Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

1 May 2018, 5:00pm

LC_WebBanner


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 1 May 2018

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                  Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Eugene Sarich, Planning Expert, Mr David Johnson, Environmental Expert and Ms Mary Rawlings, Community Representative

 

ALSO PRESENT:       Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Ms Natalie Piggott-Herridge, Senior Town Planner, Mr Michael Stephens, Town Planner and Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:    Nil

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

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

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

SupplementARy Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to section 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at it’s meeting of 1 May 2018 grants development consent to Development Application DA180/2017 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house, construction of a new carport, driveway, fencing and associated landscaping on Lot 301 DP829591 known as 66 Arabella Street, Longueville subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Approved Plans/Documents. Except where otherwise provided in this consent, the development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the following plans (stamped approved by Council) and support documents:

 

Plan No/Reference

Author

Drawing No. REV

Date

Lower Ground Floor and Ground Floor Plans

H3 Architects

DA 1.03 C

11.04.18

Level 1 and Roof Plans

H3 Architects

DA 1.04 C

11.04.18

East and West Elevations

H3 Architects

DA 2.03 C

11.04.18

North Elevation

H3 Architects

DA 2.01 B

09.02.18

South Elevation

H3 Architects

DA 2.02 B

09.02.18

Sections A B C and D

H3 Architects

DA 3.01 C

11.04.18

 

The Development must be carried out in accordance with the plans approved under this condition.  Where any inconsistencies occur between the conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

 

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

 

2.         Window Treatment: The glazing surrounding the stairwell identified as W01 and W02 on the Northern Elevation is to be obscure. Details are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction certificate.

 

   Reason: In order to prevent overlooking to the private open space of the adjoining property.

 

3.         Construction Certificate: The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

4.         BCA Requirement.  All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement

 

5.         Sydney Water.  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

 

6.         Residential Building Works – Insurance.  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.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

7.         Occupation Certificate: An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier (PC) before the occupation of the building.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

8.         Work Hours:  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: Council Policy to protect the amenity of the locality.

 

9.         Storage of Materials: 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.

 

10.       Amenity: 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.

 

11.       Storage of Materials/Skips: 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: Public Safety

 

12.       Site Signage: 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 (PC);

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: Statutory Requirement:

 

13.       Concrete Waste: The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

14.       PC Inspections: Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifier (PC), it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process. 

 

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

b)      All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete;

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

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

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

f)       Waterproofing of wet areas;

i)       Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling; and

k)      Completion.

 

            Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

15.       Engineers Details: Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing;

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

16.       Structural Capacity - Additional Loading: Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that existing building is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

17.       Metal Roof Material: All metal roofs being of a ribbed metal profile, in a mid to dark colour range with an anti glare finish.

 

            Reason:   To reduce sun reflection and glare to protect the amenity of the surrounding             resident.

           

18.       Check Survey: A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

a.               Damp course level;

b.   The roof framing;

c.               Lift shaft, and

d.               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 consent.

 

19.       Asbestos Removal: 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: Public Safety

 

20.       Demolition: The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

            Reason: Public Safety

 

21.       Public Domain Cleanliness: All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each day’s work.

 

            Reason: Protect the amenity and safety of the public domain.

 

22.       Site Fencing: The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

            Reason: Public Safety.

 

Demolitions Compliance: Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement

 

23.       Effect of Covenants: 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: Legal requirement

 

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

 

         Reason:  Statutory requirement

 

25.       Basix - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate No A285761_02 once amended to reflect the approved plans.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Tree Preservation Conditions

 

26.       Preservation of Trees. Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in non-rural areas) 2017. Part 2 Section 7(1) of the SEPP states “A person must not clear vegetation in any non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part.” Clearing of vegetation includes “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or b) lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.” Removal 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 imposed 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

 

27.       Tree protection measures are to be installed and approved in writing by the project Arborist prior to any demolition or works on site.

 

            Reason: To ensure trees that are to be retained are protected throughout the works. 

 

28.       Trees 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are to be retained and protected during the construction period in accordance with the Arborists recommendations (Ents Tree Consulting  report dated 13 November 2017) page 6 and the Tree Protection Plan (Appendix 4a page 12).  All protection must be installed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

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

 

29.       A Project Arborist of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification is appointed to oversee/monitor retained on a bi-monthly (two months) frequency to 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 or Council prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate.

 

            Reason:  To ensure the trees to be retained are protected throughout the works.   

 

30.       This consent gives approval for the removal of trees 1-5 inclusive upon issue of the construction certificate only.

 

            Reason: To ensure that development is in accordance with the consent and that trees are only removed once it is known that the development may proceed

           

31.       Trees removed as part of this consent must be replaced at a ratio of no less than 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 retain the overall landscaping of the locality.

 

32.       All structures located outside of the existing driveway footprint on the northern edge are to be cantilevered as per the Arborists comments in section 4.8 (Ents Tree Consulting report dated 13 November 2017).  No excavation works are to be carried out outside of the northern edge of the existing driveway.

 

            Reason: To minimise disturbance to trees located on the north eastern boundary identified as trees 11-15 inclusive. 

 

33.       Pursuant to Section 80A(6)(a) and (7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant must, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, provide security in the amount of $2000 (by way of cash deposit with the Council, or a guarantee satisfactory to the Council) for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to trees identified s Bottle Brush street tree on the nature strip directly outside the property. This bond may be forfeited in the event of damages to any of these trees as a result of the development works as determined by Council’s Tree Management Officer, at a minimum the cost of replacing the tree including labour will be deducted from the bond. The applicant shall contact Council to have the street tree inspected following issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

 

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

34.       (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 the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

35.       (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: Public Safety

 

36.       (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 ensure the public domain infrastructure is reinstated.   

 

37.       (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: Public Safety

 

38.       (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 ensure the public domain is safe and infrastructure is reinstated.         

 

39.       (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 ensure the public domain infrastructure is reinstated.   

 

40.       (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: Public Safety

 

41.       (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 the public domain infrastructure is protected.

 

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

 

            Reason: Statuary requirement

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

43.       (S2) Stormwater Requirement: The stormwater runoff from the new and altered impervious areas within the development shall be connected to the existing drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

The existing stormwater system is to be certified that it is in good working order and meets the requirements set out in Part O, Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. The certification is to be carried out by a fully licensed and insured plumber or a suitably qualified engineer prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Where an existing element does not comply with current standards the subject element is to be replaced.

 

Where the existing system does not comply with Part O, Councils DCP-Stormwater Management a drainage design is required. The stormwater drainage plan is to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer and 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

 

44.       (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 maintain Council’s infrastructure.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect the environment

 

 

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

46.       (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 Certifier 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 industry standards and Council’s requirements

 

47.       The cover and glass enclosure to the stairs at the eastern end of the building are to be deleted.

 

            Reason: The additional condition is imposed to ensure no view loss from the adjoining property at 66A Arabella Street.

 

PANEL REASONS

 

The Panel supports the findings and recommendation contained in the Assessment Report and resolves that the application be approved as per the recommendation contained in that report, subject to the following additional condition:

 

47.       The cover and glass enclosure to the stairs at the eastern end of the building are to be deleted.

 

            Reason: The additional condition is imposed to ensure no view loss from the adjoining property at 66A Arabella Street.

 

Reasons

 

1.         The Panel noted the request of Mr R Cummings of 45 Arabella Street to have the street tree in front of No. 66 Arabella Street pruned and that this has been agreed to and is now noted in the Council’s Work Plan.

 

2.         The applicant has made significant changes, including deletion of the upper floor storey and moving the stair well/lift well towards the centre of the site in order to improve view lines from 45 Arabella Street.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

14 Gay Street Lane Cove

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at it’s meeting of 1 May 2018 refused the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling development comprising of 7 dwellings, for the following reasons:-

 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

 

1.      The development proposal has not adequately identified or assessed the likely impacts to  the endangered ecological community as required under Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      The requirements under Part 7 Section 7.2 of the BC Act  are:-

 

7.2   Development or activity “likely to significantly affect threatened species”

(1)    For the purposes of this Part, development or an activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species if:

(a)  it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3, or

(b)  the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values, or

(c)  it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

(2)  To avoid doubt, subsection (1) (b) does not apply to development that is an activity subject to environmental impact assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

7.3   Test for determining whether proposed development or activity likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats

 

(1)  The following is to be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats:

(a)  in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(b)  in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i)  is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(c)  in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i)  the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii)  whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii)  the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

(d)  whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

(e)  whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

 

b)         The assessment of significance undertaken by the Ecological Assessment Report by First Field Environmental dated 14 February 2018 is very superficial. A much more detailed           consideration of all the factors associated with the impact of the proposed development on the Blue Gum High Forest is required.

 

Aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

2.      The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(2) b), c), e) and f) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      Clause 1.2(2) ‘Aims of Plan’ provides the following relevant aims:-

 

“(2)    The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

 

(a)    …            …

(b)   to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land to which this Plan applies in accordance with the indicated expectations of the community;

(c)   in relation to residential development, to provide a housing mix and density that:

(i)      accords with urban consolidation principles, and

(ii)      is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and

(iii)     has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development,

(d)  …      

(e)  in relation to the management of open space, public and privately-owned bushland, riparian and foreshore land:-

(i)    to protect and, where possible, restore all bushland areas, including all rare and threatened species and communities, and

(ii)  to protect and, where possible, restore all riparian land along, and the inter-tidal zones and foreshores of, the Lane Cove River and Sydney Harbour and their tributary creeks, and

(iii)  to make more foreshore land available for public access, and

(iv)  to link existing open space areas for public enjoyment,

(f)  in relation to conservation:

(i)      to protect, maintain and effectively manage public and privately-owned watercourses and areas of riparian land, foreshores and bushland and, where possible, restore them to as close a state to natural as possible, and

(ii)     to ensure that development does not adversely affect the water quality or ecological systems of riparian land or other areas of natural environment, and

(iii)     to control all new buildings to ensure their compatibility with surrounding existing built form and natural environmental character, and

(iv)    to conserve heritage items,……”

b)      The proposed development does not meet Clause 1.2(2)(b) as, having regard to loss of trees and vegetation on site and the excessive bulk and scale of the built  it would not preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land and the expectations of the community.

c)      The proposed development does not meet the aims which are outlined in Clause 1.2(2)(c) of the LCLEP 2009 as it would not provide a housing mix and density that would be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining properties.

d)      The proposed development does not meet the aims outlined in Clause 1.2(2)(e) of the LCLEP 2009 as the significant removal of trees and vegetation, including removal of endangered ecological communities, and the encroachment into the Environmental Protection Land at the rear of the property, does not protect or restore the bushland area, riparian land and threatened species that are located on the site. 

e)      The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(2)(f)(i) to (iv) of LCLEP 2009 as the development does not conserve or protect the riparian land located at the rear of the site, has an adverse effect on the areas of natural environment, would result in the removal of significant trees and vegetation that are identified and endangered ecological communities and does not ensure compatibility with the natural environmental character of the site.

 

SEPP 19 – Urban Bushland

 

3.      The proposed development does not satisfy the specific aims of Clause 2(2) (a) to (i) and (k) to (n) of State Environmental Planning Policy 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      The specific aims of Clause 2(2) the SEPP 19 state:

 

 (2)    The specific aims of this policy are:-

 

(a)     to protect the remnants of plant communities which were once characteristic of land now within an urban area,

(b)     to retain bushland in parcels of a size and configuration which will enable the existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term,

(c)     to protect rare and endangered flora and fauna species,

(d)     to protect habitats for native flora and fauna,

(e)     to protect wildlife corridors and vegetation links with other nearby bushland,

(f)      to protect bushland as a natural stabiliser of the soil surface,

(g)     to protect bushland for its scenic values, and to retain the unique visual identity of the landscape,

(h)     to protect significant geological features,

(i)      to protect existing landforms, such as natural drainage lines, watercourses and foreshores,

(j)      ........,

(k)     to protect the recreational potential of bushland,

(l)      to protect the educational potential of bushland,

(m)    to maintain bushland in locations which are readily accessible to the community, and

(n)     to promote the management of bushland in a manner which protects and enhances the quality of the bushland and facilitates public enjoyment of the bushland compatible with its conservation.

b)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(a) as the removal of trees and clearing of native bushland does not protect or preserve the remnants of plant communities;

c)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(b) would not allow for existing plant and animal communities to survive in the long term;

d)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(c) as the significant loss of tree species, including species identified as critically endangered ecological communities, specifically those trees/communities identified as being included as part of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest community and Sydney Bluegum High Forest, would decimate the endangered ecological communities on site;

e)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(d) as the proposed development result in the loss of existing and potential habitats for native flora and fauna;

f)       The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(e) as it would diminish the existing wildlife corridor and vegetation links to nearby bushland;

g)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(f) and (i) as the removal of trees and vegetation would impact the stability of the soil surface of the site causing potential soil erosion which would impact the watercourse;

h)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(g) as it would remove a significant scenic bushland vista from the locality that can been seen from surrounding streets;

i)       The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(h) as the proposal would have a significant impact on the natural rock formations of the site;

j)       The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(k), (l) and (m)  as it would remove the unique landscaped identity of the site that is incorporated into the rear bushland walking track impacting both the recreation and education potential of the bushland reserve and walking track;

k)      The proposed development does not satisfy Clause (2)(n) as the removal of the trees and vegetation does not enhance or contribute to the conservation of the bushland on and adjacent to the site.

 

Height of Buildings

 

4.      The proposed development does not comply with the development standard or objectives for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

 

Particulars:

 

a)      Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 states:-

 

“4.3   Height of buildings

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

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

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

(c)  to relate development to topography.

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

(2A)  Despite subclause (2), the maximum height for multi dwelling housing on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is 5 metres.”

b)      Pursuant to clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009, the maximum permissible building height for the subject site is 5m.

c)      The proposed development provides a maximum building height of between 8.238m and 11.16m and exceeds the maximum 5m building height permitted.

d)      The applicant has submitted a written request for the exception to the maximum building height development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009.

e)      The Clause 4.6 request has not demonstrated that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary nor that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The written request fails to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and the matters required to be demonstrated have not been adequately addressed (cl 4.6(3)(a) and cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)).

f)       Compliance with the development standard in clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009 is not considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

g)      The written request fails to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and the matters required to be demonstrated have not been adequately addressed (cl 4.6(3)(b) and cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)) and, as such, the variation sought to the maximum building height permitted is not considered to result in a better planning outcome.

h)      The proposed development and variation from the standard is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)) and would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objective of the standard in clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009 (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)).  The variation sought to the maximum building height standard is not supported as the proposed development does not meet the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings as the design of the proposal is not considered to respond to the topography of the land.

 

Endangered Ecological Community and Tree Impacts

 

5.      The proposed development would have unacceptable impacts to the endangered ecological community located on and adjoining the site.

 

Particulars:

 

a) The submitted arborists' report is insufficient and fails to address the full impacts of the development proposal to the site’s endangered ecological community and vegetation.

b) The ecological assessment report is considered to be insufficient as it has failed to consider the extent of impact to and potential loss of the endangered ecological community on site.

c)  The arborists' report and ecological assessment report have failed to assess the potential impact the site being maintained as an Inner Protection Zone in accordance with section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones' would have. 

d) The arborists’ report has not assessed the potential impacts the amended stormwater proposal would have to the existing trees to be retained on site.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part C – Residential Development of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

6.      The proposed development does not comply with the controls set out in Part C – Residential Development -  Section C.2 Attached Dwellings and Multi-dwelling Housing of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010

 

Particulars:

 

a)   The proposed development does not meet general objectives 1 and 3 of Section 2.1 General Objectives as the proposed development is not compatible and complementary to the visual and environmental character of surrounding residential areas or protect the significant landscaped features of the site due to the significant loss of trees and vegetation proposed.

b)   The proposed development does not meet the numerical requirement of Provision a) of Section 2.2 Site Area and Frontage.  The minimum site width required is 20m at the building line where the proposal would have a site width of 18m.

c)   The proposed development is inconsistent with objectives 5, 9 and 10 of Section 2.3 Streetscape as the hard surface driveway significant tree and vegetation removal within the front and side setbacks does not provide an attractive street frontage nor does the removal of the trees and vegetation ensure the landscape setting is enhanced. The hard surface driveway does not provide any separate pedestrian access paths onto the development which does not improve pedestrian amenity.

d)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Provision a) of Section 2.3 Streetscape as the proposed multi-dwelling development does not respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of the street.

e)   The proposed development does not meet the numerical requirements of the front, side and rear setbacks in Section 2.4 Setbacks and is inconsistent with objectives 1, 3 and 4 of Section 2.4 Setbacks as the proposal does not compliment the streetscape, does not provide a visual buffer between dwellings and does not achieve a high level of amenity for the dwellings, neighbouring dwellings and public domain.

f)    The proposed development does not meet with the numerical controls within Section 2.5 Fences Provisions 1.4.2a) as the fencing proposed appears to be incorporated into retaining walls that are over the allowable height of 1.8 metres.

g)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.6 Landscaping Provisions a) and b) as the proposed landscaping does not relate to the ground level of the dwelling by direct access from a living area and the 35% landscaped area for each individual dwelling has not been adequately provided.

h)   The proposed development is inconsistent with Provisions a) to f) of Section 2.7 Cut and Fill as the proposed development:

·    does not relate to the existing topography,

·    has not adequately demonstrated that the level of excavation and fill is contained within the building footprint,

·    has not adopted an adequate split level approach to accommodate the topography of the site,

·    has proposed fill for the side retaining walls in excess of 1m,

·    has created cantilevered undercroft areas;

·    proposes significant tree removal.

i)    The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.8 Building Design Provisions b), c), d), f), g), h) and i)ii as:

·    The proposed development is not considered to be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings or the environment;

·    The open space corridor and vegetation elements have not been maintained due to the significant amount of trees proposed for removal; 

·    The area devoted to driveways and turning areas has not been minimised as the circular vehicular access and turning areas are proposed on the entire ground floor concrete slab;

·    The development has not demonstrated that for sites with a slope of more than 5% each dwelling is to have a separate ground floor level with the difference being equal to the average slope of he site;

·    A concrete wall is proposed around the perimeter of the development which has not been clearly demonstrated on the plans as to height and extent of fill proposed;

·    The schedule of finished provided on the plans has the majority of the development as concrete, wood and dark to medium grey metal with very little detail in tones;

·    Villas 01 to 06 are 2 storey as opposed to single storey.

 

j)    The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 2.9.1 Provisions a), g) and h),  Section 2.9.2 Provision a) and Section  2.9.3 Provisions a), b) and e) as:

·    The ground floor parking and proposed landscaped private open space does not provide adequate privacy to the future residents of the development and the neighbouring properties;

·    The proposed development application has not provided an acoustic report by a suitable qualified acoustic consultant demonstrating that internal habitable rooms would not be impacted by high levels of external noise given that the car parking for the site is located directly above habitable rooms;

·    The proposed development with the elevated lower ground floor and balconies has  potential privacy impacts to the rear adjoining properties and from the public reserve walking track;

·    The proposed development has not provided solar access diagrams;

·    The proposed development does not provide adequate solar access provisions as skylights have been provided which do not appear to allow solar penetration to the lower ground floor master bedrooms;

·    The proposed development does not provide the required amount of unbuilt upon private open space

·    The shared car parking and private open space areas at ground level do not provide adequate amenity for recreation purposes;

·    The proposed communal open space does not provide any facilities, amenities or active recreation areas.

k)   The proposed development does not meet with the numerical requirement under Section 2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces Provision b) as the proposed parking is at ground floor level which exceeds 1.2 metres above existing ground level which would have visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the future residents of the development and neighbouring properties.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part F – Access and Mobility of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

7.      The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and requirements set out in Part F – Access and Mobility of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010

 

Particulars:

 

a)   The proposed development does not comply with the requirement under Section 3.1 Provision 3 as an accessibility report prepared by a suitably qualified access consultant was not provided with the application.

b)   The proposed development does not provide equitable access to the rear communal open space located at the rear of the site.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part H – Bushland Protection of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

8.      The proposed development has unacceptable impacts to the bushland and does not comply with the objectives and controls set out in Part H – Bushland Protection of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010 

 

Particulars:

 

a)    The proposed development does not meet the objectives of Part H – Bushland Protection, Section H.1 of Lane  Cove DCP 2010 which are as follows:-

 

1.  To protect both public and private bushland from adjacent development which could result in any adverse change to the condition of bushland through altered moisture conditions, increased nutrient levels, soil movement , invasive or inappropriate plant species and proximity of development.

2.  To retain and protect natural topographic features, bushland areas, plant species and communities and native fauna habitat.

3.  To maintain and regenerate areas of natural bushland which have been defined as an essential character of Lane Cove.

4.  To acknowledge the importance of bushland to the character of the surrounding landscape and value of the locality and its importance to the region.

5.  To encourage innovation and attractive designs which acknowledge the importance of bushland areas through the control of building location, building form, soft and hard landscape elements and engineering controls.

The removal of trees and therefore loss of tree canopy would affect the integrity of Upper Stringybark Creek Reserve which is not in keeping with objective 2 above.

b)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 5.1, Provisions of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as the vegetation proposed to be removed as part of the development would create fragmentation of an already narrow vegetation corridor.

c)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.1, Provisions a)ii of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as vegetation lost through the proposed removal of trees would impact on the corridor connection for fauna habitat.

d)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.2 Provision a) because it would have a visual impact for users of the adjacent Harry Howard walking track.

e)   The proposed development does not comply with Part H – Bushland Protection, Section 6.2 Provision b) as the building materials, finishes and colours schedule provided on the plans, being primarily concrete, do not demonstrate that the development would blend in with the natural landscape.

f)    The proposed development’s height and setbacks of the building not comply with Part H Bushland Protection, Section 5.1. Provision e) and Section 6.2 Provision a) as they do not maximize the retention of local indigenous species, native fauna habitat or natural features.

g)   The proposed development does not comply with H – Bushland Protection, Section H.8 of Lane Cove DCP 2010 as the application has not included a Bushland Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant.

 

Non-compliance of controls set out in Part J – Landscaping of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

9.      The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and controls set out in Part J – Landscaping of Lane Cove  Development Control Plan 2010 

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   The proposed development is not in keeping with Part J Section 1.2 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal does not conserve the significant areas of bushland and landscaped character of the locality.

b)   The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of Part J Section 1.4 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal:-

 

·      does not maintain the existing landscape character of the locality;

·      existing natural features have not been preserved;

·      tree protection measures have not been adequately provided;

·      the details of irrigation systems have not been provided; and

·      the required replacement planting ratio of 1:1 has not been provided.

 

c)   The proposed development is not in keeping with the objectives of Part J Section 2.2 of LCDCP 2010 as the proposal does not retain the maximum number of trees on the site.

 

d)   The proposed development is not in keeping with the objectives of Part J Section 3.1 of DCP 2010 as the proposal seeks to remove significant trees that belong to an endangered ecological community.

 

Landscaping - Inadequate Information

 

10.    The proposed development provides inadequate information to enable a proper assessment of the proposed landscaping.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   Landscaping and hardstand surfaces on the architectural plans and landscape plans do not correspond and details appear to be inconsistent.

 

b)   The Landscape plans submitted do not provide adequate information pertaining to the number of landscape retaining walls and other structural walls proposed. Inadequate information about these structures has been provided to determine whether they are acceptable from a safety and welfare of the public perspective, namely:-

 

·    Top of wall level;

·    Bottom of wall level;

·    Proposed construction materials;

·    Proposed construction methods;

·    Structural Engineering certification;

·    Drainage details;

·    Proposed footing details;

·    Maintenance details; and

·    Irrigation details.

 

c)   The Landscape plans do not include sections and elevations from all aspects, detailed annotations and construction details. The landscape plan has not adequately addressed the design principles in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

d)   The landscaped area and planting on structure calculations have not been provided demonstrating compliance with section 1.6 - in Part J of LCDCP 2010.

 

e)   The Landscape Plans have not demonstrated that the planting on structures provides  adequate soil depth, volume and a suitable soil profile to support the number of trees and shrubs indicated on the landscape plans as required by section 1.10 in Part J LCDCP 2010.

 

f)    The Landscape Plans have not incorporated the requirements of Part H – Bushland Protection, Section H.7 Preparation of a Landscape Plan for Building and Buffer Areas.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

11.    The proposed parking is unacceptable and does not comply with the requirements of Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   Table 1 in Part R of LCDCP 2010 requires a minimum of 2 visitor parking spaces for multi-dwelling housing.  The development does not provide the required 2 visitor parking spaces.

           

Inadequate Information

 

12.    Inadequate information has been submitted to allow for an assessment of the application.

 

Particulars:-

 

a)   Insufficient landscape details have been provided to allow a full assessment;

b)   Solar access diagrams have not been provided to determine the potential overshadowing impacts the proposed development may have to the site, adjoining neighbouring properties and adjoining bushland reserve;

c)   An adequate waste management plan detailing bin storage and collection of waste reciprocals has not been submitted;

d)   A Remedial action plan is required to be submitted;

e)   Deleted

f)    An environmental management plan is to be submitted for the construction phase of the project that addresses demolition, asbestos management, site water management and sediment and erosion controls, as well as dust management.

 

Public Interest

 

13.    The proposed development is not in the public interest having regarded to above contentions and impact on the amenity of the site, adjoining dwellings, bushland and the amenity of the general community. 

 

PANEL REASONS

 

The Panel notes that one of the objectives in the height of the building control in the LEP 2009, is to ensure that development is  “to relate development to topography”; whereas, the present proposal has not related design of the development to the topography of the site

 

Accordingly, the Panel is not prepared to support the application to vary the height of the building control pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

In the absence of such variation, the Panel does not have jurisdiction to grant consent to the application.  Moreover the Panel supports the findings and recommendation contained in the Assessment Report and resolves that the application be refused as per the recommendation contained in that report, subject to the following change, namely, ground of refusal 12(e) is deleted, since the requirement for an acoustic report is not required at this stage.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

The meeting closed at 7.30pm

 

********* END OF MINUTES *********