Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

4 July 2017, 5:00pm

 

LC_WebBanner


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 4 July 2017

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                             Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Steve Fermio, Environmental Expert, Ms Kara Krason, Planning Expert and Ms Maria Linders, Community Representative

 

ALSO PRESENT:                  Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager Development Assessment, Mr Michael Stephens, Town Planner, Ms Diep Hang, Senior Town Planner, Mr Stan Raymont, Town Planner and Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being webcast.

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

61 Carlotta Street, Greenwich

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 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, driveway 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.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

 

34 Wisdom Road, Greenwich

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel defers determination of  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.

 

The matter is deferred for electronic determination pending receipt of additional  information and draft conditions. Determination of the application is deferred to allow for the following to occur:

1.         Council Officers are to provide written confirmation of the gross floor area  for the proposed storeroom and provide an assessment of the overall compliance with the LEP FSR provision taking this additional gross floor area into account.

2.         Provide the Panel with a set of draft conditions that also include the following special conditions:

            (a)        The proposed garage is to be changed to a carport structure.   Amended Plans are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate showing design details for the carport which is to be predominantly open on three sides, however some slat screening may be considered acceptable on the south-western side. No approval is granted for a new masonry wall on the boundary along the north western edge of the carport structure.

 

                        Reason: To generally comply with the Council’s DCP, which does not permit garages forward of the building line.

 

            (b)        No approval is granted for a shower/toilet within the storeroom. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate showing deletion of the shower/toilet room from the storeroom.

 

            Reason:  To ensure that the storeroom is not used as an habitable room.

 

            (c)        No approval is granted for existing boundary fencing to be removed as shown on drawing DA-02, unless written consent is obtained from the neighbouring property. The new masonry wall for the storeroom and new masonry retaining walls and landscaped concrete block walls must be constructed in a manner that retains the existing boundary fencing and does not have any impact on vegetation adjoining the boundary with 7 and 9 Lansdowne Street. Appropriate setbacks are to be put in place to ensure this condition is achieved. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, design details and construction methodology demonstrating that the proposed new walls will not impact upon the retention and stability of the existing fence or upon the existing vegetation must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council or the PCA. Details are to be provided that demonstrate that tree roots of the neighbouring vegetation will not be affected by the proposed construction. All roofing and drainage associated with the storeroom structure must be accommodated wholly within the subject site.

 

            (d)        Separate occupancy of the proposed storeroom is not permitted at any time.

 

3.         Upon the review by the Panel of the matters discussed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Panel will formally determine the application electronically.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

15 Norfolk Rd, Longueville

 

The decision of the Panel, at the request of the applicant and adjoining neighbours, was that this application be deferred to the next IHAP meeting on 1 August 2017.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

4 Panorama Road Lane Cove - S82A Review

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel  refuse 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, and  the Panel is not satisfied that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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.  Moreover, the proposed Right-of-Way over Lot A to provide access to Lot B would reduce the effective area of Lot A below the minimum lot size of 550m2  which points to an over-development of the site.

 

(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.

 

Deleted

 

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.

 

Amenity

 

8.               The adverse amenity impact, in particular acoustic and visual privacy to the adjoining properties, is unacceptable.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

The meeting closed at  6.10pm.