Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

4 July 2017, 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 4 July 2017 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 4 July 2017

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 - 6 JUNE 2017

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich

 

3.       34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich

 

4.       15 Norfolk Rd, Longueville

 

5.       4 Panorama Road Lane Cove - S82A Review

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel   4 July 2017

61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich     

Record No:    DA17/57-01 - 31962/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Stephens 

 

 

Property:

61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich

DA No:

DA57/2016

Date Lodged:

15/5/2017

Cost of Work:

$486,000

Owner:

M Roope and S Wong

Applicant:        

DJSP Consulting Pty Ltd

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Third storey addition to an existing two storey dwelling house and alterations to a carport. 

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

No

Notification

Neighbours                             53, 55, 57, 59, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76 Carlotta Avenue, 1, 2, 3, 4 Ford Street, 2, 4, 6-8 Evelyn Street and 2, 4 Ellison Lane

Ward Councillors                   East

Progress Association             Greenwich Progress Association

 

Executive Summary

 

The development application is recommended to be referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel with a recommendation for refusal as the proposed development fundamentally contradicts the DCP provisions for building design given a third storey is proposed. Approval of the application would result in an undesirable precedent, the accumulative impacts of which would be demonstrable.

 

The proposed third storey addition would result in excessive bulk and massing that would adversely visually impact the surrounding properties and the streetscape.

 

The impacts of the proposed third storey addition are exacerbated by the constraints of the site, which is characterised by smaller than usual allotments with an east west orientation. The site has an area of 341.5m2 and a frontage of 9.8m. The existing dwelling and those located on the neighbouring properties to the south are setback towards the rear of their allotments. As a result undue overshadowing to the south and additional overlooking to the property to the rear would occur.

 

The carport and front fence as proposed would dominate the streetscape. The widened vehicle crossing would result in a loss of on street parking in front of the property. 

 

No submissions were received.

 

The development application is recommended to be referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel with a recommendation for refusal. 

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot 10 DP 1420

Area

341m2

Site location

Western (low) side of Carlotta Street between Evelyn Street and Bay Street. 

Existing improvements

Two storey dwelling house, tandem garage and carport, and paving.  

Shape

Rectangular

Dimensions

Width - 9.75m, Depth 35.3m                          

Adjoining properties

East -  Carlotta Street then two storey with basement garage dwelling house                                                      

West - Rear of 2 Ellison Lane. 

North - Two storey dwelling house.

South - Two storey dwelling house.

North East - Small Children’s Park.

 

SITE DISCRIPTION

 

The site is located on the low side of Carlotta Street to the south of the intersection with Evelyn Street.  The allotment is rectangular in shape and has an area of 341m2. The frontage is 9.8m wide whilst the depth of the site is 35.3m. The land falls by approximately 2m from front to rear.

 

The existing dwelling house is located towards the rear of the site with a 16m front setback and a rear setback of 6.5m. The dwelling house is two storeys over split levels. Setbacks to each of the side boundaries are approximately 1m. A tandem garage / carport structure is located within the front setback along the northern side of the site. The site is generally paved with only small areas of landscaping as screening and a Paper bark tree in the front yard.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by dwelling houses of one and two storey construction on generally smaller than standard allotments.  Site Location Plans and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

No submissions were received.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

DA204/2013

Alterations and Additions to a two storey dwelling house.

 

 


 

PROPOSAL

 

 

Alterations and Additions to an existing dwelling house.

 

Ground Floor Alterations comprising

·    Enclosure of existing rear deck.

·    New rear deck (1.8m x 4.60).

·    Conversion of a bedroom to a living room.

·    Conversion of a bathroom to a laundry.

·    Minor changes to window openings.

 

First Floor Alterations

·    Remove walls to create an open plan kitchen, living and dining room.

·    Cover existing first floor deck.

·    Additional Privacy screen along the northern side. 

 

Second Floor Addition comprising:

·    Master bedroom

·    Ensuite

·    Walk-in robe.

·    Low angled pitched roof. 

 

Carport and Front Fence

·    Widen existing carport to allow parking for two vehicles.

·    Enclose garage component facing the street.

·    Open garage toward the rear and side to be used a pavilion with storage at the front.

·    New masonry front fence 1.8m high.

·    New gate and entryway 2.4m high.

 

Site

·    Uplift the majority of the sites paving and replace with landscaping.

·    New stepping stone path from front gate to entryway of the house.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density                                 Site Area: 341.5m²

 

The objective of the R2 Low Density zone provides:

 

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

                        …

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

                        ....”

 

The proposed development would not meet these objectives as a three storey dwelling does not meet the desired built form that is characteristic of low density development, and the existing amenity of the area would be unduly impacted.

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.57:1

0.6:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

 

FSR Calculation:

                Ground Floor (Level 1/2) = 80.447 m2

Second Storey (Level 3/4) = 77.286 m2

            Third Storey (Level 5) = 35.63 m2

           

FSR = (Total Floorspace 193.363 / Site area 341.5 m2):1

FSR = 0.566:1

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Unchanged

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

Ground Floor

North - Unchanged

South - Unchanged

 

Second Storey

North - Unchanged

South - 1.05m (existing setback although wall extended)

 

Third Storey

North - 2.5m

South - 1.6m

 

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

 

Unchanged

Unchanged

 

 

Unchanged

No - Minor although acceptable increase in non compliant area.

 

No Control - Third Storey Prohibited

Rear setback (min)

Unchanged

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Unchanged

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

Unchanged 

7.0m

Unchanged

Maximum Ridge height

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

N/A

1.5m

N/A

Number of Storeys (max)

3

2

No

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

34.6% (118m²)

35%

No - Although increased from existing

Cut and Fill (max)

Nil

1m

Yes

Solar Access

The third storey would result in additional overshadowing to the properties to the south. The balcony (Approved to be enclosed as a sun room) of 65 Carlotta Street would be impacted.

3 hrs to a portion of windows of habitable rooms and reasonable access to recreation areas between 9am and 3pm on 21st June for the subject site and neighbouring dwellings

Yes - although adjoining properties unduly impacted

Provide for view sharing

No objections - No immediate obvious impact.

 

Yes

Heritage Conservation

N/A

N/A

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

First floor balcony- 2.6m

3m

Yes

Private open space

>24m² (67m²)

3.7m depth

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

A280322

Required

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

Driveway width

6.2m

3m at the lot boundary

No

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

Existing

1m from street boundary

Yes

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

63% / 6.32m

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

No

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

1.8m (Fence) - 2.4m (Gate)

Solid:             900mm

Lightweight: 1.2m

No

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

Nil - 0.8m

1m

No

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Outbuildings - Pavilion at rear of the carport and the double carport

 

 

Proposed

Code

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

Unchanged

3.6m

Yes

External wall height (max)

2.7m

2.4m

Yes

Maximum floor space

57m²

50 m²

No

No of Storeys

1

1

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who reported on 21 June 2017 that there was no objection to the proposed development subject to standard Draft Conditions being provided where an approval is to be granted.

 


 

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

 

The proposal is permissible, complies with the development standards for Floor Space Ratio and height and does not raise any issues in regard to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

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 would 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.

 

Control

Proposed

Comment

Council support

DCP Pt C.1.7.1(e) - Number of Storeys = Two

3 Storeys

The proposed third storey is not supported due to the excessive bulk and massing it would create. Approval would set an undesirable precedent, the cumulative impacts of which would be unacceptable. Overshadowing and a loss of privacy to adjoining properties are demonstrable.

No

Carport Width / Driveway - 4.8m (50% of lot width

6.32m

Given the site is narrow (9.75m) a single car width carport is appropriate. Parking for two vehicles is achievable within a tandem configuration given the 15m front setback to the dwelling house. This would result in a better planning outcome and allow for more significant landscaping that would result in a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

Considering the carport as proposed is not supported there would be no reason to support the proposed carport width. Furthermore the increase carport width would result in the loss of a usable on-street parking space directly in front of the site. Considering that on-street parking availability is limited in the vicinity this would not be in the public interest.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

Front Fence -

1.2 if open design or

1.8 if setback 1m

1.8m masonry fence and 2.4m gate setback less than 1m

The front fence is of solid masonry construction and exceeds the height control. The resulting built form would be visually imposing on the streetscape and is unnecessary given the quiet nature of the street. 

No

Total Floor Area of Outbuildings- 50m2

57m2

By converting the existing garage to an open pavilion and extending the width of the carport at the street frontage the overall area of these outbuildings exceeds the control. The scale of development that is proposed within the front setback is excessive and would have a negative impact on the streetscape.

No

 

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

 

Nil.

 

IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT (Section 79C (1)(b) EPA&A ACT 1979)

 

The proposed development would be out of character for the locality and the streetscape. The third storey is stepped back in comparison to the storeys below providing a reduced level of impact however, there would be excessive bulk and massing that is presented above the building envelope of what a well considered two storey design would be.

 

The uncharacteristic settlement pattern (given the lot width and site area) and existing constraints of the site further exacerbate the impact of the third storey considering that the land falls to the rear, the site being orientated east west, and that the dwellings are setback towards the rear of the allotments. The resulting additional overshadowing would fall across the first floor rear deck of the dwelling house at 65 Carlotta Street, which is located two doors down from the subject property. This overshadowing is excessive considering that is it created by a prohibited third storey.

 

The proposed third storey addition would also result in a loss of privacy to the property to the rear (2 Ellison Lane) as overlooking would occur to the dormer style window on the upper storey and the backyard.

 

Approval of the third storey would result in an undesirable precedent in the street and broader locality, the accumulative impacts of which would significantly reduce the amenity of what is a low density residential area if replicated.

 

The proposed extension to the carport would dominate the frontage of the property with regard to the greater streetscape and result in the loss of on street parking. The existing tandem parking provides the residents with onsite parking for two vehicles without impacting on the surrounding area.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The application meets with the Floor Space Ratio and Height controls as required in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 although fundamentally contradicts the building design provisions of Part C Residential Development in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

The proposed development would be unreasonable in its built form, would have unacceptable impacts to adjoining properties and set an undesirable precedent for similar development, the cumulative impacts of which would be significant and unacceptable. The proposed development is recommended to be refused.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA57/2017 for a third storey addition to an existing dwelling house and alterations to a carport and front fence on Lot 10 DP1420 known as 61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich for the following reasons.

 

Number of Storeys

 

1.   The proposed development should be refused as an excessive number of storeys are proposed.

 

Particulars

 

a.   A three storey building is not permitted under the provisions of LCDCP 2009, clause 1.7.1(e) of part c.1 provides as follows:

 

A maximum of 2 storeys plus basement is permissible at any point above ground level (existing). No building will be permitted to have an appearance (in elevation) exceeding three storeys in height.

 

b.   The development would be out of scale with the surrounding development along Carlotta Street (given it is located on the low side) and towards the properties to the rear.

 

 

c.   The third storey would not meet the objective of minimising the buildings impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties and amenity.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

2.   The proposed development should be refused as the bulk and scale of the development is excessive.

 

Particulars 

 

a.   Although partially screened by the existing and proposed rooflines and additional setback of the third storey excessive bulk and massing is presented above the roofline of the existing well considered design.

 

b.   The low pitch of the roof may allow the building to not exceed the Lane Cove LEP 2009 development standard of 9.5m for the height of building although the overall bulk and massing is excessive and fails to transition adequately at the third storey.

 

c.   The proposed development may meet the Lane Cove LEP 2009 development standard for floor space ratio of 0.6:1 although a similar scale of development could occur in a better considered building design that is of two storeys in scale.

 

Overshadowing

 

3.   The proposed development should be refused as the overshadowing created is unreasonable.

 

Particulars 

 

a.   Additional overshadowing presents during the morning hours onto the balcony (DA approved to be enclosed DA16/195) of 65 Carlotta Street.

 

b.   The additional overshadowing presents due to the third storey component of the proposed development.

 

Privacy

 

4.   The proposed development should be refused as the upper storey would result in a loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

 

Particulars 

 

a.   The windows on the proposed third storey would result in a further loss of visual privacy to the dwelling houses at the rear and their private open space. Overlooking to the dormer type window on the eastern roof plane of 2 Ellison Lane is evident.

 

Precedent

 

5.   The proposed development should be refused as the third storey would set an undesirable precedent, the cumulative impact of which would be demonstrable in terms of bulk, scale and visual impact.

 

Particulars 

 

a.   Approval of the proposed development would set an undesirable precedent within the street.

 

b.   The negative impact of the third storey developments would be further exacerbated given that many of the dwelling houses are established towards the rear of the sites, with non-compliant side setbacks.

 

c.   The cumulative impact of such a precedent would result in an undesirable change in the streetscape and a serve loss of amenity to each of the properties. 

 

Streetscape

 

6.   The proposed development should be refused as the streetscape would be unduly impacted by the proposed carport and front fence.

 

Particulars 

 

a.   The Lane Cove DCP 2009 provides for a maximum width for carports facing the street of 50% or 6m, whichever is less.

 

b.   The site has a width of 9.75m, therefore allowing for a maximum width of 4.9m.

 

c.   The proposed carport is 6.32m wide and would dominate the streetscape which is characterised by single vehicle carports along this section of Carlotta Street, where the lot widths are less than 12m.  

 

d.   The Lane Cove DCP 2009 provides for front fences that are 0.9m high or 1.8m high when setback 1m.

 

e.   The proposed front fence varies in height from 1.7m to 2.6m and is not sufficiently setback.

 

f.    Both the carport and front fence would negatively impact the streetscape.  

 

Pedestrian Safety

 

7.   The proposed development should be refused as the safety of pedestrians is compromised by the proposed carport and fencing design.

 

Particulars

 

a.   A splay or a low height fence has not been provided at either side of the carport and would compromise the safety of pedestrians on the footpath as sightlines are obscured. 

 

Public Interest

 

8.   The proposed development should be refused as it would not be in the public interest.

 

Particulars 

 

a.    For the above mentioned reasons the proposed development would not be in the public interest.

b.    The additional width of the carports vehicle crossing would result in the loss of on street parking in front of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 4 July 2017

34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA17/43-01 - 31879/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

 

Property:

34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich

DA No:

DA 43/2017

Date Lodged:

13 April 2017

Cost of Work:

$250,000

Owner:

T R G & K T Newton-John

Applicant:        

Jessica Matson Architecture

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolition and construction of a garage, shed, entry stairs and retaining walls

 

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

No

Notification

 

 

 

 

 

Neighbours                             23, 23A, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Wisdom Road; 5, 7, 9 Lansdowne Street; and 25-29, 31 Kingslangley Road

Ward Councillors                   All Councillors & The Mayor

Progress Association             Greenwich Residents Association

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·         The proposal is to demolish the existing garage in front of the building line and storeroom at the rear of the garage and replace such with a larger garage and storeroom coming across to the north western boundary.  Entry stairs and retaining walls are also proposed.

 

·         The applicant was advised that Council’s policy only permits open design carports with post, column or pier supports in front of the building line.

 

·         The applicant has made a submission to Council attaching a document which she states shows numerous precedents, some apparently recently constructed, in the vicinity of 34 Wisdom Road.

 

·         It is noted that the DCP allows garages on sloping sites in front of the building line if at least two thirds of the garage is below existing ground level.  None of the proposed garages were considered to match the present proposal.

 

·         The application is recommended for refusal given the context and inability of the proposal to comply with Council’s DCP.

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot No. 10                                               DP No. 871647

Area

965.9m2

Site location

The subject site is located on the south western side of Wisdom Road.  The land falls from the street in a southerly direction.

Existing improvements

Existing improvements on the site consist of a brick and tile dwelling house and swimming pool with an old painted brick single storey garage at the front of the site on the north western side with a storeroom at the rear and a low pitched metal covered roof.  There is a horizontal timber slat fence across most of the front of the site.

Shape

Rectangular – No                                   Irregular – Yes

Dimensions

Width – Maximum 21.6m                       Depth – Maximum 48.4m

Adjoining properties

North West – Three dwelling houses

South East – Dwelling with carport at front

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

BD 197/95

Construction of dwelling house.

CDC 62/15

Alterations to dwelling house including two timber decks and a swimming pool.

 

Site location plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to:

 

1.    Demolish the existing garage and storeroom and replace it with a larger single garage and storeroom at the rear with a shower/WC.  The new garage and storeroom are proposed of weatherboard cladding externally with the exception that the north western wall would be constructed of masonry on the north western boundary.  The roof of the proposed garage and store is proposed of skillion design and to be covered with metal decking.

 

2.    Construct a small paved area at the rear of the proposed garage and store and a 1.8m high masonry wall is proposed on the north western boundary.

 

3.    Construct a new path and stairs to replace the existing on the south eastern side of the proposed garage and store.

 

4.    Demolish the existing retaining walls close to and along the north western boundary and replace them with new concrete block walls.

 


 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density                                 Site Area:       965.9m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

Unchanged

0.5:1

Unchanged

Height of Buildings

Unchanged

9.5m

Unchanged

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

 

Garage – 900mm

 

Consistent with area or 7.5m

No

 

Side setback (min)

 

Garage and Storeroom – Zero

1200mm single storey

 

May be permitted

Rear setback (min)

Unchanged

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

Unchanged

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

Unchanged

 

7.0m

 

Unchanged

 

Maximum Ridge height

Unchanged

9.5m

Unchanged

Subfloor height (max)

Unchanged

1.5m

Unchanged

Number of Storeys (max)

Unchanged

2

Unchanged

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

43%

 

 

 

35%

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Cut and Fill (max)

Unchanged

1m

Unchanged

Solar Access

 

3 hrs to north facing windows

3 hrs to north facing windows

Yes

 

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

N/A

 

3m

 

N/A

 

Private open space

 

Unchanged

 

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Unchanged

 

Basix

N/A

Required

N/A

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

Driveway width

Unchanged

3m at the lot boundary

Unchanged

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

900mm

 

1m from street boundary

 

No

 

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

6m

 

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

Yes

 

 


 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

Unchanged

 

3m to waterline

 

Unchanged

 

Setback to boundary (min)

Unchanged

1m to waterline

Unchanged

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

Unchanged

 

1.0m

1.8m   

Unchanged

 

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

Unchanged

 

 

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

 

Unchanged

 

 

 

Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

 

Unchanged

 

Solid:              900mm

Lightweight:    1.2m

Unchanged

 

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

Unchanged

 

1m

 

Unchanged

 

Side and rear fences

Unchanged

1.8m

Unchanged

 

Outbuildings

 

 

Proposed

Code

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

3.72m

3.6m

No

External wall height (max)

3.25m

2.4m

No

Maximum floor space

52.13m2

50 m²

No

No of Storeys

1

1

Yes

Setback of windows from boundaries (min)

N/A

 

900mm

 

N/A

 

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

The tree preservation officer has indicated no objections to the proposed development given that no trees are proposed to be removed. To protect existing trees on the neighbouring property and street, draft conditions have been provided if consent is granted.

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible, complies with the development standard for Floor Space Ratio and Height.

 

The objective of R2 low density residential zone is as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed garage would be in front of the building line and adversely impact upon the streetscape. The proposed development would not meet the objective of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The subject and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes. Given the type 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 would 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.

 

Outbuilding Height – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:

 

·         Outbuildings shall not exceed one storey up to a maximum of 3.6m in height.  The maximum external wall height is 2.4m.

 

The plans show a maximum height of 3.72m which is marginally above 3.6m and may be considered satisfactory in a different location that is not forward of the building line.

 

The maximum wall height is shown to be 3.3m which is above 2.4m and is considered inappropriate forward of the building line.

 

Outbuilding Area – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:

 

·         The total area of outbuildings is not to exceed 50m2.

 

The total area of the proposed outbuilding is 52.13m2.  This is marginally over 50m2 and  given that  the site of the outbuilding is located  in front of the building line  this proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of the area and streetscape.

 

Only Carports Permitted in Front of Building Line – Council’s DCP 2010 specifies:

 

·         Carports are permitted within the front setback areas where:

 

i.      The carport has an open design and has minimal impact on the streetscape

ii.     The carport does not have a trafficable roof

iii.    Open security gates (with a minimum of 50% openings) are permitted

iv.    The carport posts are to be setback a minimum of 1.0m from the street alignment

 

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

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing garage and storeroom and construct a larger garage and storeroom with a shower/WC in it coming across to the north western boundary.

 

The applicant architect was written to and advised as follows:

 

1.    Council’s policy is to only approve open design carports with post, column or pier supports in front of the Building Line.  Open security gates (with a minimum of 50% openings) are permitted and the carport posts are to be setback a minimum of 1m from the street alignment (Clause 1.9a of DCP).

 

Subsequently the applicant’s architect submitted the following letter (copy attached AT3).

 

The examples of garages in front of the building line as submitted in the letter have been inspected and are as follows:

 

·         3 Wisdom Road

 

There is a carport in the front yard to which a garage door has been fitted under CDC104/11.

 

·         14 Sarner Road

 

There is a renovated garage in front of the building line which does not appear to be wider than the existing. In addition, this garage is partly excavated into the site.

 

·         16 Sarner Road

 

There is a garage approved in 2004 (DA119/04) which is partly under the existing dwelling house and partly in front of the dwelling house which is setback between 4.2m and 4.9m from Sarner Road.

 

·         18 Sarner Road

 

There was an old double garage in front of the building line which has now been mostly demolished in accordance with Council’s approval of DA171/15 dated 23 February 2016.

 

·         90 Greenwich Road (corner of Sarner Road)

 

There is a double garage excavated into the site on the secondary road frontage which is Sarner Road.  This is in accordance with the DCP requirements.

 

It is considered that from at least 2010, which is when the current DCP was adopted, Council has endeavoured to only approve open carports in front of the building line.

 

Further, none of the examples given are considered to match the present proposal to demolish an  existing garage in front of the building line and construct a larger garage.

 

The objective indicated in Clause 1.9 of the DCP is as follows:

 

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

 

It is considered that the application should be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.    The proposed garage does not meet the DCP objective for carparking as it is in front of the building line and would have an adverse impact upon the streetscape.  

2.    The proposed garage does not comply with the requirements of Clause 1.9 of Part C of Council’s DCP 2010 which is to only approve open carports in front of the building line.

3.    The proposed garage is considered to create an undesirable precedent.

4.    The proposed garage is considered to not be in the public interest.

 

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

 

There has been one response  to the notification of this application from the owners of 7 Landsdowne Street.  It is advised that they have no concerns regarding the Development Application.  The subject property borders their rear perimeter fence.

 

However, they would like to note the Tree Preservation Order that exists on most of the trees along their fence line.  They request that the trees are not trimmed or cut back when the new garden is being planted.  Also no damage to tree roots, etc., when excavating.

 

They assume the existing adjoining fence (which is relatively new) remains in place at all times and advised they have a large dog housed in the yard.

 

They asked for their concerns to be passed on to the owners and thanked them for their consideration.

 

Their submission is available on Council’s website and this report would be would be read by the owners of the subject property.

 

The owners of 9 Lansdowne Street were also notified and advised of the proposed structure on the boundary between 9 Lansdowne Street and 34 Wisdom Road and requested to advise if there were any concerns.

 

No response has been received.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The application fails to meet the LEP objective to retain and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

 

Furthermore, the proposed development does not meet with the Part C Residential Development Objectives in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan which requires only open carports in front of the building line.

 

On balance, the proposed garage is in front of the building line, does not comply with the requirements of Part C of Council’s DCP 2010 and is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses consent to Development Application D43/17 for the demolition and construction of a garage, shed, entry steps and retaining walls on Lot 10, DP 871647 and known as 34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich on the following grounds:

 

1.    The application fails to meet the LEP objective to retain, and where appropriate, improve the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

 

2.    The proposed garage does not comply with the requirements of Clause 1.9 of Part C of Council’s DCP 2010 which is to only approve open carports in front of the building line.

 

3.    The proposed garage is considered to create an undesirable precedent.

 

4.    The proposed garage is considered to not be in the public interest.

 

5.    The proposed roof height of 3.72m and the maximum wall height of 3.3m of the outbuilding exceed the maximum of 3.6m and 2.4m respectively set out in Council’s DCP. (Clause 1.10.3b).

 

6.    The combined area of the outbuilding of 52.13sqm exceeds the maximum of 50sqm set out in Council’s DCP (Clause 1.10.3d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Submission from applicant

8 Pages

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 4 July 2017

15 Norfolk Rd, Longueville

 

 

Subject:          15 Norfolk Rd, Longueville    

Record No:    DA16/182-01 - 32985/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      May Li 

 

 

 

Property:

15 Norfolk Road, Longueville

DA No:

DA 182/2016

Date Lodged:

11/10/2016

Cost of Work:

$1,500,000.00

Owner:

H Mason

Applicant:        

As above

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

-           Boundary adjustment between Lot 1 and Lot 2

 

-           Alteration and addition to an existing dwelling house, construction of a Coach House, a free standing carport and a swimming pool on Lot 1

 

-           Construction of a two storey dwelling house on Lot 2

 

Zone

R2 - Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

Yes, the site is listed as a heritage item in accordance with Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Item No. I257).

 

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 – 209 days

Notification

Neighbours: 5 & 25 Cross Street, 7, 9, 11, 11A, 13, 15A 17, 17A, 17B, 19 19A and 21 Norfolk Road, Longueville

Ward Councillors                  

Progress Association: Longueville Residents Association

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject site is known as 15 Norfolk Road, Longueville and comprises two lots being Lot 1 and Lot 2, DP 618825.  It is listed as heritage item No. 1257 in accordance with Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.  There are several easements on the property including a Right of Carriageway benefits the adjoining property at 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville.

 

This development application seeks consent for

 

·         Boundary adjustment between Lot 1 and Lot 2

 

·         Alteration and addition to the existing dwelling house, construction of a free standing carport structure, a detached Coach House and an in-ground swimming pool on Lot 1

 

·         Construction of a two storey dwelling house on Lot 2.

 

The site area of each proposed lots meets the minimum lot size standard of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

The proposed Coach House and the carport structure are located within the influenced zones of the existing easements and the proposed works can’t be commenced until the existing influence easements are extinguished. 

 

The proposed subdivision plan and the proposed Coach House cannot be supported until the applicant can demonstrate a deed of agreement between the applicant and the owners of 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville to surrender the existing right of way.

 

The design of the coach house exceeds the building height restriction of the Terms of Restriction of the Property by 2.6m.  It also fails to meet the outbuilding design provisions of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan and would create adverse impacts to the adjoining properties relating to visual and loss of water view to Tambourine Bay. 

 

The design of the addition to the existing dwelling house is supported by Council’s heritage adviser.

 

The proposed new dwelling house on Lot 2 with nil setbacks to its southern boundary fails to meet the side setback requirements of Lane Cove DCP and would require an easement on the adjoining property at 15A Norfolk Road, Longuevile for future building maintenance.  No maintenance easement was proposed in the application.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment officer also raised objections to the proposed coach house as it would be within the tree protection zone of a mature Camphor Laurel tree on the northern boundary of the site.  This tree is considered significant as it forms part of an avenue of trees that is retainable during construction.

 

7 submissions from nearby residents have been received in response to the notification of the development proposal.  The submissions raised valid concern relating to the amenity impact from the proposed coach house to their properties. 

 

The application is recommended for deferred commencement consent subject to draft conditions.

 

SITE

 

The site is known as 15 Norfolk Road, Longueville.  The property information is listed in the table below:

 

Property

Lot No. 1 & 2, DP No. 618825

Area

Existing Lot 1: 1997m2 (1888m2 + 109m2 offset area), existing Lot 2: 745.9m2

Site location

The site is located at the western side of Norfolk Road in Longuevile.

 

Existing improvements

An existing two storey dwelling house and a timber boatshed are located on Lot 1

 

Lot 2 is currently vacant.

 

Shape

Irregular

Dimensions

Width: 4.57m to Norfolk Road (front), approximately 44m to foreshore (rear) of Lane Cove River

 

Depth: 97.25m at the northern boundary sharing with 13 Norfolk Road and 9.34m at the southern boundary sharing with 15A Norfolk Road. 

 

Adjoining properties

East: Norfolk Road then a dwelling house at 25 Cross Road, Longueville

 

West: The foreshore of Tambourine Bay

 

North: A two storey dwelling house on 13 Norfolk Road

 

South: A two storey dwelling house on 15A Norfolk Road, then a two storey dwelling house on 17B Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There is no development history relating to the subject site in Council’s records.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The subject site comprises two lots being Lot 1 and Lot 2 of DP 618825.  The proposal involves boundary adjustment between two lots; alteration and addition to the existing dwelling house which is named as “Fairlie”, construction of a free standing carport structure, a detached coach house and a swimming pool on Lot 1; and the construction of a new dwelling house on Lot 2.  The proposed works are detailed as follows:

 

Proposed boundary adjustment

 

·         The site area of Lot 1 would be altered from 1997m2 (1888m2 + 109m2 offset area) to 2076.71m2 including 48.14m2 of ROW.

 

·         The site area of Lot 2 would be altered from 745.9m2 to 665.43m2.  Lot 2 would have access handles to the foreshore of Tambourine Bay and Norfolk Road. 

 

The proposed works on Lot 1

 

·         Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house “Fairlie” including:

 

o   Construction of a single storey addition to the north of the existing dwelling house including entry, retreat, laundry and a bathroom

o   Extension to the conservatory at the southern side of the existing dwelling house on the Ground Level

o   Alteration to the floor plan on the First Floor Level.

 

·         Construction of a free standing carport structure with basement storage to the east of the existing dwelling house “Fairlie” including:

 

o   Basement storage, wine cellar and plant room

o   A carport for 3 cars

o   Two sets of stairs

o   The footprint of the proposed carport structure is located within the zones of influence of two easements (B – Easement for electricity purposes 1 wide and C Easement for Services over existing line of pipes (approx. position)).

 

·         Construction of a detached Coach House including:

 

o   A double garage on the Ground Level

o   A studio with a bathroom on the First Floor Level

o   The footprint of the proposed coach house is located within a Right of Carriageway (A – Right of Carriageway 3.66 wide).

 

·         Construction of a swimming pool to the north of the existing dwelling house at the rear of the site.  The size of the proposed swimming pool is 2.5m x 7m.

 

Proposed works on Lot 2

 

·         Construction of a new dwelling house including:

 

o   A living area on the Lower Ground Level

o   Dining, kitchen, living, laundry, WC and a double garage on the Ground Level

o   3 Bedrooms and two bathrooms on the First Floor Level

 

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Lot 1

 

Zoning:            R2 Low Density                                  Existing Site Area:                  1997m²

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.17:1

0.5:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

9.36m as existing

9.5m

Yes

Minimum lot size

2076.71m2

550m2

Yes

 

Note:

 

·         The proposed GFA on Lot 1 is 350.75m2 including 294.75m2 for the dwelling house and 56m2 for the coach house.

 

·         The GFA of the Coach House is less than 60m2 and meets the requirements of secondary dwelling in accordance with Clause 5.4(9) of the LEP which states as the follows:

 

·         Clause 5.4(9) Secondary dwellings

 

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater:

 

(a)        60 square metres,

(b)        100% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

1.         The addition to the existing dwelling house “Fairlie”

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

More than 66m as existing

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

N/A

2m

N/A

Side setback (min)

1.2m for single storey

 

1.2m single storey

 

Yes

Rear setback (min)

6m

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

No.  However it is considered acceptable as it is consistent with the existing rear setback

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

6.8m as existing

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

9.36m as existing

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

N/A

1.5m

N/A

Number of Storeys (max)

2 as existing

2

Yes

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

63%( 1301m2)

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

The proposed addition to the “Fairlie” is behind the building line between the existing house and the adjoining building at 17B Norfolk Road

Be located behind the building line of the existing building on the site and the building on the adjoining site

Yes

Cut and Fill (max)

N/A

1m

N/A

Solar Access

As existing

 

The shadows of the addition to the dwelling house would be cast on the subject site only. 

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

The proposed single storey addition to “Fairlie” would have low impact to the water view from the living room on first floor of the adjoining property at 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

Required

Yes

Heritage Conservation

The heritage impact statement lodged with the development application was taken into consideration during the assessment

To be considered as part of the assessment

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3m as existing

3m

Yes

Private open space

More than 1300m2

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

Submitted

Required

Yes

 

2.         The Coach House

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

More than 30m as existing

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

0.9m

1.5m for 2 storey

No

Rear setback (min)

45m

34m (35% of the boundary length)

Yes

Wall Height (max)

6.0m

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

6.6m

9.5m

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

Cut and Fill (max)

0.6

1m

Yes

Provide for view sharing

The proposed coach house would impact on the views of adjoining properties

 

View share is required

No

 

Note:

 

The ridge height of the proposed Coach House at RL 24.020 does not meet the Terms of Restriction on the property which stated “No building shall be erected on Lot 1 having a height in excess of R.L.21.4 on Australian Height Data”.

 

3.         Carport Structure (Outbuilding)

 

The carport building is considered as an outbuilding.

 

 

Proposed

Code

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

5.34m

3.6m

No.  However, it is considered acceptable due to site constrains.

External wall height (max)

4.71m

2.4m

No

Maximum floor space

Nil

50m²

Yes

No of Storeys

2 at rear due to the land falls

1

No.  However, majority of the storage on the lower level is below the existing ground level and majority of the proposed structure is a single storey building above the existing ground level.

Setback of windows from boundaries (min)

1.5m to northern boundary

Min 0.9m for windows

Yes

 

4.         Car Parking Provisions

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

5 (3 car spaces in the carport and 2 car spaces in the coach house)

2

Yes

Driveway width

4m

3m at the lot boundary

Yes

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

4m

3m

Yes

 

5.         Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

21m to the dwelling house of 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville

3m to waterline

Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

3m to the northern boundary

1m to waterline

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1m

1.0m

Yes

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

0.3:1

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

Yes

 

6.         Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Not proposed

Solid:   900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

N/A

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

N/A

1m

N/A

Side and rear fences

1.8m

1.8m

Yes

 

Lot 2

 

Zoning:            R2 - Low Density                                Existing Site Area:                  745.9m²

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.47:1

0.5:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

5.9m

9.5m

Yes

Minimum lot size

665.43m2

550m2

Yes

 

Note:

 

·          The area of the access handles on Lot 2 is 148.2m2.

·          The proposed site area exclusive of the access handles for GFA calculation is 517.23m2.

·          The proposed GFA on Lot 2 is 241.02m2.

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

New Dwelling House on Lot 2

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

More than 45m to Norfolk Road

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

0.9m to the northern boundary for 2 storey

 

0.9m on the ground level and nil setback on the first floor to the southern boundary

1.5m two storey

No.  The variation to the northern boundary is supported as the applicant owns both lots and length of the wall within the setback zone is only 2.5m.

 

No.  The nil setbacks to the southern boundary are not supported as no maintenance easement on the adjoining site is proposed. 

 

Rear setback (min)

21

12.5m (25% of the boundary length)

Yes

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

4.7m

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

5.9m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

N/A

1.5m

N/A

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

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

37% (243m2)

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

Behind the rear building lines of 15 and 17B Norfolk Road, Longueville

Behind the rear building lines of two existing adjoining buildings

Yes

Cut and Fill (max)

3.6

1m

No.  The variation is supported as the proposed excavation would ensure the view of the adjoining property at 15A Norfolk Road would be maintained. 

Solar Access

The adjacent house and the open space at 17B Norfolk Road, Longueville would receive more than 3 hours of solar access

Min 3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

The view to Tambourine Bay from 15A Norfolk Road would have minor impact from the erection of the proposed dwelling house which is well below the maximum permitted building height of the LEP.

 

Required

Yes

Heritage Conservation

The heritage impact statement lodged with the development application was taken into consideration during the assessment

To be considered as part of the assessment

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

2m

3m

Yes

Private open space

227m2

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

Submitted

Required

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s development engineer has assessed the proposal and provided comments as follows:

 

The proposed application has the following deficiency’s which can only be addressed by way of deferred commencement:

 

1.                       The applicant is required to submit a detailed land survey by a registered surveyor reflecting all easements, covenants and rights of way burdening each lot. A surveyors report will also be required to explain all restrictions registered on title to Council’s satisfaction.

 

2.                       An existing right of way known as (A) on the survey plan burdens lot 1 in favour of 13 Norfolk Road. The proposed Coach House is over the right of way and the proposed subdivision plan wishes to delete the right of way. This proposal will require consent from the owners of 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville.

 

3.                       The proposed subdivision plan and the proposed Coach House cannot be supported till the applicant can demonstrate a deed of agreement between the applicant and the owners of 13 Norfolk Road Longueville to surrender the existing right of way.

 

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

 

Part A: Documentary evidence regarding points 1 and 2 must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent.  Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

 

1.                       The applicant is required to submit a detailed land survey by a registered surveyor reflecting all easements, covenants and rights of way burdening each lot. A surveyors report will also be required to explain all restrictions registered on title to Council’s satisfaction.

 

2.                       The proposed subdivision plan and the proposed coach house cannot be supported till the applicant can demonstrate a deed of agreement between the applicant and the owners of 13 Norfolk Road Longueville. The deed needs to reflect the terms which allow the existing right of way known as (A) on the survey plan burdening lot 1 in favour of 13 Norfolk Road can be extinguished.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

Given the proposal includes boundary adjustment involving the rearrangement of easements on the subject site and the adjoining property, the concerns raised by the development engineer are considered valid and should be addressed prior to the commencement of the proposed building works. 

 

The engineering recommendation is supported and the application would be recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

 

Heritage Adviser

 

The subject site is listed as a heritage item (Item No.I257) in accordance with Schedule 5 - Environmental Heritage of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

The development proposal has been referred to Council’s heritage adviser for comment during the assessment process.  The heritage adviser has endorsed the proposed design.  Refer to Heritage Advice (AT3).

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

The Tree Assessment Officer has assessed the proposal and provided the following advice:

The plans depict the removal of trees to facilitate the development however the development impact to trees identified for retention on site has not been addressed. Plans provided present the proposed installation of a structure (Coach House) located on the northern boundary that is within the tree protection zone of a mature Camphor Laurel tree (Cinnamomum camphora). This tree is considered significant as it forms part of an avenue of trees that is retainable during construction.

Neighbours trees that are vulnerable to impact from the proposal have not been identified on the site plans provided, specifically three Cupressus spp. on the northern boundary close to house number 13.

The installation of the Coach House is not supported due to unnecessary impacts on significant trees.

Information regarding the locations of neighbouring trees in relation to proposed structures has not been provided.

I have no objection to the removal of the Brush Box tree as identified on plan number 0.03 as it is my understanding this is a requirement for installation of a dwelling house.

I have no objection to the re-configuration of the driveway on the provision it is of minimal impact to the three mature trees along the northern side of the drive.

I have no objections to the remainder of the development on the provision conditions are met.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The tree assessment officer’s advice is accepted.  The proposed Coach House is not supported as it would create adverse impact to significant trees along the northern boundary of the property. 

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible and complies with the development standards for building height, Floor Space Ratio and minimum lot sizes of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

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.

 

Section 94 Contribution

 

The proposed new dwelling house on Lot 2 would have additional persons living on the site.  A contribution for community facilities, open space/recreation and road under Lane Cove Section 94 Contributions Plan would be required.  The amount of Section 94 contribution is $20,000 per residential dwelling limit on local development contribution in accordance with NSW Local Development Contribution.

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed building meets most of the design provisions of Part C.1 of Lane Cove Development Control Plan with exceptions to the excavation and side setback requirements.  The variations are discussed below:

 

Cut and fill

 

The DCP provision limits a maximum depth of 1m excavation for low density residential developments in Lane Cove unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation. 

 

The DCP also states that Council may consider increasing the depth of excavation between the underside of the lowest floor to any point on the site where:

 

I.          Large exposed undercroft areas are not created.

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

 

The proposed construction of the store below the carport on Lot 1 and new dwelling house on Lot 2 require excavation greater than 1m.  The variations to the cut provision are discussed below:

 

Carport Structure

 

The slope of the site falls by approximately 24m from its street frontage to the foreshore at rear on Lot 1.  The proposed carport is at a location with a fall of 3.3m within a length of 11.5m.  The construction of the carport structure would require maximum 3m excavation for the storage below the car parking level.  The construction of the storage would avoid a large exposed undercroft area under the car parking level to the east of heritage listed building.  The variation is supported as it would improve the amenity of the site and achieve a better outcome. 

 

Dwelling House on Lot 2

 

The footprint of the proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 is at a location with an approximate 6m fall.  A maximum of 3.5m excavation is proposed for the construction of the dwelling house.  The living area on the Lower Ground Level and partial Ground Level would be located below the existing ground level to minimise the bulk of the proposed building viewed from the adjoining properties.  A lower building would reduce view impact to Tambourine Bay from the rear of 15A Norfolk Road, Longueville.  The building height of the proposed new dwelling house on Lot 2 is 5.9m which is well below the maximum permitted building height of 9.5m.

 

The proposed excavation for the construction of the new dwelling house on Lot 2 would retain the natural ground levels at the front and rear of the proposed dwelling house.  The proposed excavation would allow the construction of a two storey dwelling house on Lot 2 with mimimum view and solar impacts to two adjoining properties at 15A and 17B Norfolk Road, Longueville.  The variation is supported as it meets the objectives of the DCP which would not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings. 

 

The variations to the cut provisions of the DCP for both of the carport structure and the dwelling house on Lot 2 are supported. 

 

Side Setbacks

 

The objectives of side setback provisions of the DCP are to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation for the dwelling and its neighbours.

 

The DCP side setback provisions require a minimum of 1.2m for a single storey dwelling and 1.5m for a two storey dwelling. 

 

Setbacks of proposed structures of Lot 1

 

The proposed works on Lot 1 included single storey addition to “Fairlie”, construction of a carport, and a 2 storey coach house.  The compliances with the DCP side setback provisions are summarized in the following table:

 

Proposed Works

Setback Requirement

Original Proposal

Amended Proposal

Comment

Single storey Additional to “Fairlie”

1.2m

0.9m

1.2m

Complies

Carport

1.5m

0.9m

1.5m

Complies

Coach House

1.5m

0.9m

0.9m

Does not Comply

 

As indicated in the table above, the designs of the addition to existing dwelling house and the carport structure have been amended to meet the side setback provisions of the DCP.

 

The design of the Coach House has not been amended to comply with the side setback requirement.  The applicant has advised Council that they are currently in a process of an agreement with the owner of 13 Norfolk Road for the removal of the Right of Carriageway 3.66 Wide (A).  The location of the proposed Coach House would be amended if Council imposes conditions requiring further side and rear setbacks under deferred commencement consent for the construction of the Coach House.

 

The relocation of the Coach House away from its western boundary would require the removal of a Camphor Laurel tree. Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has advised this is a significant tree and does not support the proposed Coach House. 

 

 

 

 

Side and Rear Setbacks of the Dwelling House on Lot 2

 

The proposed dwelling house would be 0.9m to its northern boundary and nil setbacks to its southern boundary.  The applicant seeks variations to the side and rear setback provisions of the DCP in the following ways:

 

·         East boundary: 0.9m setback on Ground Level and 0.2m setback on the First Floor

·         North boundary: 0.9m setback on Ground Level at rear

·         South boundary: 0.9m setback on Lower Ground Level, 0.9m on Ground Level and nil setbacks on the First Floor Level. 

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects states the following reasons to request for a variation of the side setback provisions of the DCP:

 

·         The proposal is consistent with the setbacks of the neighbouring dwellings which do not comply with the setback controls

·         The proposed building would have minimal impact to the amenity to adjoining properties including loss of sunlight, privacy, bulk and scale

·         Rear access is retained to the site

·         The pattern of development is not compromised

·         The compliance with the side setback requirement would compromise the room size of the proposed Bedroom 3 on the first floor. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 is more than 6m away from the existing dwelling house “Fairlie” on Lot 1.  There would be sufficient landscaping on Lot 1 between two dwelling houses.  The proposed new dwelling house on Lot 2 with the proposed 0.9m setback to the northern boundary is therefore considered acceptable. 

 

Lot 2 shares its southern boundary with a 2.5m wide walkway of the adjoining property at 15A Norfolk Road, Longueville.  The proposed dwelling house with nil setbacks to the southern boundary on Lot 2 would require an access easement for future building maintenances.

 

An access maintenance easement 0.9m wide (minimum) over the access walkway on 115A Norfolk Road, Longueville should be created in favour of Lot 2 of 15 Norfolk Road, Longueville, to permit access to maintain the southern wall of the development.

 

The applicant has not included any such information relating to the access easement or an agreement between the owner of the subject site and the owners of the adjoining property at 15A Norfolk Road, Longueville. 

 

Given the proposal involves construction of a new building on a vacant lot, the proposed design should be able to comply with the side setback requirements to the southern boundary.  The room size of Bedroom 3 on the first floor would be compromised by compliance with the DCP setback provisions.  However Bedroom 3 could be relocated to the lower level of the proposed building.  The proposed nil setbacks to the southern boundary is not supported.

 

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

 

The development proposal was notified between 12 October 2016 and 26 October 2016 in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  7 submissions from adjoining and nearby property owners were received in response to the notification of the development proposal.  The concerns raised by the submissions are discussed below.

 

5 Cross Road, Longueville

 

This property is located at the eastern side of Cross Road opposite the development site.

 

·         A detailed submission might follow if the owners of this property could confirm that the proposed development would adversely impact their property. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The owners of 5 Cross Road, Longueville have not lodged any further submission relating to the proposed development.

 

11 Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

This property is located to the north of the subject site and does not share any boundary with the development site.

 

·         The proposed Coach House is overly bulky to its location and would create adverse impacts including loss of view to Tambourine Bay from their deck and over looking impact to their primary private open space in the backyard.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed Coach House exceeds the maximum permitted height of RL 24 which was set by the convent on Lot 1.  Compliance with building height would have less view loss impact to the adjoining property to the north of Lot 1.

 

·         The design of the Coach House is not sympathetic with the heritage item.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The heritage issues have been reviewed by Council’s heritage adviser.  The heritage adviser concurred with the Heritage Impact Statement which stated the Coach House “reflects features of the existing arts and crafts house” and raised no objection to the proposed building design of the Coach House.

 

·         The proposed additional vehicle entry to the site would result in a loss of an on street parking space. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The existing ROW on 13 Norfolk Road provides vehicle access to both Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the subject site.  The proposal would create a vehicle entry for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 at Lot 1 street frontage and is considered reasonable in this quiet residential street. 

 

13 Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

This neighbouring property is located to the north of the subject site.  The owner of this property raised the following concerns:

 

·         The footprint of the proposed Coach House is located on an existing right of way which benefits 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville.  The proposed Coach House would restrict access to the right of way.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

Both owners of the development site and the neighbour have had discussions relating to the removal of the existing ROW (A) for construction of the proposed Coach House.  The applicant has submitted additional information relating to the principles of a draft agreement on 29 March 2017.  However, the final agreement has not been reached and the terms of the existing ROW are in place.  The construction of the Coach House cannot occur until the ROW being extinguished.

 

·         The proposed structures including to the Coach House, the carport structure and the addition to “Fairlie” are too close to the dwelling house on 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The applicant has amended the building addition to “Fairlie” and the carport structure to comply with the side setback requirements of Lane Cove DCP.  The applicant also agrees with the neighbour that the proposed Coach House would have a minimum 6m setback to the property rear boundary between 13 Norfolk Road. 

·         The proposed 1.8m high fence in front of the dwelling front entry of 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville intrudes on the right of way and can’t be built.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The applicant has agreed to delete the fence from the development application.

 

·         The proposed addition to the northern side of the existing dwelling house would cause a loss of view impact.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The view the Lane Cove River and Hunters Hill from the rear yard of the neighbouring property is gained across the side boundaries of the subject site.  The panorama view to Tambourine Bay from the rear balcony and the living room on the first floor of 13 Norfolk Road would not be affected by the proposed addition to “Fairlie”.

 

15A Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

This property is located to the south of the subject site and shares its north and west boundaries with Lot 2 of the development site.  The neighbour has raised the following concerns:

 

·         The proposed Coach House is overly bulky and it should not be two storeys.  It would cause loss of water view to Tambourine Bay to the north direction from their ground floor deck. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

It is agreed that the proposed Coach House is located within a view corridor of the adjoining property.

 

·         The proposed driveway for Lot 2 is too close to the dwelling house of 11 Norfolk Road, Longueville.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The driveway on Lot 2 is proposed for the vehicle access to the garage of the new proposed dwelling house.  The driveway would serve a dwelling house which would be low frequency domestic use. 

 

17A Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

The property is located to the south of the subject site and does not share any boundary with the development site. The owner of this property raised objections to the proposed development.

 

·         The height and location of the proposed Coach House is situated within the view corridor from the ground floor northern deck.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

It is agreed that the proposed coach house would impact upon the view to Tambourine Bay from the property.

 

·         The proposal involves the removal of a brush box tree which is native and is in good health. 

 


 

Officer’s comment:

 

The brush box tree is located at the centre of Lot 2 which is currently vacant.  Removal of the brush box for the construction of the proposed dwelling house on a vacant lot is considered inevitable.  Council’s tree assessment officer raised no objection to the proposed tree removal.

 

·         The setback of the proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 should comply with Council’s control.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 does not meet the setback provisions of the DCP.  The compliance with the DCP provisions should be considered on the merits of the case. 

 

17B Norfolk Road, Longueville

 

This adjoining property is located to the south of the subject site and does not have a shared boundary to the subject site.  The 2.5m wide walkway of 15A Norfolk Road is located between the southern boundary of Lot 2 and the northern boundary of 17B Norfolk Road.  The owners of 17B Norfolk Road raised the following concerns in their submission.

 

·         The proposed 1.8m high fence, from the south western corner of the proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 would create significant unnecessary over shadowing to the south and would reduce the amenity of the property to the south.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed 1.8m high boundary wall along the southern boundary of Lot 2 meets the fence provisions of Lane Cove DCP.

 

·         Restriction to the building height, footprint and window locations of future amendments to the dwelling house on Lot 2 should be imposed in the conditions of development consent. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

Any future amendments to the building design of a development would be subject to a Section 96 Modification application which would be notified and assessed on the merits of the case.

 

CCG Architects

 

In addition to the concerns raised by owners of nearby properties, CCG Architects raised the following concerns:

 

·         The proposed Coach House is in excess of 60m2 and is too large to be considered as a “secondary dwelling” under the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

Clause 1.9 of Part C.1 of the Land Cove DCP specifies “for the purpose of floor area exemption from FSR calculation, a double garage is a maximum of 40m2.”

 

The proposed Coach House is a two storey building comprising a double garage on the Ground Floor and a studio on the First Floor.  The GFA of the Coach House is 56m2 excluding 40m2 of garage area which meet the GFA requirement of secondary dwelling.  The Coach House has been considered as a secondary dwelling in the assessment. 

 

·         The views currently available would be reduced, particularly from the elevated decks and living areas of the nearby properties.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The building height of the Coach House exceeds the Terms of Restrictions on Lot 1.  The proposed Coach House is located within view corridors and would cause loss of water view to Tambourine Bay from the nearby properties of 5 Cross Street, 11, 15A and 17A Norfolk Road, Longueville. 

 

All submissions have been taken into consideration during the assessment.  Submissions have raised valid concerns to the proposed development.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

The proposed building works on the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are pending an outcome of the boundary adjustment and the rearrangement of the easements on the existing lots and the adjoining property 13 Norfolk Road, Longueville. 

 

The compliance with the side setback provisions relating to the addition to the existing dwelling house “Fairlie” and the construction of the carport building on Lot 1 have been addressed by the amended plans.

 

The proposed Coach House is in excess of building height by 2.62m of the Terms of Restriction and would impact upon views from nearby properties.  It would create an adverse impact upon the mature Camphor Laurel tree located on the northern boundary of the site.  The construction of the Coach House is not supported. 

 

The dwelling house on Lot 2 with nil setbacks to its southern boundary would require an easement for its future building maintenance.  The proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 should have a minimum 0.9m setback to the southern boundary. 

 

Until all outstanding issues are addressed, the proposed building works cannot commence.  The application is therefore is recommended as a deferred commencement consent. 

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred development consent to Development Application DA 182/2016 for the following:-

 

·         Boundary adjustment between Lot 1 and Lot 2

·         Alteration and addition to the existing dwelling house “Fairlie”, construction of a carport structure, a driveway and a swimming pool on Lot 1

·         Construction of a dwelling house on Lot 2

 

on Lot 1 and Lot 2, DP 618825 and known as 15 Norfolk Road, Lane Cove subject to the following:-

 

Part A

 

1.    The applicant is required to submit a detailed land survey by a registered surveyor reflecting all easements, covenants and rights of way burdening each lot. A surveyors report will also be required to explain all restrictions registered on title to Council’s satisfaction.

 

2.    The proposed subdivision plan and the proposed Coach House cannot be supported till the applicant can demonstrate a Deed of agreement between the applicant and the owners of 13 Norfolk Road Longueville. The Deed is to reflect the terms which allow the existing right of way known as (A) on the survey plan burdening lot 1 in favour of 13 Norfolk Road can be extinguished.

 

3.    The Coach House on Lot 1 shall be deleted.

 

4.    The proposed dwelling house on Lot 2 must have a minimum setback of 0.9m to its southern boundary.

 

5.    Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent.  This approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

 

Part B

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

 

General Conditions

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawings (to be specified) except as amended by the following conditions.

 

2.         Archival recording of the original building in accordance with NSW Heritage Division Guidelines including measured drawings and detailed photographic record of interior and exterior fabric. (refer HIS)

 

3.         Exterior colour scheme must be used for the exterior of the heritage building. 

 

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

 

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

 

6.         (11) The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water online approval portal “Sydney Water Tap In”, please refer to web site www.sydneywater.com.au. This is to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt with conditions shall be issued by Sydney Water (if determined to be satisfactory) and is to be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

9.         (21) THE PAYMENT OF A CONTRIBUTION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN.  THIS PAYMENT BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND IS TO BE AT THE CURRENT RATE AT TIME OF PAYMENT.  THE AMOUNT IS $20,000 AT THE CURRENT RATE OF $10,100 PER PERSON (2016-2017).  NOTE:  PAYMENT MUST BE IN BANK CHEQUE.  PERSONAL CHEQUES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

 

THIS CONTRIBUTION IS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION AND ROAD UNDER THE LANE COVE SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTER, LANE COVE COUNCIL, 48 LONGUEVILLE ROAD, LANE COVE.

 

10.       (24) A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  Please refer to the “Your Business” section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the “e-Developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development/release of the plan of subdivision.

 

11.       (35) Hours of Building Works

 

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

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                         7.00am to 4.00pm

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

 

12.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992, and the Australian Standard AS1926 – 2012, “Swimming Pool Safety”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

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

e)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)          Waterproofing of wet areas

g)         Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

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

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

k)         Completion.

 

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

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing.

 

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

 

24.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile, in a mid to dark colour range with an anti-glare finish. The intent of the condition is to reduce sun reflection and glare to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

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

 

a          The establishment of the each floor level of the new buildings

b          The roof framing; and

c          The completion of works.

 

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

 

26.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations.  Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

27.       (67) 

(a)        The use of mechanical rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for damage to adjoining properties.

 

(b)        Notwithstanding the prohibition under condition (a), the principal certifying authority may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

(1)        A Geotechnical Engineer's Report that indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to the adjoining properties.

 

(2)        The report details the procedure to be followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties.

 

(3)        With the permission of the adjoining owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING.  Where approval of the owners/occupiers is refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages (if any) from the developers and where such permission is still refused Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval.

 

(4)        The Geotechnical Engineer supervises the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid down.

 

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

 

28.       (72) The proposed works must be confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

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

 

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

 

31.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each day’s work.

 

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

 

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

 

34.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application.

 

35.       (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.

 

36.       (137)  Lane Cove Council charges a fee for the registration of any Part 4A Certificates (compliance, construction, occupation or subdivision certificates) issued by an accredited certifier under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

42.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property.  This shall include hoarding applications, vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

48.       (X1) 88B Instrument: An instrument under 88B of the conveyancing Act 1919 plus two copies is to be submitted to Council prior to the release of subdivision certificate. The 88B instrument shall properly reflect the requirements of the conditions of the development consent, plans forming part of the consent and Council’s policies.

 

Where Council, inter-allotment drainage lines or services are located within the development, drainage easements and easements for services shall be created in accordance with Council’s minimum widths as set out in Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

Part 2 of the 88B instrument shall contain a provision that any easements, rights of way, covenants shall not be extinguished or altered without the written consent of Council.

 

49.       (X2) Linen Plan of Subdivision: A Linen Plan of Subdivision plus 5 copies are to be submitted to Council prior to the release of subdivision certificate.

           

The linen plan of subdivision shall be suitable for endorsement by the general manager pursuant to Section 327 of the local government act and shall properly reflect the requirements of the conditions of the development consent, plans forming part of the consent and Council’s policies

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

50.       (D1) Drainage Plans New: A stormwater drainage plan prepared for Lot 1 and Lot 2 and certified by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Part O, Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

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

 

52.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $3000 bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgment of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

53.       (V4) Car Parking Certification: The plans and supporting calculations of the internal driveway, turning areas, ramps, garage opening widths, parking space dimensions and any associated vehicular maneuvering facilities shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. 

 

The plans shall be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS 2890 Series and Council's standards and specifications. The design and certification shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

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

The applicant shall:-

 

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

(b)        detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Council accepts no liability for any damage to the pool as a result of overland flows or high tide inundation. The property owner shall submit written acceptance of liability of any damages prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

57.       (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: An erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines set out in the manual “Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate 

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

58.       (C2) Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management Conditions

 

60.       (346)  A report from a suitably experienced minimum AQF level 5 Arborist to assess the likely impact of the proposed development on all trees identified for retention on DA Plan 0.03. The report must be written in compliance with AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The report must have been approved by Council PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

The report must include;

·         Identification of all trees on site inclusive of neighbouring trees and trees identified for removal.

·         A discussion and conclusion of the construction impacts with clear recommendations to mitigate impacts where appropriate.

·         A detailed work method statement for the development within the tree protection zone.

·         A tree protection plan detailing all protective measures for trees identified for retention.

·         A site plan depicting tree location, protection measures and location of proposed structures impacting the trees.

61.       (New) A project Arborist is to be appointed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE to oversee all works within the tree protection zone and provide certification to monitor tree health during construction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Heritage advice

6 Pages

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 4 July 2017

4 Panorama Road Lane Cove - S82A Review

 

 

Subject:          4 Panorama Road Lane Cove - S82A Review    

Record No:    DA16/127-01 - 32156/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Diep Hang 

 

 

 

Property:

4 Panorama Road, Lane Cove

DA No:

DA127/2016 (Section 82A Review)

Date Lodged:

2 May 2017

Cost of Work:

N/A – Section 82A Review

$350,000 (Original DA estimated costs of works)

Owner:

T Magnisalis & S K Roche

Applicant:        

Gat & Associates

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolition of existing carport;

Torrens Title subdivision to create 2 residential allotments (proposed Lot A & B);

Relocation of existing stormwater easement;

Construction of a new two storey dwelling house with attached carport on proposed Lot A; and

Retention of existing building and internal alterations for conversion to a single dwelling house, and construction of an attached double carport on proposed Lot B.

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 1a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

The proposal development was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and procedures.           

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Section 82A Review of the determination of Development Application DA127/2016 is referred to Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for determination as the proposal was previously determined by a delegate of Council, and as a result of unresolved submissions.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The subject application is a Section 82A review of the original DA127/2016 determination for Torrens Title subdivision of land into two lots, demolition of a carport, and construction of a new two storey dwelling house, at 4 Panorama Road, Lane Cove; that was refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal does not meet the subdivision standards of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

Particulars

 

a)    The proposed lots are in consistent with the subdivision and development pattern in the area.

b)    The site area of the proposed Lot B is less than the minimum lot size of 750m2 for an attached dual occupancy.

c)    The site area of the proposed Lot B is even less than the minimum lot size of 550m2 required for a single dwelling house.

d)    The applicant has not submitted a written request for the exception to the minimum lot size for an attached dual occupancy standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

2.         The proposal does not meet the subdivision provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

Particulars

 

a)    The proposed development would not provide an access handle attached to that lot or a shared corridor to Panorama Road for the proposed Lot B. 

b)    There is no land proposed at Panorama Road for the installation of utilities such as a letter box, water meter, etc. for Lot B.

c)    The proposed development would result in a poor planning outcome.

 

3.         The proposal would result in over development on the land.

 

Particulars

 

a)    The existing building on Lot B comprises two self contained dwellings and the site has been used as a dual occupancy.

b)    Each dwelling in the existing building would exceeds 60m² permitted for a secondary dwelling.

c)    The land size on Lot B is insufficient for an attached dual occupancy development.

d)    The proposed development would result in 3 dwellings on the site.

 

The applicant has amended the proposal and lodged a Section 82A application seeking review of the determination in accordance with Section 82A(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (“the Act”).

 

The Section 82A proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C and Section 82A(4) of the Act. The review process has revealed that the amended plans have addressed matters raised with respect to the use of the existing building as a dual occupancy, and inclusion of an easement for services for proposed Lot B. However, the amended proposal does not address the fundamental issues raised in the original determination relating to the proposed development being contrary to the existing subdivision pattern in the area, requirement of an access handle for proposed Lot B, non-compliance with the minimum lot size required for residential subdivision and provisions relating to subdivision of lots affected by overland flow.

 

In accordance with Council’s notification procedures, the proposed development was notified for a period of 14 days from 8 May 2017 to 22 May 2017. In response, five (5) submissions were received during the notification period. The primary concerns raised in the submissions include the following:

 

·         Inconsistent subdivision for the area;

·         Lot size does not meet the subdivision requirement of 550m²;

·         Land size of Lot B is insufficient for dual occupancy;

·         Inconsistent streetscape as a result of the proposed development;

·         Development forward of building line;

·         Existing building is being used as a duplex, and concerns are raised that any additional building on the site will also be used of multiple dwellings;

·         Design of dwelling is not sympathetic to other residences within the street and vicinity of the site;

·         Loss of visual amenity and leafy outlook of property when viewed from the street;

·         Overlooking from proposed carport of existing dwelling to living spaces of No. 6 Panorama Road; and

·         Movement and design changes proposed to a significant stormwater easement.

 

The application is recommended for refusal and referred to Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for consideration and determination.

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot 36 in DP19003

Area

1,087m²

Site location

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Panorama Road, bounded by Ronald Avenue to the north, and Second Avenue to the south.

Existing improvements

The site is currently occupied by a two storey building used as a dual occupancy, located to the rear of the site. Vehicular access is provided via a single driveway located to the south of the site to a detached carport, with an associated turning bay.

Shape

The site is rectangular in shape.

Dimensions

Width: 24.435m (Panorama Rd frontage) & 23.825m (rear/eastern boundary)

Depth: 48.36m (northern boundary) & 42.94m (southern boundary)

Adjoining properties

Directly to the north, south and east of the site are single and two storey dwelling houses with detached parking structures and associated outbuildings. The immediate area is predominantly characterised by dwelling houses on large landscaped leafy allotments.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

On 23 October 2017, a pre-lodgment meeting was held with Council for the proposed subdivision of land into two lots and construction of a dwelling house on the new created lot (Lot A).

 

On 3 March 2017, DA127/2017 for Torrens Title subdivision of land into two lots, demolition of a carport, and construction of a new two storey dwelling house; was refused under delegated authority.

 

PROPOSAL

 

Development consent is sought for Torrens Title subdivision of the subject site to create two residential allotments (Proposed Lots A & B) to facilitate the following:

Proposed Lot A

 

Site Area: 550m² (including right of carriageway)

·         Demolition of existing carport

·         Relocation of existing stormwater easement

·         Creation of a right of carriageway benefiting proposed Lot B for vehicular access

·         Construction of a two storey dwelling house with attached carport

 

Proposed Lot B

 

Site Area: 537m²

·         Retention of existing building and internal alterations for conversion to a single dwelling house

·         Construction of an attached double carport

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density                                 Site Area:       1,087m²

 

 

Control

Proposed Lot A

Proposed Lot B

Complies

Zoning

R2 Low Density Residential

Dwelling houses and associated carports are permitted with development consent

Yes

4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Min. 550m²

550m²

537m²

Deficient by 13m², which represents a variation of 2.36%

No – Lot B does not comply

4.3 Height of Buildings

9.5m

 

Max. 8.2m


Max. 8.3m

Yes

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

Max permitted 275m²

 

Total GFA = 149.5m²

FSR(0.27:1)

Ground Floor: 62m²

First Floor: 87.5m²

Max. permitted 268.5m²

 

Total GFA = 174m²

FSR(0.33:1)

Ground Floor: 71m²

First Floor: 103m²

Yes

4.6 Exceptions to Standards

Written request prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6(3) required for Council’s consideration to vary a development standard

No variations sought to development standard

 

A Clause 4.6 written request has been submitted for the variation sought to the minimum lot size for proposed Lot B

Refer to Clause 4.6 discussion below

 

EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN LANE COVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2009

 

Objectives of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

A written request under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 was lodged as the proposed development seeks a variation to the following development standard:

 

·          Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

 

The proposal is non-compliant with Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size that stipulates that the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land is not to be less than 550m² as shown on the Lot Size Map pursuant to Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

Proposed Lot B has a total lot size of 537m² and breaches the minimum subdivision lot size prescribed by Clause 4.1 of Lane Cove LEP 2009 by 13m². This departure represents a variation of 2.36% to the development standard.

 

The Applicant’s Variation Request to the Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (AT3) and supporting statement of the Clause 4.6 request (AT4) form attachments of this report.

 

Assessment of the exception under Clause 4.6:

 

In assessing an exception to vary a development standard, the following needs to be considered:

 

1.         Is the planning control a development standard?

 

Yes, Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size is a development standard.

 

2.         What is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of Clause 4.1 is to allow residential Torrens Title subdivision which retains, and where appropriate, improves existing amenity and streetscape within the context of the site.

 

3.         Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

Preston CJ, in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, stated that “the rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

 

Compliance with the development standard is not considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the subject proposal. Variation sought to the minimum subdivision lot size permits the construction of a new dwelling house on the land on a separate title, which would result in built form and a subdivision pattern which is inconsistent with the surrounding area.

In addition, Preston CJ, in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, established a number of ways of determining whether compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The most common approach is to establish that compliance with the objectives of the control is achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the particular standard.

 

In accordance with Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of LCLEP 2009, the consent authority must be satisfied that “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”.

Objectives of the particular standard

 

The objectives of Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size are as follows:

 

4.1   Minimum subdivision lot size

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

 

            Comment:

Proposed Lot B has no street frontage or formal access handle for vehicular access attached to the lot. The creation of proposed Lot A would result in development on the allotment which is out of character with the predominant streetscape of Panorama Road. The proposed development is inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern of the area.

 

Objectives for development within the zone

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential Zone pursuant to LCLEP 2009.

 

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

 

Zone R2   Low Density Residential

 

1   Objectives of zone

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

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

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

§  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.

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed subdivision and construction of a new dwelling house on proposed Lot A would provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential context. Notwithstanding, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone, as the development of the site as proposed, would impact on the existing residential amenity of neighbouring properties having regard to impacts on the streetscape and character of the area.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is not unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances. The departure sought is not considered to be modest and would result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape, as well as provide unsympathetic interface with existing leafy landscaped setting of Panorama Road.

 

4.         Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, indicates that merely showing that the development standards achieves the objectives of the development standard is insufficient to justify that a development is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the purposes of an objection under Clause 4.6. The case also demonstrates that the requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

 

In this regard, it is considered that there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to support variation to the minimum subdivision lot size standard as the proposal is contrary to both the objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size development standard and R2 zone, and as such redevelopment of the site as proposed would not be in the public interest for the following reasons:

 

·         The development seeks a number of non-compliances with the design and subdivision requirements identified within the DCP.

·         The development once constructed, would not be of a comparable bulk and scale with adjoining and nearby properties.

·         The variation sought to the minimum subdivision lot size would be dissimilar to the established subdivision pattern prevailing in the immediate area, and as such considered to be unreasonable.

·         The new dwelling house on proposed Lot A would not provide an appropriately scaled development that compliments the adjoining sites and developments.

 

5.         Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the relevant objectives of the land zone?

 

Given that the proposed development is not considered to appropriately respond to the site, and compromises relationships with adjoining development and relevant development controls, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of both the minimum subdivision lot size requirements and R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

6.         Will strict compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?        

 

Strict compliance with the development standard would not hinder attainment of the objectives specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act as it would retain the social and economic welfare of the community, particularly that of neighbouring development within the subject site.

 

7.         Is the exception well founded?

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the development standard and with the objectives of the zone. As such, the exception is not well founded and cannot be supported.

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part C – Residential Development

C.1 Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies

 

Dwelling house on proposed Lot A (front lot)

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Streetscape

All housing is to address the street and offer passive surveillance

The proposed dwelling house addresses the street.

 

The ground floor kitchen and living area, and first floor bedroom and gallery area provides passive surveillance to Panorama Road.

Yes

Front setback (min)

Consistent with area or 7.5m where there is no predominant setback within the street

The proposed dwelling house provides a front setback of 7.5m.

 

Existing dwellings located on the eastern side of Panorama Road are substantially setback from the street and comprise of landscaped gardens or only parking structures within the front setback area.

 

The proposed dwelling is inconsistent with the prevailing front setback within the streetscape.

No

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

2m

 

N/A

Side setback (min)

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

Ground & First Floor:

North – Min. 1.7m

South – Min. 10.3m

Yes

Yes

Rear setback (min)

8m or 25% of lot depth (5.1m-6.45m)

Whichever is greater

Min. 8.009m to eastern external wall

Yes

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

7.0m

Max. 7m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

9.5m

8.2m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

Max. 1.3m

No – However is acceptable to comply with overland flow requirements

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

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

35% (192.5m²)

323m² (59%)

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

 

The subject site is not located within the foreshore area

N/A

Cut and Fill (max)

1m

Minimum excavation required for piers.

 

No fill proposed. Suspended construction above overland flow path proposed.

Yes

Solar Access

3 hours to habitable rooms and recreational areas of subject site and adjoining properties between 9am and 3pm, on 21st June

Living areas of the dwelling are oriented north and would receive adequate solar access throughout the day. The principal private open space of the dwelling receives direct sunlight between 9am-Noon, mid-winter.

 

The proposed dwelling house would not restrict the property to the south from receiving adequate sunlight to its front yard and living spaces, mid-winter.

Yes

Privacy – Visual and Acoustic

To provide reasonable acoustic and visual privacy for neighbouring properties

The proposed dwelling is not considered to pose adverse overlooking or acoustic impacts to neighbouring properties to the north and south, or the existing building to the rear, given the building separation provided.

Yes

Provide for view sharing

Minimise the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas

The proposed development is not considered to impact upon any significant bushland views, having regard to the topography of the land where the new dwelling house is to be located.

Yes

Heritage Conservation

 

The subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area.

N/A

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3m

Landing adjacent family room is 1m wide.

Yes

Private open space

24m² (min)

4m minimum depth

98m²

Yes

BASIX

Required

BASIX Certificate not submitted with S82A application.

No

 

Existing building on proposed Lot B (rear lot)

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Streetscape

All housing is to address the street and offer passive surveillance

No external changes are proposed to the existing building with the exception of the addition of the attached carport.

Satisfactory

Front setback (min)

Consistent with area or 7.5m where there is no predominant setback within the street

Min. 2.5m to 4.1m to new common boundary between proposed Lots A & B

No – Existing building is positioned consistent with existing dwellings on the street

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

2m

 

N/A

Side setback (min)

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

Ground & First Floor:

North – Min. 2.621m

South – Min. 6.266m

Unchanged

Rear setback (min)

8m or 25% of lot depth (5.65m)

Whichever is greater

8m to edge of verandah

Min. 9.9m to eastern external wall

Unchanged

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

7.0m

Unchanged

Acceptable

Maximum Ridge height

9.5m

Unchanged

Acceptable

Subfloor height (max)

1.5m

Unchanged

Acceptable

Number of Storeys (max)

2

Unchanged – 2 storey

Yes

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

35% (187.95m²)

257m² (48%)

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

 

The subject site is not located within the foreshore area

N/A

Cut and Fill (max)

1m

Unchanged

Acceptable

Solar Access

3 hours to habitable rooms and recreational areas of subject site and adjoining properties between 9am and 3pm, on 21st June

The addition of the attached carport to the southern elevation of the existing building does not adversely casts additional shadows to the neighbouring property to the south as the carport is single storey in height.

Acceptable

Privacy – Visual and Acoustic

To provide reasonable acoustic and visual privacy for neighbouring properties

The addition of the carport along the southern elevation of the existing building is not considered to pose adverse visual or acoustic privacy concerns to neighbouring properties as it is not a habitable space or entertainment area, and would be utilised to park the residence’s vehicles.

Yes

Provide for view sharing

Minimise the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas

The proposed carport is not considered to impact upon any significant bushland views or vistas.

Yes

Heritage Conservation

 

The subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area.

N/A

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3m

No changes to existing verandahs.

N/A

Private open space

24m² (min)

4m minimum depth

232m²

Yes

BASIX

Required

The internal works do not require a BASIX Certificate.

N/A

 

Car Parking

 

 

Control

Proposed Lot A

Proposed Lot B

Complies

Driveway width

3m at the lot boundary

Proposed single driveway for both dwellings.

 

3m width at the kerb

Yes

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

3m

A right of carriageway is proposed burdening proposed Lot A, to provide Lot B with vehicular access.

A formal access handle has not been provided to service the proposed rear Lot B.

No

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Control

Proposed Lot A

Proposed Lot B

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

1m from street boundary

Min. 3.3m to front/street boundary

Min. 7.1m to common boundary proposed between Lots A & B

 

Min. 0.903m setback to southern boundary

Yes

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

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

Carport width facing the street is 6m.

 

Carport width facing ROW 5.5m in width

 

Yes

Vehicular Access

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction

Vehicles are able to reverse out of the proposed carport and garage onto to the ROW, to leave the site in a forward direction.

A turning bay is provided for vehicles to exit the carport, and leave the site in a forward direction.

Yes

 

Fences

 

The proposed development does not include the construction of any new fencing.

 


 

Part C.4 - Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses

 

Objective

The objective of 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 minimise those impacts.

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed subdivision of the property to create two residential allotments (proposed Lots A & B) is considered to be inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern of the area and would result in streetscape impacts as development on proposed Lot A is not in keeping with the  character with built form located within the surrounding context of the site.

 

Provisions

 

(c) Minimum frontage

 

The minimum frontage (allotment width at street) is 15m (after subdivision). That is, for a regular allotment where a subdivision creates a battle axe allotment, the minimum frontage is 18m (15m frontage for the front lot plus 3m access handle).

 

·         Proposed Lot A: Street frontage of 24.435m

·         Proposed Lot B: 23.5m (measured width of proposed common boundary between Lots A & B). An access handle is not provided.

 

(e)        Battle axe lots

 

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. 

 

The proposal seeks consent to subdivide the land to create 2 residential allotments (Proposed Lots A & B):

 

·         Proposed Lot A is located at the front of the site with direct street frontage to Panorama Road.

·         Proposed Lot B is located to the rear of the site and does not provide an access handle attached to the allotment.

 

A right of carriageway (ROW) is provided burdening proposed Lot A, to provide vehicular access to proposed Lot B. This ROW forms part of the overall site area of proposed Lot A.

 

Subdivision of land in accordance with Part C.4 of the DCP requires an access handle to be created for lots located to the rear, in order to achieve direct access to a public road. In this regard, proposed Lot B is required to provide an access handle which is attached to the title of lot.

 

The provision of an access handle for proposed Lot B would result in proposed Lot A also being below the required minimum subdivision lot size of 550m², as prescribed by LCLEP 2009.

 

The proposed subdivision of the property does not meet the relevant DCP provisions and objectives for residential subdivision.

 

Part O – Stormwater Management

 

The subject site is impacted by overland flow as identified by Council’s Mapping System. In accordance with Clause 10.8 of Part O of the DCP, proposed land subdivisions of lots affected by overland flow would 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 FSR potential of the lot and provides suitable private open space while meeting the overland flow management criteria outlined in Part O.

 

Calculations

 

Proposed Lot A site area = 550m²

Max. FSR permitted = 0.5:1 (Max. GFA 275m²)

 

FSR of new dwelling house on proposed Lot A = 0.27:1 (GFA - 149.5m²)

 

In this regard, the proposal does not comply with Clause 10.8 as the applicant has not demonstrated or provided a development that realises the full FSR potential of the new created lot (proposed Lot A).

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and accompanying stormwater documentation and outlined that the proposed freeboard of the new dwelling house is adequate, and it is possible to relocate the existing stormwater easement, as proposed.

 

However, it is outlined that the newly created lot (proposed Lot A) does not address Clause 10.8 of Part O and is not supported.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections to the development from an arboricultural perspective, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, should development consent be granted.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

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

 

The proposed subdivision and development of the site is permissible with development consent within the R2 zone. The built form on each respective lot complies with the maximum FSR and building height prescribed within LCLEP 2009.

 

Proposed Lot A seeks a variation to the minimum subdivision lot size development standard. The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LCLEP. The variation sought it not supported for reasons outlined in the recommendation section of this report. 

 

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 would 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 the specific controls in which the proposal does not comply with. Each of the departures is discussed below.

 

The proposed subdivision does not meet the development standards of the LEP and the DCP provision.  These have been discussed in the previous sections of the report. 

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s notification procedures, the proposed development was notified for a period of 14 days from 8 May 2017 to 22 May 2017. In response, five (5) submissions were received during the notification period. The primary concerns raised in the submissions include the following:

 

·         Inconsistent subdivision for the area

 

Comment:

 

The proposed subdivision of the site is inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern for the area and is not supported.

 

·         Lot size does not meet the subdivision requirement of 550m²

 

Comment:

 

Proposed Lot A does not comply with the minimum 550m² subdivision lot size required pursuant to Clause 4.1 of LCLEP 2009. The variation sought to the minimum lot size requirement is not supported.

 

·         Land size of Lot B is insufficient for dual occupancy

·         Existing building is being used as a duplex, and concerns are raised that any additional building on the site will also be used of multiple dwellings

 

Comment:

 

The proposed development includes provisions to convert the existing building on proposed Lot B for use as a single residence. Should development consent be granted, conditions would be imposed to ensure that the existing building shall be used for the purposes of a dual occupancy. Given that internal alterations are proposed for the existing building to be converted for the purposes of a single residence, the land size of proposed Lot B is compliant.

 

·         Inconsistent streetscape as a result of the proposed development

·         Development forward of building line

 

Comment:

 

The proposed subdivision of the property to create two residential allotments (proposed Lots A & B) is considered to be inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern of the area and would result in streetscape impacts as development on proposed Lot A is not in keeping with the  character with built form located within the surrounding context of the site.

 

·         Design of dwelling is not sympathetic to other residences within the street and vicinity of the site

·         Loss of visual amenity and leafy outlook of property when viewed from the street

 

Comment:

 

The existing character of the immediate area is dwelling houses with landscaped leafy frontages. The proposed subdivision would result in a built form which does not conform with the prevailing setback within the street. In this regard, the proposed development is not supported as it is not considered to be sympathetic and compatible with the surrounding area.

 

·         Overlooking from proposed carport of existing dwelling to living spaces of No. 6 Panorama Road

 

Comment:

 

The addition of the carport along the southern elevation of the existing building is not considered to pose adverse visual or acoustic privacy concerns to neighbouring properties as it is not a habitable space or entertainment area, and would be utilised to park the residence’s vehicles.

 

·         Movement and design changes proposed to a significant stormwater easement

 

Comment:

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and outlined that it is possible to relocate the existing stormwater easement. However, the proposed development does not comply with Clause 10.8 of Part O – Stormwater Management of the DCP, and is not supported.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been taken into consideration during the development assessment of the proposal.

 

The overall development of proposed Lot A, and the subdivision arrangement proposed, does not meet the development standards of LCLEP 2009. The proposed development is contrary to the existing subdivision pattern in the area, requirement of an access handle for proposed Lot B, non-compliant with the minimum lot size required for residential subdivision and provisions relating to subdivision of lots affected by overland flow.

 

Approval of the proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the land and a poor planning outcome for the area.

 

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

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to the subject Section 82A Review of the determination of DA127/2016 for the:

 

·         Demolition of existing carport;

·         Torrens Title subdivision to create 2 residential allotments (proposed Lot A & B);

·         Relocation of existing stormwater easement;

·         Construction of a new two storey dwelling house with attached carport on proposed Lot A; and

·         Retention of existing building and internal alterations for conversion to a single dwelling house, and construction of an attached double carport on proposed Lot B.

 

On Lot 36, DP 19003 and known as 4 Panorama Road, Lane Cove for the following reasons:

 

Aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

1.         The proposed development does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan             2009.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        The proposed development would not preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land and the expectations of the community.

(b)        The proposed development does not meet the aims which are outlined in Clause 1.2(c) of LCLEP 2009, as it would not provide a housing mix and density that would be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining properties.

 

Residential Subdivision

 

2.         The proposal does not meet the minimum subdivision lot size objectives and development             standards of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        The proposed development does not meet the objective (1)(a) of Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size as it does not promote consistent subdivision and development patterns evident in the immediate R2 zone.

 

(b)        The minimum lot size required for subdivision on the land, as shown on the Lot Size Map of LCLEP 2009 is 550m².

 

(c)        Proposed Lot B has a lot size of 537m² and does not meet the required minimum lot size for subdivision.

 

(d)        The applicant has submitted a written request for the exception to the minimum subdivision lot size development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009.

 

(e)        The variation sought to the minimum subdivision lot size is not supported as the proposed development does not meet the objectives of Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size, and would not result in a better planning outcome.

 

3.         The proposal does not meet the subdivision provisions of Lane Cove Development Control             Plan.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        The proposal does not meet objective (1) for residential subdivision of C.4 Residential Subdivision of the DCP, as the proposed subdivision would not improve the existing amenity or streetscape within the immediate residential area.

 

(b)        An access handle is not provided for, or attached to, proposed Lot B for direct access to Panorama Road.

 

Front Setback

 

4.         The proposal does not meet the front setback provisions of Lane Cove Development             Control Plan.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        The new dwelling house on proposed Lot A is forward of the prevailing setback of development located on the eastern side of Panorama Road.

 

(b)        The proposal does not meet objective (7) of setbacks, and front setback provisions, which both require new buildings to be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street.

 

Subdivision of lots affected by overland flow

 

5.         The proposal does not comply with Clause 10.8 of Part O – Stormwater Management of the             DCP.

 

Particulars:

           

(a)        The subject site is impacted by overland flow as identified by Council’s Mapping System.

 

(b)        In accordance with Clause 10.8 of Part O of the DCP, proposed land subdivisions of lots affected by overland flow would 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 FSR potential of the lot and provides suitable private open space while meeting the overland flow management criteria outlined in Part O.

 

(c)        The FSR of the new dwelling house on proposed Lot A is 0.27:1, well under the maximum 0.5:1 FSR permitted for the site.

 

(d)        The applicant has not demonstrated or provided a development that realises the full FSR potential of the proposed Lot A as required by Clause 10.8 – Part O of the DCP.

 

Suitability of the site for the proposed development

 

6.         The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)        Pursuant to Section 79C(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development having regard to the above matters.

Public Interest

 

7.         Pursuant to Section 79C(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the             approval of the proposed development would not be in the public interest.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)        Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development application should not be approved having regard to concerns raised in the submissions received by Council and the above matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

3 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Applicant's 4.6 Variation Request

9 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Supporting Statement for Clause 4.6

2 Pages