Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

10 April 2018, 5:00pm

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove on Tuesday 10 April 2018 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

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting Procedures

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) 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 Lane Cove Local Planning 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 LCLPP 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 LCLPP, 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.

 

 


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 10 April 2018

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.      LANE COVE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING - 6 MARCH 2018

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.       124 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

3.       Review of Determination of Application - 82 Northwood Road Northwood

 

4.       29 Birdwood Avenue Lane Cove

 

 

 

 

 

 

  


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   10 April 2018

124 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          124 Greenwich Road, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA17/204-01 - 15541/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Andrew Thomas 

 

 

 

Property:

124 Greenwich Road, Greenwich (the Gore Bay Terminal)

DA No:

D204/17

Date Lodged:

18.12.17

Cost of Work:

$750,000

Owner:

Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd c/- TFA Project Group

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Installation of tank shields, water draining equipment and a flow meter.

Zone

IN4  Working Waterfront

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

Yes

Is the property within a conservation area

Yes

Is the property adjacent to bushland

Yes, at the northern and southern ends of the site.

BCA Classification

Class 8

Stop the Clock used

Yes                                                                              

Notification

Neighbours                             108 - 132 and 167 - 225 Greenwich                                                Road; 39 - 49 and 44 - 52 Chisholm                                                Street; 1 - 4 Landenburg Place; 1                                                and 3 St. Lawrence Street; 1 - 29                                                and 2 - 8 Manns Avenue; 1 - 17                                                George Street and 2 - 18 Victoria                                                Street; the Waterways Authority and                                                  the State Rail Authority.

Ward Councillors                   East

Progress Association             Greenwich Community Association

                                               Inc.

Other                                     The Lane Cove Bushland and  

                                               Conservation Society.

                                              The Lane Cove Historical Society.

 

A neighbour notification plan is attached at AT-1.             

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL  

 

Development Application 204/17 must be referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as it is a heritage item and proposes metal shields for two existing storage tanks where the height of the shields would depart more than 10% from the height standard of 9.5m that applies to this site.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·         The subject site is used for the storage of fuel products and is adjacent to Gore Cove.

·         These products are stored in a number of tanks that vary in size.

·         Apart from the subject site the locality consists of predominantly detached dwelling houses and some older residential flat buildings of between 2 and 6 storeys.

·         The site is a heritage item and is located within the Greenwich Point Conservation Area. Both the item and the Conservation Area are of local heritage significance under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP).  See map attached (AT2).

·         The site and all of the local Conservation Area are subject to a height standard of 9.5m under the LEP. A number of structures on the site, including two existing tanks, have a height greater than 9.5m.

·         Three metal shields are proposed to be attached to two metal tanks. The visual impact of these shields would be minimised because they would not exceed the height of either tank and would be in the same colour as both tanks. The applicant has submitted a written variation to the height standard under cl. 4.6 of the LEP. The variation is reasonable and recommended to be supported.

·         Other works proposed under this development application are also incidental to two existing tanks and involve equipment that would drain water from both tanks and a meter to test the flow of fuel product within an existing pipe. These ancillary works all comply with the height standard.

·         The proposal was notified to neighbouring residents and local community interests. No submissions have been received.

·         The development application was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA) as the proposed works are Integrated Development. The EPA has recommended two draft conditions that are included as conditions 2 and 3 in the Recommendation to this report.

·         Council’s Manager Environmental Health and Council’s Development Engineer have recommended draft conditions that are also included in this same Recommendation (draft conditions 24 - 30 and 31 - 39 respectively). Council’s Heritage Adviser has no objection to the proposed works and has not recommended any draft conditions.

·         Adjoining the northern and southern ends of the site is land that is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation under the LEP. This land contains bushland. However only the northern part of the site is bush fire prone land, and the nearest works would be about 100m away from this area. Based on the location of the proposed works, the conclusions of a bush fire report submitted with a development application for ancillary works on the site in 2015 and comments on that application and the bush fire consultant’s report from the NSW Rural Fire Service, there is no bush fire issue in relation to the proposal.

·         As the overall impact of all of the proposed works would be reasonable and not have any adverse impact on the heritage significance of the site, the application is recommended for approval.          

 

SITE

 

Property

Part of Lot 185 DP 752067 and part of Lot 1 DP 880022

Area

The site has an area of approximately 9 hectares.

Site location

The site is located on the eastern side of Greenwich Point Conservation Area. The site is bounded by Gore Cove to the east, Chisholm Street and Holloway Reserve to the north, a combination of Greenwich Road, Manns Avenue, Gother Avenue and East Street to the west and Prospect Street and Manns Point Reserve to the south.

A plan identifying the site is attached at AT-3.  

Existing improvements

The site is known as the Gore Bay Terminal and is owned and operated by Viva Energy. The site stores petroleum products that arrive by ship that berth in Gore Bay. The bulk of these products is pumped via a pipeline to the company’s Clyde Refinery in Sydney’s west.

Shape

Irregular.

Dimensions

The site has an overall length from north-south of about 800m and a maximum width of about 220m.                          

Adjoining properties

Adjoining properties include predominately dwelling houses to the north and west of the site and some residential flat buildings on its western side. Bushland is located at both ends of the site. The nearest properties to the proposed works are the residential flat buildings within and next to Landenburg Place that are generally to the northwest of the site. 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There has been numerous development applications lodged for a variety of works on the site over a number of years. A summary of the two most recent applications follows.

 

1. D2/14

 

This proposed the installation of an additional marine loading arm and berthing fender. It was withdrawn in May 2014. 

 

2. D83/15

 

This proposed an upgrade of existing electrical facilities in order to satisfy best practice standards. It included a new substation and the upgrade of three existing substations.

 

It was determined in November 2015 under the delegation of Council’s Executive Manager Environmental Services as a deferred commencement consent that required a construction noise management plan. Once this plan had been submitted and determined to be satisfactory, a development consent was granted the following month.

 

A Construction Certificate for the approved works was issued by the applicant’s own certifier in February 2016, and an Occupation Certificate for these works was issued by the same certifier in December 2016.

 

PROPOSAL

 

Integrated Development

 

The Gore Bay Terminal operates under an Environment Protection License issued by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) that authorises the carrying out of certain scheduled activities that include the storage of petroleum products.

 

Although minor in nature, the proposed works are Integrated Development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and therefore the proposal was referred to the EPA for comment. The EPA has recommended two draft conditions that address measures to protect Gore Cove from contamination and local residents from noise during construction, and these are included as draft conditions 2 and 3 respectively in the Recommendation to this report.

 

Designated Development

 

The Regulations to the EP&A Act specify categories of Designated Development. The Regulations allow a consent authority to exercise its discretion in the determination of whether alterations and additions to existing works are Designated Development by assessing the impact of the proposed works on the environment compared with existing development. As the proposed works are both incidental and relatively minor to existing development on the site they are not Designated Development. 

 

Proposed works

 

The proposal involves three types of ancillary works to existing structures. These proposed works either aim to protect the local environment or improve the efficiency of current operations. All of the proposed works would occur above the mean high-water level. Apart from two of the existing tanks being partly located on land leased by Viva Energy from Roads and Maritime Services, the remainder of the proposed works would occur on land owned by this company. Details of the proposed works follow.

 

1. Tank shields

 

Two of the site’s largest fuel storage tanks are located in the northern half of the site and adjacent to the foreshore of Gore Cove. Each tank has a diameter of about 44m, a circumference of about 138m and an overall height of between about 18m and 20m.

 

It is proposed that both tanks would have colorbond shields fixed in two locations on tank 6034 and in one location on tank 6032. The shields are required so that the way fuel product is stored complies with a recent Australian Standard (AS 1940: 2017 – The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids). If contaminated water leaked from either tank the proposed shields would direct the liquid down the shield into the existing bunded area beneath each tank to ensure this did not enter Gore Cove.

 

a) Shields for tank 6034

 

The two shields proposed on tank 6034 would:-  

 

·         both be 11.7m high and would extend from the same height as the top of the existing 6m high concrete bund wall located above the foreshore on the eastern side of the tank;

·         both have an overall height above the level of the existing bund floor of about 17.6m; and

·         extend around about 60% of the tank: the proposed shield on the eastern, foreshore side of this tank would extend for a length of about 52m, and  the other shield on the western side of this same tank would extend for a length of about 29m.

 

b)  Shield for tank 6032

 

The single shield proposed on tank 6032 would:-

 

·         be 12.8m high and would also extend from the same height as the top of the same existing concrete bund wall;

·         would have an overall height above the level of the existing bund floor of about 18m; and

·         extend around about 25% of the tank and be located on the eastern, foreshore side of this tank and would extend for a length of about 36m.

 

c) General

 

All three shields would:-

 

·         extend up to just below the top of both tanks;

·         be attached to, and 250mm from, the outer surface of both tanks;

·         comprise of dozens of individual panels generally 2.5m x 1.8m; and

·         match the colour of both existing tanks i.e. a light green.

 

Existing tanks not requiring these shields are located far enough away from Gore Cove so that the pressure of any contaminated water emanating from any tank would be contained within its own bunded area. 

 

2. Tank dewatering equipment

 

It is also proposed to install equipment connected close to the bottom of two existing fuel storage tanks (tanks 6004 and 6034) in order to drain the water that builds up within each tank so as to ensure that the quality of the fuel stored and the tanks themselves are both in line with current practice.

 

The equipment/meter for this operation would measure about 2m x 2m x 2m. One meter would be located close to the western side of tank 6004, and the other meter close to the eastern side of tank 6034 between the tank and the bund wall. Both meters/equipment would be located on a steel platform of the floor of the bunded area.

 

3. Flow meter

 

A flow meter is proposed to be installed within an existing length of above ground pipe work and in the bunded area of tank 6004 that is located towards the western side of the site and below the level of that section of Greenwich Road next to Shell Park.

 

This meter would be about 11m long and have a maximum height of about 3m. It would replace an existing flow meter and provide a more accurate calculation of the flow of fuel product between the Gore Bay Terminal and the company’s Clyde Refinery, and this data would help to detect leaks within the pipeline.  

 

PROPOSAL DATA/COMPLIANCE

 

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

 

Zoning: IN4 Working Waterfront

 

An assessment of the proposal against the development standards under the LEP is addressed in the following table.

                                               

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor space ratio

Unchanged

1.0 :1

-

Height of buildings

(i.e. colorbond tank shields)

Three tank shields:

 

*2  shields

@ 11.7m each, and with an overall height above bund level of about 17.6m;

and

*1 shield @12.8m, and with an overall height above bund level of about 18m.

9.5m

No, cl.4.6 variation submitted and supported

 

 

 

2. The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP)

 

Part E - Industrial Development

 

An assessment of the proposal against the provisions under the DCP for industrial development is addressed in the following table:

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Unchanged

 

Landscape strip: unchanged

Building setback : 8m (min)

 

Landscape strip : 3m

 

Unchanged

Side and rear setbacks

(min)

Unchanged

 

Landscape strip: unchanged

Building setback : 4m (min)

 

Landscape strip  : 2m

Unchanged-

Landscaped area (min)

 

Unchanged

 

20%

 

Unchanged

 

 

Based on those relevant aspects of the DCP the proposed works do not raise any issues. 

 

REFERRALS

 

Environment Protection Authority (the EPA)

 

The EPA has recommended two draft conditions to address construction-related issues:-

 

·         draft condition 2 seeks to prevent contaminated water entering Gore Cove; and

·         draft condition 3 seeks to minimise the impact of construction noise.

 

Please note that the timing of both measures has been added to both draft conditions.

 

Manager Environmental Health (the MEH)

 

Council’s MEH has recommended draft conditions (24 - 30) to address the following:-

 

·         all works are to comply with the EPA’s Noise Policy requirements, as well as general noise control and monitoring measures;

·         the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997;

·         the Australian Standard for the demolition of structures and the disposal of asbestos; and

dust, erosion/sediment control and bunding measures. 

 

 Development Engineer

 

Has recommended draft conditions (31- 39) of a general nature that include restoration measures and the retention of pedestrian access along footpaths adjacent to the site.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser

 

Has no objection to the proposed works and states that:-

 

·         the proposed flow meter and flush tanks would have no impact on any archaeological site;

·         as the site is below the level of neighbouring streets and the proposed works are screened by trees, it would not impact on the local Conservation Area; and

·         the colorbond sheeting proposed for the two tanks would be inconspicuous, and would both match the colour, and merge with the form, of both tanks.    

 

 

 

 

Matter arising - the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

 

A bush fire consultant’s report was prepared for works on the site under D83/15 submitted in 2015. That report concluded that as none of the works were occurring on any allotment designated bush fire prone land technically the application did not need to be captured for assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Although that development application was referred to the RFS for review, the Service did not raise any concerns or issues in relation to bush fire matters.

 

None of the works proposed under the current development application is located on bush fire prone land.

 

ASSESSMENT: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

 

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i): Any environmental planning instrument

 

1. Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 

 

a)    Zone                                 

 

The site is zoned IN4 Working Waterfront under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP). The proposal is for certain ancillary works relating to the current use of the site for the receipt and storage of fuel products. These works are permissible in this zone under the definition of Port facilities in the LEP.

 

The proposed works would satisfy the three relevant objectives of Zone IN4 because they would help to retain an industrial waterfront activity. In addition, as the proposed works would be low-key and ancillary to existing structures, the proposed works would not have an adverse impact on the environmental and visual qualities of Gore Cove and minimal, if any, effect on adjoining residential and environmental conservation zones.

 

b)    Heritage

 

The site has two heritage listings under the LEP. One listing refers to its Greenwich Road address, located in the northern half of the site, and the other listing to Gother Avenue that is in the site’s southern half. Both listings state that the site is of local significance and may contain valuable industrial archaeological relics. In addition, the site is within the Greenwich Point Conservation Area that is also a heritage item of local significance under the same LEP.

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser has no objection to the proposal and has confirmed that it would have no impact on any of the facility’s archaeological sites or the Conservation Area.

 

c)    Height standard

 

Part 4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP) is headed Principal development standards. Clause 4.3 of the LEP is headed Height of buildings, and states that this must not exceed the maximum height shown for land on the Height of Buildings Map. This map imposes a building height, or standard, of 9.5m for the site.

 

The height of all three of the proposed shields would exceed the height standard of 9.5m by a considerable amount:-

 

·         the two shields proposed for tank 6034 would both have a height of 11.7m, and an overall height of about 17.6m above the level of its bunded area; and

·         the single shield proposed for tank 6032 would have a height of 12.8m, and an overall height of about 18m above the level of its bunded area.

 

      i.        Objectives

 

The four objectives for the height standard are:

 

(a) to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas,

(b) to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet, are reasonable,

(c) to seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain,

(d) to relate development to topography.

 

    ii.        Variation

 

Clause 4.6 of the LEP is headed Exceptions to development standards. The objectives of cl. 4.6 (1) are:-

(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.

 

Clause 4.6 (2) states that development consent may be granted even if a development contravenes a development standard.

 

The requirements of cl. 4.6 (3) state that:-

 

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

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

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 (4) states that a consent authority must not grant development consent unless it is satisfied that:-

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

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

 

   iii.        Applicant’s cl. 4.6 variation

 

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the height standard of 9.5m that applies to the site because the height of all three proposed shields to both existing storage tanks would exceed 9.5m. The applicant’s written justification to seek variation to the height standard is attached at AT-4.

 

In summary the applicant states that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because the proposed shields would:-

 

·         not exceed the overall height of both existing  tanks;

·         be attached to existing structures which exceed the height standard for buildings permitted on the site;

·         merely modify the facade/shell of both existing tanks;

·         not change the shape of either tank or increase their height;

·         not block views from nearby residential properties;

·         not cause additional overshadowing or block solar access; and

·         improve the likelihood of any contaminated liquid that leaked from either tank being contained within its existing bunded area.  

 

In conclusion the applicant’s written justification states that the proposed variation to the height standard would not create any adverse environmental impacts relating to built form, the public domain, amenity or environmental outcomes.

 

   iv.        Comment

 

The proposed shields must satisfy the relevant height and zone objectives. Both objectives are discussed below.

 

Height objectives

 

In relation to the site only part of the second objective, objective (b), is relevant although the proposed shields would have a benign visual impact on properties close to the site, whilst the impact of the proposed shields on privacy is not relevant.

 

In relation to the other three height objectives none are relevant to the proposed shields because:-

 

·         solar access is not an issue;

·         sunlight to the public domain is not relevant; and

·         the proposed shields relate to the height of each tank above the height of the bund wall on their eastern side.

 

Zone objectives

 

The three relevant objectives for Zone IN4 Working Waterfront have been addressed previously. The proposed shields would address these objectives because:-

 

·         they would help to retain an industrial waterfront activity by ensuring compliance with the current Australian Standard;

·         they would not have an adverse impact on the environmental and visual qualities of Gore Cove because as the shields would be in a light green colorbond they would match the existing metal tanks; and

·         they would have minimal, if any, effect on the adjoining residential zone located generally to the west and north of the site, and the E2 Environmental Conservation zone located at either end of the site, because the location of the closet tank is about 85m from a residential flat building in Landenburg Place to the northwest, but generally more than 100m from both the nearest residential property and bushland in the E2 Zone to the north of the site.

 

The public interest

 

In addition to the objectives for both height and the zone, the proposed shields would be in the public interest because:-

·         by exceeding the height standard of 9.5m would mean that all three shields could be higher than that of the existing concrete bund wall, which with a height of about 6m would have to be increased significantly to be able to contain liquid that leaked from either tank; and

·         an increase in the height of the existing bund wall by between 11.7m and 12.8m would result in an unsightly solid structure that would have an adverse visual impact, particularly viewed from Gore Cove

 

By allowing a variation to the height standard for all three proposed metal shields on two existing storage tanks located on the eastern, foreshore side of this site, would result in a better public outcome because it would:-

 

·         have a minor visual impact;

·         have a benign impact on adjoining residential and environmental conservation zones; and

·         allow structures that would achieve compliance with the current Australian Standard for the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.

 

Consequently, the applicant’s written variation to the building height standard submitted under cl.4.6 of the LEP is supported.  

 

2. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 33 - hazardous and Offensive Development                             

 

This Policy imposes requirements for the control of dangerous goods and hazardous substances.

 

The proposed development does not raise any issues in relation to SEPP 33 as it is not in itself potentially hazardous, and further, it would not interact with existing development in such a way that cumulative hazards would be significantly increased.

 

3. SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

This Policy requires a consent authority to consider whether land the subject of any development application is contaminated.    

 

Given the length of time that the site has been used for the storage of oil and oil - related products, it is highly likely to be contaminated. However, as the proposed works would be above ground only minor disturbance of the existing concrete bunded areas may be required.

Council’s Manager Environmental Health has recommended draft condition 25 to address the disposal of contaminated material. Subject to the inclusion of this draft condition the proposal does not raise any other issues regarding this Policy.

 

4. SEPP No. 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas

 

Bushland is located within the each reserve that adjoins the northern and southern ends of the site. However as the nearest bushland is more than 100m away from the location of the proposed works it would not be affected.

 

5. Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

By replacing a flow meter and installing dewatering equipment the proposed works would satisfy two relevant Aims of this Plan because:-

 

·         by partly upgrading and/or improving existing facilities would ensure the site can continue to operate without having any impact on its archaeological heritage significance, or the heritage significance of Greenwich Point Conservation Area; and

·         bushland in adjoining zones and Gore Cove would not be affected.

 

A relevant Planning principle would be addressed because by blending in with the form, and matching the colour, of both existing metal storage tanks the proposed metal shields would ensure that although visible from Gore Cove their visual quality would not alter. 

 

In regard to relevant Matters for consideration under Division 2, Part 3 of this Plan, the proposed works would:-

 

·         ensure that the functions of the site as part of a larger working Harbour would be retained;

·         have no impact on Gore Cove for recreational and maritime purposes; and

·         not affect views to and from Gore Cove.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii):  Any development control plan

 

1. Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 2005 (the DCP 2005)

 

The DCP 2005 complements the Deemed SEPP addressed previously. The following relevant parts of this DCP are discussed below.

 

a)         Part 3 Landscape Assessment

 

The subject site adjoins land that is Landscape Character Type 11 i.e. areas that have a high level of development largely comprising waterside industrial uses and have a strong visual presence within the Harbour. Indeed, the DCP 2005 includes a photograph of the southern end of the subject site to illustrate this fact.

 

The DCP 2005 contains provisions requiring a consent authority to consider the visual impact of development from the waterway and foreshores of the Harbour. 

 

The proposed works would satisfy the relevant general aims of landscape assessment because they would minimise any significant impact on views and vistas to and from:-

 

·         the public reserve located at both the northern and the southern end of the site;

·         the Shell Cannery that is identified as a landmark heritage item to the east of, and adjoining the foreshore, of Gore Bay; and,

·         Greenwich Point Conservation Area and the numerous heritage items within it.

 

Indeed the proposed works would not impact on views or vistas from, or towards, any of these locations. 

 

Development within this landscape character type is required to satisfy certain Performance Criteria, and in relation to the proposed works on this site these are:-

 

·         measures to minimise noise and amenity impacts between incompatible land uses;

·         the preservation of maritime industrial uses; and

·         maintaining the scale and height of existing development.

 

Comment

 

All three criteria would be addressed because:-

 

·         draft conditions are included in the Recommendation to this report seeking to minimise noise and amenity impacts between the site and the adjoining residential zone, and to prevent the contamination of Gore Cove;

·         the proposed works would improve the efficiency of current operations; and

·         these proposed works would blend in with, and not exceed the scale and height of, existing storage tanks.

 

b)   Part 5 Design Guidelines for Land - Based Developments

 

This part applies to development above Mean High Water Mark (MHWM). All of the proposed works would be well above MHWM and these are areas that are often covered by other planning instruments. This part seeks to reinforce existing controls so as to ensure that development is sympathetic to the natural and cultural qualities of the area covered by the Deemed SEPP. The relevant sections of this part of the DCP 2005 are addressed below.

 

i.          Clause 5.3 Siting of Buildings and Structures

 

The proposed works would be consistent with the relevant criteria because:-

 

·         existing vegetation on the site would not be affected; and

·         no views or vistas from adjoining public places would be affected.

 

ii.         Clause 5.4 Built Form

 

The proposed works would satisfy the relevant guidelines because the proposed colorbond sheeting would be consistent with the scale and colour of both existing storage tanks.

 

iii.        Clause 5.8 Waterfront Industry 

 

The proposed colorbond sheeting would satisfy the relevant performance criteria because as they would be consistent with the scale and colour of both existing storage tanks they would have minimal impact on Gore Cove located along the eastern side of the site.

 

2. The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP)

 

The three relevant parts of the DCP 2009 follow.

 

Part B - General Controls

 

a)         B.5 Development in Foreshore Areas

 

As some of the proposed works would be within 30m of Mean High Water Mark, Part B.5 of the DCP applies.

 

i.          Objective

 

The proposed works are not relevant to the objective which seeks to maintain or enhance existing residential amenity and the visual character of foreshore residential development. 

 

ii.         Provisions

 

As the provisions applicable to Development in Foreshore Areas also relate to residential development they do not apply to the proposed works.

 

Part C - Residential Localities

 

The Municipality of Lane Cove includes six localities. Locality 5 is the Greenwich Heritage Conservation Area, and comments in relation to its two relevant parts follow. 

 

a)     Overall Objectives

 

The following two relevant objectives would be satisfied:-

 

·         the proposed works would not disturb any heritage item; and

·         the proposed works would have no impact on the Conservation Area and therefore its heritage significance would be retained and conserved.

 

b)   Details and Materials

 

In relation to the relevant objectives of this aspect, the proposed shields to two fuel storage tanks would also be metal (colorbond) and in a colour to match that of both existing tanks.

 

Part E - Industrial Development

 

a)     Objectives

 

The proposed works would satisfy the two relevant objectives because it would:-

 

·         seek to prevent contaminated water entering Gore Cove and improve efficiency along an existing pipeline, whilst the tank shields would match the curved design, material and colour of the two existing fuel storage tanks; and

·         be compatible with the existing character of the subject site.  

 

b)      Provisions

 

The compliance table under an earlier section of this report confirms that the proposed works do not raise any issues in relation to the provisions for industrial development.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iv): Applicable regulations

 

The proposal involves the penetration into and the removal of existing equipment. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001. Therefore any consent will require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with this Australian Standard. Condition 20 (79) is included to address this matter.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(b): Any likely impacts

 

1.         Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Adviser has confirmed that the proposed works would have no impact on the site’s archaeological heritage significance or local Conservation Area, and that the shields proposed for two tanks would be inconspicuous.

 

2.         Built

 

The proposed works would be either screened by existing structures, or be setback significantly from neighbouring residences, that any impact on the built environment would be benign.

3.         Natural

 

There are no trees or other vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed works. Bushland within land adjoining either end of the site would not be affected.

 

The visual impact of the proposed tank shields would be inconspicuous and views of, and from, Gore Cove would not be affected. The other proposed works would be screened by existing structures and therefore not visible from Gore Cove.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(c): The suitability of the site

 

The site has been in use for the berthing of vessels bringing, and the storage of, petroleum products for over 100 years.

 

The proposed ancillary works and equipment to existing structures would enable this practice to continue more safely and efficiently. Consequently the site remains suitable for the proposed works.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(d): Any submissions received 

 

No submissions received.

 

Section 4.15 (1)(e): The public interest

 

The proposed works would be in the public interest because they would:-

 

·         have a benign overall impact;

·         ensure the existing facility would comply with the relevant Australian Standard;and

·         respect the heritage significance of the site and the local Conservation Area.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The ancillary works proposed under this development application are permissible within the subject site’s IN4 Working Waterfront zone under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP).

 

The proposed works would not alter the LEP’s floor space ratio standard, nor have any impact on the heritage significance of the site or the Greenwich Point Conservation Area that are both heritage items under this same LEP.

 

In relation to the proposed dewatering equipment and replacement flow meter, the proposed works are relatively low-key. By contrast, the proposed shields for two existing fuel storage tanks would exceed the height standard of 9.5m that applies to the site under the LEP. 

 

To address this departure from the height standard the applicant has submitted a written request under cl. 4.6 of the LEP for this standard to be varied so as to allow the proposed shields to two existing storage tanks to be installed. The variation is supported to allow the proposed screening to be provided so as to prevent leaks from either tank contaminating Gore Cove along the site’s eastern side.

 

The proposal does not raise any issue in relation to any other environmental planning instrument or development control plan.

 

Matters in relation to s. 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied, and no submissions have been received.

 

Although only some of the proposed development would be low-key, all of the proposed works would be reasonable, and the proposed works would address the ongoing safe and efficient use of the site as a critical piece of infrastructure and therefore the development application is recommended for approval and the applicant’s cl. 4.6 variation is recommended for support.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel grants development consent to Development Application 204/17 for the installation of tank shields, water draining equipment and a flow meter on part of Lot 185 DP 752067 and on part of Lot 1 DP 880022 at Gore Bay Terminal, 124 Greenwich Road, Greenwich, subject to the following conditions:  

 

Plans

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing numbers PY SK 51:-

·         01, Revision 2, dated 7.7.17 and as amended up to 4.10.17;

·         02, Revision 2, dated 7.7.17 and as amended up to 15.9.17;

·         06, Revision 2 , dated 11.7.17 and as amended up to 4.10.17;

·         07, Revision 2, dated 6.7.17 and as amended up to 4.10.17; and

·         08, Revision 2, dated 11.7.17 and as amended up to 4.10.17,

by TFA Project Group, except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Environment Protection Authority

 

2.         As all physical works will be undertaken above the mean high-water level, there is             potential for dirty water and wastes produced at the construction stage to enter the             confluence of the Lane Cove River and Sydney Harbour, particularly during rain             events. Details of the mitigation measures proposed to avoid entry of wastes and             dirty water runoff to waterways are to be submitted with a Construction Certificate.

 

            Reason: To ensure the Harbour is protected from potential contamination.

 

3.         As construction works may involve the operation of equipment that may generate             noise, details of any additional noise impacts that may occur as a result of the             activities, and the measures proposed to minimise these impacts, are to be             submitted with a Construction Certificate.

 

            Reason: To protect nearby residents from the potential adverse impacts of construction.

 

General    

 

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

            Reason: Ensures the detailed construction plans and specifications comply with the             requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and any relevant Australian             Standard.

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

6.         (17) A Certificate of Completion being obtained from the Principal Certifier upon completion             of all of the ancillary works that are the subject of this development application.

            Reason: To ensure all works have been completed in accordance with the development             consent conditions, approved plans and the BCA.

 

7.         (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.

            Reason: To ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to the neighbouring properties.

 

8.         (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.  

 

 

9.         (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.  

 

10.       (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.  

 

11.       (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 Certifier;

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.

            Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the environment.

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

 

a)    pier holes/pads before filling with concrete;

b)    all reinforcement prior to filling with concrete; and

c)    completion.

Reason: Statutory requirement.        

 

14.       (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

a)    footings;

b)    reinforced concrete work; and

c)    structural steelwork.

Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

15.       (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              Regulations and the WorkCover Authority.  Details of the method of removal to be             submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality.

 

17.       (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.

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To comply with Work, Health and Safety Regulations and ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the surrounding environment.

 

21.       (87) Council’s verge and the pedestrians' portion of footpath adjacent to the site are to be             kept clear and trafficable at all times.

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality.

 

22.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure all work is carried out lawfully.

 

23.       (141) Long Service Levy Compliance with section 6.8 of the Environmental Planning and             Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the             Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy             is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy). All building works in excess of             $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement. 

 

Health    

 

24.       The works to be undertaken are to comply at all times with the NSW Environment             Protection Authority’s (EPA) Noise Policy for Industry (2017) and the Protection of the             Environment Operations Act, 1997.

            Reason:  Statutory requirements.

 

25.       (401) Demolition Works and Asbestos Removal/Disposal

 

The demolition of any existing structure is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.  All vehicles leaving the site carrying demolition materials are to have the loads covered and are not to track any soil or waste materials into the road.  Pursuant to section 27A of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983Notification to Commence Demolition Work” form is to be submitted to WorkCover at least seven days prior to work commencing. All asbestos, hazardous and/or intractable wastes are to be disposed of in accordance with the WorkCover Authority and EPA guidelines and requirements. The asbestos must be removed by a bonded asbestos licensed operator. Dockets/receipts verifying recycling/disposal must be kept and presented to Council when required.

Reason: Statutory requirements.

 

26.       (402) Dust Control

 

            The following measures must be taken to control the emission of dust:-

 

a)    dust screens must be erected around the perimeter of the site and be kept in good repair for the duration of the work;

b)    any existing accumulations of dust (e.g. in ceiling voids and wall cavities) must be removed using an industrial vacuum cleaner fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter;

c)    all dusty surfaces must be wet down and any dust created must be suppressed by means of a fine water spray - water used for dust suppression must not be allowed to enter the street or stormwater system;

d)    all stockpiles of materials that are likely to generate dust must be kept damp or covered; and

e)    demolition work must not be carried out during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond the boundaries of the site.

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

27.       (404) Erosion and Sedimentation Controls – Major Works

 

Erosion and sediment control devices are to be provided.  All devices are to be established prior to the commencement of engineering works and maintained for a minimum period of six months after the completion of all works. Periodic maintenance of the erosion and sedimentation control devices is to be undertaken to ensure their effectiveness.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

28.       (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.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

29.       (447) Noise Monitoring

 

Noise monitoring must be carried out by a qualified acoustical consultant if complaints are received, or if directed by Council, and any control measures recommended by the acoustical consultant.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

30.       (464) Bunding – Work Areas

 

All work areas where spillage is likely to occur shall be bunded.  This is to be done by way of speed humps, grading the floor area or by any other appropriate means, to prevent contaminated water entering the stormwater system.  The bunded area is then to be drained to a sump for collection and appropriate disposal of the liquid.

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Engineering                                      

 

31.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure public works are carried out in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

32.       (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.

            Reason: To protect Council’s assets throughout the development process.  

 

33.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

34.       (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.

            Reason: To maintain Council infrastructure. 

 

35.       (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.

            Reason: To protect, maintain and provide utility services.

 

36.       (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’.

            Reason: To ensure pedestrian access.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure Council infrastructure is protected.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

38.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure the public domain infrastructure is protected.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

39.       (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Heritage site and Greenwich Conservation Area

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑4View

Clause 4.6 Variation

6 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 10 April 2018

Review of Determination of Application - 82 Northwood Road Northwood

 

 

Subject:          Review of Determination of Application - 82 Northwood Road Northwood    

Record No:    DA17/120-01 - 13743/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Diep Hang 

 

 

 

Property:

82 Northwood Road, Northwood

DA No:

DA120/2017

Date Lodged:

Original application 16 August 2017

Review of determination application 27 February 2018

Cost of Work:

$720,000.00 original cost

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, swimming pool and cabana.

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 1a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Refer to notification list on file           

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Review of Determination application is referred to Lane Cove Council’s Local Planning Panel given that the original Development Application was considered and determined by Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).   

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The original Development Application was considered and refused by Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting held on 5 December 2017.

 

The applicant has amended the plans and has lodged application for Council to Review the Determination.

 

The amended proposal removes the basement car park and roof top terrace.

 

The amended proposal would comply with the development standards of FSR and Height.

 

The amended proposal would generally comply with the provisions of Council’s DCP. 

 

One (1) submission has been received in response to the notification of amended proposal. Matters raised in the submission relate to loss of trees, location and width of driveway.

 

The amended application is considered reasonable and recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.

 

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. A new dwelling house is currently under construction at the battle axe handle allotment (82A Northwood Road). The immediate area is characterised by low density residential development.

 

Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

DA120/2017

Original DA for demolition of all structures and construction of a two storey dwelling house with a basement car park, removal of trees a swimming pool.

The Development Application was refused by Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting held on 5 December 2017.

 

The report to IHAP and notice of determination are attached (AT-3 and AT-4).

 

PROPOSAL (AMENDED)

The amended proposal is for the following:-

 

·         Demolition of existing structures

·         Tree removal

·         Construction of a detached two storey dwelling house with a flat roof

·         Ground floor- a double garage, sitting room, two bedrooms with ensuites, an alfresco, lift and stair.

·         First floor- kitchen, family room, lounge, bedroom, study, two rear balconies and one front balcony, lift and stair.

·         In-ground swimming pool and

·         A cabana

·         The basement garage and roof top terrace proposed in the original application have been deleted.

 


 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

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

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

301.5sqm

 

0.5:1

Total 301.2sqm

Ground floor – 136 sqm

First floor – 165.2 sqm

Yes

Height of Buildings

9.5m

 

 

    7.6m

 

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Front setback (min)

Consistent with area or 7.5m

7.5m

Yes

Side setback (min)

1200mm single storey

1500mm two storey

South 1500mm

North 1525mm

Yes

Yes

Rear setback (min)

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

8.64m

Yes

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

7.0m

7.6m (with parapet)

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

9.5m

7.6m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1.5m

1.0m approx

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

2

2

Yes

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

35%

22.9sqm

38%

Yes

Cut and Fill (max)

1m

1.0m max

Yes

Solar Access

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Plan and hourly shadow diagrams have been submitted.

 

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

 

 

No. However considered acceptable given the orientation of the site and compliance with controls.

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 top terrace deleted in the amended plans

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Provide for view sharing

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

The proposed development is not considered to impact any significant private or public views and vistas.

Yes

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

3m

Ground Floor Terrace = 1.97m

First Floor rear balcony = 1.97m and 1.1m

First Floor front balcony = 2.05m

Yes

Private open space

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Living and lounge areas are on first floor

 

Adequate private open space towards the rear which includes the pool, cabana and alfresco.

 

Yes

Basix

Required

Provided

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2 spaces in double garage

Yes

Driveway width

3m at the lot boundary

3m

Yes

 

Garages Facing the Street

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

% of Allotment Width (garages & carports)

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

5.53m

Yes

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

3m to waterline

More than 3m from neighbouring dwellings

Yes

Setback to boundary (min)

1m to waterline

1.2m

Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1.0m

1.8m   

RL31.9 - RL 31.35 = 0.55m

Yes

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

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

0.9m

Yes

 


 

Fences

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Front fence height (max)

Solid:   900mm

Lightweight:     1.2m

1.2m

Yes

 

Outbuildings (cabana)

 

 

Code

Proposed

Complies

Overall Height (m) (max)

3.6m

4.25m

No, However considered acceptable given its location and design incorporating a flat roof

External wall height (max)

2.4m

4.25m

No, However considered acceptable given its location and design incorporating a flat roof

Maximum floor space

50 m²

Cabana proposed as an open structure

N/A

No of Storeys

1

 

Yes

Setback of windows from boundaries (min)

900mm

1.525m

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

The original application was referred to Council’s engineer who raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions relating a new stormwater system to facilitate the development and adequate vehicular crossing location and gutter bridge design to ensure the two street palm trees are retained and protected.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

The amended application was referred to Council’s tree preservation officer who expressed no objection to the removal of trees 3 and 5 being the two trees identified in the arborist report within the front setback, to facilitate the proposed development.

 

The conditions provided require the two street palm trees to be retained and protected.

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 4.15(1)(a))

 

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

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

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

 


 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

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

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 4.15(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 4.15(1)(d))

 

The amended proposal was notified to all the residents notified previously. One submission was received in response to the notification. The concerns raised are addressed below.

 

·         Removal of the semi-mature Liquidambar tree located within the front setback.

 

Comment:

 

Council’s tree assessment officer has expressed no objection to the removal of the Liquidambar tree located within the front setback in order to facilitate the proposed development.

 

·         Impact upon the two existing street palm trees with insufficient room to construct the driveway.

 

Comment:

 

Council’s tree assessment officer has required the two existing street palm trees to be retained and protected as conditions of consent. The conditions require the driveway to be constructed a minimum of 2m from the trees.

 

·         Width of the driveway suggested is more than 3m

 

Comment:

 

The site plans indicates driveway of 3m along the footpath crossing including that at the boundary.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The amended proposal complies with the LEP development standards of LEP and Height. The amended proposal generally meets the provisions of Council’s DCP. The originally proposed basement garage and roof top terrace has been deleted in the amended proposal. The impact of the proposed development on the adjoining properties is considered reasonable.

 

On balance, the amended proposal is considered reasonable and supported subject to draft conditions.

 

The amended application is recommended for approval subject to draft conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Panel grant consent to the amended Development Application D120/2017 for  the demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of new dwelling house, swimming pool and cabana at 82 Northwood Road, Northwood subject to the following conditions.

 

General Conditions

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with Drawing numbers 1/9 A to 9/2A dated             1/2018 except as amended by the following conditions.

            Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

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

            Reason: Ensures the detailed construction plans and specifications comply with the             requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and any relevant Australian Standard.

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

4.         (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.

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

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

            Reason: To ensure all works have been completed in accordance with the development             consent conditions, approved plans and the Building Code of Australia.

 

7.         (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.

            Reason: To ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to the neighbouring properties.

 

8.         (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

9.         (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

            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.

 

11.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure acoustic amenity is maintained between properties.

 

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

 

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

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

a)    All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

c)    Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering.

d)    Waterproofing of wet areas.

e)    Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

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

g)    Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling.

h)    Completion.

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

            Reason: To protect residential amenity.

 

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

a)    The completion of works.

 

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

Reason: To ensure the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

20.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the determination and public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To comply with Work Health and Safety Regulations and ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To protect the surrounding environment.

 

25.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted along with the application.

            Reason: To protect the surrounding environment.

 

26.       (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.

            Reason: To ensure all works is carried out lawfully.

 

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

 

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

            Reason: To ensure that the levy is paid.

 

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

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Tree Conditions

 

29.       (300)  Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane             Cove local government area. Section 2.2 of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan (The             DCP), states that a person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully             destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without             the authority conferred by development consent or a permit granted by the Council. Removal             and/or pruning of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the             Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be             impose            d in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000. The co-operation of all residents is             sought in the preservation of trees in the urban environment and protection of the bushland             character of the Municipality. All enquiries concerning the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation             must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

30.       A Project Arborist of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification is appointed to oversee/monitor trees             condition during construction and sign off on tree protection measures. Trees are to be             monitored throughout construction and a certificate produced upon completion demonstrating             the trees have been maintained in adequate condition. All certificates are to be submitted to the             principal certifier prior to the issue of occupation certificate.

            Reason: To protect the environment and trees.

 

31.       The proposed driveway must be set back at least 2 metres from each of the two council owned             street trees (Palms), this is to be measured from the closest edge of the tree trunk to the outer             edge of the driveway. The driveway must be constructed above the existing grade and retain all             roots greater than 30 millimetres in diameter with the exception of the required pruning of roots             for pier holes. The construction must be supervised and certified by the project Arborist and             certification submitted to council prior to the issue of occupation certificate.

            Reason: To minimise impact on the two street palms trees which are to be retained and             protected.

 

32.       All piers required for the driveway crossover are to be manually excavated; roots may be pruned             by the project Arborist only who is to document pruned roots and provide written certification             identifying compliance to this condition. The certificate must be submitted to the certifier and             approved prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

            Reason: To minimise impact on the two street palms trees which are to be retained and             protected.

 

33.       This consent gives approval for the removal of trees identified as 3 and 5 in the Arborist report             only upon issue of the construction certificate only.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with determination.

 

34.       This consent gives permission to prune tree 1 in accordance with the specification in the             Arborist report and in accordance with AS4373- Pruning of Amenity Trees (2007). All pruning             work is to be carried out from ground level and no contractor is permitted to cross the property             boundary without written consent from the occupant.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Australian Standards.

 

35.       Trees removed as part of the DA process must be replaced at a ratio of no 1:1 and all             plantings/landscaping must comply with part J Landscaping of the Lane Cove Development             Control Plan 2010 and be installed prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council requirements.

 

36.       Tree 3 is to be replaced with one Angophora costata and be a minimum height of 4 metres from             ground level at the time of installation. The reason is so the tree is protected by the tree             preservation controls immediately. The tree must be located in the front of the property and be             of at least 100 litre root stock.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council requirements.

 

Tree Protection

 

37.       Tree protection is to be installed as per the Arborists recommendations G and H. A tree             management plan is to be prepared and submitted to council specifying how trees will be             managed during construction Prior to the issue of the construction certificate as per the             Arborists recommendations section I, page 9.

            Reason: To protect the environment and trees.

 

Bond on Street & Council Trees

 

38.       (327)  A bond of $20,000 must be paid to Council prior to the issue of Construction Certificate to             ensure adequate protections are taken during the development to protect the trees identified as             2x mature Council owned Phoenix Palms located outside the property on the nature strip to be             retained.  This bond shall be forfeited in the event of damages to any of these trees as a result             of the development works. In the event of damages to the tree, as determined by Council’s Tree             Preservation Officer, the cost of replacing the trees including labour will be incurred in addition             to forfeiting the bond. The applicant shall contact Council to have the street tree inspected             following issue of the final Occupation Certificate to trigger release of the street tree bond.

            Reason: To protect the Council street trees.

 

39.       All tree protection measures and signage must be erected PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE             CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS, WHICHEVER             OCCURS FIRST. This includes demolition or site preparation works, and tree protection             measures must remain in place for the duration of the development.

            Reason: To ensure the protection of the environment and trees.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

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

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure public works are carried out in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

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

            Reason: To protect Council’s assets throughout the development process.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

            Reason: To maintain Council infrastructure.

 

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

            Reason: To protect, maintain and provide utility services.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure pedestrian access.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure Council infrastructure is protected.

 

48.       (V8) Car Parking: All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in             accordance with AS 2890 Series.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Australian Standards.

 

49.       (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a             minimum effective capacity of 10,000 Litres. Rainwater tanks are to be installed in accordance             with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards. The plumbing             requirements are as follows:-

·         Rainwater draining to the reuse tanks are to drain from the roof surfaces only. No “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank.  “On - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system.

·         Mosquito protection & first flush device shall be fitted to the reuse tank.

·         The overflow from the rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system.

·         Rainwater tank is to be connected to all new toilets, one cold water washing machine tap and one outside tap within the development.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s infrastructure requirements

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

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

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

51.       (V1) Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to             the specifications and levels issued by Council. A ‘Construction of Residential Vehicular             Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the             Construction Certificate. The vehicular crossing shall incorporate a gutter bridge design to             ensure the protection of the two street palm trees. All works associated with the construction of             the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

           

52.       (A10) Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from Council.             These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking,             landscaping and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the             Construction Certificate.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council specifications and protect the two street palm             trees.

 

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

The applicant shall:-

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

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

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

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

(d)     Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed shall be submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

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

            Reason: To ensure excavation is carried out safely and protect neighbouring properties.

 

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

            Reason: To ensure the public domain infrastructure is protected.

 

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

 

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

            Reason: Public Safety

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

56.       (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.

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

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

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

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements and the determination.

 

58.       (V3) Redundant Gutter Crossing:  All redundant gutter and footpath crossings shall be             removed and the kerb, gutter and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Urban             Services Division. These works shall be carried out prior to the issue of the Occupation             Certificate.

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Report to IHAP  5 December 2017

13 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Notice of Determination

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   10 April 2018

29 Birdwood Avenue Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          29 Birdwood Avenue Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA17/150-01 - 3242/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Natalie Piggott 

 

 

 

Property:

29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove

DA No:

DA17/150

Date Lodged:

27 September 2017

Cost of Work:

$2,878,499.00

Owner:

Riopar Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Riopar Pty Ltd

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolish and construct 6 storey residential flat building

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 1a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Neighbouring properties in accordance with notification policy                  

 

PURPOSE FOR REPORT

 

Development Application DA17/150, that seeks consent for the demolition and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building on the subject site, is referred to Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination as it is subject to SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, has 10 unique submissions and has a development standard variation of more than 10%.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures on site and the construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building comprising of 16 dwellings with basement car parking for 22 vehicles. 

 

The site has an area of 598.1m2 which is below the minimum required site area of 1,500m2 for a residential flat building development in accordance with Lane Cove DCP2010.  The site is affected by a stormwater easement towards the southern boundary. 

 

The proposed development does not meet the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard of Lane Cove LEP 2009 and has significant non-compliances under the provisions of Lane Cove DCP relating to amenity, setbacks, landscaping, car parking, stormwater management and waste management.

 

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) apply to the proposed development.  The SEPP 65 assessment reveals that the proposed development fails to meet 6 out the 9 design principles of SEPP 65 and the proposed development would not meet the aims of SEPP65 for a good design quality residential flat building. 

 

The proposed development exceeds the permissible FSR development standard under the Lane Cove LEP 2009 and has non-compliances to the Lane Cove DCP2010.  The proposal would result in an over development of the site and create unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining residential flat building at 27 Birdwood Avenue Lane Cove. 

 

On 16 November 2017, the Applicant commenced Class 1 proceedings in of the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the development application.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

DA16/54

 

Development application DA16/54 was lodged with Council on 21 April 2016.  The application proposed the demolition and construction of a residential flat building development comprising 17 dwellings with basement car park for 31 cars.

 

On 3 August 2016, the Applicant commenced Class 1 proceedings in the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the development application, however proceedings were withdrawn on 12 May 2017.

 

The application was refused by the Independent Hearing Assessment Panel on 23 August 2016.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot B in DP413172 and formally known as 29 Birdwood Avenue Lane Cove.  The site is located at the intersection on Birdwood Avenue and Cox’s Lane within Lane Cove.  An existing two storey building on the site is currently used for squash courts.  The footprint of the existing building occupies approximately 65% of the site area.

 

Surrounding development comprises multi-dwelling and residential flat building developments.

 

A part 2 storey and part 3 storey residential flat building is located at 10 Epping Road and a residential flat building comprising of 4 storeys adjoins the site at 27 Birdwood Avenue to the east and the north boundaries. 

 

A multi dwelling housing development is located to the west of Cox’s Lane, Lane Cove.

 

The area within the vicinity of the site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential.

 

A residential flat building complex at 2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove (DA 125/2015 granted consent on 25 February 2016) is currently under construction. 

 

Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building comprising 16 residential apartments (3 x studio, 5 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom units) with 2 levels of basement parking and one (1) at grade parking level accommodating a total of 22 car parking spaces (18 residential and 4 visitor spaces) of which 2 are accessible spaces, with ground and roof top common open space.

REFERRALS

 

SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Assessment

 

The SEPP 65 Assessment carried out by Council’s Urban Design Consultant has concluded the following:

 

1.       The proposed development is not consistent with SEPP 65 Design Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character and Design Principle 2: Bulk and Scale as follows:-

 

·         The existing immediate context comprises existing residential fat buildings of 2 and 3 storeys in height. The proposed development at 6 storeys is incompatible within this context. The site is isolated and small in size – hence has greater sensitivity to the scale and character of the immediate context;

·         The development provides insufficient setback to the side boundary – in particular to 27 Birdwood Avenue where the setback to the boundary is nil at ground level and only about 0.5-1.2m adjacent the lift core and the lobby. The existing and desired character is for residential flat buildings to be set within a landscaped setting providing landscape and adequate separation between the buildings on adjoining sites;

·         The proposed development does not satisfy Objective 3J-6 of the ADG in that it does not minimise the impact of the above ground car parking. The proposal provides a poor ground level interface with both Cox’s Lane and Birdwood Avenue. There are no apartments at or near ground level providing an active street frontage.  The wall to the car park is up to 3.6m high; and

·         The Pedestrian access and entry of the building is not adequately defined and provides no weather protection. This is inconsistent with Objective 3G-1 of the ADG where building entry lobbies should connect to and address the public domain.

 

2.       The proposed development is not consistent with SEPP 65 Design Principle 6: Amenity as follows:-

 

·         Units 7, 10 and 13 have a poor outlook from the living room resulting from the arrangement of the apartment and the bedroom blocking light to the living area;

·         The location of the communal open space compromises the amenity of apartment 16. It also has potential visual privacy impacts on the adjoining residential apartments;

·         The lobby areas should be included in the GFA - given the green wall effectively makes this an internalised space and should be included in the GFA;

·         The kitchen in units 6, 9 and 12 is poorly located at the entry to the apartment and conflicts with circulation;

·         The bathroom opening directly into the living areas in units 6, 8, 9 ,11, 12 and 14 is a poor design outcome;

·         Kitchens in units 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15  16 do not indicate a layout to determine functionality; and

·         Unit 5 does not appear to have a kitchen adequately identified.

 

3.       Details have not been provided on the green wall at the eastern side of the lobby. The proposal relies on the green wall for privacy – however this relies on the success and regular maintenance of the green wall. Give the proximity to windows in the adjoining property – a more substantial enclosure (such as battens or other screening) should be provided.

 

Therefore the application cannot be supported in its current form.

 

Comment: SEPP 65 assessment and ADG compliance table attached (AT3).

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development engineer has raised no objections to the proposed development and the following comments are provided:

 

The stormwater concept plan and the flood report provided with the previous application have been used to determine this application. A gross pollutant trap has been conditioned to be added to the proposed development to meet the requirements of Part O, Council’s DCP.

 

The upgrade of Council’s infrastructure adjacent the site and the proposed new driveway have been conditioned.

 

The proposed bulk earthworks have been conditioned in the interest of all adjoining structures.

 

Comment: Draft conditions of consent have been provided.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has raised no objections and the following comments have been provided:

 

Three council owned street trees located on the corner of Birdwood and Cox’s Lane will be impacted by the proposed development. Of these, one Jacaranda has been proposed to be removed due to close proximity to the development. The remaining mature Red Cedar and Blueberry Ash tree have been proposed to be retained with minor and acceptable impact from the stormwater line installation.

 

The only tree within the site that will be impacted by the development is a mature Silky Oak and has been identified for retention. This tree is considered to be in poor condition with a short useful life expectancy due to previous canopy ‘lopping’ and a weak stem union close to the base of the tree.

 

I have no objections to the removal of the council owned Jacaranda tree as it is in poor structural condition from clearance pruning for power lines and may be replaced with a better specimen.

 

I do not support the retention of the Silky Oak as the tree is in poor condition and holds a low retention value. The tree is prominent to the street frontage; it may be replaced with a better specimen locally indigenous to the area and eligible for retention the long term. I recommend the Silky Oak tree be removed and replaced.

 

With the exception of the Silky Oak tree I have no objections to the proposal in its current form.

 

Comment: Draft conditions of consent have been provided.

 

Building Surveyor

 

Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has raised no objections with the application and has provided draft conditions of consent.

 

Landscape Architect

 

Council’s Landscape Architect does not support the proposal for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed landscape documentation does not provide adequate information for proper assessment of Section A and B of the Compulsory Landscape Requirements under the Landscape Checklist as follows:-

 

·           There is no location of existing services;

·           There are no calculations showing the minimum area calculation of 50% of site area as “Landscaped Area”;

·           There are no tree protection measures provided on the landscape plan;

·           There are no calculations showing the minimum area required as “Deep Soil Planting”;

·           There is no information on OSD tanks or storm water treatment;

·           There is no indication of the extent of earthworks on the landscape plan;

·           There is no information provided on soil types and profiles;

·           There are no construction details provided for landscape built elements; and

·           No sections or elevations have been provided to demonstrate the relationship between the built form and the proposed landscape treatments.

 

2.       The proposed development does not meet the objectives of Part 3D of the Apartment Design Guide as follows:-

 

·          There are no calculations showing communal open space as 25% of the site area;

·          The communal open space does not provide adequate areas for both passive and active recreation opportunities as envision under Part 3D of the ADG;

·          The communal open space is not compliant with the design guidance of Objective 3D-1 as it is not consolidated, not well designed and is not an easily identified and useable area; and

·          The communal open space located on the 5th floor does not provide enough amenities or bathroom facilities in accordance with Objective 3D-2.

 

3.       The proposed development does not meet the objectives of Lane Cove Council’s DCP Part J Landscaping as follows:-

 

·          The proposed landscaping does not meet the objectives of Part J 1.4.1 as some of the landscaping scheme that is visible from the public domain is not comprised of indigenous plants as required;

·          The proposed landscaping does not meet the objectives of Part J 1.4.2 the scheme does not assist in ensuring that the development is not visually intrusive by providing visual softening of buildings, driveways and car parking areas; and

·          The proposed landscaping does not meet the objectives of Part J 1.10 as there is insufficient information regarding the construction of raised planters on structure or depth and no information on the soil profile as required.

 

Manager Environmental Health Services

 

The Manager Environmental Health has indicated that the applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate that the proposal would meet the provisions of Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation of the DCP and raises the following concerns:-

 

1.       Garbage Chutes

 

No evidence of a garbage cute system is shown on the architectural plans, nor is one mentioned in the submitted Waste Management Plan.  The DCP states all residential flat buildings containing four or more storeys must be provided with a garbage chute system.

2.       Waste Management Plan

 

The submitted Waste Management Plan (WMP) provides a brief explanation of the ongoing management of waste onsite, stating “the caretaker will be responsible for placing and returning the garbage bins to and from the kerb on collection”.  The location of this proposed development (corner block of tight narrow streets) would present collection issues for the waste contractor if the bin and bulky waste collections are conducted on the street.

 

3.       Internal Waste Management

 

The provided plans do not show the location of the internal waste/recycling cupboards as required under the DCP, nor is reference made to the provision of these internal waste storage spaces in the WMP.

 

4.       Individual or Communal Compost

 

The provided plans do not show the location of the communal compost container as required under the DCP, nor is reference made to the provision of such in the WMP.

 

5.       Waste Management Plan

 

A revised Waste Management Plan and architectural plans are required to be submitted to address the ongoing waste management of the building including:-

 

·        Details of the garbage chute, compactor and carousel system to be used;

·        The location of the waste collection point for emptying Council’s waste, recycling and garden waste onsite;

·        The path of travel of the waste, recycling and garden waste bins to the waste collection point onsite;

·        The location of the internal waste/recycling cupboards;

·        Details on how recycling materials will be transferred from each of the floors of the building to the bin storage room; and

·        The location individual or communal compost areas.

 

Environmental Health Issues – additional information required

 

6.       Contaminated Land

 

A Preliminary contamination report – desk top review in accordance with the NSW EPA's Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites has not been submitted in accordance with the provisions of SEPP55.

 

Accordingly a preliminary contamination report is required to be submitted for assessment.

 

7.       Environmental Management – Construction Phase

 

The Construction Noise Management Plan is to be amended to include temporary noise barriers to shield the adjacent residential area from construction noise impacts.

 

8.       Acoustic Report and noise impacts

 

An acoustic report has been submitted with the application, however it has not addressed the impact of the proposed mechanical plant equipment and the potential impact from outside noise sources such as traffic.

 

Traffic Engineer

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer does not support the proposal as insufficient information has been submitted to Council for review.  This information is as follows:-

 

1.       Detailed Traffic Impact Assessment outlining (but not limited to) the number of trips generated and impact on adjacent intersections, car parking/bike parking provision within the development, details of the circulation of the internal car park as well as pedestrian access; and

 

2.       A1 plans are required to be provided to enable a proper assessment of vehicle manoeuvring within the car parking levels. In that regard cross sections and swept paths are to be submitted. 

 

Community, Ageing and Disability Development Officer

 

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

 

The applicant has identified units 3, 4 (studios) and 15 (2 Bedrooms) as adaptive units in the Statement of Environmental Effects. The applicant has not applied to have identified the 80% required visitable units.

 

The applicant has provides pre/post adapted plans for the 2 types of units. The post adaption in units 3/4 (studios) would require extensive renovation to the bathroom and kitchen. The remodelling of the kitchen would result in the loss of the living area. To achieve the AS in the bathroom an existing window would need to be removed. The window is the property of the Body Corporate/Strata and not the unit owner and therefore not able to be changed to meet the AS. This would be the same issue for changing the exterior wall between the sleeping area and the balcony.

 

Unit 15 (2 Bedroom) requires extensive renovation to the kitchen and although the bathroom would require renovation you could assume the piping and plumbing would already be fixed in. The applicant is to demonstrate that this provision would be made with the plumbing and flooring.

 

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

 

SECTION 4.15 MATTERS OF CONSIDERATION

 

(a)  The provisions of

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

State and Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A valid BASIX certificate has been submitted. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and is consistent with the commitments identified in the application documentation.  A standard condition has been included in the Consent requiring compliance with this BASIX certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of residential and commercial use.  A Preliminary contamination report has not been provided with the application therefore it is considered that the provisions of SEPP 55 have not been complied with and the application is therefore not supported. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development. This proposal has been assessed against the following matters relevant to SEPP 65 for consideration and is provided as attachment (AT3)

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP2009)

 

Under Lane Cove LEP 2009, the property is zoned R4 High Density Residential, and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following is a summary of the clauses under LCLEP 2009 applicable to the development.

 

Zoning: R4 High Density       Site Area: 598.1m2

 

LEP

Proposed

Complies

4.3 Height of Buildings

18m

18m max

Yes

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

1.7:1 (1,016.77m²)

1.95:1 or 1,166.295m²

No

 

 

Clause 2.2 - Zoning

 

The site is zoned ‘R4 High Density Residential’ under the provisions of LCLEP 2009.  The proposed development is permitted in this zoning.

 

Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives

 

The objectives for the R2 Low Density Residential zone are as follows:-

 

·         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; and

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

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet the zone objectives.  The development does not ensure the existing amenity of residences with the neighbourhood is respected given that the bulk and scale of the development is inappropriate for the locality and the separation distances do not provide adequate privacy amenity.

 

Accordingly, the proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the objectives for the zone.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

 

The subject site has a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.7:1 as indicated by the Floor Space Ratio Map. The subject site has a site area of 598.1m² therefore the FSR equates to 1,016.77m² of allowable gross floor area. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 1,166.295m² which equates to an FSR of 1.95:1. This represents a non-compliance of 149.595m² or 14.7% with the FSR control.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application indicates that the proposed development has a compliant floor space ratio of 1.69:1 based on a gross floor area of 1,015.5m². However the Applicant has not included the bulky goods room, garbage room and other areas not excluded from the floor space ratio calculation located on the first floor parking level in the calculation of gross floor area.

 

The Applicant has indicated that the bulky goods room and garbage room have been excluded from the calculation of gross floor area on the basis that these spaces are not enclosed when measured 1.4 metres from the existing ground level. 

 

The bulky goods room, garbage room and all areas not required to provide access to the car parking must be included in the calculation of gross floor area because:-

 

(i)    they are not located in a basement having regard to the definition of “basement” in the Dictionary to LCLEP 2009 and therefore are not excluded under part (e) of the definition for “gross floor area”; and

(ii)   the 1.4m external proposed walls are not compliant with the Building Code of Australia’s fire ratings and are required to be enclosed.

 

Where the bulky goods room and garbage room are included in the calculation of gross floor area, the proposed development has a non-compliant FSR of 1.95:1.

 

Notwithstanding that the Applicant is of the view that the bulky goods room and garbage room can be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area, a written request under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 has been provided.

 

The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 Variation is attached (AT-3).

 

Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards.  Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (Clause 4.6(3)(a)) and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (Clause 4.6(3)(b)). 

 

The consent authority must be satisfied that the applicant’s written request has satisfied the above criteria (Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i)) and that the proposed development will be in the public interest as it is consistent with the zone objectives as well as the objectives of the particular development standard (Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii).  In addition, consent cannot be granted unless the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained (Clause 4.6(4)(b)). 

These matters are discussed below:-

 

1.       Written request provided by the applicant.

 

The applicant has provided a written request seeking to justify the variation to the development standard contained in Clause 4.4 of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

2.       Whether compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed variation:

 

·    The proposal achieves the height and density standards envisaged under the R4 High Density Residential zone and contributes to Council achieving the housing strategy targets underpinning the Lane Cove LEP 2009;

·    The non-complying component of the gross floor area is minor in numerical and percentage terms and will not contribute to a perceptible increase in bulk and scale when viewed from the public domain or adjoining and adjacent buildings;

·    The proposal will result in the removal of a non-complying land use from the site (squash courts) and its attendant impacts on the surrounding area in terms of parking, hours of operation, generation of activity and negative streetscape appearance;

·    The built form proposed for the site and landscaping is wholly consistent with the aims, objectives and development standards embodied in the Lane Cove LEP2009 and related DCP; and

·    The significant improvement in the streetscape of Cox’s Lane, in terms of the presentation of the building to the street and the proposed landscape treatment within the front setback areas on Birdwood Avenue and Cox’s Lane, compared to the current presentation of the existing squash courts building to the street.

 

Comment: 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 above arguments have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the non-compliance to the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as it has not demonstrated that the development has a better outcome due to the exceedance of the development standard, namely does the non-compliance make the development better.

 

The proposal being a residential flat building is, in itself, compatible within the context of the area as the locality is zoned R4 for which high density residential dwellings are permissible.  Merely stating that the proposed development will remove a non-permissible use in the form of a squash centre and replace it with a permissible use in the form of a residential flat building is not justification for breaching the development standard nor is the improvement of the streetscape character of Cox’s Lane in terms of presentation and landscaping justification to breach the development standard as any development on this or any other site would be required to be in keeping with the landscaped streetscape character of the locality. 

 

The proposed development, as demonstrated in this report, does not comply with the 9 Design Quality Principles and the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) guidelines under SEPP 65 nor does it comply with the provisions under Lane Cove DCP 2010. The application has also not provided sufficient information to allow an adequate assessment of the application.

 

Therefore the arguments provided do not adequately justify the variation to the development standard and that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary as the proposed development has not demonstrated that the proposal is fully compliant with all planning controls and requirements.

 

 

3.       Environmental grounds to justifying contravening the development standard.

 

The applicant has provided the following environmental planning grounds to justify the variation to the development standard:

 

·    In terms of the scale of the built form envisaged under the desired future character for development in the R4 High Density Residential zone, the proposal complies with the 18 metre building height standard applying to the site and precinct and will be consistent with the built form outcomes on redevelopment sites completed to the east of the subject site and under construction opposite the subject site, namely 2-22 Birdwood Avenue.

·    The minor exceedance of floor space area (31.33m²) will not be perceptible in terms of the bulk and scale of the 6-storey residential flat building with a gross floor area of 1,015m².

·    The non-complying element of the GFA will not contribute to or exacerbate any adverse overshadowing or privacy impacts on adjoining residential buildings.

·    In the circumstances, given the minor nature of the non-compliance and the absence of any detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining properties, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliance with the FSR standard under Clause 4.4 of the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

Comment: The above arguments have not satisfactorily demonstrated that a better outcome has been achieved as a direct result of the non-compliance to the FSR development standard.

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 case 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.

 

Compliance with other planning controls is not a sufficient environmental planning ground to justify contravening a development standard nor is the absence of impact as a result of the contravention as this is required in any case. Given that the development does not achieve the 9 Design Principles under SEPP 65, does not comply with the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and does not comply with the provisions of LCDCP 2010, it cannot be argued that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliances with FSR standard. Insufficient and inadequate environmental planning grounds have been provided for the variation sought to the FSR development standard.

 

4.       Consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard.

 

Zone Objectives

 

The zone objectives have already been identified in an earlier section of the report. 

 

Objectives of the Development Standard

 

The following assessment against the objectives of the development standard is as follows: 

 

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

The non-compliance to the FSR standard is due to the basement garage level being at grade and not being a basement car park as defined by the gross floor area definition provided earlier in this report.  Therefore any area that is not used for car parking or access to that car parking in accordance with part (g) of the definition of gross floor area must be included in the calculation of FSR.

 

This includes the garbage room, bulky goods room and internal access.

 

The assessment under SEPP 65 has found that the proposal is not of a bulk and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development within the locality.  It therefore cannot be argued that the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the character of the locality and given that the development does not achieve the 9 Design Principles under SEPP 65, does not comply with the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and does not comply with the provisions of LCDCP 2010 it is not considered that the objectives of the development standard have been achieved.

 

5.       Is the proposed development in the public interest?

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest for the following reasons:-

 

·    The zone and standard objectives are not satisfied;

·    Relevant planning controls are not satisfied;

·    Compliance with the FSR can lead to further compliance with the Design Principles under SEPP 65, the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and the provisions of LCDCP 2010.

 

6.       Concurrence of the Director General.

 

Circular PS 08-003 issued on 9 May 2008 informed Council that it may assume the Director-Generals concurrence for exceptions to development standards.

 

Conclusion

 

The Clause 4.6 submitted with the application to vary the FSR control of LCLEP 2009 is not considered to be well founded and is not supported in this instance.

 

Other Provisions

 

LEP

Proposed

5.6 Architectural Roof Features

The application does not include any roof features that exceed the maximum building height.

5.10 Heritage Conservation

The application is not within a heritage conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage item identified under Schedule 5 of LCLEP2009.

 

(ii)        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

 

There are no relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments for the subject site.

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 


 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant sections of the LCDCP 2010 as follows:-

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

PART B – GENERAL

 

PART B – GENERAL

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

B3 Site Amalgamation & Isolated site

3.1 General

a)  Development for the purpose of residential flat buildings 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 Lane Cove LEP 2009 and this DCP.

 

The site is an isolated site as a result of surrounding development and the nature of the existing use right the site currently has as a Squash Centre.  The site adjoins a residential flat building to its north and east.  There are no site amalgamation opportunities.

 

The site has an area which is well below the minimum lot size of 1,500m2 for a residential flat building development.

 

It is noted that there are no minimum lot size requirements for other permitted developments within R4 zone except for multi dwelling housing and residential flat building developments.  Given the site is sterilized from amalgamation opportunities, and the application has demonstrated that a residential flat building can be accommodated on the site, a merit based assessment has been given and the allotment size is considered acceptable in this instance.

No – however appropriate due to no opportunities for lot consolidation.

B.6 Environmental Management

6.1 Sunlight to Public Spaces

a) New development must allow for a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to at least 50% of new and existing public open areas or plazas between the hours of 11am and 2pm on 21st June.

The site does not adjoin any public domain areas or plazas.

Not applicable.

6.3 Energy and Water Efficiency for Buildings

a)  Incorporate passive solar design techniques to optimise heat storage within the building in winter and heat transfer in summer.

A Basix Certificate has been provided with the application demonstrating water and energy efficiency.

Yes

B.7 Developments near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors

a) Acoustic assessments for noise sensitive developments as defined in clauses 87 and 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP may be required if located in the vicinity of a rail corridor or busy roads.

The proposal is not located within a noise sensitive area.

N/A

For residential and the residential part of any mixed use development, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

I.   in any bedroom in the building: 35dB(A) at any time 10pm–7am

II.  anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway): 40dB(A) at any time.

An acoustic report by Rodney Stevens Acoustics has been lodged with the application with appropriate recommendations for acoustic treatment for the development, however an amended acoustic report is to be submitted which addresses the impact of the proposed mechanical plant and equipment and address any potential impact from outside noise sources such as traffic.

Further information is required.

B.8 Safety and Security

a) Ensure that the building design allows for casual surveillance of access ways, entries and driveways.

Casual surveillance has not been adequately provided with no ground floor apartments provided. 

No

8.1 Activation

8.1.1 General

a) Development is to be well connected to the street and contribute to the accessibility of the public domain

Street access has been provided via pedestrian path.

Yes

All development is to face the street and/or public open spaces and provide uses at ground level that provide activity.

The development is orientated towards Birdwood Avenue with the car park entry at ground level.  This does not provide adequate activity at the ground floor level as there is no passive surveillance from private open space areas.  There is also no usable communal open space provided at ground level which does not provide any usable activity space.

No

8.1.2 Residential development

a) All ground floor apartments, villas, townhouses and attached or detached dwellings that have a street frontage other than battle axe blocks are to have direct access or entries from the street and at least one habitable room with windows facing the street.

The proposed development does not have any ground floor apartments. 

No

8.2 Passive Surveillance

a) All development at ground level is to offer passive surveillance for safety and security of residents and visitors.

The ground floor does not have any apartments proposed.  The proposal has provided car parking at ground level which does not provide any passive surveillance or safety and security for the residents or visitors.

No

 

PART C – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

 

PART C RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

C.3 Residential Flat Buildings

3.2 Density

a)  The minimum site area for residential flat developments is 1,500m².

 

Objectives:

1.       To achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the residential flat buildings, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

2.       To achieve sustainable development whilst providing a concentration of residents close to public transport and facilities.

3.       To create entrances which provide a desirable residential identity for the development, orient visitors and contribute positively to the streetscape and building facade design.

4.       To provide opportunities for lifestyle choice and dwelling mix.

 

 

 

 

 

The subject site is an isolated site with a total area of 598.1m².  There is no amalgamation opportunity for this site due to the neighbouring development at 27 Birdwood Avenue having been developed as a residential flat development (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: 27 Birdwood Avenue site

 

The application has demonstrated that a residential flat building can occur on the site that meets the objectives of the DCP in terms of:

1.    the proposal achieves reasonable amenity for the building and neighbournig properties;

2.    the proposal provides a concentration of residents close to public transport and facilities;

3.    the building will contribute positively to the streetscape; and

4.    the development provides dwelling mix opportunities.

No – acceptable due to no opportunities for lot consolidation.

3.3 Building Depth

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

The proposal has a building depth of 10m-12m

Yes

b) This depth is exclusive of balconies

Depth is exclusive of balconies.

Yes

3.4 Building Width

a) The maximum overall width of the building fronting the street shall be 40m. Greater widths may be permissible if the proposed building articulation is satisfactory in the streetscape.

Birdwood Avenue: 13m

Cox’s Lane: 24.7m

Yes

Yes

3.5 Setbacks

3.5.1 Front/Street

a) The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street (refer Diagram No.1). However, Special Residential Areas subject to Block Plans should comply with the setback stated therein. Where there is no predominant setback within the street, and no Block Plan for the locality, the setback should be a minimum of 7.5m.

7.5m setback proposed in accordance with streetscape for new residential flat buildings to the east and south on Birdwood Avenue.

Yes

b) The front setback area shall comprise terraces and gardens to the ground floor dwellings, deep soil zones, driveways and pathways.

Ground floor has provided a landscaped area which included deep soil areas.  There are no ground floor apartments proposed.

Yes

c) For corner allotments, the secondary setback requirement is the same as the side setback requirement for the proposed development.

Refer Section 3.5.2 below.

 

3.5.2 Side and Rear

a) To the boundary within the R4 zone, the minimum side and rear setback shall be:

 

6m up to 4 storeys

 

9m for 5-8 storeys

 

12m for 9 storeys and above.

The application proposes the following side and rear setbacks to:

·     27 Birdwood Avenue:

Side Setback:

Grd - 400mm to 1.6m

L.01 upwards – 585mm, 1.225m & 2.7m

 

Rear Setback:

Grd - 0m to 2.2m

L.01 upwards- 2.7m, 3m & 3.525m

 

·     Cox’s Lane secondary frontage:

Grd: 2.2m

L.01 – 2.73m & 3m

L.02 to L.04 – 3m, 3.2m & 2.5m

L.05 – 3.72m

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

b) To the boundary shared with R2 and R3 zones the minimum set back will be 9m if habitable rooms/balconies orient this side.

Not applicable.

N/A

3.5.3 General

a) In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are:

I. Encroachments into the setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level (existing), where there is no unreasonable effect on the streetscape. Refer to Diagram 10.

II. Awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.

III. Setback variation may be required or permitted on merit to preserve existing trees.

The proposal has basement and ground floor car parking which encroaches into the setback zones with a height of approx3.6m.  

No

3.6 Building Separation (within developments)

a) Unless indicated elsewhere through block controls within the DCP, separation distances within a development are the same as provided under the ADG.

Refer to Part 3F of ADG Compliance table.

SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

b) For mixed use buildings in commercial centres, Council may consider a 10% reduction in separation distances for habitable to non habitable rooms only where it can be demonstrated that achievement of these distances would unreasonably reduce the development potential as indicated in the LEP. Such proposals must show that a high level of privacy, amenity and solar access are achieved.

Proposal is residential only.

N/A

c) Lightwells are permitted where the following provisions are met:

I. Living rooms are not to have light wells/internal courtyards as the only source of outlook and light,

II. For lightwells with a height up to 18m, the minimum plan dimension is to be 6m,

III. For lightwells with a height between 18 m and 45 m, the minimum plan dimension is to be 9m,

IV. Lightwells are to be directly connected at ground level to streets or lanes to allow air movement in the lightwell,

V. Lightwell spaces may be shared with other uses such as indoor atria, communal space, voids over entry lobbies or indoor planted areas which are visible to dwelling, subject to consideration of noise and other privacy effects.

No lightwells have been proposed.

N/A

3.7 Fences

The provisions for fences in the Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies section shall apply.

1.4  Fences

1.4.1 Front Fences

 

 

Solid fences

a) permitted up to 900mm above ground level (existing) on the front boundary.

 

900mm stone face front wall.

 

 

Yes

Part solid and predominantly see through fences

b)  permitted up to 1200mm above ground level (existing) on the front boundary.

 

c) permitted up to 1800mm above ground level (existing) setback at least 1m from the front boundary with the solid portion no higher than 600mm.

d) for the see through portion, the width of the spacing between palings must be at least the same as the width of the palings.

 

 

1.5m treated pine paling fence along eastern side and rear boundaries.  No fencing proposed along secondary frontage.

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Yes

Splays

j) Splays may be required in accordance with AS 2890.1 for fences over 900mm, on major roads, corner allotments, where garages are in proximity to the front fence and on bicycle routes (see Lane Cove Bicycle Plan).

 

Fence proposed along Birdwood Avenue is no higher than 900mm therefore not applicable.

 

N/A

1.4.2 Side and rear fences

a) Side fences behind the building line are to be a maximum of 1.8m in height above ground level.

1.5m max height along northern and eastern side and rear boundaries proposed.

Yes

b) For corner allotments, the side return fences for the secondary street frontage is to match the height of the front fence back to the front building line.

No fence proposed along secondary frontage of Cox’s Lane.

N/A

c) Powder coated metal (“Colorbond”) fences are not permitted on corner blocks

Not proposed.

N/A

3.8 Excavation

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

Major development - refer below.

 

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

Excavation for basement parking has been contained as practicably as possible given the site constraints.

Yes

c) For development within Centres, Council may consider full site coverage for underground excavation and podium footprints where it is demonstrated that mature landscaping, landscaped area and rainwater retention is able to be provided as roof terraces on podium structures.

Not applicable – proposal is not within Centres area.

N/A

d) Uses at ground level are to respond to the slope of the street by stepping frontages and entries to follow the slope.

Site is relatively flat due to existing structure onsite.

Yes

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.

Deep soil provisions are not compromised from the proposed excavation.

Yes

3.9 Design of Roof Top Areas

a) Roof top areas including podium area are to be designed for use as recreation facilities where practicable and should be of high standard of finish and design. A detailed landscape design and plan of roof top design is to be submitted with the DA.

Roof top COS has been proposed, however insufficient information has been provided regarding the landscape treatment and facilities.

No

b) The design of exterior private open space such as roof top gardens is to address visual and acoustic privacy, safety, security, and wind effects.

Balconies have been designed to maximize visual and acoustic privacy with the exception of Apartment 16 which adjoins the rooftop terrace which may have acoustic and privacy impacts.

No

3.10 Size and mix of dwellings

a) In residential flat buildings and the residential component of mixed use buildings, studio dwellings are to have a minimum size of 40m². This dwelling size is a net area and is to be exclusive of balconies, common corridors and lobbies, car spaces, storage areas outside the dwelling, private and communal open spaces and lift and other services shafts.

Refer to Part 4D of the ADG Compliance Table.  Clause 6A of SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

N/A

b) In residential flat buildings and the residential component of mixed use buildings, development should include a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. At least 10% of each unit type should be provided.

The development does not provide 3 bedroom apartments.

No

3.11 Private Open Space (balconies and terraces)

Refer to Part 4E of the ADG Compliance Table.  Clause 6A of SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

3.13 Storage

Refer to Part 4G of the ADG Compliance Table.  Clause 6A of SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

3.15 Natural Ventilation

Refer to Part 4B of the ADG Compliance Table.  Clause 6A of SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

3.16 Visual privacy

Refer to Part 3F of the ADG Compliance Table.  Clause 6A of SEPP 65 – DCP provisions are of no effect

3.17 Communal Open Space

a) A minimum of 25% of the site area is to be provided as communal open space.

71m² or 11.8%

No

b) For mixed use sites, communal open space can be provided on podiums and roof terraces subject to achieving privacy for adjoining users.

Proposal is residential only.

N/A

3.18 Landscaped Area

a) A minimum of 40% of the site area is to be planted, comprising 25% landscaped area and a further minimum of 15% planting on structures or landscaped area.

Landscaping: 38.94% or 232.9m²

29.3% deep soil provided

No

No

b) Exceptions may be made in centres for mixed use developments only. In these instances, stormwater treatment measures must be integrated with the design of the residential flat building and sufficient soil depth and volumes to be provided to ensure that mature trees are achievable.

Proposal is residential only.

N/A

c) Landscaping to front boundaries shared with bicycle routes should be less than 900mm in height and should not impede pedestrian and bicycle routes or reduce visibility to these pathways.

Not applicable.

N/A

1.19 Planting on structures: Insufficient information provided

 

The proposed development does not meet the objectives or controls set out in Part C – Residential Development of LCDCP2010. 

 


 

Part F - Access and Mobility

 

PART F - ACCESS AND MOBILITY

DCP Controls

Proposal

Complies

3.5 Adaptable and Visitable Housing (residential flats and dual occupancies)

Adaptable housing to be provided at the rate of 20% of all dwellings in a Class 2 development.

3 apartments or 20% provided.

Yes

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

Less than 80% shown to be visitable.

No

3.8 Access to, and within, buildings

1.  Access is to be provided in accordance with BCA Clause D3.1 and in accordance with Table 1:

-    Residential Flat Building 2;

-    Car park Class 7a

From a required accessible entrance to at least 1 floor containing SOU’s and to the entrance doorway of each SOU on that level. To and within 1 of each type of room or space for use in common by the building occupants.

Acceptable access throughout the proposal provided including lift and access ramps.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

2. Access is to comply with the relevant Provisions of the BCA, and associated referenced Australian Standards. Demonstration is required in the form of an access report prepared by a suitably qualified access consultant as part of the DA documentation.

An Assess Report by Logistics dated 25/09/2017 was submitted with application and assessed by Council’s Community Development Aged Care Officer.  Details within the report do not allow adequate assessment.

No

 

As indicated above and from the comments provided by Council’s Community, Ageing and Disability Development Officer the proposal does not satisfy Part F – Access and Mobility of LCDCP 2010.

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

PART R TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND PARKING

Development Control

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Car Parking Rates

 

 

Residential Flat Building

 

 

Table 1 – Car parking rates

 

Residents:

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:

 

3 x 0.5 Studio:

7 x 1 bedroom units

2 x 2 bedroom units

 

 

Required:

Studio: 0.5 spaces x 3

1 bedroom: 1 space x 5

2 bedroom: 1.5 spaces x 8

Total spaces required: 18.5 or 19

 

 

Provided:

19 residential spaces (including 3 adaptable spaces)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

1 disabled space for each adaptable housing unit: 3 adaptable apartments provided

3 adaptable spaces provided.

Yes

Visitor Parking:

1 space per 4 units

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

Required:

16 units/4 = 4 spaces

 

Provided:

2 visitor spaces

1 disabled space

Total: 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

Total Parking spaces required: 23

 

22 parking spaces provided

 

No

2.7 – Motorcycle parking

1 motorcycle space per 15 car spaces

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

2 spaces provided.

Dimensions 2.5m x 1.2m

Yes

 

 

As indicated above and from the comments provided by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer the proposal does not satisfy Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking of LCDCP 201.

 

(iv)  Regulations

 

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

 

(b) The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

 

All relevant issues regarding environmental impacts of the development are discussed elsewhere in this report. The development is not considered satisfactory in terms of environmental impacts.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The proposal has not satisfactory demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

In accordance with Council’s notification policy, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application and were given 14 days to make a submission. In response, 10 submissions were received.

The submissions raised the following issues:

 

·    Undersized allotment for the development: The size of the lot is too small for a residential flat building;

·    Development is too big and high for the site: The proposed residential flat building is too as it will be higher than the neighbouring building at 27 Birdwood Avenue and too big for the site as the site is too small for such a large building;

·    Overshadowing: The size and height of the residential flat building will overshadow the neighbouring properties;

·    Traffic impacts: The residential flat building will create traffic congestion through the already congested streets and laneways;

·    Apartment mix: there is no 3 bedroom apartments proposed within the development.

 

The issues raised within the submissions have been taken into consideration.  The submissions have raised issues that have been identified with the application, in particular, building height, bulk and scale and apartment mix.

 

Based on the issues identified with the application and the submissions raised the application is recommended for refusal.

 

e) Public Interest

 

The application is considered not to be in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are not considered to have been satisfied.

 

The application does not meet with the Floor Space Ratio standard as required in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and does not meet with the objectives and controls set out in Part C - Residential Development of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010.

 

On balance the proposed development would not be reasonable and a more considered approach is required that has regard to the limited site area and likely adverse impacts to adjoining land uses and streetscape.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA150/17 for the demolition of existing building and construction of a 6 storey residential flat building at 29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 having regard to the bulk and scale of the proposed development which would not be sympathetic to adjoining development.

 

2.         The proposed development is in excess of the maximum permissible floor space ratio (FSR) LEP development standard and the Clause 4.6 variation submitted is not considered well founded and as such not supported.

 

3.         The proposed development does not meet the design quality principles of   State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 with regards to Context and neighborhood, Built form and scale, density and amenity. 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,

 

4.         The building design is not sensitive to the context and scale given that the site area is less than the minimum lot size required for a residential flat building.

 

5.         The building setbacks are inadequate, proposed development does not meet and is well below the side and rear setback requirement of 6m for the 4 storey and 9m for the 5 and 6 storey portions.

 

6.         The location and design of the common open space is insufficient, inadequate and fails to provide for reasonable amenity and facilities for the residents.

 

7.         The open circulation corridors without whether protection at all level do not provide adequate amenity to the residents.

 

8.         The internal amenity of the dwelling is not adequate, in particular the snorkel rooms, location of kitchens within circulation spaces, location of bathrooms which open directly into living areas.

 

9.         The proposed development does not provide for adequate housing choice and diversity as it does not provide for any 3 bed room dwellings.

 

10.       The proposed development does not provide for adequate ground level landscaping and the rooftop terrace fails to provide function and satisfactory communual open space.

 

11.       The proposed does not provide for onsite waste collection.

 

12.       Inadequate information has been provided in relation to vehicular movement within the basement levels.

 

13.       Inadequate information has been provided in relation to potential soil contamination and construction noise management plan.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

SEPP 65 Report and ADG Compliance Table

14 Pages