Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

5 December 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 5 December 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 5 December 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 - 7 NOVEMBER 2017

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       30-32 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North

 

3.       82 Northwood Road, Northwood

 

4.       68 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel   5 December 2017

82 Northwood Road, Northwood

 

 

Subject:          30-32 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North    

Record No:    DA17/86-01 - 66751/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Diep Hang 

 

 

 

Property:

30-32 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North

(Lots 49 & 50 in DP135865)

DA No:

DA86/2017

Date Lodged:

23 June 2017

Cost of Work:

$7,128,000.00

Owner:

Mindarie 3 Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Landmark Group Australia

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolition of existing structures, construction of a residential flat building comprising 27 apartments with basement car parking

Zone

R4 High 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 2, 7a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

Yes

Notification

Refer to notification list on file

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development Application DA86/2017 is referred to Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for consideration and determination given the proposed development would result in the isolation of two properties and unresolved design and amenity matters.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a residential flat building.

 

The proposed residential flat building is permissible within the R4 High Density Residential zone pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009.

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum building height development standard of the LCLEP 2009. A written request for the exception has been lodged with Council for consideration in accordance with Clause 4.6(3) of the LEP.

 

The subject site is located within the Mowbray Precinct which has site specific development controls relating to residential flat buildings.

 

The proposed development would result in the isolation of the two properties directly to the east and west of the subject site – No. 28 Mindarie St & No. 34 Mindarie St (respectively). The proposal also fails to meet a number of provisions outlined in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and Lane Cove Development Control Plan relating to building design.

 

One submission has been received with respect to the proposed development. Matters raised in the submission relate to the bulk and scale of the proposal, inadequate provision of landscaping, non-compliance with side setbacks and a variation sought to the maximum building height permitted.

 

The development application is recommended for refusal.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its ordinary Meeting held on 16 April 2012, Council endorsed amendments proposed by the Department of Planning  & Infrastructure to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, for the Mowbray Precinct in relation to the built form and scale of development as follows:

(i)         Reduction of the high density zone’s floor space ratio from FSR 2.1:1  to (i) FSR 1.6:1 over the majority of the R4 zone, with (ii) FSR 1.8:1 west of Hatfield Street and (iii) FSR 1.4:1 for 8-14 Mindarie Street; and

(ii)        Change of the maximum building height to (i) 14.5 metres (4 storeys), (ii) 17.5 metres (5 storeys), and 11.5 metres (3 storeys) for the above areas respectively.

 

The topography of land within the Mowbray Precinct generally has a steep slope to the south. Amendments were made to moderate building height and FSR prescribed within the LCLEP 2009 for the Mowbray Precinct to ensure that excessive excavation does not create subterranean residential levels in order to achieve the maximum FSR permitted.

 

A maximum number of residential storeys was also prescribed for the maximum LEP building height control to improve amenity for future residents and adjoining properties with respect to solar access, natural ventilation and privacy.

 

SITE

Property

Lots 49 & 50 in DP135865

Area

1,220m²

Site location

The subject site is located on the southern side of Mindarie Street, between Willandra Street and Merinda Street.

Existing improvements

The site is currently occupied by two detached dwelling houses, a detached garage, carport and trees.

Shape

Rectangular

Dimensions

Width: 36.576m

Depth: 33.655m (west) and 33.19m (east)

Adjoining properties

The site adjoins single dwelling house directly to the east, west and south. The immediate area is characterised by a mix of established low and medium density housing and recently completed residential flat buildings.

 

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

 

PROPOSAL

 

Development consent is sought for the following:

·    Consolidation of Lots 49 & 50 in DP135865 (No. 30 & 32 Mindarie Street);

·    Demolition of existing structures;

·    Tree removal;

·    Construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building comprising of 27 units over basement car parking.

·    The dwelling mix is as follows:

 

Level

1 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

3 Bedroom

Total Units

Lower Ground

 

2

 

2

Upper Ground

2

2

1

5

Level 1

2

4

 

6

Level 2

2

4

 

6

Level 3

2

4

 

6

Level 4

 

 

2

2

Total

8 (30%)

16 (59%)

3 (11%)

27 (100%)

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R4 High Density Residential                       Site Area:       1,220m²

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

4.3 Height of Buildings

17.5m

Max. 17.73m

No – Clause 4.6 request submitted

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

1.8:1 (max. 2,196m²)

 

Total: 2,190.6m² (1.79:1)

 

Lower Ground: 197.3m²

Upper Ground: 411.8m²

Level 1: 447m²

Level 2: 447m²

Level 3: 447m²

Level 4: 240.5m²

Yes

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Written request to be submitted to vary any development standards

Clause 4.6 written request submitted to vary building height development standard

Refer to Clause 4.6 discussion below.

 

EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN LANE COVE LEP 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 4.3 – Height of Buildings

 

The proposal is non-compliant with Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings that stipulates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height shown on the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height permitted on the subject site is 17.5m.

 

The lift overrun exceeds the maximum building height permitted by 0.23m. This departure represents a variation of 1.3% to the development standard.

 

Figure 1 – Extract of Height Plane Plan (Drawing No. DA504, Revision B, prepared by DKO, dated 7/09/2017)

 

The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 Variation Request to the Maximum Building Height form is attached to this report (AT3).

 

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 4.3 – Height of Buildings is a development standard.

 

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

 

The purpose of Clause 4.3 is to ensure that transition in built form and land use intensity of the development is suitable with regard to the area of the site and the type of development proposed.

 

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 considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the subject proposal. The lift overrun is the only component of the proposal which exceeds the maximum building height permitted.

 

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 4.3 Height of Buildings are as follows:

 

4.3   Height of buildings

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

(a)  to minimise any overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, and

(b)  to maximise sunlight for the public domain, and

(c)  to relate development to topography.

 

Comment:

The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary for the structure containing the lift core and is consistent with the scale of the development envisaged within the R4 High Density Residential zone located in the immediate vicinity of the site. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing and visual impacts. The additional height does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape as it is located within the centre of the building, and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. It is considered, therefore, that the non-compliance with the Development Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Objectives for development within the zone

 

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential Zone pursuant to LCLEP 2009.

 

The objectives of the R4 zone are as follows:

 

 Zone R4   High Density Residential

 

1   Objectives of zone

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

·         To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

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

·         To provide for a high concentration of housing with good access to transport, services and facilities.

·         To ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is respected.

·         To avoid the isolation of sites resulting from site amalgamation.

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

 

Comment:

The proposal would provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential context. Notwithstanding, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R4 zone, as the development of the site as proposed, would impact upon the existing residential amenity of neighbouring properties having regard to impacts on streetscape, visual bulk, and the isolation of the two sites adjoining the property directly to the east and west.

 

Nonetheless, as the non-compliance only relates to the lift overrun, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances. The departure sought is considered to be modest and the portion of the building exceeding the maximum building height alone would not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape.

 

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.

 

Despite the non-compliance with the maximum height for the site, the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the zone and has demonstrated the following:

 

·   The variation to the development standard for a portion of the building being the lift core has resulted from the topography of the land.

·   Due to the orientation of the site, the development does not unreasonably impact on the solar access of adjoining properties despite the variation to the proposal.

·   The proposal does not result in a disruption of existing view corridors.

 

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 variation of the lift overrun has resulted from the topography of the land and does not compromise relationships with adjoining properties having regard to privacy and overshadowing, the non-compliance of the lift overrun is considered to be consistent with the objectives of both the building height standard and R4 High 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 with respect to the variation of the lift overrun is considered to be consistent with the development standard and with the objectives of the zone. As such, the exception is to the standard for the lift overrun is considered to be well founded and supported.

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part B – General Controls

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

B3 – Site Amalgamation & Isolated site

To encourage site consolidation of allotments for development in order to promote the desired urban design outcomes, the efficient use of land and to avoid the creation of isolated sites.

The proposed development is considered to result in the isolation of 2 corner allotment properties:

-     28 Mindarie Street and

-     34 Mindarie Street.

No – the isolated sites created would not permit the efficient use of land.

(a)

Development for the purpose of RFBs and high density housing should not result in the isolation of sites such that they cannot be developed in compliance with the relevant planning controls, Including LCLEP 2009 & LCDCP 2010.

The proposal would result in the isolation of two corner allotments which would not be able to be developed individually in compliance with the relevant planning controls relating to building design, vehicular access or residential amenity.

No – the proposal would result in 2 isolated lots –

28 & 34 Mindarie Street, which could not be developed for high density housing.

(b)

Where a property is likely to be isolated by a proposed development and that property cannot satisfy the minimum lot requirements, then negotiations between the owners of the properties should commence at an early stage and prior to the lodgment of a DA.

The minimum site area for a RFB is 1,500m². The subject property has a total site area of 1,220m² and does not meet the minimum site area required for RFBs.

 

The proposed development would result in the isolation of the following two corner allotments which have a total site area below the minimum site area required for RFBs.

The Applicant has submitted correspondence/negotiations that commenced between the Applicant and the land owners of both the isolated properties prior to the lodgment of the subject DA.

Yes

(c)

Where no satisfactory result is achieved from the negotiations, the DA should include details of the negotiations between the owners of the properties. Appropriate documentary evidence to demonstrate that a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase an isolated site based on a fair market value. At least 1 independent valuation is to be submitted as part of the evidence and is to account for reasonable expenses likely to be incurred by the owner of the isolated site in the sale of the property.

Property owners of isolated sites:

28 Mindarie Street – NSW Family & Community Services (FACS)

34 Mindarie Street – Aboriginal Housing Office (AHO)

 

The Applicant obtained 1 independent valuation for each isolated property.

 

The Applicant provided the evaluation reports to the individual land owners of the isolated properties for consideration when making an offer to purchase the two properties.

 

The 2 property owners obtained their own feasibility assessment concluded a varying value for the sites from that concluded in the Applicant’s evaluation reports.

 

Correspondence received by FACS (dated 12 July 2017) outlines that the property cannot be made publicly available for sale until such time successful tenant relocation can be achieved and that a definitive time frame for this process cannot be provided.

 

Correspondence received from AHO (dated 5 October 2017) outlines that due to severe restrictions with the sale of AHO assets, and the current lack of AHO housing stock in the Lane Cove area, selling AHO property would have adverse affect on the tenant.

An independent valuation critique has been commissioned by Council to determine whether a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase the isolated sites based on fair market value, and what weight is to be given on the level of negotiation carried out to purchase the isolated sites.

 

A supplementary report will be provided outlining the conclusions of the independent valuation critique.

 

The findings of the critique are yet to be received by Council.

(d)

The level of negotiation and any offers made for the isolated site are matters that can be given weight in the consideration of the DA. The amount of weight will depend on the level of negotiation, whether any offers are deemed reasonable or unreasonable, any relevant planning requirements and provisions of S79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

(e)

Where amalgamation of the isolated site is not feasible, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that an orderly and economic use and development of the separate site can be achieved.

The Applicant has submitted a plan demonstrating how the 2 isolated sites could be redeveloped individually – Refer to Drawing No. DA309, Rev A, prepared by DKO, dated 7/9/2017.

 

The plan submitted illustrate that the 2 isolated sites would develop into thin and narrow building blocks which would not be consistent with the emerging character and streetscape of the area.

 

The plan does not indicate how vehicular access and parking would be provided for each site.

 

In addition, the internal layouts shown for the proposed buildings would result in poor amenity for future residents having regard to solar access and natural ventilation.

 

The submitted plan does not identify the resultant site coverage with the basement levels, or building height to understand the relationship between the subject proposed development and future buildings on the isolated sites.

 

It is indicated that blank walls are to be proposed along the common side boundaries to mitigate overlooking concerns resulting from the reduced setbacks and building separations provided between sites.

 

In this regard, the redevelopment of the isolated sites individually is not considered result in a residential flat building of an appropriate urban form which would achieve adequate amenity for residents.

No – The concept plans submitted reiterate that amenity would be compromised for future high density housing on the two isolated sites having regard to solar access and natural ventilation.

 

It is considered that the amenity impacts for occupants of the future high density housing are further exacerbated by the undersized site area of the isolated lots, inadequate building separation and design response required relating to the topography of the land.

 

(f)

If variations to the planning controls would be required, such as non-compliance with a minimum allotment size, any assessment of the proposal would include whether both sites would be able to achieve a development of an appropriate urban form with an acceptable level of amenity.

(g)

To assist in this assessment, an envelope for the isolated site may be prepared which indicates height, setbacks, resultant site coverage (both building and basement). This should be schematic but of sufficient detail to understand the relationship between the subject proposal and the isolated site and the likely impacts the developments will have on each other, particularly solar access and privacy impacts for residential development and the traffic impacts of separate driveways if the development is on a main road.

(h)

The subject application may need to be amended, such as by a further setback than the minimum in the planning controls or the development potential of both sites reduced to enable reasonable development of the isolated site to occur while maintaining the amenity of both developments.

The isolated sites have a total site area of 607m² and 594.4m² respectively.

 

The redevelopment of the 2 isolated sites individually would result in an unacceptable built form having regard to streetscape impacts, as the reduced setbacks would provide for a bulk and scale greater than that desired for the immediate area.

 

No – Given that the proposed development is less than the acceptable site area, there are not anticipated any acceptable planning amendments that could be supported.

(i)

The development of existing isolated sites is not to detract from the character of the streetscape and is to achieve a satisfactory level of amenity including solar access, visual and acoustic privacy.

No. 28 & 34 Mindarie Street are not existing isolated properties.

N/A

B7: Development near busy roads (and rail corridors)

LAeq levels:

(i) In any bed -room 35dB(A) 10.00pm to 7.00am.

(ii) anywhere else 40dB(A).

As vehicle traffic flow for Mindarie Street are less than 20,000 vehicles per day an acoustic report is not required.

 

 

N/A

B8: Safety & security

 

Required

The design provides a reasonable level of safety and security, and passive surveillance

Satisfactory

 

Part C.3 – Residential Flat Buildings

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/Comment

3.2 Density (min)

Site area: 1,500m2

Site area: 1,220m²

No

3.3 Building depth (max)

18m (exclusive of balconies)

Variable 11.5m to 19.5

No

3.4 Building width (max)

40m fronting the street, or greater if articulation is satisfactory.

25.7m (Mindarie Street)

Yes

3.5 Setbacks (min)

3.5.1 Front/Street

 

7.5m (if no predominant setback within the street

7.5m to Mindarie Street

 

 

 

Yes

 

3.5.2 Side and Rear

To the boundary within the R4 zone, the min. side and rear setback shall be:

6m up to 4 storeys

9m for 5-8 storeys

East

Lower Ground to Level 2 inclusive (4 storeys) = 3m

Level 3 (5th storey) = 3m

Level 4 (6th storey) = 3m

 

West

Lower Ground & Upper Ground = 6m

Level 1 & 2 (3rd & 4th storey) = 3m

Level 3 & 4 (5th and 6th storey) = 3m

 

South

Lower Ground = Min. 4m (to edge of terrace)

Upper Ground = 6m

Level 1 & 2 (3rd & 4th storey) = min. 6m

Level 3 (5th storey) = Min. 6m

Level 4 (6th storey) = Min. 8.7m

No – The departures to the required side and rear setbacks has created poor amenity outcomes for future occupants, and the inadequate provision of communal open space, landscaping and deep soil areas.

3.5.3 General

encroachment into any setback zone (max)

 

 

 

 

 

Articulation elements (max)

 

 

1.2m above ground, and up to 2m within the setback zone (setback min. 5.5m from St), for underground parking structures.

 

Up to 500mm of allowable encroachments

The basement parking levels do not protrude greater than 1.2m above the ground level (Upper Ground Level).

 

 

 

 

Windows and balconies encroach a maximum of 0.5m within the front setback area

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

3.7   Fences

 

(i)    Front (height max)

 

 

 

(ii)        Side and rear (height max)

 

 

Up to 2m high of solid construction

 

 

 

1.8m behind the building line

 

 

 

0.3m-0.5m high solid brick fence on front boundary. Landscaping behind.

 

Plans do not indicate the height of the boundary fence

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Should development consent be granted, a condition can be imposed that all boundary fencing is to be a max. height of 1.8m and constructed of lightweight material

3.8    Excavation

To be contained as close as practicable to the development’s footprint

Excavation for the basement car park exceeds the footprint of the proposed building. Excavation is proposed to with nil setback to the southern boundary.

 

No – The extent of excavation proposed for the basement levels is considered to compromise the provision of deep soil and landscaped areas for the proposed development.

3.9  Roof top areas

Use as recreation facility where practicable.

A roof top terrace is not proposed.

N/A

3.10 Size and mix of dwellings (min)

40m2 (studio)

 

10% of each unit type to be provided

No studios proposed.

 

8 x 1 bedrooms (30%)

16 x 2 bedrooms (59%)

3 x 3 bedrooms (11%)

N/A

 

Yes

3.11 Private open space (i.e. balconies and terraces) (min)

Ground floor dwellings:

Require a primary terrace of 16m2 with a depth of 4m, and direct access either to a terrace or a front garden.

 

 

Lower Ground units LG01 & LG02 provide terraces with min. 16m² and 4m dimensions.

 

Upper Ground units UG02 & UG03 provide terraces with min. 16m² and 4m dimensions.

No – Amenity concerns are raised with respect to the POS of UG01 provided adjacent to the loading bay. The primary POS area which has a min. 4m width is adjacent the bedroom, not living area, and also inclusive of the planter boxes.

Above ground dwellings:

Require a primary balcony of 10m2 with a depth of 2m

Units UG05, 105, 106, 205, 206, 305 & 306 provide balconies with a min. area of 8m².

No – Balconies are the principal outdoor POS areas of these units and should be appropriately sized to enhance residential amenity and liveability for future occupants.

3.12 Ceiling heights

Minimum 2.7m

3.1m & 3.2m

Yes

3.13  Storage

 

1 bedroom dwellings: 6m3

 

2 bedroom dwellings: 8m3

 

3 bedroom dwellings: 10m3

Internal storage areas area proposed within each unit. The internal storage areas are sufficient. Additional storage is also provided for individual units within the basement.

Yes

3.14 Solar Access

Living rooms and private open spaces of 70% of the units (18.9 units) to receive 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 21 June

 

Maximum 10% dwellings (2.7 units) with a southerly aspect

 

17 out of 27 units (63%) receive adequate solar access, between 9am-3pm, mid-winter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 single south facing units (11.1%) 

Units 106, 206 & 306

No

 

The non-compliance with solar access increases the reliance on artificial lighting and heating.

 

 

 

 

No

 

A more considered design should be taken to reduce the number of single south facing units given that the property is a steep south facing site.

3.15 Natural ventilation

 

Minimum 60% of the dwellings (16.2 units) should have cross ventilation.

 

Minimum 25% (6.75 units) of kitchens have access to natural ventilation

19 out of 27 units (70%) are cross ventilated

 

 

 

11 out of 27 kitchens have access to natural ventilation.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.16 Visual privacy

 

Provide visual privacy between the adjoining properties

Inadequate building separations provided to eastern and western boundaries.

 

Refer to side setbacks above.

No – Inadequate building separation provided reduces amenity and privacy for building occupants and results in an undesired urban form.

3.17 Communal open space

Minimum 25% (305m²)

228.5m² (18.7%)

COS areas with min. 3m dimensions

No – deficient by 76.5m²

 

Inadequate COS has been provided to accommodate both active and passive recreational opportunities for residents.

3.18 Landscaped Area

25% provided at ground level (417.75%) and up to15% provided on structures (40% required)

Total Landscaping:

Lower Ground: 168m²

Upper Ground: 95.5m²

Level 4: 27.5m²

Total = 291m² (23.8%)

 

Planting on structures:

Lower Ground: 36m²

Upper Ground: 50.8m²

Level 4: 27.5m²

Total = 114.3m² (9.4%)

No – Total landscaped area deficient by 14m²

 

Locality 6 – Mowbray Precinct

 

Provisions

Requirement

Proposed

Compliance

a)    Maximum No. of storey

5 storey in LEP height 17.5m area

The proposal comprises of a total of 6 residential storeys.

No – Excavation proposed to accommodate the additional level results in poor amenity.

b)    Maximum floor area for 5th storey

Maximum of 50% floor area of the storey below and be set back 3m from that lower storey’s building façade line (9m setback required)

5th storey (Level 3) is the same GFA as the levels below and has not been setback further.

 

6th storey (Level 4) units eastern and western external walls are setback 3m from the lower level storey’s external walls. However, the balconies of both Level 4 units align with building façade line of the level below.

No – The additional residential levels have not been recessed to reduce the appearance of visual bulk when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties.

 

The inadequate setbacks provided also result in visual and acoustic privacy impacts on future occupants and neighbouring properties.

c)    Deep soil area

Minimum of 40% (488m²) as per Council’s DCP Locality Plan 6

66.8m² (5.5%)

No – Poor amenity and open space options are provided with the deficient deep soil areas proposed.

d)    Tree retention

Driveway design should avoid tree loss on Council land

There are no existing street trees which front the subject site.

N/A

e)    At the interface between the high and low density residential zones

A design consideration by stepping the building in at least 3m after the second level.

 

The adjoining sites are zoned R4. 

N/A

f)     Materials, finish and design

 

Are in harmony with the natural landscape and complementary with the bushland setting of the precinct

 

The colours and finishes proposed compliment the surrounding natural landscape and are consistent with recently constructed RFBs in the precinct.

Acceptable

 

g)    Bushfire protection

Buildings are to be constructed to meet AS 3959-2009

The site is identified as bushfire prone land.

The proposal was referred to the RFS. No objections were raised to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

h)    The asset protection zone (APZ)

The APZ is measured from the top of the kerb on the side of the road adjacent to the reserve.

 

Part F - Access and Mobility

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

3.3 Public spaces and link to private properties

Development on public and private properties must provide and maintain accessible links and path of travel between BCA

Class 2 to Class 10 buildings and to adjacent public spaces or pedestrian networks.

The proposal has been accompanied by an Access Report and BCA Report.

Should development consent be granted, a condition would be imposed requiring access to be confirmed by a qualified Access consultant to ensure compliance.

3.5 Parking

1 accessible parking space for each adaptable dwelling = 6 car spaces

7 accessible residential spaces provided.

 

Yes

3.6 Adaptable and visitable housing

1 adaptable dwelling per 5 dwellings (i.e. 5.4 dwellings), and evenly distributed

throughout all types and sizes of dwellings.

 

 

80% of the dwellings to be visitable (21.6 dwellings)

6 adaptable units are provided

 

The range in the size/area of the proposed units is between 53m2 and 75m2.

 

3 x 1-bedroom

3 x 2-bedroom

 

All meet the min. Apartment sizes.

Access report does not outline the total number of visitable units.

 

There is insufficient detail provided to determine that a minimum of 80% of the dwellings are visitable.

3.7 Access to, and within, buildings

Access is required to all dwellings, and all common areas.

 

 

The proposal has been accompanied by an Access Report and BCA Report.

Should development consent be granted, a condition would be imposed requiring access to communal open space areas and common areas be confirmed by a qualified Access consultant to ensure compliance.

 

 

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

Table 1 – Car parking rates

 

Residential Flat Buildings

Residential Component:

0.5 spaces per studio

1 space per 1-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

2 spaces per 3+ bedroom unit

 

Dwelling mix:

8 x 1-bedroom units

16 x 2-bedroom units

3 x 3-bedroom units

Required:

(8 x 1) + (16 x 1.5) + (3 x 2) = 38spaces

 

38 residential spaces provided in total (including 7 accessible parking spaces)

Yes

 

1 disabled space for each adaptable housing unit

 

6 adaptable units are proposed within the building

7 adaptable residential spaces provided

Yes –

 

One additional residential accessible parking space provided.

 

1 onsite removalist truck space per 100 residential units (as per relevant Australian Standards)

 

A loading bay space is provided – unclear whether this is also for removalist trucks.

 

Not provided

 

1 car wash bay per 50 units for developments over 20 units

1 carwash bay provided on Basement 2 level.

Yes

 

Visitor Parking:

1 space per 4 units

1 disabled space per 50 visitor spaces (min. 1 disabled space)

Required:

27 units/4 = 6.75 spaces

(including 1 accessible visitor space)

 

Provided:

7 visitor spaces on Basement 2 level

 

1 accessible visitor space has not been provided.

No – One accessible visitor space has not been provided for accessible dependent residents.

 

Motorcycle parking

1 motorcycle space per 15 car spaces

 

Motorcycle spaces are to have an area of 1.2m x 3m

 

Required = 45 / 15 = 3 motorcycle spaces

 

3 motorcycle spaces provided in Basement 1 level

 

The depth of the motorcycle spaces are less than 3m.

No – This is considered to be a poor traffic outcome.

 

Bicycle spaces

 

Residential = 1 per 4 dwellings (27/4 = 6.75 spaces)

 

Visitor = 1 rack + 1 rack per 10 dwellings (1 + 3 = 4 spaces)

7 residential bicycle spaces + 4 visitor bicycle spaces provided on Basement 1 level.

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

SEPP 65 Assessment

 

The SEPP 65 Assessment of the proposed development carried out has concluded the following:-

 

·         The communal open space (COS) has been provided within the southern rear setback, which would receive limited solar access. Given the reduced side setbacks and the modelled setbacks of the adjoining properties towards the east and west, the solar access to the COS would be limited and compromised. Apart from some seating, no facilities have been provided. 

·         The 5th and 6th storey has a southern rear boundary setback of 6m being less than the minimum requirement of 9m.

·         The reduced east and west side boundary setbacks of 3m would not meet the minimum separation requirement. The reduced distance between habitable and non-habitable spaces applies to buildings with the same site (Refer to Figure: 3F.2). The reduced distance provision does not apply to a future building on adjoining sites. Any reduced setback would compromise future development potential on the adjoining sites. In addition, Unit LG02 has a living room window 3m from the eastern side boundary which is not permissible. Inadequate building setbacks are provided to the 5th and 6th storeys.

·         On the lower ground level, the communal open space towards the south overlooks private open space of units LG01 and LG02.

·         Only 17 out of 27 (63%) dwellings receive a minimum of 2 hours of solar access between 9am to 3pm which is less than the minimum of 70% requirement. It may be noted that dwelling UG04 does not receive the required solar access given that the floor above projects 3m over the west facing bedroom window which would not allow the required solar access. Dwelling LG02 east facing window is 3m from the eastern side boundary which is not permissible in accordance with the building separation provisions.

 

In this regard, the proposed development is considered to result in unacceptable levels of amenity due to poor design and non-compliance with the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Development Engineer

 

The proposed stormwater concept plan proposes an easement to drain water to burden No. 34 Mindarie Street.

 

In order for Council to support this proposal, the applicant would be required to demonstrate the following:

 

1.    Letters of agreement from all the affected property owners to demonstrate that a suitable easement can be obtained.

2.    Information from the Land and Property Information to indicate the subject property has rights to use the proposed drainage easement.

 

Council’s Development Engineer does not support the proposal as insufficient information has been submitted to Council for review.

 

Landscape Architect

 

Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed development and outlined that the proposed landscaping is inconsistent with Part J – Landscaping of LCDCP. Inadequate deep soil is provided to allow for and support healthy plant and tree growth to improve residential amenity.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has inspected the site and reviewed the proposed development and accompanying Arborist Report (Ref. No. 2017/700, prepared by Dr Treegood, dated June 2017). The Arborist Report outlines six (6) trees (numbered 1 through 6) located on both properties that are not retainable due to construction impact. The remainder of the vegetation on site is predominantly herbs and weed species not worthy of retention.

 

The Arborst Report does not address the impact to neighbouring trees that may be disturbed by the proposal, however an assessment of all trees on and adjoining the site indicated the impact to neighbouring trees can be managed with the imposition of conditions.

 

Some canopy pruning of neighbouring trees is likely to be required and has also not been assessed in the Arborist Report provided. Tree owners consent and an Arborist’s assessment on the pruning is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions pertaining to tree protection, tree pruning and tree replacement planting.

 

Traffic Management

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and does not support the proposed traffic and parking arrangements for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed traffic signal system is not supported as there is no contingency plan in the event the system breaks down. This would have significant safety risks for motorists and create confusion regarding the right of way. Furthermore, a detailed description on the operation of the signal system is not provided. The impact of queuing on Mindarie Street has also not been considered.

2.   The width of the basement ramps are not in accordance to the AS2890.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the proposed development and accompanying reports and raises no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Waste Contract Coordinator

 

Council’s Waste Contract Coordinator has reviewed the amended plans and additional information submitted and provides the following comments:

 

Matters raised with respect to the bulky waste storage rooms, internal waste management and individual or communal compost have been addressed in the amended documentation.

 

The applicant is refusing to utilise a chute system as specified in Section 4.3 Part Q of the Lane Cove DCP. Inadequate justification has been submitted to support a garbage chute system not being provided for the development.

 

In addition, the response provided refers to a “garbage collection point” on the Upper Ground level but this is not identified/shown on amended plans. This collection point, path of travel of all bins to this collection point, and a swept path analysis for the garbage collection vehicle must be shown on architectural plans. An explanation as to how the bins would be moved to this point and by whom must also be provided.

 

Community, Ageing and Disability Development Officer

 

Council’s Community, Ageing and Disability Development Officer have reviewed the proposed development and raise the following concerns:

 

Visitable Units: Part F – Access and Mobility of LCDCP require that 20% of the units be adaptable and 80% visitable. The plans do not identify the 80% visitable units. Details are required on the visitable units which would include 850mm front door and sanity facility that meets the visitable units standards.

 

Adaptable Units: The pre/post plan indicates that Units 102/105, 202/205, 302/305 are adaptive units. The adaption of these units will require extensive renovation including:

-     Moving walls to increase the size of the bathroom;

·         Changing the positioning of doorway in the bathroom, bedroom and laundry;

·         Changing flooring;

·         Changing the outlay of the laundry;

·         Removal of the Island Bench decreasing bench space in the kitchen; and

·         Decreasing the storage available in the units.

 

The plans do not indicate positioning of/provision for plumbing requirements for post adaption of the units

 

NSW Rural Fire Service

 

The subject site is identified as bushfire prone land. The proposal was referred to the NSW RFS for comment who raised no objections to the development subject to the imposition of conditions (RFS Ref. D17/2253 dated 20 July 2017).

 

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

 

The proposed residential flat building is a permissible land use within the R4 zone. The built form complies with the maximum Floor Space Ratio prescribed within LCLEP 2009.

 

The proposal seeks a variation to the maximum building height 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 is supported for reasons outlined in the recommendation section of this report.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The provisions of SEPP No. 55 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. Clause 7(1)(a) of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated and if the land is contaminated, further consideration is required under Clause 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the SEPP.

 

In response to the above requirements of SEPP 55, the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Site Contamination Assessment (prepared by Senica Consultancy Group, dated 4 September 2017). Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report and outlined that based on the findings of the Assessment, the site is considered appropriate for its intended use and residential development.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

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

 

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

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies the specific controls in which the proposal does not comply with.

 

The proposed residential flat building does not meet the development standards of the LEP, ADG and DCP provisions.  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 27 June 2017 to 11 July 2017. In response, one submission was received during the notification period. The primary concerns raised in the submission include the following:

 

·         The proposed development is too large for the site.

 

Comment:

The proposed development exceeds the maximum number of residential storeys permitted and presents an excessive bulk and scale to the street and when viewed from neighbouring properties. The excessive bulk and scale is exacerbated on this below sized lot. The proposed development in its current form is not supported.

 

·         The area for landscaping is inadequate: there is only 12.9% of the site for deep soil planting, where the minimum should be 25%

 

Comment:

The basement levels are proposed with a nil setback to the southern boundary and is not supported. Inadequate deep soil and landscaping is provided to support healthy plant and tree growth to improve residential amenity.

 

·         The height exceeds the limit of 17.5m and inadequate justification has been provided.

·         The side setbacks are inadequate.

 

Comment:

The 0.23m variation of the lift overrun above the maximum 17.5m building height permitted is considered acceptable. However, the maximum number of residential storeys permitted for subject site is 5 storeys. The proposal provides 6 residential storeys with reduced building separation and setbacks 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.

 

In short, the site is below the minimum standard for a residential flat building and does not comply with either the prescriptive or objective standards of the Lane Cove DCP in relation to setbacks, communal open space, landscaped area, units below ground level and solar access.

 

The above merit non-compliances compound the broader community concerns by proposing to create two isolated lots which would effectively sterilize any possibility of high density development potential. 

 

The proposed development would result in the isolation of the two properties directly to the east and west of the subject site – No. 28 Mindarie St & No. 34 Mindarie St (respectively). The proposal also fails to meet a number of provisions outlined in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and Lane Cove DCP relating to building design.

 

Clearly, a more considered and responsive design would provide a smaller and more modest imprint on the site, or at the very least acquire the adjoining sites of No. 28 and 34 Mindarie Street. With regard to the critique of the offers made to acquire the two isolated properties, it is anticipated such will be provided to all stakeholders (including the Panel) if received prior to Tuesday 5 December 2017 Panel Meeting.

 

Approval of the proposed development would result in the isolation of two properties 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 demolition of existing structures, construction of a residential flat building comprising 27 apartments with basement car parking; at 30-32 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North 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 the LEP 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.

 

            Site isolation

 

2.         The development application should be refused because the proposal would result in the             isolation of two properties.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  The objectives and relevant provisions of Part B3 Site Amalgamation and Development on Isolated Sites of LCDCP 2010 are:

 

The objectives of site amalgamation and development on isolated sites are:

“b) To encourage the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and       development of land.

c)   To encourage site consolidation of allotments for development in order to promote       the desired urban design outcomes and the efficient use of land and to avoid the       creation of isolated sites.

 

Provisions

(a)  Development for the purpose of RFBs and high density housing should not result in the isolation of sites such that they cannot be developed in compliance with the relevant planning controls, Including LCLEP 2009 & LCDCP 2010.

(b)  Where a property is likely to be isolated by a proposed development and that property cannot satisfy the minimum lot requirements, then negotiations between the owners of the properties should commence at an early stage and prior to the lodgment of a DA.

(c)  Where no satisfactory result is achieved from the negotiations, the DA should include details of the negotiations between the owners of the properties. Appropriate documentary evidence to demonstrate that a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase an isolated site based on a fair market value. At least 1 independent valuation is to be submitted as part of the evidence and is to account for reasonable expenses likely to be incurred by the owner of the isolated site in the sale of the property.

(d)  The level of negotiation and any offers made for the isolated site are matters that can be given weight in the consideration of the DA. The amount of weight will depend on the level of negotiation, whether any offers are deemed reasonable or unreasonable, any relevant planning requirements and provisions of S79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

(e)  Where amalgamation of the isolated site is not feasible, the applicant will be       required to demonstrate that an orderly and economic use and development of      the       separate site can be achieved.

(f)   If variations to the planning controls would be required, such as non-compliance with       a minimum allotment size, any assessment of the proposal would include whether       both sites would be able to achieve a development of an appropriate urban form with       an acceptable level of amenity.

(g) To assist in this assessment, an envelope for the isolated site may be prepared       which indicates height, setbacks, resultant site coverage (both building and       basement). This should be schematic but of sufficient detail to understand the       relationship between the subject proposal and the isolated site and the likely impacts       the developments will have on each other, particularly solar access and privacy         impacts for residential development and the traffic impacts of separate driveways if       the development is on a main road.

(h)  The subject application may need to be amended, such as by a further setback than       the minimum in the planning controls or the development potential of both sites       reduced to enable reasonable development of the isolated site to occur while       maintaining the amenity of both developments”.

 

(b)  The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives and provisions for site amalgamation and isolated sites, as the proposal does not promote orderly and economic use and development of the subject site.

 

(c)  The proposal would result in the isolation of two corner allotments which would not be able to developed individually in compliance with the relevant planning controls relating to building design, vehicular access or residential amenity.

 

(d)  The redevelopment of the two isolated sites individually would result in an unacceptable built form have regard to streetscape impacts, as the reduced setbacks would provide for a bulk and scale greater than that desired for the immediate area.

 

            Density

 

3.         The development application should be refused because the subject site does not meet the             minimum site area required for residential flat buildings.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  Clause 3.2(a) in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 sets out the provision for density as follows:

 

“The minimum site area for residential flat buildings is 1,500m².”

 

(b)  The total site of the subject property is 1,220m² and is deficient 280m² from the required minimum site are for residential flat buildings.

 

(c)  The overall density and massing of the proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the desired built form for the site.

 

Building Depth

 

4.         The development application should be refused because the proposed development             exceeds the maximum building depth permitted for residential flat buildings.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  The objectives and relevant provisions of Building Depth in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 are as follows:

 

The objectives for building depth are:

1  To ensure that the bulk of the development is in scale with the existing or   desired       future context.

 2 To provide adequate amenity for building occupants in terms of sun access, daylight and natural ventilation.

3 To provide for dual aspect dwellings.

 

Provisions

a)   The maximum residential flat building depth is to be 18m.

b)   This depth is exclusive of balconies.”

 

(b)  The maximum building depth of the proposal is 19.5m, and exceeds the requirement by 1.5m.

 

(c)  The proposal does not provide for adequate amenity for future occupants having regard to solar access and presents the appearance of visual bulk when from neighbouring properties.

 

Building Separation and Visual Privacy

 

5.         The development application should be refused because the proposed development does             not provide adequate separation distances to the side and rear boundaries and is             inconsistent with the requirements of the ADG and LCDCP 2010, and is likely to have an             unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings.

 

Particulars

 

(a)       Objective 3F-1 in Section 3F ‘Visual Privacy’ of the ADG establishes the following minimum building separation distances to ensure reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy:

 

“1.        Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

Over 25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

(b)       Clause 3.5.2(a) in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 reflects the setback requirements of the ADG.

 

(c)       Units located on the eastern end of the building do not provide the required 6m (for Lower Ground to Level 2 units) and 9m (for Level 3 & 4 units) setbacks to the side boundary.

 

(d)       Units located on the western end of the building do not provide the required 6m (Levels 1 & 2 units) and 9m (for Levels 3 & 4) setbacks to the side boundary.

 

(e)       The private open space of Units LG01 & LG02 are not setback a minimum 6m from the southern boundary.

 

(f)        Units 305 and 306 provide a rear setback of 6m. Units 401 and 402 provide a rear setback of 8.9m and 8.7m respectively. The setbacks provided to the southern boundary falls short of the required 9m rear setback.

 

(g)       The inadequate setbacks are likely to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupants of existing and future development adjoining to the east, west and south in terms of visual privacy, and in that regard the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the ADG and LCDCP 2010.

 

            Private Open Space

 

6.         The development application should be refused because the private open space areas             provided to units are inadequate and do not comply with the requirements of the ADG and             Part C3 of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars

 

(a)        Objective 4E-1 in Part 4E ‘Private Open Space and Balconies’ in the ADG provides the following relevant design criteria:

 

“2.        For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15 and a minimum depth of 3m.

 

(b)        Clause 3.11 in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 provides the following requirements for private open space:

 

“(a)      Provide primary balconies for all above ground dwellings with a minimum depth of 2m and minimum area of 10m².

(b)       Provide a primary terrace for all ground floor dwellings with a minimum depth of 4m and minimum area of 16m2. All ground floor dwellings are to have direct access to a terrace or front garden area.”

 

(c)        Units UG05, 105, 106, 205, 206, 305 and 306 provide private open space areas less than 10m² in size.

 

            Solar Access

 

7.         The development application should be refused because less than 70% of units within the             development receive adequate solar access.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)  Objective 4A ‘Solar and daylight access’ of the ADG provides the following design criteria under Objective 4A-1:

 

“1. Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.”

 

(b)  Clause 3.14 in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 sets outs he following relevant objectives and provision for solar access:

 

“The objective of solar access is:

1    To provide reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas of new and existing development.

 

 

Provision

a)   Habitable rooms in at least 70 percent of dwellings in high density residential developments, should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June, in total between any portions of those rooms. A reasonable proportion of both the common and private open space in those sites is also to receive sunlight during that period, according to the circumstances of the sites.

 

(c)  Only 17 out of 27 (63%) of units within the development receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm, mid-winter.

 

            Communal Open Space

 

8.         The development application should be refused because the location and design of the             common open space areas is unacceptable, and the proposed development does not             comply with the objectives or requirements for communal open space in the ADG and             LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars

 

(a)        Objective 3D-1 in Part 3D ‘Communal and Public Open Space’ of the ADG provides the following relevant design criteria and guidance:

 

Design criteria

1.   Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)

2.   Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal useable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid winter).

 

Design guidance

Communal open space should be consolidated into a well designed, easily identified and useable area.

Communal open space should have a minimum dimension of 3m, and larger developments should consider greater dimensions.

Direct, equitable access should be provided to communal open space areas from common circulation areas, entries and lobbies”

 

(b)        Clause 3.17 of LCDCP 2010 reflects the requirements for communal open space in the ADG.

 

(c)        Less than 25% of the site (min. 305m²) has been provided as communal open space. The proposal provides 228.5m² of communal open space (18.7%).

 

(d)        Plans nominate the southern, eastern and western setback area adjacent to the lower ground level units and courtyards as communal open space. The area provided comprises of a majority of perimeter landscaping to the east and south, and it is not considered to be a useable area which can accommodate both passive and active recreational opportunities for residents.

 

(e)        The communal open space should be consolidated into a well designed, easily identified and useable area.

 

(f)        The communal open space annotations on the landscape plans include areas that are exclusively garden bed areas fully planted and not accessible by occupants. A significant area of communal open space should be co-ordinated with deep soil planting.

 

            Landscaping and Deep Soil

 

9.         The development application should be refused because the proposed landscaping is             inconsistent with the requirements of LCDCP 2010 and inadequate deep soil is provided.

 

Particulars

 

(a)        Part J ‘Landscaping’ of LCDCP 2010 provides the following relevant objectives for landscaping of new development:

 

“The objectives for landscaping of a new development are:

2.         The proposed landscape treatment should assist in ensuring that the development is not visually intrusive by providing visual softening of buildings, driveways and car parking areas.

4.         Mass planted areas, comprising indigenous trees, shrubs and groundcovers should be included in the landscaping scheme in preference to unnecessarily large areas of lawn.

5.         The proposed landscape treatment should be compatible with the existing environmental character of the area and be planned so as not to affect adjoining properties. The use of native trees and shrubs to provide privacy screening is desirable.”

 

(b)        The proposed planting along Mindarie Street does not consist of all endemic species and will not provide adequate visual softening of the building with the proposed pot sizes for the trees, as specified on the planting plan, and is therefore non-compliant with Part J Landscaping of LCDCP 2010.

 

(c)        The proposed landscaping does not provide adequate screening to provide visual softening of the building. Trees that are replaced as part of the proposal are to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Replacement trees must be able to reach the potential mature dimensions of the removed tree.

 

(d)        Objective 3E-1 in Part 3 ‘Deep Soil Zones’ of the ADG provides the following design criteria and relevant design guidance:

 

Design Criteria

1.             Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

 

 

Site Area

Minimum Dimensions

Deep soil zone (% of site area)

Less than 650m²

-

 

 

7%

650m² - 1,500m²

3m

Greater than 1,500m²

6m

Greater than 1,500m² with significant existing tree cover

6m

 

Design Guidance

On some sites it may be possible to provide greater larger deep soil zones, depending on the site area and context:

·           10% of the site as deep soil on sites with an area of 650m²-1,500m²

·           15% of the site as deep soil on sites greater than 1,500m²”

 

(e)        The site area of the property has a site area of 1,220m². The deep soil areas provided have dimensions less than 3m and are not considered to be sufficient to allow for and support healthy plant and tree growth to improve residential amenity.

 

            Landscaping - Inadequate Information

 

10.       The development application should be refused because inadequate information has been             provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposed landscaping.

 

Particulars

 

(a)        Landscaping and hardstand surfaces on the architectural plans and landscape plans                         do not correspond.

 

      (b)        The plans submitted with the development application indicate that there are                            a number of landscape retaining walls and other structural walls proposed.                               Inadequate information about these structures has been provided to determine                        whether they are acceptable from a safety and welfare of the public perspective. In                   that regard the following information is required:

·    Top of wall level

·    Bottom of wall level

·    Proposed construction materials

·    Proposed construction methods

·    Structural Engineering certification

·    Drainage details

·    Proposed footing details

 

(b)  For a development of this size, the landscape documentation does not provide adequately detailed information to enable a proper assessment. Landscape plans which include sections and elevations from all aspects, detailed annotations and construction details are required. The landscape plan is to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect and address the design principles in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

(c)  The landscaped area and planting on structure calculations are to be provided which demonstrate compliance with Section 1.6 - in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

(d)  It has not been demonstrated that planting on structures provides for adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the landscape plans as required by clause 1.10 in Part J LCDCP 2010.

 

            Amenity

 

11.       The development application should be refused because the proposed corridors are             unacceptable and a number of the proposed units do not achieve acceptable levels of             amenity, due to their poor design and non-compliance with the ADG.

 

Particulars

 

(a)        The amenity of units LG01 and LG02 are compromised as a result of their subterranean location as follows:

i.    The private open space of unit LG01 is affected by potential overlooking from the communal open space area located along the western boundary.

ii.    Unit LG01 shares a common wall with the car park and ramp which is likely to impact upon the amenity of future occupants.

 

(b)        Amenity concerns are raised with respect to the private open space (POS) of UG01 provided adjacent to the loading bay, having regard to noise and glare from vehicles entering and exiting the basement.

 

            Number of Storeys

 

12.       The development application should be refused because the number of storeys                             proposed is excessive and inconsistent with the maximum number of residential                           storey permitted in the Mowbray Precinct pursuant to the provisions of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars

 

(a)       Part C – Residential Localities of LCDCP 2010 sets out specific requirements in relation to certain residential areas. Locality 6 relates to the Mowbray Precinct which incorporates land on the southern side of Mowbray Road. Clause a) establishes a maximum number of storeys as follows:

 

“a)       A maximum number of residential storeys applies, relating to the LEP height limits, as follows:

            III.         LEP maximum height 17.5m – 5 residential storeys”

 

(b)       The development application seeks consent for a 6 storey building which results from excavation of the site to accommodate units within the lower ground level. The 6 storey component of the proposed development is inconsistent with the desired future character of the Mowbray Precinct.

 

(c)       The 6 storey component of the proposed development is not supported and results in a number of additional non compliances with the provision of LCDCP 2010 and the ADG, which is unacceptable.

 

            Excavation

 

13.       The development application should be refused because the level of excavation                            required to accommodate the proposed development is excessive and inconsistent                       with clause 3.8 in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 relating to excavation.

 

Particulars

 

(a)       The objectives and relevant provisions of excavation as outlined in Clause 3.8 Excavation in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 are:

 

“The objectives of excavation are:

1.    To minimise the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.

2.   To achieve reasonable landscaping within developments.

3.   To ensure development relates to the street level and the topography

 

 

Provisions

a)   all development is to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP.

b)   excavation for major development is to be contained as close as practicable to the footprint of the development.

e)   the extent of excavation proposed for underground uses should not compromise the provision of deep soil areas or landscaped areas for residential flat buildings.”

 

(b)       Excavation for major development should be contained as close as practicable to the footprint of the development in order to achieve the objective of clause 3.8. Excavation is proposed outside the building footprint and with a nil setback to the southern boundary to accommodate the development. The excavation proposed also requires extensive retaining walls and areas adjacent to neighbouring properties.

 

(c)       The excavation proposed results in the development containing more than 5 residential storeys and poses amenity concerns for occupants of the lower ground level units.

 

(d)       The excavation proposed does not provide the opportunity for the development to achieve adequate landscaped areas.

 

(e)       The extent of excavation proposed does not relate to the existing topography of the land as required by clause 3.8.

 

            Engineering

 

14.       The development application should be refused as the proposal is unable to dispose of             stormwater from the site.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  The proposed stormwater concept plan proposes an easement to drain water over the adjoining property at No. 34 Mindarie Street.

 

(b)  Letters of agreement from all the affected property owners (No. 34 Mindarie Street) to demonstrate that a suitable easement can be obtained has not been submitted.

 

(c)  Documentation from Land and Property Information to indicate the subject property has rights to use the proposed drainage easement.

 

            Waste Management

 

15.       The development application should be refused because the proposed waste arrangements             are unacceptable and inconsistent with the waste disposal requirements in Part Q of             LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        LCDCP 2010 states all residential flat buildings containing four or more storeys must be provided with a garbage chute system. The proposed development does not provide for a garbage chute system, compactor and carousel to facilitate an accessible, easy and convenient path of travel for future occupants and less mobile residents (infirmed residents) to dispose of their garbage.

(b)        The location of the waste collection point for emptying waste, recycling and garden waste is not clearly identified on the provided plans and there is conflicting information provided in the supporting documents.

i.   Documentation submitted refers to a “garbage collection point” on the upper ground level but this is not identified or shown on plans.

ii.  The garbage collection point, path of travel of all bins to this collection point, and a swept path analysis for the garbage collection vehicle are not shown on plans.

iii.  Details regarding how the bins will be moved to a nominated garbage collection point have not been provided.

 

            Traffic and Parking

 

16.       The development application should be refused as the proposed parking is unacceptable             and does not comply with the requirements of Part R of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:

 

(a)        Table 1 in  Part R of LCDCP 2010 provides the following minimum car parking requirements for residential flat buildings:

 

Residents/Employees

Customers/Visitors

0.5 spaces per studio

1 space per 1-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

2 spaces per 3+ bedroom unit

1 space per 4 units

1 disabled space per 50 visitor spaces (minimum 1 disabled space)

1 disabled space for each adaptable housing unit

1 onsite removalist truck space per 100 residential units (as per relevant Australian Standards)

1 car wash bay per 50 units for developments over 20 units

 

(b)        One on site removalist truck space is required to be provided pursuant to the requirements in Table 1 above.

 

(c)        Clause 2.7 Motorcyle parking in Part R of LCDCP 2010 states the following motorcycle parking requirements for new developments:

“(a)      Developers shall provide 1 motorcycle parking space per 15 car spaces for all types of development.

(b)        Motorcycle parking spaces are to have an area of 1.2m x 3m.”

 

(d)        The three (3) motorcycle parking spaces provided on the Lower Basement Level and Basement Level do not comply with the minimum required dimensions of 1.2m x 2.5m.

 

(e)        The proposed traffic signal system is not supported as there is no contingency plan in the event the system breaks down. This would have significant safety risks for motorists and create confusion regarding the right of way. Furthermore, a detailed description on the operation of the signal system is not provided. The impact of queuing on Mindarie Street is not considered to be acceptable.

 

(f)        The width of the basement ramps are not in accordance to the AS2890.

 

            Access

 

17.       The development application should be refused because the proposed development does             not provide acceptable accessibility for residents and visitors in terms of adaptable and             visitable units.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  The relevant provisions of Clause 3.5 Adaptable and Visitable Housing (residential flat buildings and dual occupancies) in Part F of LCDCP are as follows:

 

“Provisions

1.   Adaptable housing to comply with AS4299, including the essential features in Appendix   A for Class C housing

5.   Dwellings are to be visitable at the rate of 80% in developments requiring adaptable       housing.

 

(b)  The plans do not identify the 80% visitable units. Details on the visitable units have not been provided.

 

(c)  Excessive renovation is required for the adjustment of units identified as adaptable units.

 

            Public Interest

 

18.       The development application should be refused because approval of the proposed             development is not in the public interest having regarded to above contentions, and in             particular the isolation of two sites, and impact of the proposed development on the amenity             of adjoining dwellings and future occupants. 

 

            Precedent

 

19.       The development application should be refused because approval of the proposed             development will create an unacceptable precedent for similar poorly designed             development in the area.

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Clause 4.6 Variation

8 Pages

 

Subject:          82 Northwood Road, Northwood    

 

Record No:    DA17/120-01 - 54139/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Diep Hang 

 

 

 

Property:

82 Northwood Road, Northwood

DA No:

DA120/2017

Date Lodged:

16 August 2017

Cost of Work:

$720,000.00

Owner:

J & S Roskov

Applicant:        

J Roskov

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of new dwelling house and swimming pool

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 1a, 10a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

Yes

Notification

Refer to notification list on file

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development Application DA120/2017 is referred to Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) for consideration and determination as the proposal exceeds the FSR development standard by greater than 10% and as a result of unresolved design and amenity matters.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool.

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio standard of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP). A written request for the exception to the development standard has been lodged with Council for consideration in accordance with Clause 4.6(3) of the LEP.

 

The proposed design fails to meet a number of provisions outlined in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan relating to the building’s design, more specifically, streetscape presentation, unnecessary cut and fill, wall height, bulk and scale and amenity impacts.

 

Two (2) submissions were received during the notification period of the proposal, one of which is outlined to be confidential. Matters raised in the submissions related to the bulk and scale of the proposal, concerns with respect to privacy and the roof top terrace.

 

The development application is recommended for refusal.

 

SITE

Property

Lot 1 in DP524887

Area

602.5m²

Site location

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Northwood Road.

Existing improvements

The site is currently occupied by a detached two storey dwelling house. The subject site is also burdened by an existing right of carriageway (variable width) along the northern boundary of the site.

Shape

Rectangular

Dimensions

Width:18.135m (street frontage) and 18.07m (rear)

Depth: 32.565m (north) and 34.14m (south)

Adjoining properties

Directly to the south of the site is a two storey dwelling house. The site adjoins the access handle of 82A Northwood Road along the northern boundary. The battle axe handle allotment (82A Northwood Road) is currently vacant. The immediate area is characterised by low density residential development.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Council’s records do not indicate any previous approvals of relevance to the proposed development on the site.

 

PROPOSAL

Development consent is sought for:

·    Demolition of existing structures;

·    Tree removal;

·    Construction of a detached dwelling house; and

·    In-ground swimming pool.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 Low Density                     Site Area:       602.5m² (as indicated on Survey Plan)

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1 (Max. 301.25m²)

Total: 374m² (0.62:1)

Garage Level = 35m²

Ground Level = 155m²

First Floor = 184m²

 

No – exceeds max. FSR by 72.75m²

 

4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

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

The applicant has submitted a

Refer to discussion below.

 

EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN LANE COVE LEP 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 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

 

In accordance with Clause 4.4, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) permitted is 0.5:1 (301.25m²). The proposed development has a FSR of 374m² (0.62:1) and exceeds the permitted FSR development standard by 72.75m². The proposed development represents a variation of 24% to the development standard.

 

The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 Variation Request to the Maximum FSR permitted form is attached to this report (AT3).

 

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 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio is a development standard.

 

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

 

The purpose of Clause 4.4 is to ensure that the built form of new developments reinforce and respect the existing character and scale of low density residential areas, having regard to the area of the site and the type of development proposed. Clause 4.4 specifically states that the objective of Clause 4.4(1)(a) is “to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.”

 

 

 

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 FSR development standard would result in the construction of a three storey dwelling house of a scale and appearance which is not in keeping with the predominant character of built form in the immediate 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 4.4 Floor Space Ratio are as follows:

 

4.4   Floor Space Ratio

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

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

 

Comment:

The Applicant in his Clause 4.6 justification outlines that the “deviation from the development standard is primarily due to the required basement space so that adequate turning clearance is provided to a vehicle”. Approximately 1.65m of cut is required to accommodate the basement garage level which also comprises of the laundry, and stairs and lift to the floors above. The design of the proposed garage level does not relate to the topography of the land. Furthermore, the garage level is not considered to be a basement level as the structure is not predominantly located below ground level (existing) and protrudes approximately 1.5m above the ground level (existing).

 

The protrusion of the garage level above the ground level (existing) if approved would result in the building being three storeys in height. The bulk and scale of the proposal is unnecessary and would impinge on the existing and changing streetscape that is anticipated for the area and envisaged within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Non-compliance to the FSR permitted further exacerbates the bulky appearance and massing of the proposal when viewed from both the street and neighbouring properties. The proposed development is also considered to result in unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining properties with respect to solar access.

Having regard to the above, compliance with the FSR development standard is not considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary, in the circumstances of the case.

 

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 proposal 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, adversely streetscape, visual bulk, and solar access.

 

In this regard, strict compliance with the FSR development standard is not considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances.

 

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.

 

Insufficient and inadequate environmental planning grounds have been provided for the variation sought to the FSR development standard.

 

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

 

The bulk and scale of the building is not compatible with the character of the locality and would result in an unreasonable impact on the solar access of neighbouring properties. The proposal remains inconsistent with both the objectives of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio and the R2 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 objective of the FSR development standard as the bulk and scale of the development is not compatible with the character of the locality, and as such, the exception is not considered to be well founded.

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Front setback (min)

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Min. 7.3m

Consistent with predominant front setback of dwellings located on the eastern side of Northwood Rd

Yes

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

2m

 

N/A

Side setback (min)

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

Garage Level:

Min. 1.405m (north)

Min. 1.5m (south)

 

Ground Floor:

Min. 1.405m (north)

Min. 1.5m (south)

 

First Floor:

Min. 1.405m (north)

Min. 1.5m (south)

 

Roof Level:

2.5m (north)

6.9m (south)

No – There is no reason why compliance cannot be achieved.

 

Rear setback (min)

whichever is greater

8m or 25% (8.1m to 8.535m)

8.4m

No – acceptable

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

7.0m

Max. 7.16m (south)

Max. 7.4m (north)

No

Maximum Ridge height

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

No subfloor proposed

N/A

Number of Storeys (max)

2

Three (3) storeys

Portions of the proposed garage protrudes greater than 1m above the existing ground level and as such is considered to be a storey and not basement level. Refer to LEP definition of ‘basement’ below.

No

Note:

basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).

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

35% (210.875m²)

276m² (45.8%)

Yes

Foreshore Building Line (min)

 

The subject site is not located adjacent to the foreshore

N/A

Cut and Fill (max)

1m

Approx. 0.9m fill contained within footprint

 

Approx. 1.65m cut to accommodate garage level

No – The land has a modest slope and the level of cut proposed is unnecessary.

Solar Access

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

Plan and hourly shadow diagrams have been submitted.

 

The shadow diagrams provided demonstrate that the proposed development would unreasonably impact on sunlight to the northern habitable rooms of No. 84 Northwood Road, between 9am and 3pm, mid-winter.

No

Privacy – Visual and Acoustic

To provide reasonable acoustic and visual privacy for neighbouring properties

 

 

 

Roof terraces and decks above the upper storey are prohibited.

Privacy screens are proposed along the side elevations of the ground and first floor terraces and balconies to minimise overlooking of adjoining properties.

 

Roof terrace proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

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 any significant private or public views and vistas.

Yes

Heritage Conservation

 

The subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area

N/A

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3m

Ground Floor Terrace = 1.51m

First Floor front balcony = 1.5m

First Floor rear terrace = 1.5m

Yes

Private open space

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

POS not directly accessible from a living area

 

Retreat provides access to pool which is also the only access to the rear yard.

 

Rear terrace from ground floor bedrooms do not access rear yard.

No

Basix

Required

BASIX Certificate No. 843703S dated 24 July 2017

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

1

2 spaces in double garage

Yes

Driveway width

3m at the lot boundary

3m

Yes

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

3m

 

N/A

 

Carports within the Front Setback & Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Setback of Carport Posts (min)

1m from street boundary

 

N/A

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

50% of lot width (9m) or 6m, whichever is the lesser

5.2m

Yes

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

3m to waterline

>3m from neighbouring dwellings

Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

1m to waterline

2.615m to rear boundary

>1m to northern boundary

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1.0m

1.8m   

Max. 1m in height

Yes

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

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

>1m setbacks provided to boundaries

Yes

Fences

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Solid: 900mm

Lightweight:    1.2m

1.2m

Yes

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

1m

Front fence max. 1.2m in height.

N/A

Side and rear fences

1.8m

1.8m to rear and side boundaries

Yes

 

Note: Any proposed fencing is not to obstruct the right of carriageway burdening the subject site.

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the disposal of stormwater from the property.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment officer has inspected the site, reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments:

 

The site contains several protected trees that are likely to be impacted by the proposed development. In addition, there are multiple mature trees on neighbouring properties and also on the Council reserve fronting the subject site. The proposal is considered to highly disturb and impact several trees located within the site and on adjoining properties. An Arborist Report prepared by a AQF5 qualified and experienced Arborist has not been submitted to determine the impact the proposed development would have on the existing tree population.

 

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

 

The proposal is permissible within the R2 zone. The proposed development complies with the maximum height of buildings development standard.

 

The proposed development exceeds the maximum FSR permitted. The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009. The variation sought is not supported for reasons outlined in the recommendation of this report.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

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

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

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

 

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

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with.

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification procedures, the proposed development was notified for 14 days from 22 August 2017 to 5 September 2017. In response, two submissions were received, one of which is outlined to be confidential.

 

Revised plans submitted were not re-notified as the amendments were not considered to substantially vary from plans initially notified with respect to the building envelope, floor levels, or external facades.

 

The matters raised in the submissions received are summarised below:

 

·    Screening of the north facing sections to be provided on the roof top terrace to minimise overlooking


 

Comment:

The roof top terrace is prohibited in accordance with Clause 1.8 Amenity, provision 1.8.2 Privacy – Visual and Acoustic (b), and as such not supported.

 

·    Frosted or opaque glass on the north facing staircase leading to the roof top terrace and bathrooms adjacent to the stairs

 

Comment:

Obscured glass is proposed to the north-west elevation stair windows to mitigate privacy concerns. While such may improve privacy to adjoining properties, the roof terrace would create unacceptable amenity and privacy concerns.

 

·    Plans do not indicate who has prepared the plans, their expertise or date of issues.

 

Comment:

The plans are prepared to the nominated scale outlined. Plans submitted are also dated and reflect how the proposed design will be sited on the subject property. 

 

·    The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted FSR. This would make a bulky building presence in the streetscape and relative to nearby properties and would create a precedent.

 

Comment:

The variation sought to the FSR development standard is not supported. The proposed development in its current form is considered to present a bulky built form when viewed from both the street and neighbouring properties.

 

·    Further protrusions may be installed to the roof top terrace in the future. The roof top terrace would create a precedent in the area and result in privacy and view impacts.

 

Comment:

The roof top terrace is prohibited in accordance with Clause 1.8 Amenity, provision 1.8.2 Privacy – Visual and Acoustic (b), and as such not supported. Any further structures on the proposed roof would require a separate approval if it is not deemed to be exempt development.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The proposed dwelling design seeks to increase FSR by creating a part basement level that protrudes above the existing ground and requires unnecessary excavation to gain access to the garage level. The roof top terrace is inappropriate in a low density residential dwelling area given potential to adversely impact privacy, noise and amenity of adjoining and nearby residents. The applicant should withdraw the unacceptable proposal and lodge a considered proposal that complies with the objectives and requirements for dwelling houses within the locality.

 

Approval of the proposed development would result in a built form that does not respond to the site and is inconsistent with the character of buildings within the street and immediate 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 demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of new dwelling house and swimming pool; at 82 Northwood Road, Northwood 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 the LEP 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.

(c)  The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(f) of the LEP 2009 because it would impact upon the health of existing trees.

 

            Floor Space Ratio

 

2.         The proposed development does comply with Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of             Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

            Particulars:

           

(a)  The maximum permitted FSR for development on the site is 0.5:1 in accordance with Clause 4.4(2) of the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

(b)  The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for a building on the land shown on the Floor Space Ratio Map of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2009.

 

(c)  The applicant has lodged a written request in accordance with Clause 4.6(3) of Lane Cove LEP 2009 for the exception to the FSR standard.

 

(d)  The bulk and scale of the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the locality.

 

(e)  The exception to the FSR development standard would not achieve any better outcomes in these particular circumstances.

 

(f)  There are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention the development standard.

 

            Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

3.         The proposed development does not meet the building design provisions in Part C1 of Lane             Cove Development Control Plan 2010.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  The proposed development does not meet objective 1 and 3 of Clause 1.2 Streetscape, as the scale and appearance of the proposal is not in keeping with the predominant or emerging street and neighbourhood character, and the design of the building does not respond to the topography of the site.

 

(b)  The northern elevation of the proposed development does not meet the minimum side setback requirement outlined in Clause 1.3.2 Side Setbacks, provisions (a)(i) and (ii).

 

(c)  The proposed development requires excavation that fails to meet requirements outlined in Clause 1.6 Cut and Fill, objectives 1 and 5, and provisions (a), (c) and (d).

 

(d)  The proposed development exceeds the maximum external wall height and number of storeys, and fails to meet the requirements outlined in Clause 1.7 Building Design, objectives 1, 2 and 4, and provisions (a) and (e).

 

(e)  The proposed development would result in unreasonable overshadowing of the neighbouring property to the south, and fails to meet the requirements outlined in Clause 1.8 Amenity, objective 1, and provisions 1.8.1 Solar Access and overshadowing (a).

 

(f)  The proposed development provides a roof top terrace which is prohibited in accordance with Clause 1.8 Amenity, provision 1.8.2 Privacy – Visual and Acoustic (b).

 

(g)  The private open space area of the proposal is not directly accessible from a living area, and is contrary to Clause 1.8 Amenity, provision 1.8.3 Private Open Space (b).

 

            Tree Management – Inadequate information

 

4.         The proposed development would impact on the health of trees within the site and             neighbouring properties, and street trees.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)   An Arborist Report prepared by a AQF5 qualified and experienced Arborist has not been submitted to determine the impact the proposed development would have on the existing tree population.

 

Suitability of the site for the proposed development

 

5.         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

 

6.         Pursuant to Section 79C(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the             approval of the proposal 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.

 

            Precedent

 

7.         The proposal development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development in             the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Clause 4.6 Variation

12 Pages

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 5 December 2017

68 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          68 Greenwich Road, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA17/4-01 - 69704/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Andrew Thomas 

 

 

 

Property:

68 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

DA No:

D4/17

Date Lodged:

20.1.17 (Car parking plan submitted September 2017 and line of sight plans submitted November 2017)

Cost of Work:

$5,000

Owner:

J. Kim - when the application was submitted.

The current owner is Greenwich Rooms Pty Ltd.

Applicant:        

Brijinder Randhawa and Jaswinder Samra

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

A change of use of a dwelling house to health consulting rooms.

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 5

Stop the Clock used

Yes because the proposal required the submission of a traffic report, an on-site car parking and driveway plan, a line of sight plan and an Arborist’s report.

Notification

Neighbours                             60 - 64, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68A, 68B, 69, 71, 73, 75 and 77 Greenwich Road; 1, 2 and 4 Chisholm Street and 29 and 31 Glenview Street.

Ward Councillors                   East

Progress Association             Greenwich Community Association

                                              Inc.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development Application D4/17 is referred to the Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for consideration and determination given the submissions received and issues raised during the assessment process.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·         The subject site contains a single storey dwelling house. The property is vacant.

·         The site is in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

·         The proposal is for a change of use from a dwelling house to health consulting rooms.

·         The proposed use complies with the definition of health consulting rooms and is permissible in the R2 zone with the consent of Council under this same LEP.

·         In response to Council’s notification of the proposal 7 submissions were received that raised concerns that included traffic and parking. The applicant was requested to submit a traffic report. Council notified all people making submissions of the traffic report prepared on behalf of the applicant, and 3 people made a further submission.

·         The site has an existing single on-site car space, and there is a disabled car space in front of the site. The applicant was advised that the proposed use would require 2 additional on-site car parking spaces.

·         Plans have been submitted proposing 2 additional car spaces that would be accessed by a proposed driveway crossing from Chisholm Street.

·         The proposal was re-notified with all of the additional information that had been submitted being made available and 5 submissions were received.

·         Nine people have submitted a total of 15 submissions. The concerns raised include:

o    the subject site’s proximity to the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street;

o    the current car parking problems in the area;

o    the level of parking proposed for the use and access to the 2 additional car spaces;

o    criticisms about the applicant’s traffic consultants report; and

o    how the proposed use would operate.

·         This report does not find issue with how the proposed use would operate.

·         Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that:

o    the 2 additional car spaces that are required and proposed, in addition to an existing single car space and an existing disabled car space in front of the site in Greenwich Road, would ensure that the proposed use complies with the total car parking required under the Lane Cove DCP 2009; and

o    the proposed use would have minimal impact on the existing road network, including the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street and no significant impact on the parking capacity within neighbouring streets.

·         However, Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that the viewing distance/line of sight available for drivers exiting the site into Chisholm Street and looking south would not satisfy the relevant Australian Standard and as result cannot support the additional on-site spaces.

·         Although the proposed use and some of its associated works would be reasonable, the sightline available for drivers exiting the site to the south does not meet the relevant Australian Standard. Therefore the driveway required to the proposed on-site car parking raises a safety issue.

·         As indicated above Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that the existing and proposed car parking combined would satisfy Council’s car parking requirements for the proposed use, and that the proposed use would have minimal impact on the existing road network and no significant impact on the parking capacity within local streets.

·         The issue therefore is whether the proposed use should not be supported because a line of sight does not comply, or whether it should be supported because it would provide a medical service/need in the local area whilst only having a low impact on traffic and parking in the area.

·         As the proposed use would provide a benefit to the community with minimal impact, this report recommends the proposed use for approval but without any additional on-site car parking or the access driveway that this additional car parking would require.

 

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

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot 1 DP 656208

Area

444.5m2

Site location

The subject site is located at the southeastern intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street.

The site is situated between the eastern side of Greenwich Road and the western side of Chisholm Street.

Existing improvements

Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house that is currently vacant, and a single carport that is accessed from Greenwich Road. Although the majority of the site’s open space is paved it does include some mature trees. 

Shape

Triangular.

Dimensions

The site has an eastern boundary of about 31m, a western boundary of about 32m and a southern boundary of about 28m.                                                       

Adjoining properties

There is a dwelling house located on the lot adjoining the site’s southern boundary, and dwelling houses opposite the site in Greenwich Road and in Chisholm Street.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

D134/16

Proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a dwelling house on three levels. The application was withdrawn in February 2017.

D275/03

Proposed a small extension to a sunroom that was approved in 2003.

BA130/95

Proposed a carport that was approved in 1995.

 

PROPOSAL

 

This application proposes:

 

·          the use of an existing dwelling house as health consulting rooms; and

·          2 additional car parking spaces accessed by a proposed driveway off Chisholm Street.

 

A summary of the application follows.

 

(i) The use    

 

·          The proposed use would occupy all of the existing building’s floor area of 135m2 and would have 2 consulting rooms, a combined reception/waiting area and an adjoining separate waiting area, a kitchen, 2 bathrooms and 2 storage rooms/areas.

·          The proposed use would operate between the hours of 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday with one health care professional and 1 staff member (a Secretary/Receptionist/ Practice Manager).

·          The health care professional, Professor Samra, is a consultant surgeon who would undertake consultations prior to and after patient surgery.

·          Initially it was stated that consultations would occur on 2-3 days per week (to be decided). Subsequently in a letter to neighbouring residents (attached to the applicant’s traffic consultant’s report prepared in March 2017), the consultant confirmed that he would only be consulting between 9am and 12.30pm on Mondays and 8.30am and 5pm on Tuesdays; outside of these hours he would be operating and/or seeing patients in three hospitals.

·          Patient appointments would be booked at 30 minute intervals and less than 25 patients per day would be seen.

 

(ii) Parking

 

·          The consultant would park in the existing carport that is accessed from Greenwich Road.

·          Two on-site car spaces are proposed on the north side of the dwelling house. Both car spaces would be available for patients and staff and would be accessed by a proposed crossing from Chisholm Street. A proposed turning area would enable drivers to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. 

·          To ensure reasonable access is provided to both of the on-site patient car spaces part of an existing sunroom (the proposed smaller waiting room) and an attached pergola would be demolished, and two limbs of a mature Liquidambar tree, located within the subject site and close to the proposed driveway entrance from Chisholm Street, are proposed to be removed. 

·          An existing disabled car space that was provided for the previous property owners in front of the site in Greenwich Road would be available for patients’ parking, but not reserved for patients i.e. it would also be available for members of the public.

·          The Secretary/ Receptionist/ Practice Manager would travel to the site by public transport.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/COMPLIANCE

 

(i) The Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP)

 

The proposed use does not raise any compliance issues under the LEP.

 

(ii) The Lane Cove Comprehensive DCP 2009: Part R - Traffic, Transport and Parking (the DCP)

 

The car parking requirements for health consulting rooms under the DCP are set out in the following table. 

 

Provision: off-street car spaces

 

Proposed :

(1 Doctor and 1 staff member)

Complies

Staff, including employer

 

 

 

 

1 space per health care professional.

1 car space (existing carport space).

Yes

 

1 space per 2 employees (0.5 spaces for 1 employee rounded up to 1 space).

1 car space 

Yes*

Patients

 

 

 

 

1 space per 3 rooms (0.6 spaces for 2 consulting rooms rounded up to 1 space).

1 car space

Yes*

 

Disability parking

Disability parking

 

 

1 disabled space per 10 car spaces (min. 1 disabled car space).

1 on-street car space provided by Council for the previous resident in front of the site.

Not on the site**

TOTAL

4 spaces

4 spaces

Yes**

            *However, the report also finds that while the on-site parking can be accommodated, sight distance is unacceptable.

            **Council’s Transport Engineer is satisfied that an existing disabled car space in front of the site in Greenwich Road addresses the need for this car space to be provided on the site.

 

REFERRALS   

 

Transport Engineer (TE)

 

Confirms that:-

 

·         the proposed use provides 1 on-site car parking space for the consultant and 2 additional on-site car parking spaces that are proposed for the staff member and for patients that can both be accessed in a forward in/forward out direction; and

·         the existing on-street disability car parking space in front of the property in Greenwich Road can be utilised by patients of the health consulting room, although this space is not for the exclusive use of the premises; and

·         the proposed use should have no significant impact on the parking capacity of streets close to the site and minimal impact on both the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street and the existing road network.

·         In response to a plan submitted by the applicant’s transport consultant showing the visibility available for drivers exiting the site into Chisholm Street Council’s TE has confirmed that there would be:

·         sufficient setback from the proposed driveway to the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street;

·         a sufficient line of sight to the north; but

·         an insufficient line of sight to the south.

See Varga Traffic Planning covering letter and sight line diagram (AT3).   

In relation to the sight line non-compliance the transport consultant estimates that given vehicles travel along Chisholm Street at approximately 40km/hr, the minimum stopping distance need only be 35m based on the relevant Australian Standard. The consultant adds that this sight distance can be achieved by lowering the height of the fence along the site’s eastern boundary to a height of approximately 900m for a distance of 15m to the south of the proposed driveway.

 

By contrast, Council’s TE states that this sight distance should be 45m based on this same standard because the speed limit in Chisholm Street is 50km/hr.

 

The line of sight for drivers looking to the south is impaired by a mature Tallowwood tree located on the verge next to the site’s eastern side boundary. Council’s TE also states that by reducing the height of part of the boundary fence, or removing this boundary fence, or removing the Paperbark tree on the site that would also be on the southern of the proposed driveway and that abuts this same fence, would result in minimal improvement on visibility when exiting the proposed driveway. 

 

Council’s TE has also confirmed that whilst the viewing distance to the north along Chisholm Street for drivers exiting the site complies with the relevant Australian Standard, this distance could be improved if the boundary fence was removed completely, and not just reduced in height by the same amount and for a distance of 4m on the north side of the proposed driveway as suggested by the applicant’s transport consultant.

Development Engineer

However, as indicated earlier, based on the Recommendation of this report only the draft engineering conditions of a general nature recommended by the Development Engineer are required (see draft conditions 38 - 45).

Manager Environmental Health

 

Has recommended draft conditions 32 - 37 to address the disposal of medical instruments and biomedical waste, and others to regulate the noise of equipment that might be used on the premises, skin penetration and surgical procedures.  

 

Tree Assessment Officer (TAO)

 

Has recommended draft conditions that would reflect the recommendations of the applicant’s Arborists report and address the removal of two limbs from a mature Liquidambar tree within the site to facilitate manoeuvring of the proposed 2 on-site car spaces, the protection of this tree and the supervisory role of an Arborist to ensure this work is carried out appropriately.

 

Council’s TAO endorses a Recommendation by the applicant’s Arborist that the existing Paperbark tree on the eastern side of the site should be removed because it shows signs of a split. However, this tree would not be affected by the proposed works and therefore its removal is not relevant to this application.

 

However, as indicated earlier, based on the Recommendation of this report no tree - related conditions are required.

 

Senior Building Surveyor      

 

Has recommended draft conditions 5 and 14 requiring the proposed use to have disabled access and for a fire safety schedule to be submitted that sets out the fire safety measures within the existing building and those that are proposed, or would be required.

 

ASSESSMENT – the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

 

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) Any environmental planning instrument

 

1. The Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP)

  

The proposed use is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone (the R2 zone) as health consulting rooms which in the LEP are defined as follows:

 

            “health consulting rooms means premises comprising one or more rooms within (or      within the curtilage of) a dwelling house used by not more than 3 health care professionals      at any one time.”

 

The definition above does not limit the number of rooms that can be used, or how many ancillary staff can be employed. The definition only limits the number of health care professionals at any one time to 3. It would follow that the number of rooms used, and the staff employed, would reflect this restriction.

 

The definition refers to a dwelling house, which under the LEP means a building containing only one dwelling. Under the LEP a dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile. Although the proposed use would occupy all of the vacant dwelling house, the building itself would remain capable of being used as a domicile. 

 

The LEP defines health care professional as:

 

             “…any person registered under an Act for the purpose of providing health care”.

 

One of the two applicants is Clinical Professor Samra, a stomach, gallbladder, hernia and liver surgeon at the Royal North Shore Hospital, and Visiting Medical Officer at both Macquarie University Hospital and the San Hospital. Professor Samra would be the only specialist doctor undertaking patient consultations on the site and is registered under legislation that provides health care.

 

A relevant objective of the R2 zone is:           “To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.” 

 

The proposed use:-

 

·          complies with the definition of health consulting rooms and is permissible in the R2 zone;

·          satisfies the related definition of health care professional;

·          satisfies a relevant objective of the R2 zone; and

·          does not raise any issues under the LEP.

 

2. SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

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

 

Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) Any development control plan

 

The preceding table shows that there is a shortfall of 1 on-site car space under the numerical provisions/requirements for car parking for health consulting rooms under the DCP. However, Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that this shortfall is addressed by the existing disabled car space located in front of the site in Greenwich Road. The proposal does raise another issue in relation to the DCP as to whether the proposed on-site car parking is functional given the limited sight distance when exiting the site.  

 

Section 79C (1)(a)(iv) Applicable Regulations  

 

The 2 car parking spaces that are proposed to be provided on the site would be accessed by a driveway that is proposed off Chisholm Street. This would require the removal of existing paving within the main courtyard, part of the existing kerb in Chisholm Street and some of the site’s eastern boundary fence.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the demolition and removal of materials to satisfy AS 2601-2001. Draft condition 29 addresses demolition works to ensure compliance with this Australian Standard. 

 

Section 79C (1)(b) Likely impacts

 

(i) Traffic

 

In February 2017 Council’s Manager Traffic and Transport requested a traffic report. A report prepared by a transport, traffic and parking consultancy (the traffic report) was submitted on behalf of the applicant in March 2017. This transport report is summarised below. 

 

(a) Local roads

 

·          Greenwich Road is a local, unclassified road, with 1 traffic lane in both directions and kerbside parking generally on both sides.

 

·          Chisholm Street is also a local, unclassified road with 1 traffic lane in both directions but kerbside parking is generally restricted to one side (at its northern end).

 

·          A 50km/h speed limit applies in the area. However, just after the subject site a 40km/h speed limit applies in both streets because of the Greenwich Infants School located about 100m to the south of the site.

 

(b) Traffic generation

 

The traffic report states that traffic generated by the proposed use has been based on a Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) publication of 2013. Although the report acknowledges that this RMS publication is based on extensive surveys of a wide range of land uses, the publication does not nominate a traffic rate for specialist doctor’s consulting rooms.

 

The traffic report bases traffic generation predictions on the operational characteristics of the proposed use where patient appointments are at 30 minute intervals, so that there would only ever be 1 or 2 patients on the site at any one time. Consequently the arrival/departure of 2 patients per hour is expected to generate 4 vehicles per hour (vph) i.e. 2 vph arriving at, and 2 vph leaving, the site on those days when consultations would occur.

 

The traffic report states that this rate should be offset or discounted by the traffic generated by the previous residential use of the dwelling house. Using the same RMS publication for low density residential dwellings this would give:

 

·         0.95 vph in the AM peak, and

·         0.99 vph in the PM peak.   

 

The traffic report concludes that the net increase in traffic generated by the proposed use when consultations are undertaken would be:

 

·         consulting room: 4 vph

·         less previous dwelling house use: 1 vph

·         net increase: 3 vph

 

The traffic report states that this projected increase in traffic activity is statistically insignificant and it would not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity or traffic - related environmental effects.

 

(c) Parking restrictions

 

The traffic report confirms the following existing kerbside parking restrictions:

 

·         No Stopping on the eastern side of Greenwich Road and on the western side of Chisholm Street where these two streets intersect at the northern end of the subject site.

·         A Bus Stop on either side of Greenwich Road close to the site.

·         A disabled car space in front of the site in Greenwich Road, and another disabled car space  about 50m north of the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street.

·         Unrestricted parking elsewhere in Greenwich Road and on the eastern side of Chisholm Street at its northern end.

·         30 minute parking close to the shops about 100m to the south of the site.

·         No Parking on the western side of Chisholm Street at its northern end (alongside the site). 

 

(d) Council’s car parking rate

 

The traffic report also reviews Council’s car parking rate for heath consulting rooms under Part R Traffic, Transport and Parking of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. Based on the DCP the traffic report states that the proposed use would require the following on-site car parking:

 

·         Doctor: 1 space

·         Staff: 0.5 spaces

·         Patients: 0.3 spaces

Total = 1.8 spaces

 

The traffic report confirms that as the site has only 1 car space the shortfall would be 0.8 spaces, adding that this shortfall is acceptable because the only staff member does not drive to work, thereby reducing the shortfall to 0.3 spaces (i.e. 0.8 - 0.5).

                                                                         

The traffic report acknowledges that based on patient appointments at 30 minute intervals the proposed use is expected to result in an increased on-street parking demand of 1 or 2 spaces at any one point in time. However, the traffic report adds that based on (f)requent visits to the site …. kerbside parking is readily available in both Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street which could be used to accommodate the parking demands generated by the 1 or 2 patients that may be visiting the site at any one point in time.

 

The traffic report also confirms that the proposed use “…will not have any unacceptable parking implications….”   

 

Comment

 

As indicated in later comments concerning submissions received to the proposal, Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that the proposed use:-

 

·         with 2 additional on-site car spaces, would satisfy the car parking requirement of the DCP;

·         would have minimal impact on the intersection close to the site and on the existing road network; and

·         should have no significant impact on the parking capacity within streets close to the site. 

·         In addition to the findings of the applicant’s traffic report, there is unrestricted parking totaling about 20 - 22 cars on both sides of Greenwich Road immediately to the south, and within about 50m, of the site and in the following other locations that are also close to the site:

·         on the south side of Handcock Lane facing the site’s western side boundary  (about 6 -7 spaces), and

·         about 50m to the north of the site on both sides of Oscar Street (about 12 -14 car spaces).

 

Consequently, the proposal’s likely impact on local traffic and parking would be minimal and  reasonable.    

 

(ii) Built

 

The works required for the proposed change of use would be its fit-out and the provision of disabled access.

 

Whilst the demolition of part of an existing sunroom and an adjoining pergola and the provision of 2 on-site car spaces, an on-site turning area and a driveway off Chisholm Street, have all arisen as associated works, these would not be required based on the Recommendation of this report.

 

Consequently, the works required to implement the proposed use would be relatively minor and have no impact on the built environment.

 

(iii) Natural 

 

There are mature trees within the site’s northern courtyard and others along both of its two street frontages.

 

Based on the Recommendation of this report, the proposed use would have no adverse impact on the natural environment.

 

(iv)  Economic

 

It is likely that some patients and the staff member would buy items from the neighbourhood shops located between about 100m and 200m to the south of the site. Therefore the proposed use should benefit local retailers.

 

(v) Social

 

As a specialised medical use the practice would not have any social impact.

 

Section 79C (1)(c) The suitability of the site

 

The site is located within a residential zone and has two street frontages, including one facing Chisholm Street. Concerns have been raised by some neighbouring property owners because:

 

·         the application is for a business use within a former dwelling house in a residential area; 

·         of the potential impact the proposed use would have on traffic in Chisholm Street; and

·         of the driveway that is proposed off Chisholm Street.

 

The minor works required to address the proposed use would have no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, or either of the site’s two street frontages. Trees on the site and the existing trees along its two street frontages would not be affected based on the Recommendation to this report.

 

The proposed 2 on-site car spaces and driveway off Chisholm Street required to access both spaces, concern some neighbours because, inter alia, of the width of this street and the proximity of the proposed driveway to the intersection of this street with Greenwich Road. Council’s Transport Engineer (TE) states that Chisholm Street:

 

·         is about 6.3m wide, and a travel lane needs to be 3m wide; and

·         whilst it is designed for 2 lanes of traffic, an uninterrupted two-way traffic flow cannot be maintained due to parked vehicles along its eastern side at its northern end, although oncoming traffic can pass i.e. at an adjacent driveway - a practice that is typical of many local streets in Sydney.

 

The issue with the proposed use, and therefore the site, is there is insufficient line of sight to the south for motorist’s exiting the site and entering Chisholm Street. On this issue the site is not suitable. 

 

However, Council’s TE has confirmed that the traffic generated by the proposed use would have minimal impact on the intersection of Chisholm Street and Greenwich Road (also see comments under the next sub-heading Section 79C (1)(d) Any submissions of this report).  

 

The site is zoned to allow for the proposed use as health consulting rooms, and is located where its impact on neighbours would be minimal. In addition, the proposed use would have no impact on either of its two street frontages.

 

Based on the Recommendation of this report the site is suitable for the proposed use notwithstanding a lack of suitable on-site parking for 2 cars.

 

Section 79C (1)(d) Any submissions

 

The application was notified and 7 submissions were received.

 

In response to Council’s request for a Traffic Impact Statement the applicant submitted a traffic report in March 2017. In April 2017 the authors of those 7 submissions were notified of this traffic report and 3 neighbours submitted a further response.

 

In September 2017 the application was modified to include 2 on-site car spaces accessed by a driveway proposed off Chisholm Street. The application was re-notified and 5 submissions were received. 

 

Therefore in response to Council’s notifications of the proposal a total of 15 submissions have been received from 9 persons i.e. some of whom have made more than one submission. Eight of those 9 people are neighbours who were notified of the proposal. A submission from residents who were not notified - because their property is close to the Pacific Highway some 650m to the north of the site - has been included in the total submissions. All of the submissions received are summarised under separate sub-headings that follow. This summary is followed by comments from:

 

·         the applicant’s Town Planner, and/or

·         Council’s Transport Engineer, and

·         Council’s Assessment Town Planner and author of this report.

 

Qualified support

 

Subject to traffic and parking being addressed do not oppose the use in principle because it could increase the range of medical services within Greenwich.

 

Summary of concerns

 

1. Traffic

 

(i) Intersection

 

·         The site is on a dangerous corner with high levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic because of the infants school, shops, library, church and a child care centre that are all close by, plus commuter parking for Wollstonecraft  train station.

 

·         Traffic speeding along Greenwich Road and turning into Chisholm Street is a danger to pedestrians.

 

·         This intersection is already blocked by traffic, reducing Chisholm Street to a single lane and causing traffic to back up in this street past the rear entrance of Greenwich Infants School (the infants’ school) and in Greenwich Road.

 

·         Is a severe choke point : vehicles wishing to enter Chisholm Street from Greenwich Road create a tail - back in Greenwich Road; already this is caused by parked vehicles on the east side of Chisholm Street (effectively reducing it to a single lane); if the application is approved this traffic problem would be compounded.

 

·         Would add to the traffic problems caused by children who are driven to the infants’ school entering from Greenwich Road and exiting via Chisholm Street, or vice versa, and hence the choke point is where the subject site is located.

 

·         It cannot be sensible to allow additional car activity close to this very busy intersection.

 

·         Daily there are near accidents and noise and abuse from drivers negotiating the narrow section of Chisholm Street towards its northern end.

 

·         The proposed use will increase traffic along Chisholm Street and present additional dangers to pedestrians that include school children.

 

·         The estimated 140 pupils attending the infants’ school generate 140 vehicle movements in the morning and again in the afternoon. This is a considerable amount of traffic within Chisholm Street for several hours a day, and this level is increased because the school has an out - of - hours facility open between 7am and 9am, and again between 3pm and 6pm.

 

·         Requires a traffic study that identifies where safety can be improved and changes made.

 

Comments

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

Council’s engineers have agreed to:

 

·         the location of the proposed driveway off Chisholm Street;

·         the retention of a single carport space on the site;

·         the retention of the accessible parking space in front of the site in Greenwich Road; and

·         the use operating with 4 car spaces i.e. the 2 existing spaces mentioned above, and 2 car spaces proposed on the site.

 

Because of this agreement Council’s engineers are satisfied with the safe movement of traffic using Chisholm Street and its intersection with Greenwich Road, and the eastern side of Greenwich Road has traffic islands so that drivers of vehicles exiting Chisholm Street have a clear line of sight.

 

(b)  Council’s Transport Engineer (TE)

 

States that:

 

·         at a meeting held between the applicant’s town planning consultant and Council staff no plans were submitted for Council’s review;

·         the applicant’s traffic report is based on traffic generation rates for low density residential dwellings in accordance with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) guidelines - this rate has been offset against the traffic generated by the proposed use;

·         the traffic report estimates that the use would generate a net increase of 3 vehicles in the peak hour - this would be a minor increase and an accurate calculation given that appointments would be at 30 minute intervals; and

·         the increase in traffic as a result of the proposed use would have minimal impact on the intersection of Greenwich Road and Chisholm Street.

 

Council’s TE also states that Chisholm Street is classified as a local street that provides access to the nearby infant’s school’s designated drop - off and pick - up spaces on its western side (facing the school’s rear boundary) and at the northern end of this street from where traffic can exit before entering Greenwich Road. Council’s TE confirms that Council’s traffic count in Chisholm Street on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 found that:

 

·         the maximum number of vehicles recorded was between 8am - 9am and 3pm - 4pm and consistent with the morning and afternoon school peak hours;

·         in these peak hours 98 and 101 vehicles were recorded respectively; and

·         the speed of vehicles was recorded at 36km/h northbound and 37km/h southbound – and this is well below the posted speed limit of 50km/h.

 

            Council’s TE adds that:

 

·         the width available for cars to pass in Chisholm Street because of parked cars is typical of many local streets in Sydney;

·         the RMS sets environmental capacity performance standards for residential streets:

o    the maximum peak hour volume for a local street with a maximum speed of 40km/h is between 200 and 300 vehicles/hour; and

o    the traffic volume in Chisholm Street is well below the RMS’s environmental capacity;

·         the proposed use would have minimal impact on the existing road network; and

·         State government crash records confirm that there have been no recorded crashes in the last 5 year period (2012 -2016) at the Greenwich Road/Chisholm Street intersection.

 

(c) Assessment Town Planner

 

Chisholm Street and Greenwich Road both have a maximum speed limit of 50km/h. Vehicles parked along the eastern side of Chisholm Street should reduce the speed of traffic entering from Greenwich Road. From Council’s recent traffic count vehicles were travelling under 40km/h in Chisholm Street and its peak traffic volume was well below the RMS standard.

 

Whilst Council’s Transport Engineer (TE) has agreed to the parking proposed for the use and a driveway proposed off Chisholm Street, the design of the required driveway has not been resolved.

 

If this development application is approved, Council’s TE has recommended that a Construction Traffic Management Plan is submitted to address the impact that the construction of the proposed driveway would have on traffic and pedestrians using Chisholm Street. Although this requirement can be addressed by a draft condition, based on the Recommendation to this report, the works associated with additional car parking and access are not supported.

 

(ii) General

 

·         A commercial use can only exacerbate the situation.

 

·         The applicant’s Longueville address would seem to be a better location traffic - wise for this facility.

 

Comments

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

The proposed use would not add to the on-street parking burden in Greenwich Road.

 

(b) Assessment Town Planner

 

Both the applicant’s traffic report, and Council’s traffic count, conclude that the proposed use would have a minor impact on the current traffic situation in the local area.  

 

2. Parking

 

(i) Current problems

 

·         The proposed use would add to congestion.

 

Comments

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

The proposed car parking satisfies Council’s controls, and the proposed use would not add to the on-street parking burden in Greenwich Road

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer

 

As the use proposes on-site car parking there should be no significant impact on the parking capacity of Greenwich Road, Chisholm Street, Handcock Lane or any surrounding streets

 

(c) Assessment Town Planner

 

Apart from unrestricted parking on the eastern side of Chisholm Street (facing the site’s eastern side boundary), there is unrestricted on-street parking close to the site in the following three locations:

 

·         about 20 - 22 spaces along both sides of Greenwich Road between the site and the 30 minute restricted on-street parking close to the local shops;

·         about 6 or 7 spaces along the southern side of Handcock Lane (facing the site’s Greenwich Road/western boundary); and

·         about 12 - 14 spaces on both sides of Oscar Street located about 70m to the north of the site (i.e. if no  trailers are parked – up to 3 trailers have been parked on its northern side).

 

Council’s Manager Environmental Health has advised that regular parking reviews are undertaken and action taken in relation to non-conforming matters e.g. by issuing an infringement notice or impounding trailers;  unregistered trailers are issued with a notice on a daily basis. If an impounding notice is not responded to, Council has the power to have the boat trailer removed. However, a registered trailer can park in the same way as a registered motor vehicle. The Council adopted the Boat Trailer (Impounding) Amendment Act in September 2017; this allows Council to require boat trailers to be moved every 28 days (at least one street block away); if this does not happen, Council would issue the owner with a notice of intention to impound the trailer within 15 days.

 

(ii) Required

 

·         With 2 health professionals, and 2 or 3 support staff, the use would require 4 - 5 car spaces. (This is also reflected in a number of submissions).

 

Comment

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

The proposed car parking satisfies Council’s controls.

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer 

 

States that the car parking number proposed for the use complies with Council’s requirements.

 

(c) Assessment Town Planner

 

The car parking requirement for health consulting rooms under the DCP is set out in a table in an earlier section of this report.

 

However, due to the poor sight distance along Chisholm Street south of the proposed driveway, the 2 proposed on-site car spaces are not supported given that on-street parking can be used by visiting patients without adverse impact to the general traffic and parking system.

 

Draft condition 4 recommends that the applicant advises patients that any member of the public with a disability permit could use the existing disabled car space in front of the site in Greenwich Road.

 

3. Access            

 

·         Access to the proposed on-site car spaces from Chisholm Street to enable entry and exit in a forward direction is not viable.

Comment

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

As demonstrated by templates prepared by the applicant’s traffic consultant, both of the proposed on-site car spaces would be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction subject to minor building alterations that can be addressed by a complying development application.

 

The proposed driveway is off-set from the existing driveway of 2 Chisholm Street. 

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer  

 

Has confirmed that cars can enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

(c) Assessment Town Planner

 

Access into and out of the proposed car parking spaces satisfies Council’s Transport Engineer (TE).

 

Council’s TE has not raised a concern regarding the proximity of the proposed driveway in relation to the existing driveway serving 2 Chisholm Street that is opposite the site on the eastern side of this street. A car reversing out of the driveway of 2 Chisholm Street would not be impeded because there is no on-street parking along its western side.

 

Additional car parking access would require relatively minor demolition works to part of one room on the north side of the building, and the removal of the temporary disabled access ramp leading into this same room. However, the Recommendation of this report is only to allow approval of the proposed use, and not any of the associated car parking and access works. Only draft condition 5 would be required to ensure that there would be access for people with a disability within the site and inside the property.

 

4. Sightlines                               

 

·         The proposed vehicular crossing is close to the intersection of Chisholm Street and Greenwich Road, that is almost a blind corner, and vision is also obstructed by parked cars.

 

·         Sightlines for drivers’ exiting the site are very poor in both directions along Chisholm Street.

 

Comment

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

Sight lines in both directions along Chisholm Street would comply if the height of the boundary fence along this street frontage was reduced.

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer (TE)

 

Council’s TE confirms that as the proposed driveway would be adequately setback from the intersection of these two roads the sight line along Chisholm Street to the north would satisfy the relevant Australian Standard.

 

However, Council’s TE confirms that the sight line for drivers to the south along Chisholm Street would not satisfy this standard even if measures were taken to reduce or remove the site’s boundary fence, or an existing Paperback tree on the eastern side of the building. 

            (c) Assessment Town Planner 

 

            This report confirms that there is no town planning issue regarding the proposed change of use. However sight lines in both directions must comply with the relevant Australian Standard so as to ensure the safety of patients and staff driving off the site into Chisholm Street, and the safety of members of the public driving, or walking, along Chisholm Street.

 

            A potential and unacceptable danger to the general public is that one line of sight for drivers exiting the site does not comply with this standard. Therefore access to the proposed additional on-site car spaces is not endorsed.

 

5. Traffic report

 

·         Question the credibility of the traffic report.

 

Comment

 

(a) Council’s Transport Engineer (TE)

 

Council’s TE has confirmed that the applicant’s consultants traffic report:

 

·         whilst accurately calculating the net increase in traffic generated by the proposed use compared to the previous use as a dwelling house (the proposed use would generate 4 vehicles per hour compared to the previous residential use that generated 1 vehicle per hour i.e. there would be a net increase of 3 vehicles per hour), does not appropriately address the parking generated by the proposed use that requires additional on-site car parking; and

·         uses an accurate traffic rate for the site’s low density residential zoning based on a RMS  document; using this rate, and based on Council’s own traffic count, the proposed use would have minimal impact on the existing road network.    

 

(b) Assessment Town Planner

 

Generally, whilst Council’s Transport Engineer has supported the approach and findings of the applicant’s traffic report, the main concern was that the report did not appropriately address the parking that would be generated by the proposed use.

   

Subsequently, after discussions between Council staff and the applicant’s Town Planner, plans were submitted proposing 2 additional car spaces on the site to address the car parking shortfall of the proposed use based on Council’s DCP requirement. 

 

6. The use

 

·         The scope of the application appears to be changing.

 

·         Concerned that, inter alia, the applicant could:

 

o    allow others to consult when not on the site, or use the other consulting room, or

o    grow the practice, or

o    increase consulting times beyond those applied for.

 

·         Have no objection in principle to appropriate developments along Greenwich Road; however, the proposed use must provide adequate parking for patients and staff, now and into the future.

 

·         Although the proposal attempts to address the lack of on-site parking, the proposed use is not viable: the loss of amenity for those potential residents affected has been ignored, and the use has no net benefit to the community

 

Comment

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

The proposed use is permissible with consent under the site’s R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

It is not an unreasonable expectation for the proposed use to be located on Greenwich Road given its accessibility and like uses along this street.

 

The proposed use will not have any impact on house prices in Greenwich.

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer 

 

The proposed use cannot satisfy Council’s car parking requirements adequately.

(c) Assessment Town Planner

In correspondence to Council the applicant has confirmed that the Practice Manager is also the Secretary and Receptionist i.e. that same person fulfills three roles.

In a covering letter submitted with their application the applicant’s stated that the surgeon’s consulting times were to be decided. Subsequently, the applicant’s traffic report included a letter by the consultant surgeon addressed to neighbouring residents on Greenwich Road that set out the days and times of appointments.

By operating with 2 consulting rooms the practice would enable patients to prepare for their consultation in one room whilst a consultation is taking place in the other. Although the northerly waiting room is proposed to be reduced in area to ensure that both on - site car spaces could enter and exit the site in a forward direction, the Recommendation of this report does not endorse works associated with providing additional on-site car parking and access.

From my discussion with the applicants, the recent demolition and construction work underway adjoining the current consulting rooms in AMA House at St. Leonards appears to have been a reason for this proposed relocation. In the applicant’s letter included in the traffic report a second business address (in Eastwood) is provided.

With the work commitments mentioned in this same letter, it would be unlikely that the consultant would be able to work outside of the times stipulated. However, because each health care professional (consultant doctor) requires 1 on-site car space under Council’s DCP, draft condition 2 would ensure that the number of health care professionals is limited to 1. 

However, as the site is in a residential area it would be appropriate to restrict the operating hours of the practice. Draft condition 3 would impose the hours of operation stated on the application i.e. 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday..

The proposed use satisfies a previously stated objective of the site’s R2 Low Density Residential zoning under the Lane Cove LEP 2009 because as it would …..provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents it is likely that at some time some local residents would need to undergo a medical consultation on the site.

As stated by the applicant’s Town Planner there are, or have been, similar uses along Greenwich Road, and a brief summary of these follows.

·         68A Greenwich Road

In 1987 Council approved DA601 which proposed the conversion of part of the existing dwelling house into professional consulting rooms for a Doctor assisted by a part-time receptionist, and additions to the remainder of the building that would be used as the Doctor’s residence. Today the site is only used as a residence.

·         12 Coolabah Avenue  

Located on the corner of Greenwich Road about 150m to the north of the site, it was used as a Dentists.

·         99 Greenwich Road

Located at the southern end of the local Greenwich shops and opposite Greenwich Infants School, this former dwelling house continues to be used as a medical practice and has been for a number of years. 

 

7.  Neighbours’ suggestions

 

The application should be modified so that:

 

·         the use is limited to only 2 consulting rooms; 

·         the waiting area (the northern sunroom), which is unnecessary, should be removed – the area marked reception and waiting area is more than adequate to support 2 consulting rooms;

·         on - site parking is provided –  the site can accommodate at least 7 cars; and

·         the disabled access ramp is repositioned along the northern wall of the reception and waiting area, or is removed as there is already an entrance facing Greenwich Road.

 

Comment

 

(a) Applicant’s Town Planner

 

To enable satisfactory access to both proposed car parking spaces part of the proposed smaller northern waiting room would need to be demolished.

 

(b) Council’s Transport Engineer

 

The proposed car parking cannot adequately satisfy the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard.

 

(c) Assessment Town Planner

 

If the proposed use is approved the following draft conditions are recommended:

 

·         draft condition 2 would limit the health care professional allowed to practice on the site to 1; and

·         draft condition 3 would restrict the hours of operation of the use to between 8am and 5pm weekdays.

 

The floor plan submitted with the application would limit the number of consulting rooms to 2. If the use is approved draft condition 1 would include this plan as a plan recommended for approval.

 

Based on the Recommendation to this report no works would be required to reduce the size of the smaller waiting room. However, draft condition 5 would require the applicant to demonstrate that disabled access could be provided for the proposed use.

 

Section 79C (1)(e) The public interest

Some neighbours are concerned that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, and Chisholm Street in particular, mainly because:

 

·         some of the traffic it would generate would need to park in nearby streets; and

·         it would increase demand for on-street parking where there is already competing interests that include commuter parking and traffic generated by the local infants school.

 

In response the applicant’s:

 

·         town planner states that the proposed use will not add to the on-street parking burden in Greenwich Road; and

·         traffic consultant states that the use would “… not have any unacceptable parking implications…”   

 

Generally Council’s Transport Engineer (TE) endorses these statements.

 

A concern raised by one neighbour is that a residential property would be removed from the local market. In response the applicant’s town planner states that the proposed use would “… not have any impact on house prices in Greenwich”. One proposed use is unlikely to affect local property prices.

 

Council’s TE has confirmed that there would be insufficient sight line available to a driver exiting the site from the 2 proposed car spaces and entering Chisholm Street south of the proposed driveway based on the relevant Australian Standard. This non-compliance is a potential threat to public safety.

 

However, the proposed use:

 

·         is permissible under the site’s low density residential zoning, and

·         would be in the public interest because as it would provide a medical service to patients of a nearby hospital, some patients could be expected to live locally.

 

Therefore, approval of the proposed change of use without additional on-site car parking would be in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed use is permissible in the site’s R2 Low Density Residential zone under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

In response to Council’s notification of the application 15 submissions from 9 different property owners, of whom all but one live close to the subject site, have been received. A major concern raised relates to the impact the proposed use would have on the volume of existing traffic and the parking situation in nearby streets.

 

Although the proposed sight line available to the south of the proposed driveway when a driver is entering Chisholm Street does not comply with the relevant Australian Standard, both the applicant’s transport consultant, and Council’s Transport Engineer, confirm that the impact of the proposed use on traffic and parking in the area, with or without the 2 proposed car spaces, would be reasonable.

 

Matters in relation to s.79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been addressed in this report and generally are satisfied.

 

The proposed use satisfies a relevant objective of the Low Density Residential R2 zone under the Lane Cove LEP because it would provide a medical service that is likely to benefit local residents. This LEP objective is more significant than the numerical requirement under Council’s DCP that requires the proposed use to provide a certain number of on-site car parking spaces.

 

It is considered that the community benefit is greater in approving the proposal for a change of use to establish a health consulting facility, notwithstanding a minor and reasonable potential on-street parking impact, rather than refusal on such grounds.

 

Consequently, as it has been confirmed by both the applicant’s transport consultant and Council’s Transport Engineer that the impact of the proposed use on traffic and parking in the area would be reasonable, the application for a change of use is recommended for approval without the need for any additional on-site car parking.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel grants development consent to Development Application 4/17 for a change of use of a dwelling house to health consulting rooms on Lot 1 DP 656208 and known as 68 Greenwich Road, Greenwich subject to the following conditions:

 

Plans

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with an undated floor plan except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Specific

 

2.         In order to control the overall impact of the use on the local area, the number of health care professionals allowed to work on the premises at any one time is limited to one (1).

 

3.         In order to control its overall impact on the local area, the hours of operation of the use are limited to between 8:00am and 5:00pm Monday – Friday inclusive. All work outside of these hours is prohibited.

 

4.         So as to ensure that there is reasonable car parking for persons with a disability, the disabled car space in front of the site in Greenwich Road is for the use at any time by any member of the public with a disability permit and is not for the exclusive use of patients with a disability permit attending the practice. Where necessary, the practice is to advise patients with a disability permit of this requirement.

 

5.         The use is to provide access for disabled persons through the relevant part of the curtilage of the site and the subject premises in accordance with Part D.3 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

General

 

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

 

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

 

8.         (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.

 

9.         (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 $5,000 OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS LESS THAN $20,000.

 

10.       (17) An Occupation Certificate and a Certificate of Completion being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the building and at the completion of the disabled access, respectively.

 

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

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                         7.00am to 4.00pm

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

 

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

 

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.       (45) A “Fire Safety Schedule” specifying the fire safety measures that are currently implemented in the building premises and the fire safety measures proposed or required to be implemented in the building premises as required by clause 168 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 are to be submitted and approved PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

15.       (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.

 

16.       (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.

 

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

 

18.       (56) Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, it will be necessary to book an inspection for the following stage during the construction process.  Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required for the completion of works.

 

19.       (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.

 

20.       (61)  All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684 -79.

 

21.       (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.

 

22.       (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.

 

23.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

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

 

25.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

26.       (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 7m from the specified item.

 

27.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

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

 

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

 

30.       (87) The pedestrians' portion of footpath along the site’s Greenwich Road frontage is to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.

 

31.       (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.

 

Health                                           

 

32.       (428) Sharps Disposal

 

Sharp disposable instruments (such as needles, lances or blades) are to be placed in a special sharps disposable container and disposed of in accordance with the “Skin Penetration Guidelines” 1991, published by the NSW Health Department.

 

33.       (429) Skin Penetration Guidelines

 

Any person carrying out any of the following skin penetration procedures shall ensure that the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Public Health Act 1991 and Regulations, and the NSW Department of Health Skin Penetration Guidelines 1991 are met at all times:

 

a)                      hair removal;

b)                      any procedure that involves skin penetration; and

c)                      surgical procedures.

 

34.       (441) Operation of Plant or Equipment

 

To minimise the impact of noise from the use, all sound producing plant, equipment, machinery, mechanical ventilation systems and or refrigeration systems, shall be designed and or located so that the noise emitted does not exceed 5db(A) above the ambient background level when measured from the boundary of any affected premises between the hours of 8am to 10pm.  Between the hours of 10pm and 8am, noise shall not exceed the ambient background level when measured at the boundary of affected premises.

 

All sound producing equipment shall comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

35.       (442) Noise Control – Offensive Noise

 

To minimise the noise impact on the surrounding environment, the use of the premises, building services, equipment, machinery and ancillary fittings shall not give rise to an offensive noise as defined under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

36.       Biomedical and waste containing sharps are to be disposed of by a NSW Health/NSW Environment Protection Authority approved medical waste licensed waste contractor and is not to be placed into Council’s domestic waste service. Heavy penalties apply for non - compliance with this requirement.

 

37.       Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, details of the waste management arrangements for the premises are to be sent to Council in writing including the commercial waste provider/contractor.

 

Engineering                      

 

38.       (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.

 

39.       (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.

 

40.       (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.

 

41.       (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.

 

42.       (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.

 

43.       (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’.

 

         Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

44.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $3,000 bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

45.       (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.

 


 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Varga Traffic Planning - Sight line diagram and covering letter

2 Pages