Agenda of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 31 May 2016

Supplementary Report - 78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.

Subject: Supplementary Report - 78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.

Record No: DA15/180-01 - 25462/16

Division: Environmental Services Division

Author(s): Peter Walker

Property:	78 Kenneth Street, Longueville.
DA No:	DA 180/2015
Date Lodged:	15 April 2015
Cost of Work:	$550,000
Owner:	R Frohlich
Applicant:	Robert Frohlich

Description of the proposal to appear on determination	Alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling house including a new garage, pool, spa, terraces and 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
Notification	Neighbours Renotification of the amendments was not considered necessary

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The application is referred back to Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel following the panel’s recommendation at its meeting of 5 April 2016.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· The proposal was considered by the IHAP at the meeting of 5 April 2016 when it was resolved, refer to attachment AT-1:

“To defer the application to enable the applicant to lodge an objection under Clause 4.6, without which the application cannot be approved and to enable the submission of amended plans that seek to address the issues raised by the Panel”.

· The amended proposal does not comply with the FSR standards of the LEP.

· The applicant lodged amended plans along with a submission under Clause 4.6 of the Lane Cove LEP for variation of the floor space ratio development standard. The submission has been considered and the variation in floorspace is not supported.

· In the amended plans the applicant has reduced the bulk of the proposal from Arundel Street by providing a 4.2m side setback from the northern boundary and a 1-1.2m setback of the pool from the southern boundary. The garage is still sited on the rear boundary, a fence has been proposed for the remaining 4.2m with see through horizontal slats.

· The amended proposal does not comply with the Council’s DCP minimum landscaped area requirement, rear building setback and pool height/setbacks.

· No submissions were received to the original proposal. The amended proposal was not re-notified as the amended proposal reduced the bulk of the proposal, whilst increasing setbacks and landscaping.

· Council’s Development Engineer does not support the level of excavation required for the driveway crossover as proposed, however, the floor level of the garage could be raised to minimize excavation. Plans would need to amended.

· In conclusion, the amended proposal is not considered satisfactory and recommended for refusal.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

Local Environmental Plan 2009

Zoning: R2 – (Low Density Residential)

Site Area: 713.9m²

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.548:1 (386m²)

0.5:1 (357m²)

No – 29 m² over maximum GFA

Height of Buildings

6m (new extension)

9.5m

Yes

Floorspace Breakdown

Lower basement level - 25.55 m²

Ground floor - 216.6 m²

First floor - 143.9 m²

Total 386.05 m²

Proposed 386m² minus max permitted 357m² = 29m² over the maximum FSR permitted.

The excess floor space does contribute to the bulk and scale of the proposed development particularly when viewed from the adjoining properties.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Variation

The proposal breaches the maximum floor space ratio by 29 m² above the maximum floor space standard of the R2 – (Low Density Residential) zone.

Clause 4.6 of the LEP permits the consideration of variations of development standards as follows:

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:-

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause three (3); and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Comment

The applicant has submitted a formal written request to the FSR variation and claims that compliance with the FSR standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as:-

1) the excess in floorspace proposed by the development is a ‘technical’ non compliance as it occurs within the basement garage access and internal corridors on the site and has no impact on the built form of the proposed dwelling house;

2) the proposal would not have any unreasonable adverse impacts on surrounding properties or adjoining residents; and

3) the excess floorspace would have no impact on the environment.

It is considered the applicants submission does not have merit and is not well founded. The excess floorspace would have an impact on the built form of the proposed development as the floorspace does contribute to the bulk of the development. To remove the excess 29 m² would alter the overall development to some extent. It is considered that the floorspace variation, which is a variation of 8% of the overall floorspace would contribute to bulk and scale of the proposed development.

It is considered that there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation. The applicant’s claim that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zoning and floorspace ratio development standard is not supported.

Clause 4.6 of the Local Environmental Plan also requires that the proposed development to be in the ‘public interest’ by being consistent with the objectives of the zoning and floorspace ratio standard.

The Relevant Objectives of the R2 Zone

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

Comment

The proposed development does not provide for any additional housing than what is already existing.

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

Comment

This objective is not relevant to the current proposal.

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

Comment

Given the bulk and scale, the proposed development would have an impact upon the adjoining properties.

• To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

Comment

The proposed rear extension would not be visible from the Lane Cove River due to the existing two storey dwellings behind and surrounding the development.

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

Comment

The amended proposal provides an increase in landscaped area over that originally proposed due to the setback of the garage from the northern boundary and the incorporation of this area into the rear garden. The southern side setback, which has been proposed with ‘grass cell’, cannot be included in the landscape area.

The amended proposal would still be deficiency in landscaped area.

Relevant Objective of the Floorspace Standard in the LEP

(a) to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

Comment

While the amended proposal has reduced the bulk and scale of the proposed development, the excess floor space does contribute to the bulk and scale of the proposed development particularly when viewed from the adjoining properties.

Environmental Planning Grounds and the Public Interest

The applicant states that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds as:

The breach to the FSR standard:-

· is relatively minor being 12.8m² at the basement level;

· is attributable to space within the building footprint and envelope that if removed from the criteria to calculate floor space, would not result in any external change to the building;

· will not have any discernible impact on the area or adjoining properties/residents and; and

· will not have any impact on the environment.

Comment

Whilst Council’s calculation of overall floorspace is higher than the applicant’s calculation, it is considered that the variation is not minor (at 8%) and there are not adequate environmental planning grounds to support the variation.

Conclusion

It is considered the relevant objectives of the R2 – (Low Density Residential) zone and the

floor space ratio standard would not be met. There are not adequate environmental planning grounds to support the variation. The Clause 4.6 variation submission is not supported.

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 4.2m setback for garage. South side – 1m pool overflow. Elevated pool and ‘ground’ floor dining room extension 1.2m.	1200mm single storey 1500mm two storey	Yes - North No – South Elevated ‘ground floor’ extension and pool deck.
Rear setback (min)	Zero setback 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)	2 - 2.5m	1m	No
Number of Storeys (max)	2 plus subfloor	2	Yes
Landscaped area (min) (Minimum width of 1m required to be included in area)	30.5% (218m²) (grass cell is not accepted as landscaped area.)	35% (249m²)	No - Deficient by 31m²,
Foreshore Building Line (min)	N/a	Set by adjoining buildings	-
Cut and Fill (max)	2.3m cut	1m	No
Solar Access	Shadowing to rear side windows and 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)	7.2m deep elevated terrace adjacent to new dining room	Maximum depth of 3m for decks >1m above ground level (unless privacy is addressed).	No
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	1	Yes
Driveway width	5.4m	3m at the kerb	No

Carports within the Front Setback and Garages Facing the Street

Proposed

Control

Complies

% of Allotment Width (garages and carports)

35% - 5.4m garage door

65.6% - 10m entire structure

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

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 3.3m 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 1.2m to southern boundary	Coping to be set back at a ratio of 1:1	Yes- Northern side boundary No – southern side boundary

REFERRALS

Development Engineer - 4 May 2016

The amended plans were referred to Council’s Development Engineer who reported that:

“The proposed levels to Council’s verge along the Arundel Street frontage cannot be supported for the following reasons:-

· The proposal does not try and meet Council’s existing verge levels along the rear boundary;

· The proposed transition grade between the existing verge and proposed driveway is too steep and does not meet any Australian Standard or meet Council specification;

· The proposed levels of the verge do not match the existing streetscape and will set an undesirable precedent if supported;

· The proposed verge levels will impede any future footpath proposals Council may have to facilitate pedestrian access along Arundel Street; and

· The proposed verge levels will create a public liability issue and should not be supported in the interest of pedestrian safety.”

Following discussions with Council’s Manager - Assets and Development Engineer on the issue of excavation for the driveway, it was agreed that whilst zero excavation was the preferred option, if the FFL of the garage was raised 800mm to an RL33.6, only 200mm of cut would be required in Council’s verge and this would be acceptable in the circumstances. The plans would be required to be modified to reflect this change and reassessed before the application is determined.

Tree Assessment Officer

The amended plans were not referred. The original report and conditions provided on 2December 2015 are still applicable.

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

The preceding policy assessment tables identify those controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each departure is discussed below.

Control	Proposed	Comment	Council support
Side setback - min 1.2m single storey 1.5m 2^nd storey	North side - complies South side – 1.2m	The southern elevation, whilst only one habitable storey, has a subfloor which is technically a storey.	No. The proposed extension appears to be 2 storeys particularly along the southern elevation.
Rear setback (11.7m minimum)	Zero for garage	The amended plans do not alter the proposed rear setback.	Yes. Garages are permitted along the rear lane access.
Subfloor height - 1m maximum	2m - 2.5m	Subfloor created due to keeping pool deck at same level as ground floor.	No. The rear extension appears to be two storeys and extends up to the rear boundary.
Landscaped area Minimum 35% of site deep soil	30.5% (218m²) (Additional 43m² grass cell proposed.)	The amended plans propose 30.5% of site. The additional 43m² of grass cell is not accepted as soft landscaped area.	No. Amended proposal has increased the landscape area, however it is still less than the minimum 35% requirement
Cut and fill (1m max)	2.3m of cut	Sloping site – little impact from cut alone.	Yes.
Deck/balcony depth – max 3m unless privacy addressed	7.2m deck	Privacy impact to/from window of dwelling house to north, privacy screen on north elevation recommended.	Yes. Subject to screening along northern boundary.
Driveway width 3m at kerb	5.4m	Council’s Engineer raised no objection to the driveway width. The level of the garage is not supported because it does not try and meet Council’s existing verge levels.	Yes. No. Plans would need to be amended.
Garage width (6m maximum)	35% - 5.4m garage door 65.6% - 10m entire structure.	The garage structure would be wider than the maximum permissible width of 6.0m	No . The garage structure would dominate the streetscape.
Pool height - 1m	Up to 3.3m above ground level	Pool does not comply with the DCP requirement.	No.
Pool coping setback to height ratio 1:1.	Northern boundary complies. Southern boundary – pool height 3.3m setback 1.2m	Setback control is to maintain amenity/privacy between neighbours.	No.

IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOMENT (Sections 79C(1)(b) and (c))

The amended plans have increased the site setback of the garage from the northern and southern boundaries. It would reduce the bulk and scale of the proposed development to some extent. However, the bulk and scale of the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the adjoining development. The pool would be highly visible from the adjoining properties. The proposed development would not provide adequate landscaping. The proposed development would have some overshadowing impact upon the adjoining property towards the south.

Council’s Development Engineer has not endorsed the level of the proposed garage and has indicated that the level of the garage be raised by 800mm. The plans would have to be amended for any approval to be granted.

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

The proposal was not re-notified as the amended plans proposed a reduction in bulk and scale over the proposal originally submitted and advertised. It should be noted that the original proposal did not attract any submissions.

CONCLUSION

The amended proposal exceeds the Floor Space Ratio control in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The applicant has lodged a Clause 4.6 variation which is not supported. The cumulative effect of the breach in the Floor Space Standard and the multiple DCP non compliances would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and adverse impact upon the streetscape. On balance given the number of LEP and DCP non compliances, Council’s recommendation remains unchanged. The proposed development is not considered acceptable, not supported and 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 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The bulk and scale of the proposed development would be in excess.

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 (2) or more frontages should address both frontages to promote interaction and add diversity to the streetscape. It is considered the extension to the rear, would dominate the streetscape.

b) Setback objectives: To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side and rear setbacks are to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation, and public views (if appropriate) for the dwelling and its neighbours. The reduced side and rear setbacks would impact the street and the adjoining properties.

c) The minimum landscape requirement of 35% has not been met. The objectives to provide privacy, amenity and retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees, is not met.

d) The proposed garage width does not meet the Car parking objective 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:-

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

· Minimise visibility from public spaces;

· Minimise acoustic impacts; and

· 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 excavation along the rear boundary will create an unacceptable impact on the nature strip by the creation of a cutting and 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

IHAP Report of 5 April 2016

11 Pages

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 and additions to the rear of the dwelling house including a new garage, pool, spa, terraces and 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 and 82 Kenneth Street, 77, 79, 81, 83 and 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 and 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 and 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 and Stuart Streets. Property has dual frontage (Arundel Street).
Existing improvements	Two storey brick and 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 and rear gardens/garages of dwellings addressed to Arabella Street West – Kenneth Street and 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 (AT-1 and AT-2).

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 and 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 and 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 and Garages Facing the Street

	Proposed	Control	Complies

% of Allotment Width (garages and 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.”

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 and 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 and 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 and 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) EPandA ACT 1979

The proposed alterations and 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 and 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.

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 31 May 2016

58 and 60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich - Supplementary Report

Subject: 58 and 60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich - Supplementary Report

Record No: DA15/143-01 - 29760/16

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

Executive Summery

Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting held on 5 April 2016 considered a development application for subdivision of two (2) existing lots to three (3) lots and drainage works at 58-60 Kingslangley Road, Greenwich, attached at AT-1.

The Panel deferred consideration of the application on the applicant’s request to provide further information.

The applicant provided additional information vide letter dated 12 April 2016. The information includes an indicative design of a possible dwelling house on the proposed new lot, shadow diagrams to demonstrate the potential overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties and measures that would be taken to mitigate potential privacy impacts on the adjoining properties, attached at AT-2.

In response to the additional information provided by the applicant, two submissions have been received. One (1) submission is from the resident of 56 Kingslangley Road and the other from the resident of 56A Kingslangley Road.

It is considered that the indicative dwelling house would have varying extent of impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or compromise its own amenity.

The application is recommended for refusal for reasons indicated in the report.

Response to the applicant’s indicative dwelling house design

The applicant has provided an indicative design of a dwelling house to examine the proposal’s potential impact upon solar access and privacy to the existing dwelling house at 56A Kingslangley Road.

Privacy

The indicative dwelling house design has a southern boundary setback of 2.88m which is the same as the northern boundary setback of 56A Kingslangley Road. This indicates that the building separation of the indicative dwelling house and 56A Kingslangley Road is 5.76m. In this context the building separation is not considered adequate to provide reasonable privacy. The applicant is relying upon obscure glazing on the north facing windows of 56A Kingslangley Road. It may be noted that the private open space of 56A Kingslangley Road is towards its north the privacy of which would be significantly compromised.

Given the close proximity of the indicative dwelling house to 56A Kingslangley Road, the privacy of indicative dwelling house would also be compromised. This aspect has not been considered by the applicant.

The applicant indicates that first floor level bedroom, staircase all include obscure glazing. While obscure glazing provides privacy, it would reduce the amenity of the indicative dwelling house by not allowing an outlook from the windows.

The first floor northern setback for the indicative dwelling house is approximately 1.5m. All north facing first floor windows of the indicative dwelling house would overlook the rear private open space of the existing 58 Kingslangley Road and impact upon its privacy. In the event these windows are obscure, it would impact upon the amenity of the indicative dwelling house.

Bedrooms three (3) and four (4) west facing windows of the indicative dwelling house would overlook the rear private open space of the existing 60 Kingslangley Road which would compromise its amenity. Attempts to make these windows obscure would compromise the amenity of the indicative dwelling house.

Overshadowing

The indicative dwelling house has been designed in such a manner that the first floor has been located towards the north so as to reduce potential impact of overshadowing. It is acknowledged that as per the shadow diagrams provided, the indicative dwelling house would allow for three (3) hours of solar access between 9.00am to 3.00pm to north facing windows to comply with the Council’s DCP requirements.

Notwithstanding the above it is noted that the indicative dwelling house would overshadow some windows and the pool area being the private open space of 56A Kingslangley Road to some extent.

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

The additional information received from the applicant was notified to the residents who had lodged submissions. Two submissions were received in response to the additional information. The concerns raised in the submissions have been summarized as follows:

No. 60 does not comply with minimum 15.0m frontage width requirement of the DCP. The proposal is for a three (3) lot subdivision from two (2) existing lots and therefore the three (3) lots should comply with the current numerical requirement.

Comment

Given that the proposed development is for a three (3) lot subdivision from two (2) existing lots, it is reasonable that the proposed development complies with the numerical requirements of subdivision.

The proposed sub-division is not in keeping with the existing subdivision pattern. The proposed subdivision would enable two (2) dwelling houses within the 50m allotment depth. The proposed new lot is highly irregular and out of character within the area. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the subdivision pattern within the area.

Comment

It has been indicated in the original report that there exists no such battle-axe property accessed from Kingslangley Road in a manner which has been proposed. The proposed lot configuration would be inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern in particular with the lots with frontage to Kingslangley Road.

One (1) column is within the swept path of vehicles and directly in front of the access driveway. This area is very restrictive.

Comment

It is agreed that in the indicative dwelling house design the column is located within the swept path of vehicles. The dwelling house would need to be redesigned to allow vehicles to enter and exit the proposed allotment.

The landscape area appears to be overstated as it includes an area underneath the overhang and shows no paved areas other than the driveway.

Comment

The landscaped area would need to be recalculated when a DA for a dwelling house on the new lot is lodged. The proposed development would need to comply with the minimum landscape area requirement.

The applicant considers the overshadowing of a 1.8m high dividing fence that would be built because of the pool. It is not necessary to build a solid dividing fence between the proposed new lot and 56A Kingslangley Road.

Comment

It is agreed that the pool fence requirements can be met without the need for the construction of a solid dividing fence between the proposed new lot and 56A Kingslangley Road. However, the owner of 56A may reasonably expect to provide privacy to the pool area.

The shadow diagrams indicate significant overshadowing of the main living areas.

Comment

It is acknowledged that the indicative dwelling house would have an overshadowing impact upon the existing dwelling house at 56A Kingslangley Road.

Given that the height of the indicative dwelling house are now known, the IHAP is requested to inspect the site again to better understand the bulk and scale and overshadowing that would be caused.

Comment

This is a matter for the Panel.

A suitable easement for drainage has not been obtained from 64 Kingslangley Road.

Comment

In the event that the application is considered acceptable, the consent would need to be a deferred commencement consent which would require the applicant to demonstrate that a drainage easement has been obtained.

Impact upon trees

Comment

This matter has already been considered by Council’s senior tree assessment officer in the original report and is considered satisfactory.

The proposed development would not comply with the objectives of the LEP. The development would not preserve or improve the existing character and amenity for the land.

Comment

The dwelling house on the proposed lot would have an impact on the adjoining properties with regards to overshadowing.

The proposed development would not comply with the objectives of minimum subdivision lot size.

Comment

The subdivision would comply with the minimum lot size requirement. However, the buildable area would be constraint.

Inconsistent lot pattern, reduced lot size and adverse amenity impacts.

Comment

It is agreed that the subdivision would be inconsistent with the subdivision pattern. The dwelling house on the proposed lot would likely impact on the adjoining properties with regards to overshadowing.

It is noted however, that the plans are indicative and not part of the DA.

Comment

It is correct that the dwelling house plans are indicative and not part of this DA.

CONCLUSION

The impacts of the indicative dwelling house design, at the rear of 58 Kingslangley, on the amenity of the exiting dwelling house 56A Kingslangley Road have been considered. The building separation between the indicative dwelling house and 56A Kingslangley Road is not considered adequate to provide reasonable amenity to both the dwelling houses. To maintain privacy of the adjoining dwellings, the indicative dwelling house relies upon its windows being obscured which itself would reduce the amenity of the indicative dwelling house by not allowing an outlook from the windows.

All north facing first floor windows of the indicative dwelling house would overlook the rear private open space of the existing 58 Kingslangley Road which impact upon its amenity. In the event these windows are obscured, it would also impact upon the amenity of the indicative dwelling house.

West facing first floor windows of the indicative dwelling house would overlook the rear private open space of the existing 60 Kingslangley Road which would compromise its amenity. Attempts to make these windows obscured would compromise the amenity of the indicative dwelling house.

The indicative dwelling house would overshadow some windows and the pool area being the private open space of 56A Kingslangley Road to some extent.

In conclusion, the indicative dwelling house would have varying extent of impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or compromise its own amenity.Having considered the additional information provided, the three (3) lot subdivision 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 (2) existing lots to three (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. 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 a dwelling house on the newly created lot would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the dwelling house towards the south with regard to overshadowing and privacy which would not be in accordance with the objective of the LEP.

4. Clause 1.2 (2) (c) (i) and (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.

5. 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 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. In view of the above the proposed development would not meet the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

6. Clause 4.1 (3) (Minimum subdivision lot size) of the LEP provides the minimum lot size as 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.

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

8. An indicative dwelling house on the proposed lot would impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings with regard to privacy which includes 58 and 60 Kingslangley Road and overshadowing 56A Kingslangley Road.

9. To maintain a reasonable level of privacy by providing obscure windows, the amenity of the indicative dwelling house on the proposed lot would be compromised by not allowing an outlook from the windows.

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View	IHAP report of 5 April 2016	10 Pages
AT‑2View	Additional information from applicant dated 12 April 2016	20 Pages

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 AT-1 and AT-2.

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

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 – 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.

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:

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) and (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.

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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.

AT‑1View	Site Location Plans	2 Pages
AT‑2View	Notification Plan	2 Pages

AT‑1View	Site Location Plan	1 Page
AT‑2View	Neighbour Notification Plan	2 Pages