under the s.82A Review has changed from that described in the DA and now involves the assembly/manufacture of instrumentation/equipment for tattooists and associated merchandising. Since both assembly/manufacture and merchandising are light industrial activities the proposed use as described in the applicant’s s.82A Review would be permissible in the zone.

 

However, the proposed use would involve the testing of its tattoo machines on customers. Although an objective of this zone is the provision of facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area, having a tattoo is not a day to day need and customers required to attend the premises would not be workers in the area. The testing of equipment in this way is a service - related activity and is prohibited in the same way that manufacturers of medical equipment would not be permitted to carry out testing of this equipment on clients in the premises where it was produced.

 

The proposal’s light industrial use could be approved without the tattoo service, although it is acknowledged that the enforcement of this restriction could be difficult. Whilst approval of the proposed use is recommended under Part B of the Recommendation to this report, draft condition 2 does not approve tattooing.

 

Variations to Council’s DCP (section 79c(1)(a))

 

None - the proposed use satisfies the car parking requirement of the DCP.

 

IMPACTS (section 79c(1)(b))      

 

The only potential impact of the proposed use would be on the occupiers of the other industrial units within the building.

 

The application confirms that the assembly of tattoo machines only requires hand tools e.g. screwdrivers and pliers, that would not produce excessive noise or odours; this suggests the proposed use would be low - key. In addition, the applicant confirms that the paints used for screen printing of t-shirts are non hazardous and have no odour and that the process of screen printing and iron on printing are silent.

 

Consequently the proposed use should not create or have an adverse impact upon these occupiers. For these same reasons the proposed use should not have any adverse impact on any other industrial use within the building, or any other industrial or residential premises in the area.

 

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE (section 79c(1)(c))

 

As some of the proposed use would be a light industrial activity, the existing industrial building on the site would be suitable subject to the following internal alterations to the existing industrial unit:

 

·   a fire - rated wall  that separates the applicant’s unit from the adjoining unit; and,

·   a hand wash basin within the unit itself.

 

The managing agents of the subject building submitted concerns to the DA proposal, and have repeated those concerns in its response to the s.82A Review. One concern was that the proposed change of use requires the consent of the owners corporation. Although the proposed change of use itself does not require the consent of the owners corporation, the required fire - rated wall does because it involves works to the common property of the building. However, this work is not shown on the submitted plans, indeed the floor plans show this as a complete wall.

 

The requirement for a fire - rated dividing wall, and consent of the owners corporation for this work, is recommended to be subject to a deferred commencement consent. However, in its submissions to the proposal, the managing agents for the owners corporation’s have confirmed that this would not be provided. Without the consent of the owners corporation for this work the use could not proceed. 

 

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

 

The s.82A Review was notified to those same properties as were notified of the DA. The managing agents for the owners corporation has made submissions to Council’s notification of the s.82A Review, repeating concerns raised in relation to the DA. In addition, two other submissions have been received. The concerns that have been received are addressed under separate sub - headings below.

 


 

DA

 

One submission, from the managing agents of the owners corporation, was received to Council’s notification of the DA. The concerns raised - which are addressed under the bullet points that follow - were summarised and addressed in the officer’s assessment report of the DA as shown in italics below:

 

·   Impact on Owners Corporation Insurance

 

Comment

 

This is not a planning issue and the raised issue is a private matter between the applicant and the owner of the strata plan.

 

·   Consent not provided

 

Comment

 

The proposed use would be carried out within a private property.  The consent of the owner corporation is not required for the submission of the development application.

 

·   Not in keeping with the existing business

 

Comment

 

The proposed use is not a permissible within the light industrial zone and would not be in keeping with the light industrial uses in the building. 

 

·   Tattoo studios/parlors are retail in nature.

 

Comment

 

The applicant has clarified that all services would be provided by appointments only.  Each staff would only service one customer per day.  However, the statement of environmental effects submitted with the development application stated that the site to be useful for the proposed use as it falls within the zoned commercial usage of the site.  Commercial uses are not permissible within IN2 – Light Industrial zone. 

 

·   There is no visitor parking on the site for customer of the proposed use. 

 

Comment

 

Three car parking spaces are allocated for the premises.  It is considered that the two allocated car spaces would be sufficient for visitor parking of the proposed use of an industrial nature being deliveries and dispatch.

 

·   Hours of operation on Saturday

 

Comment

 

The proposed hours of operation are consistent with the surrounding uses in the business park.  The proposed hours of operation, which are as follows, are considered acceptable.

·   9.00 am and 5.00pm weekdays, and

·   10.00am and 3.00 pm on Saturdays.

No work is allowed on Sundays or public holidays.

 

·   Policy (Police) power to enter site

 

Comment

 

The operation of the tattoo studio would require the compliance with the provisions of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012.  Policy (Police) power to enter the site is permitted by the Act. However, a Tattoo Parlour is not a permitted use within the zone.

 

·   Damage to reputation & potential loss of value of other premises within the complex

 

Comment

 

The proposed use is not permissible within the zone and the proposal is not supported.

 

Conclusion:

 

The submission was taken into considered during the assessment.  Part of the raised concerns are private matters. Some concerns raised valid objections to the application and they are supported.  

 

S.82A Review

 

Other than comments relating to proposed works - as opposed to a change of use - generally the previous comments of Council’s town planner in relation to the assessment of the DA still apply to all of the concerns raised in response to notification of the s.82A Review. Some of those same concerns are summarised in italics and discussed below. 

 

1. Consent not provided

 

The owners corporation did not consent to the lodgement of the DA as the owners of the land, and therefore the application is invalid.

 

Comment

 

An application for a change of use does not require the consent of the owners corporation. The owner of the unit can change the occupant if this would not affect the common property of the building. However, if a change of use also requires works to the common property of the building, i.e. its walls, floors and ceilings, the consent of the owners corporation is required.

 

The proposed use requires the wall that separates the subject unit from the adjoining unit to be properly fire - rated. As this would involve works to the common property of the building the consent of the owners corporation is required even though both units are in the same ownership.

 

This requirement is addressed as a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report. Even though the managing agents of the owners corporation have stated that this consent would not be granted, this is not a Council matter. 

 


 

2. Not in keeping with the existing business

 

Comment

 

The revised information in support of the proposed use confirms that some aspects would be permissible under the definition of light industry. The impact the proposed use may have on the image of the building’s occupants is not a Council matter.

 

3. There is no visitor parking on the site for customers 

 

Comment

 

The applicant responded to this criticism in the DA by stating that sufficient car parking was provided for the proposed use, and customers would be greeted at the entrance to the building’s secure car park and taken to the premises and then escorted back to the car parking spaces.

 

As this report recommends that tattooing not to be allowed on the premises, this concern should not be an issue.

 

4. Damage to reputation and potential loss of value of other premises within the complex

 

Comment

 

This opinion is a market assessment and not a relevant issue for Council.

 

Additional concerns

 

Although three submissions were received in response to Council’s notification of the s.82A Review, these were almost identical in content. Additional concerns that were raised compared to the concerns of the owners corporation to the DA are summarized in italics and discussed below.

 

1. Non - compliance

 

Despite changes, the principal purpose of the business remains that of a tattoo parlour, contrary to the definition of light industrial.

 

Comment

 

This aspect of the proposed use has been discussed earlier in this report under the sub - heading Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79C(1)(a)).

 

2. Illusion

 

The amended application is substantially the same as the previously refused application; the inclusion of tattoo machine assembly and screen printing of merchandise is a blatant/poor attempt to create the illusion of light manufacturing business yet the principal purpose will be to operate a tattoo parlour.

 

Comment

 

In support of the s.82A Review, the applicant states that: 

 

·   Due to Council’s written confirmation that the proposed tattoo parlour was permissible …I did not see the necessity of over complicating the DA process by stating the entire nature of our business. I was under the impression that since I’m lodging a DA for Skin Penetration, there was no need to discuss the light industry aspect of my business as this clearly falls within permissible use for the IN2 zoning

·   ….did not mention the production aspect of our business as we felt that the DA was more geared to Skin penetration, so we did not want to complicate the DA; and

·   the business itself (i.e. The Tattoo Movement) is one of the leading makers of tattoo machines in Australia and export machines internationally.

 

Further to the above, in the applicant’s amended version of the Statement of Environmental Effects it was stated that: We believe that in 2 years, the production and light industry aspect of business will surpass the tattooing aspect.

 

Comment 

 

This aspect of the proposed use has been discussed earlier in this report under the sub - heading Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79C(1)(a)).

 

THE PUBLIC INTEREST (section 79c(1)(e))

 

The proposed use reflects a social trend, particularly amongst younger age groups, to be tattooed and it makes economic sense to address this demand. The light industrial and merchandising operations of the proposed use would appear to be low - key, and this is reflected both in staff levels and operating hours, and the proposed use satisfies Council’s car parking requirement.

 

Some of the proposed use is permissible under the site’s light industrial zoning. By contrast, the tattooing of customers is a service and retail of goods is prohibited.

 

Council’s Manager Environmental Health has recommended a condition to address waste disposal. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor requires the wall that divides the subject unit from the adjoining unit to be properly fire - rated and has recommended conditions to address this matter.

 

Subject to conditions that would limit the proposed use to functions that are permissible on the site, that address waste disposal and construction of a fire - rated internal dividing wall, approval of the proposal would not be contrary to the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Despite the concerns raised in the submissions to the proposed use, its assembly and merchandising operations are permissible activities within the industrial building on the site that is in the light industrial zone under the LEP 2009. In addition, the proposed use complies with the car parking requirements under Council’s DCP 2009.

 

However that aspect of the proposed use that requires customers to be tattooed on the premises is a service and this activity is not permissible in a light industrial zone.

 

The industrial unit that is the subject of the proposed use was once part of a larger unit that now requires a fire - rated wall to separate it from the adjoining unit. As this will involve work to the building’s common property the consent of the owners corporation is required. However, the managing agents for the owners corporation have stated that this consent would not be given. This aspect will need to be resolved between the intended tenant, the owner of both industrial units and the owners corporation; it is not a matter for Council. To ensure this occurs the Recommendation of this report is in two parts:

 

·      Part A recommends a deferred commencement consent subject to the submission of plans confirming the fire - rating of the required internal wall between both industrial units; that this work has the consent of the owners corporation and that an Occupation certificate is issued once this work is completed; and

·      Part B recommends conditions of development consent to restrict the activities of the proposed use, to address other building - related matters and others of a general nature.

 

Matters in relation to s.79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

 

On balance as the manufacturing and merchandising aspects of the proposed use should be reasonable both are recommended for approval subject to those matters highlighted under Part A and Part B above. Retail of goods would be prohibited.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Part A

 

That pursuant to section 80 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 179/15 for a change of use to tattoo machine manufacturing, merchandising and tattooing (skin penetration) on Lot 33 SP 83285 and known as 402/27 Mars Road, Lane Cove West subject to the submission of the following:

1.    The submission of plans of the common wall that separates units 401 and 402 having             regard to the Fire Resistance Level commensurate with the classification of the sole             occupancy of unit 402 i.e. being Class 8 under the Building Code of Australia.

2.    The works required under point 1 above require the consent of the owners corporation of             Strata plan 83285.

3.    The submission of an Occupation Certificate of the works required under point 1above.

 

Plans and documents that address points 1 - 3 under Part A above are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until Council has confirmed in writing that the matters required under points 1 - 3 above have been provided and are satisfactory.

 

Part B

 

Subject to all matters under Part A above being satisfied, a development consent and plans be issued, subject to the following conditions:

 

Plans                                     

 

1.  (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with undated sheets 1 - 3,

except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Specific                                          

 

2.    Tattooing of any kind on any person is prohibited on site.

 

3.    Retail sales to the public are prohibited on site.

 

4.    The hours of operation being limited to between:

 

·      9.00 am and 5.00pm weekdays, and

·      10.00am and 3.00 pm on Saturdays.

·      No work is allowed on Sundays or public holidays.

 

5.    Two car spaces are to be allocated to the use at all times.

 

6.    A certificate from a professional engineer certifying that the Fire Resistance Levels of the floor and walls bounding the sole occupancy unit comply with its classification under the Building Code of Australia is to be provided to the certifying authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

7.    A certificate from a professional engineer certifying the structural capacity of the building is appropriate for the use is to be provided to the certifying authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

8.    The sole occupancy unit and the adjoining common terrace are to be accessible in accordance with AS 1428.1 - 2009.

 

General    

 

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

 

10.  (37) The use 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.

 

11.  (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.

 

Environmental Health

 

12.     (433) Garbage collection – Industrial

 

       Liquid and solid wastes generated by the use shall be collected, transported and disposed of in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.  Records shall be kept of all waste disposal from the premises.

 

       Waste and recycling material, generated by the premises, must not be collected between the hours of 10pm and 6am on any day.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division


 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Amended Floor Plans

4 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Amended Floor Plans

 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plan

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 5 April 2016

58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA15/143-01 - 17683/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                       58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich

 

DA No:                          DA 143/2015

 

Date Lodged:                18 September 2015

 

Cost of Work:               $20,000.00

 

Owner:                          N E Cyton-Brown

 

Applicant:                      D Cyton-Brown

C/- V Albin

 

                                                                                                                      

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Subdivision of two existing lots to 3 lots and drainage works

ZONE

R2 - Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class: Nil

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes – 113 days

NOTIFICATION

Refer to the notification plan in the file

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves subdivision of two existing lots of land into 3 lots and drainage works. 

 

Each proposed lot would meet the minimum lot size provision of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP). However the third battle axe lot would not meet the minimum lot size if the area of the access handle is not included in the area of the lot.

 

One of the proposed lots does not meet the minimum width requirement of 15.0m

 

The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the subdivision pattern, particularly with blocks fronting Kingslangley Road.

 

The proposed development would create a new lot that would permit a dwelling house (proposed lot) on the newly created lot that would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south particularly with regard to overshadowing and privacy and would not be in accordance with the objective of the LEP.

 

The application is recommended for refusal and referred to IHAP for consideration and determination.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located at the southern side of Kingslangley Road in Greenwich between Lansdowne Street to the east and Hinkler Street to the west. 

 

The improvements on the site include a single storey dwelling house located on 58 Kingslangley Street.  60 Kingslangley Road is vacant. 

 

Surrounding development comprises dwelling houses in R2 – Low Density Residential zone. 

 

All properties along Kingslangley Road are regular rectangular in shape. There exists no battle-axe property accessed from Kingslangley Road in a manner in which the subdivision has been proposed. 

 

Towards the south of the row of blocks facing Kingslangley Road, are battle axe properties which have access either from Kingslangley or Hinkler Street.  Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves subdivision of land at 58 and 60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich into 3 lots under Torrens Tile subdivision.  Two of the proposed lots would have a frontage to Kingslangley Road and the third be accessed by a battle-axe handle from Kingslangley Road.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There is no previous development application relating to the subject site found in Council’s records.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Site Area (1677.6m2)

 

(1017m2 being 58 Kingslangley Road and 660.6m2 being 60 Kingslangley Road)

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 – Low Density Residential

 

Provision

Proposed Lot 1 (No.58)

Proposed Lot 2

(No.60)

Proposed Lot 3

(New lot)

Minimum lot size 550m2

550.96m2

552.38m2

574.78m2 inclusive of a battle axe handle (3.255m wide X 30m = 97.65sqm)

Area of lot excluding  the battle-axe handle 477.13sqm

Complies

Yes

Yes

Yes – including the battle-axe handle

No – excluding the battle-axe handle

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

 

Proposed Lot 1

(No. 58)

Proposed Lot 2

(No. 60)

Proposes Lot 3

(New Lot)

Frontage (15m min)

13.05m (As existing)

16.86m

3.255m

Complies

No.

Yes

Yes.  More than 3.0m width access handle provided

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The development engineer has reviewed the proposed development and advised that the application cannot be supported for the following non compliances with Part O Council’s DCP.

 

1.   The application has failed to demonstrate and negotiate that a suitable easement can be obtained. The owners of 64 have provided a submission from their lawyer informing Council that ‘no easement [has been] agreed or granted’.

 

2.   The application has failed to demonstrate the newly created lots can achieve the full floor space ratio potential of each newly created lot.

 

Planning comment:

Clause 12.3.1 (Creation of Private Drainage Easements) of Part O of Council’s DCP states:

 

Where a drainage easement must be created to facilitate a development, it is the responsibility of the applicant to negotiate with affected property owners to secure an easement.

 

While it is understood that negotiations are undergoing, the application cannot be approved until the applicant has demonstrated that a suitable easement has been obtained.

 

Clause 10.8 (Subdivisions on lots affected by Overland Flow) of Part O of Council’s DCP states:

 

Proposed land subdivisions of lots affected by overland flow will not be approved unless the applicant

can demonstrate to Council that it is possible to provide a development on the newly created lot that realises the full Floor Space Ratio (FSR) potential of the lot and provides suitable private open space while meeting the overland flow management criteria outlined in this document.

 

The applicant has not demonstrated how the newly created lot would achieve the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

The Senior Tree Assessment Officer has advised that there are a number of mature trees within both sites.  Trees are not designated for removal at this stage but proposed drainage works towards the rear of the property would be in close proximity to existing trees.

 

No objection to this application has been raised from an arboricultural perspective.  Conditions of Consent for tree protection during drainage work would be imposed in the event the application is recommended for approval.        


 

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

 

The site is within R2 – Low Density Residential zone under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP 2009).  The proposed development is permissible with consent. 

 

Clause 1.2 (2) (b)  of the LEP indicates the Aims of the Plan which are as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed development would create a new lot. The applicant has not indicated impacts of likely overshadowing and privacy on the existing dwelling towards the south (56A Kingslangley Road) as a result of a dwelling house on the newly created lot.

 

The newly created lot is higher than the existing ground level of the dwelling house towards the south. It is considered that a dwelling house on the newly created lot would likely have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south particularly with regard to overshadowing and privacy which would not be in accordance with the objective of the LEP.  

 

Clause 1.2 (2) (c) (i) & (ii) of the LEP indicates the Aims of the Plan which are as follows:

 

(ii)        is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and

(iii)       has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

All properties along Kingslangley Road are regular rectangular in shape. There exists no battle-axe property accessed from Kingslangley Road in the manner in which the subdivision has been proposed. A dwelling house proposed on the newly created lot would be towards the rear which would be out of the prevailing character of properties along Kingslangley Road. It is considered that the proposed subdivision would not be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and would not be sympathetic and harmonious with the adjoining development, given the proposed lot shape and proximity to the adjoining lot to the south.

 

Clause 4.1 (1) (a) (Minimum subdivision lot size) of the LEP indicates the objective of the clause as follows:

 

(a) to promote consistent subdivision and development patterns in zones.

 

The proposed development would create an additional battleaxe lot towards the rear of the row of lots which would not be consistent with the existing subdivision pattern, in particular the lots with frontage to Kingslangley Road.  In view of the above the proposed development would not meet the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

 

Clause 4.1 (3) (Minimum subdivision lot size) of the LEP provides the minimum lot size to shown on lot size map which is 550m2

 

The area of the proposed third lot is 574.78m2 inclusive of a battle axe handle which is 3.255m wide X 30m = 97.65sqm.

However the area of lot excluding the battle-axe handle is 477.13sqm which is less than the minimum lot size specified by the LEP. It is considered appropriate that the access handle not be included in the minimum lot area and FSR calculations with the objective that a proposed dwelling house on the battle axe lot be in proportion to the developable area of the lot. 

 

It is considered that the proposed development would not meet the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

C.4 Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses

 

The objective for residential subdivision is to:

 

1   Protect amenity while permitting the subdivision of lots in environmentally sensitive areas or where significant impacts on neighbours are likely and careful design is required to minimize those impacts.

 

2   Allow residential Torrens Title subdivision which retains, and where appropriate, improves existing amenity and streetscape within residential zones

 

Comment

 

The proposed battle-axe lot is towards the rear of 58 and 60 Kingslangley Road. The building footprint indicated is close to the southern boundary and in close proximity to a swimming pool and living areas of the dwelling house at 56A Kingslangley Road. The application has not demonstrated the likely impacts upon the properties towards the south particularly can be overcome with regards to overshadowing and privacy. It is considered that the proposed development would adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings towards the south. The proposed development would not sufficiently retain or improve the existing amenity of the dwelling house towards the south. The proposed development would not meet the objectives of Residential subdivision.

 

The provisions of Part C4 Residential Subdivision are as follows:

 

a)    Where a development application is proposed for residential subdivision of an existing lot into two or more lots, creates a battle-axe lot, is on environmentally sensitive land or where significant impacts on neighbours are likely and careful design is required to minimize those impacts, Council may impose conditions providing constraints on future buildings that include, but are not limited to, a prescription of maximum building heights, a requirement for the building to be contained within a particular building envelope or building location, or the prescription of a particular design for future development on the land, such constraints may include the placement of an appropriate covenant at the applicant’s cost.

 

Comment

 

The proposed battle axe lot would have a common boundary with the existing dwelling house towards the south. It is considered that a dwelling house proposed on the battle axe lot would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south. The likely impacts of a dwelling house proposed on the proposed battle axe lot have not been demonstrated particularly with regards to overshadowing and loss of privacy.  It is after the assessment of the impacts of a dwelling house on the proposed battle axe lot, would it be possible to impose conditions restricting the bulk and scale of the building in order to mitigate amenity impacts upon the adjoining property. 

 

b)    Applications for approval to construct a new dwelling on an existing battleaxe lot …..

 

Comment

 

Not applicable given that the proposed development is not on an existing battle axe block.

 

c)    Minimum frontage (allotment width at street) – The minimum frontage permissible is 15 metres (after subdivision). That is, for a regular allotment where a subdivision creates a battleaxe allotment, the minimum frontage is 18m (15m frontage for the front lot plus 3m access handle width).  For irregularly shaped……

 

Comment

 

The proposed development relates to regular allotments and does create a battle axe allotment. The proposed development creates a lot with a frontage of 13.05m which is less than the minimum 15m frontage required under this clause. The proposed development does not meet the prescriptive requirements under this clause.

 

d)    Driveways for battle axe allotments should be designed to ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the lot/s in a forward direction. The minimum width of a battle axe carriageway is to be 3m. Where …

 

Comment

 

The proposed development would allow for vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction. The width of the battle axe carriage way would be more than 3.0m.

 

e)    Each battle axe lot must have direct access to a dedicated public road through the provision of an access handle attached to that lot, or via an access corridor shared by such lots.

 

Comment

 

The proposed development satisfies this requirement.

 

f)     Applications for a battleaxe subdivision (one new lot) must be accompanied by a site plan and/or Statement of Environmental Effects, plus pre-DA report, that demonstrate that the following matters have been covered in the design:-

 

vi)   the orientation of any building footprint shall give reasonable access to sunlight to the potential dwelling and recreational areas of the subject site and adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21st June. See part C section 1.8 for further provisions.

 

Comment

 

The application does not demonstrate that the proposed development, in particular the construction of a two storey dwelling house on the battle axe lot, would provide adequate solar access to the existing dwelling house towards the south.

 

Section 94 Contribution Plan

 

The proposed development would create an additional lot for the construction of the dwelling house and would increase the population living on the land.  The NSW Government in 2010 made a number of amendments to the framework for Section 94 contributions plans and imposed a cap on the amount that councils can levy developers. The cap is $20,000 per additional lot within established areas.

 

Therefore, the required amount of S94 Contribution of this development is $20,000.

 

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

 

The proceeding table indicates the provisions which the proposed development does not comply with and are indicated below:

 

Minimum Lot Size:

 

The minimum lot size is 550sqm. It is acknowledged that the area of the proposed new lot is 574.78m2 inclusive of a battle axe handle (3.255m wide X 30m = 97.65sqm) which meets the minimum lot size requirement. However the area of lot excluding the battle-axe handle is 477.13sqm which is less than the minimum lot size specified by the LEP.

 

It is appropriate that the access handle not be included in the minimum lot area and FSR calculations with the objective that a proposed dwelling house on the battle axe lot is in proportion to the developable area of the lot. 

 

Minimum Lot Frontage:

 

The minimum lot frontage proposed for one lot is 13.05m which is less than the minimum lot frontage of 15.0m. The common boundary between existing lots should be adjusted to better meet the minimum frontage requirements. 

 

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

 

The development proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  Three submissions from the residents of 56, 56A and 64 Kingslangley Road were received in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

·    The owner of 64 Kingslangley Road do not consent for the easement over their property.

 

Comment

 

In the event consent is granted, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that a drainage easement has been obtained.

 

·    The subject site includes a substantial filled area.  The possible presence of contaminated fill on site must be assessed.

 

Comment

 

This concern is able to be addressed by a condition of consent requiring a preliminary contamination report (desk top review) to be submitted in accordance with Council’s requirements pursuant to the provisions of SEPP 55.

 

·    The proposed development would create a dwelling house to be built on an irregular allotment.

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that the proposed development would allow for a dwelling house to be constructed on an irregular lot. The applicant has not demonstrated whether a dwelling house could be constructed on this newly created lot and retain existing amenity of the proposed lot to the south.  

 

·    There is no off street parking for the existing dwelling house shown on the plan and the proposal is contrary to the DCP.


 

Comment

 

The proposed lot with a dwelling house on 58 Kingslangley Road would have a 16.86m frontage to Kingslangley Road.  There would be opportunity within the front setback area to accommodate two off street parking spaces.  Compliance with the DCP provision can be achieved by a condition of consent.

 

·    The existing lot at No. 60 Kingslangley Road has extensive tree cover and in particular 7 Turpentine trees. 

 

Comment

 

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has indicated that there are some Turpentine trees listed in Council’s Significant Tree Map located on the site towards the front and rear of the lot towards the west.   There are no trees which would need to be removed on the proposed battle axe lot.  It would be possible to accommodate a dwelling house on the existing lot at 60 Kingslangley Road with majority of the significant Turpentine trees being retained.  The applicant would need to be advised that care needs to be taken during the design of the house on this lot, the significant trees would need to be protected.

 

·    The covenant 586950 on the two existing lots states that the owners ‘shall not erect on any of the said lots more than one building’.

 

Comment

 

Clause 1.9A of the LEP indicates that covenants or other similar instruments that restricts carrying out of development do not apply.  The proposed development would create an additional lot which would need to be registered with the Property and Information Department. This would enable construction of a dwelling house on the created lot.

 

·    The proposed new battle axe lot would create adverse impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Comment

 

The proposed development has not demonstrated the likely impacts upon the properties towards the south particularly with regards to overshadowing and privacy.

 

·    The Planning Principles suggest that a subdivision application should provide for constraints on future buildings when the proposed allotment is smaller than usual.

 

Comment: While the proposed battle axe lot meets the minimum lot size requirement, it includes the area of the access handle. The effective buildable area would be less than that of a regular allotment without a battle axe handle. It is agreed that the block would be constrained and the impacts of a dwelling house on the battle axe property needs to be taken into consideration at the subdivision stage.

 

All comments have been taken into consideration during the development assessment. 

 


 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed subdivision would meet a number of the numerical requirements of minimum lot size. However, proposed development would not meet the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

 

The proposed development has not demonstrated the likely impacts upon the properties towards the south particularly with regards to overshadowing and privacy. The creation of a battle axe lot amongst the existing lots fronting Kingslangley Road would create a disruptive precedent that would significantly impact their streetscape and amenity of this existing low density residential zone.  It is also considered that a dwelling house on the newly created lot would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south with regards to overshadowing and privacy which would not be in accordance with the objective of the LEP and on balance the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Council refuse development consent to Development Application 143/15 for Re-subdivision of two existing lots to 3 lots and drainage works on 58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich for the following reasons:

 

1.   All properties along Kingslangley Road are regular rectangular in shape. There exists no battle-axe property accessed from Kingslangley Road in a manner in which the subdivision has been proposed.  The proposed development would create an additional battleaxe lot towards the rear of the row of existing lots which would not be consistent with the existing subdivision pattern in particular the lots with frontage to Kingslangley Road. 

 

2.   It has not been demonstrated that a suitable drainage easement can be obtained.

 

3.   It has not been demonstrated how on the newly created battleaxe lot the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio can be achieved.

 

4.   Clause 1.2 (2) (b)  of the LEP indicates the Aims of the Plan which are as follows:

 

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

 

            The proposed development would create a new lot that requires careful design and consideration of adjoining land uses. It is considered that that a dwelling house on the newly created lot would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south with regards to overshadowing and privacy which would not be in accordance with the objective of the LEP.  

 

5.   Clause 1.2 (2) (c) (i) & (ii) of the LEP indicates the Aims of the Plan which are as follows:

 

            (ii)        is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and

            (iii)       has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

            There exists no battle-axe property accessed from Kingslangley Road in a manner in which the subdivision has been proposed. A dwelling house proposed on the newly created lot would be towards the rear which would be out of the prevailing character of the properties along of the properties along Kingslangley Road. It is considered that the proposed subdivision would not be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and would not be sympathetic and harmonious to the adjoining development.

 

6.   Clause 4.1 (1) (a) (Minimum subdivision lot size) of the LEP indicates the objective of the clause as follows:

 

            (a) to promote consistent subdivision and development patterns in zones.

 

            The proposed development would create a battleaxe lot toward the rear of the row of existing lots which would not be consistent with the existing subdivision pattern in particular the lots with frontage to Kingslangley Road.  In view of the above the proposed development would not meet the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

 

7.   Clause 4.1 (3) (Minimum subdivision lot size) of the LEP provides the minimum lot size to shown on lot size map which is 550m2

 

            The area of lot excluding the battle-axe handle is 477.13sqm which is less than the minimum lot size specified by the LEP. It is appropriate that the access handle not be included in the minimum lot area and FSR calculations with the objective that a proposed dwelling house on the battle axe lot is in proportion to the developable area of the lot.

 

8.  The proposed development would create a precedent for similar subdivisions and would not be in public interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Site Location Plan

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Neighbour Notification Plan

 



 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel   5 April 2016

78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.

 

 

Subject:          78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.    

Record No:    DA15/180-01 - 7952/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Peter Walker 

 

 

 

Property:

78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.

DA No:

DA 180/2015

Date Lodged:

11 November 2015

Cost of Work:

$550,000

Owner:

R. Frohlich

Applicant:        

Robert Frohlich

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Alterations & additions to the rear of the dwelling house including a new garage, pool, spa, terraces & decks. (Amended proposal)

Zone

R2 – (Low Density Residential)

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 1a,10a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

Yes                                        (16 Feb 2016 -16 March 2016)

Notification

Neighbours                             74, 76, 80 & 82 Kenneth Street, 77, 79, 81, 83 & 85 Arabella Street.

Ward Councillors                   Central ward

Progress Association             Longueville Residents Association

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application is referred to Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel given the complexity and number of non compliances of the application.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·   The subject site is a rectangular shaped lot with an area of 713.9m2.

·   The initial proposal was assessed and a number of deficiencies and non compliances were indentified including an 89m² garage which resulted in a significant breach of the Lane Cove LEP’s floor space ratio development standard.

·   The applicant was advised on 16 February 2016 to withdraw the application. A meeting was held in Council’s offices on 23 February 2016 were the non compliances were discussed. 

·   Amended plans were submitted on 16 March 2016. The amended proposal includes alterations and additions to an existing two storey dwelling house with a ground floor extension to the rear boundary comprising extensive subfloor areas, a passageway and double garage. An elevated swimming pool is proposed above the garage with decking.

·   No submissions were received to the initial proposal. As the amended proposal sought a reduction in the development including the garage, wall heights and other measures to reduce the impact of the proposal the amended plans were not renotified.

·   The rearward extensions of an elevated pool with garage/undercroft accessway would create a boundary to boundary rear extension.

·   The amended development still does not comply with the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard of the Local Environmental Plan and Council’s DCP minimum landscaped area requirement, side & rear building setbacks, pool height and setbacks.     

·   The proposed construction to the rear and side boundaries would also adversely impact the streetscape of Arundel Street, which, although serving a secondary frontage and rear access to properties with frontage to Kenneth & Arabella Streets, currently has a presentable streetscape.

·   Council’s Development Engineer does not support the excavation required for the driveway crossover as proposed. 

·   Overall the proposal is not a satisfactory development in its current amended form and is recommended for refusal for the reasons stated above.   

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot 4 DP 1284

Area

716.34m²

Site location

South eastern side of Kenneth Street between Dunois & Stuart Streets. Property has dual frontage (Arundel Street).

Existing improvements

Two storey brick & tile dwelling house with single garage at rear with access to Arundel Street.

Shape

Rectangular   

Dimensions

Width – 15.24m    Depth – 46.8m                         

Adjoining properties

East – Arundel Street & rear gardens/garages of dwellings addressed to Arabella Street

West – Kenneth Street & Kingsford Smith Park opposite.

North – Two storey dwelling house with rear pool and garage with roof deck.                                                     South – A dwelling house with swimming pool in the rear garden.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There is no recent development history for the site on Council’s database.

 

Current Proposal

 

This development application was originally lodged with Council in November 2015.

 

An assessment of the proposal found and a number of deficiencies and non compliances including a 89m² garage which resulted in a significant breach of the Lane Cove LEP’s floor space ratio development standard.

 

A meeting was held in Council’s offices on 23 February 2016 were the non compliances were discussed with the applicant and his architect.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 16 March 2016 which have reduced the floorspace of the garage, converted the trafficable roof to a planted roof, and other minor design changes.


 

PROPOSAL

 

 

The applicant proposes the following works:-

 

Garage ‘basement’ level:-

 

·   Extensive subfloor areas with stair access and pathway to the rear double garage      and undercroft maneuvering area;

·   Steps to rear garden and pathway from southern side passage;

·   Pool pump room;

·   16,000lt water tank;

·   New driveway access crossover and excavation.   

 

Ground floor plan:-

 

·   Alterations to the rear of the dwelling house and provision of a new rear extension containing a new dining room with bi-fold doors opening to an adjacent new elevated terrace;

·   Construction of an elevated deck with swimming pool and spa;

·   Vegetative cover over the garage roof top.   

 

First floor plan:-

 

·   New doors to the rear elevation;

·   New metal platform and relocation of the spiral stairs.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 – (Low Density Residential)

Site Area:       713.9m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.517:1 (369.5m²)

0.5:1   (357m²)

No - 12.8 m² over maximum GFA

Height of Buildings

6m  (new extension)

9.5m

Yes

 

Floorspace breakdown:

 

Lower ‘basement’ level -    13.0 m² 

Ground floor                -    213.0 m²

First floor                     -    143.5 m²

                        Total          369.5 m²

 

Proposed 369.5 m² minus max permitted 357m² = 12.6 m² over the maximum FSR permitted.

 

(The excess floorspace is created by a basement storage ‘nook’ 5.3m² & side pathway 7.5 m²). 

 


 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

No changes proposed

Consistent with area or 7.5m

-

Secondary street setback (corner lots only)

N/a

2m

-

Side setback (min)

North side  - 1.8m for elevated terrace and zero setback for garage.

South side – zero pool deck setback, covered undercroft below 900mm, ground floor dining room extension 1.2m. 

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

 

 

 

No – pool deck and garage extension.

 

 

Rear setback (min)

Zero for garage

<1000m²: 8m or 25% of lot depth (whichever greater) = 11.7m.

No

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

4.8m

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

6m (extension)

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

2m

1m

No

Number of Storeys (max)

2 plus subfloor

2

Yes

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

27% (195.7m²)

35% (249m²)

No - deficient by 54m²

Foreshore Building Line (min)

N/a

Set by adjoining buildings

-

Cut and Fill (max)

2.3m cut

1m

No – however little impact.

Solar Access

Shadowing to rear side windows & some  recreational area of property to south.

3 hrs to portion of habitable windows. Reasonable sunlight to recreation areas.

Some impact but generally adequate.

Provide for view sharing

No observed impact

LEC principles

N/a

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

>3m elevated terrace adjacent to new dining room

Maximum width of 3m for decks >1m above ground level unless privacy addressed.

No – privacy screening required

Private open space

>24 m²

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

Details on plans

Required

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

Driveway width

5.7m

3m at the lot boundary

No

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

 

 

 

 

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

14m - garage and covered access

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

No

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

>3m

3m to waterline

 Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

1m

1m to waterline

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

Up to 3m above ground level 

1.0m – general maximum

1.8m – steep sites    

No - Not a steep site

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

7.5m+ to northern boundary

1.5m to southern boundary

 

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

Yes- Northern side boundary No – southern side boundary

 

Fences

 

No significant changes proposed

 

Outbuildings

 

No outbuildings proposed

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer - 10 December 2015

 

Council’s Development Engineer had no objection to the original  proposal on stormwater grounds and 16 draft conditions were recommended (where Council to issue an approval).

 

Amended Plans – 23 March 2016

 

The Development Engineer provided the following comment:-

 

Ducray Design (plan 5 of 8) proposes approximately 1m of excavation along the rear boundary. Council cannot support significant changes in levels along the rear boundary impacting on Council property. The design needs to match Council’s existing nature strip levels.

 

Tree Assessment Officer - 2 December 2015

 

Senior Tree Assessment Officer reports:-

‘I have reviewed the DA documents/Plans and visited the site. The proposed development consists of alterations and additions to the existing house and construction of a pool at the rear of the property. All proposed work is at the rear of the property and therefore it is assumed that access will be from Arundel Lane.

 

 The rear of the property including the nature strip does not contain trees greater than 4 metres in height. The vegetation on site is heavily weed infested. I have no objections to this application from an arboricultural or landscape perspective. Only generic tree related conditions of consent are applicable.’  

 

(5 draft conditions were recommended)

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible, complies with the development standard for height specified in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, however, the Floor Space Ratio is 12.6 m² in excess of  the maximum FSR permitted. No submission for a variation under Clause 4.6 has been submitted.  

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The subject site and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes. Given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is unlikely that the site would be contaminated.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001 and therefore any consent will require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with the Standard.

 

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

 

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

 

1)    Side Setback

 

Requirement:  1.2m for single storey/1.5m for 2 storey dwelling houses.

 

Proposal: The proposed garage extension at the rear of the property has a zero side setback to the northern boundary and pool deck a zero setback to the southern boundary.

 

Comment

 

The applicant contends the garage is detached. Council officers disagree as the garage is connected to the remainder of the dwelling house. The zero setback, together with the undercroft area with swimming pool and deck over would present as an undesirable boundary to boundary development at the Arundel Street frontage. It is also noted that on the southern boundary, the dining room extension is setback 1.2m from the boundary. This level is designated as ‘ground floor’ but the floor level is up to 2.3m above existing ground level as the subfloor projects out of the ground.

 

The DCP objective for setbacks states:-

 

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

 

The proposal does not meet these objectives and although zero setbacks can sometimes be considered appropriate (especially to detached garages & carports), a zero setback is considered inappropriate in this location.  

 

2)    Rear Setback

 

Requirement:  For blocks <1000m² an 8m setback or 25% of lot depth (whichever greater) In this case 11.7m.

 

Proposal: The applicant proposes a zero rear setback for the garage extension.

 

Comment

 

As mentioned above, the applicant claims the garage is detached whereas the garage is clearly connected to the dwelling house. The zero rear setback proposed for the garage, and, the proposed undercroft area (which is likely to be enclosed for security reasons) are not felt to meet the streetscape & setback objectives of the DCP.   

 

3)    Subfloor Height

 

Requirement:  1m maximum projection

 

Proposal:.      2m above existing ground level. 

 

Comment


The proposed design seeks to continue similar floor levels from the ground floor through to the rear pool area, although the land falls to the rear. This results in substantial subfloor area projecting above existing ground level. It is acknowledged that the applicants have some mobility issues and would prefer the pool level close to the ground floor level of the dwelling house. It is noted however that to access the garage a number of stairs/steps need to be negotiated with no aspect of the design addressing this issue. 

 

4)    Landscaped Area

 

Requirement:  35% of the site (249m² in this case) is required to be retained as landscaped area.

 

Proposal: The landscaping has been calculated at 27% (or 195.7m²) which is a deficiency of 54m².

 

Comment

 

The applicant has proposed the garage roof top to be included as landscaping. The definition of landscaped area contained within the LEP it is stated that landscaped area is:-

 

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

 

The garage roof cannot be considered as landscaped area for the purposes of the DCP.  

 

5)    Cut and Fill

 

Requirement:  1m maximum cut or fill.

 

Proposal:  2.3m of cut is proposed. 

 

Comment

 

The applicant proposes 2.3m of cut in the area of the pool pump room. Although this appears a significant variation little impact would result from this by itself. No objection is raised to this variation.  

 

6)    Deck/Balcony Depth

 

Requirement:  A 3m maximum width for balconies/decks 1m or more above ground level unless privacy can be addressed.

 

Proposal: A terrace 7m x 3.5m is proposed up to 2.5m above existing ground level.  

 

Comment

 

The application includes an elevated deck behind the dwelling which is up to 2.5m above existing ground level. Whilst the adjoining dwelling to the north is 2 storey and some landscaping exists between the properties, this terrace floor level is at, or above, the height of a 1.8m boundary fence and to forestall privacy issues in the future, a 1.7m privacy screen could be required on the northern side of this deck. It is noted that no balustrade has been provided to this terrace and some form of barrier would be required under the BCA.   The elevated deck would present as a viewing platform toward the rear of the site in contrast to adjoining and nearby structures that by and large have regard to their topography.

 

7)    Driveway Width

 

Requirement:  3m maximum at the kerb.

 

Proposal: The application proposes a 5.7m wide crossover.

 

Comment

 

This width appears unnecessary and should be reduced to single width by condition should the application be approved. 

 

8)    Garage Width

 

Requirement:  A maximum of 50% of lot width or 6m, whichever is the lesser.

 

Proposal: 6m ‘opening’ with garage side wall 7m.

 

Comment

 

The original proposal had the garage doors facing the street with a wall across the rear boundary resulting in a boundary to boundary structure. As this contributed to a floorspace excess the proposal was modified to an open, access way/undercroft area with pool and deck over. This undercroft area is likely to be enclosed with a security gate/door in the future. The width of the side of the garage facing the street is 7m which will still be a substantial structure, and together with  does not meet the objective of carparking which is:-

 

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

 

It is considered the double garage, with undercroft accessway with pool & deck over is still a substantial structure at the rear boundary and will have an overbearing appearance on the streetscape.

 

9)    Swimming Pool Height

 

Requirement:  A standard maximum height of 1m above ground level with an allowance to 1.8m for steeply sloping sites.

Proposal:  Up to 3m above ground level (worst point). 

 

Comment

 

The property does exhibit a fall of 3.4m (1:14) from the Kenneth Street frontage to the rear, secondary frontage with Arundel Street, however, it would be difficult to consider this a ‘steep’ site. As the pool is proposed to be kept at a similar floor level to the ground floor of the dwelling, the pool coping will be well out of the ground. The amended plans have indicated a narrow coping to the pool on the southern side to render this non trafficable. The high privacy screens provided on the original proposal have now been generally substituted with 900mm high privacy screens.

 

Whilst this is an improvement it will still result in 3.5 - 4m walls only setback 1.2m from the southern boundary.

 

The applicant has put forward the argument for support of the pool height variation due to the mobility issues and sight impairment of the owners, and, that reducing the pool to ground level would require extensive ramps. It is agreed reducing the pool height to ground level is unreasonable under the circumstances, however, some effort to reduce the height, in addition to a single access ramp, could have been made at the design stage to reach a compromise between the needs of the applicants and Council’s requirements.     

  

10)  Swimming pool setback from boundary

 

Requirement:  Pool coping is to be set back at a ratio of 1:1.

 

Proposal: A setback of 7.5m+ to northern boundary and 1.5m to southern boundary

 

Comment

 

Whilst the northern setback complies, on the southern side, the pool coping appears to be 3.1m above ground level and setback only 1.4/1.5m from the side boundary. As mentioned above, privacy walls have been proposed however these would be unnecessary if the pool was close to existing ground level.   

 

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

 

No submissions were received.

 

IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOMENT (Section 79C (1)(b) EP&A ACT 1979

 

The proposed alterations & additions are generally located at the rear of the existing dwelling and extending to the rear boundary. The proposal seeks to add elevated terraces and a pool at a similar level to the ground floor which result in the development projecting well out of the ground towards the rear of the property. There is some increase in overshadowing of the property to the south, in particular, the rear of the building and rear garden, however, the impact is not significant and no submissions were received from this neighbour.

 

In relation to overlooking, the elevated terrace & pool would result in privacy impacts however these areas have been provided with some privacy screening and additional screening could be conditioned.

 

With regard to vegetation and landscaping, the development is deficient by 54 m² which is considered a significant variation. The elevated deck would not provide soil depth for any significant vegetation and the remaining garden to the north of the pool would not be planted with any trees due to its overshadowing the pool.

 

The 35% landscaped area requirement is considered an important mechanism to maintain the amenity of Lane Cove by the provision of adequate area on each residential property for deep plantings.

In relation to design of the additions, no objection is raised to the modern architectural style proposed although the bulk of the extension, up to the rear boundary, will have a visual impact.  

 

With regards to the broader streetscape, it is not considered the proposed double garage, in addition to the undercroft access way (which has the appearance of a double carport) meets the streetscape objective of the DCP which is:- to ‘ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape’, and, the provision that ‘developments on sites with two or more frontages should address both frontages to promote interaction and add diversity to the streetscape’

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application meets the height control but exceeds the floor space ratio standard as required in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The proposal does not meet a number of objectives of Part C - Residential Development in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan and its associated provisions.

 

The applicant was advised to withdraw the application with a view to resubmitting a complying plan after consultation with Council staff. The applicant has amended plans and these amendments do not resolve a number of significant deficiencies identified with the proposal.  

 

Council’s Development Engineer does not support the proposal to excavate the driveway crossing as currently proposed.

 

Whilst no planning objection is raised (in principle) to the rear ground floor addition to the living space of the dwelling house, the design of the elevated swimming pool and double garage/undercroft accessway built to the rear and boundaries is not satisfactory.      

 

On balance the proposed development is not supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application D180/2015 for the following reasons:

 

1)    The proposal does not comply with the maximum floor space ratio standard contained within the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The floor space ratio is a bulk control and the variation, in addition to substantial proposed subfloor areas creates a overly bulky development.    

 

2)    The proposal does not comply with the following requirements of Part C – Residential Development’ of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010:-

 

a)  ‘Streetscape’ objective:- to ‘ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape’ and its provision that ‘developments on sites with two or more frontages should address both frontages to promote interaction and add diversity to the streetscape’. It is considered the extension to the rear, which extends boundary to boundary across the Arundel Street frontage, is overbearing and dominates the streetscape.

b)  ‘Setback’ objectives:-‘To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side boundaries’, and, ‘side and rear setbacks are to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation, public views (if appropriate) for the dwelling and its neighbours’. The lack of side & rear setbacks leaves no opportunity to soften the impact of the development on the street and adjoining properties.

c)  ‘Landscaped area’ minimum requirement of 35%. The objectives to ‘provide privacy and amenity’ and retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees’....is not considered to be met. The deficiency in landscaped area leaves inadequate areas for plantings to soften the built structures on the streetscape & adjoining properties.   

d)  The proposed garage width does not meet the ‘Car parking’ objective No 2:-  to  ‘ ensure that the design of car parking structures is consistent with the dwelling and has minimal impact on the streetscape’. The garage and its associated accessway/hardstand will result in an unduly bulky visual impact on the streetscape. 

e)  The proposed swimming pool does not met the objectives of ancillary development (swimming pools) which are to:-

o Provide for ancillary development that enhances the amenity of residents without compromising the amenity of adjoining dwellings or the area.

o Minimise visibility from public spaces.

o Minimise acoustic impacts.

o Ancillary development is to respond to site constraints i.e. topography, mature    vegetation.

The elevated pool and the associated decks, will result in a bulky, rearward extension and create amenity impacts on adjoining properties and the street. 

 

3)    The proposed 1m of excavation along the rear boundary will create an unacceptable impact on the nature strip by the creation of a cutting & need for retaining structures. Council does not support significant changes in levels along the rear boundary impacting on Council property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Site Location Plans

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Notification Plan