Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting
5 December 2017, 5:00pm
PRESENT: Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Eugene Sarich, Planning Expert, Mr David Johnson, Environmental Expert, Ms Mary Rawlings, Community Representative
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Ms Diep Hang, Senior Town Planner, Mr Andrew Thomas, Town Planner and Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Nil
WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING
The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being webcast.
That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting of 5 December 2017, refused 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.
(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.
2. The devlopment application should be refused because the proposal would result in the isolation of two properties.
(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.
(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.
3. The development application should be refused because the subject site does not meet the minimum site area required for residential flat buildings.
(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.
4. The development application should be refused because the proposed development exceeds the maximum building depth permitted for residential flat buildings.
(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.
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.
(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:
(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.
(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 15m² 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.
7. The development application should be refused because less than 70% of units within the development receive adequate solar access.
(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.
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.
(a) Objective 3D-1 in Part 3D ‘Communal and Public Open Space’ of the ADG provides the following relevant design criteria and guidance:
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).
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.
(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:
1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
(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.
13. The development application should be refused because the level of excavation required to accommodate the proposed development is excessive and inconsistentwith clause 3.8 in Part C3 of LCDCP 2010 relating to excavation.
(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
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.
14. The development application should be refused as the proposal is unable to dispose of stormwater from the site.
(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.
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.
(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.
(a) Table 1 in Part R of LCDCP 2010 provides the following minimum car parking requirements for residential flat buildings:
(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.
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.
(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:
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.
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.
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.
The decision of the Panel was unanimous
That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting of 5 December 2017, refused 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
7. The proposal development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the area.
The decision of the Panel was unanimous
That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting of 5 December 2017 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:
1. (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with an undated floor plan except as amended by the following conditions.
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.
6. The proposed on-site car parking for visitors is not approved for safety reasons.
7. (1) The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.
8. (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (50) The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.
19. (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.
20. (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.
21. (61) All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684 -79.
22. (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.
23. (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.
24. (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.
25. (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.
26. (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.
27. (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.
28. (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.
29. (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.
30. (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.
31. (87) The pedestrians' portion of footpath along the site’s Greenwich Road frontage is to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.
32. (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.
33. (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.
34. (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.
35. (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.
36. (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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. (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.
40. (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.
41. (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.
42. (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.
43. (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.
44. (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
45. (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
46. (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.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council investigate on-site parking restrictions during business hours in Greenwich Road.
The decision of the Panel was unanimous
The meeting closed at 6.15pm.