Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

3 July 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 3 July 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 3 July 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 - 5 JUNE 2018

 

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.       75 River Road, Greenwich

 

3.       4/79-85 Mars Road Lane Cove West

 

4.       2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day  

 

 

 

 

  


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   3 July 2018

75 River Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          75 River Road, Greenwich     

Record No:    DA17/161-01 - 32791/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Andrew Thomas 

 

 

 

Property:

75 River Road, Greenwich

DA No:

D161/17

Date Lodged:

20 October 2017

Cost of Work:

$242,500

Owner:

P. Mirzakhani

Applicant:        

Tess Regan

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Alterations and additions to a part single and a part two storey dwelling house. 

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

Stop the Clock used

Yes

Notification

Neighbours                             71, 73, 76, 78 and 80 River Road and 28, 30, 32 and 34 Greenwich Road.

Ward Councillors                   East

Progress Association             Greenwich Community Association

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

Development Application 161/17 must be referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel because with a height of 10.75m part of the roof of a proposed first floor addition to the dwelling house on the subject site would result in a departure of more than 10% from the height standard of 9.5m that applies to the site under cl. 4.3 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·          The subject site is a small lot of 300m2 created under a 1992 development for a detached dual occupancy that was subdivided into separate Torrens title lots. The other lot in this development, at 30 Greenwich Road, is located at the rear of the subject site.

·          The application is for alterations and additions to the part single and part two storey dwelling house on the subject site. However, the dwelling house has three levels because both residential levels are located above a large basement level garage.

·          Due to previous excavation required for the basement level, and a proposed change to raise and extend the existing roof over the front part of the dwelling house, the overall height of 10.75m proposed in this development would exceed the height standard of 9.5m for this site under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP).

·          The applicant has submitted a variation to the height standard under cl. 4.6 of the LEP. The variation addresses the objectives of both the height standard and the site’s R2 Low Density Residential zone and is supported.

·          Whilst the proposal would also result in four non-compliances in relation to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP), none would raise any significant issue, or have an adverse impact on adjoining properties, or adversely affect the streetscape, and consequently they are supported.

·          One submission was received in response to Council’s notification of the proposal. The concern raised by the owners of the adjoining property to the east of the site, at 73 River Road, related to a loss of privacy due to a proposed side window and a proposal to reduce the height of a perimeter balustrade wall of an existing elevated front terrace. This concern has been addressed by draft condition 2 that requires a proposed eastern window to be treated and either a privacy screen to be attached along the eastern side of the terrace, or the height of its balustrade wall to be retained.

·          The proposal is a reasonable development that does not raise significant issues with objectives of the LEP or the DCP, and consequently the application is recommended for approval.

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot 2  DP 844527

Area

300m2

Site location

The subject site is located on the southern side of River Road and close to this street’s intersection with Greenwich Road to the west.

Existing improvements

Existing on the site is a part single and a part two storey dwelling house on three levels with basement parking for two cars accessed directly from River Road. 

Shape

A regular rectangle.

Dimensions

The site has a width of 15.24m and a depth of 19.7m                         

Adjoining properties

On either side, and at the rear, of the site is a dwelling house. Opposite the site, on the northern side of River Road, is a residential flat building that is generally three storeys and a dwelling house.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVAL/HISTORY  

 

D70/92: dual occupancy

 

(i) Proposal

 

In December 1992 Council approved a boundary realignment and a detached dual occupancy and its subdivision on land at 75 - 77 River Road. Apart from a garage that was accessed from Greenwich Road, the site at 75 River Road was vacant. The site at 77 River Road, on the corner of Greenwich Road, included a dwelling house. 

 

The consent enabled construction of a dwelling at 75 River Road and a dwelling on land at the rear of the site, at 30 Greenwich Road. The existing dwelling house at 77 River Road was retained and now has a street address of 28 Greenwich Road.

 

The detached dual occupancy development was subdivided into separate Torrens title lots. Council released the subdivision plan in 1994 and this was registered in the same year. 

 

(ii) Conditions

 

Two car parking conditions of the consent required the following:

 

Condition13. The provision of a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for each new dwelling to be shown on the building application plans and to be to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Town Planner.

 

Condition 14. The clearance from the centrepoint of the turntable to any point in the garage is to be increased to 3m to allow the turntable to be used by a wide range of cars and to enable some leeway in the accuracy of parking of vehicles. This amendment is to be included in the Building Application.

The assessment report stated that this was essential to ensure that neither dwelling created a traffic hazard at this already difficult intersection. The significance of these two conditions is addressed under the next sub-heading Proposal.

 

PROPOSAL

 

Development consent is sought for alterations and additions to the front part of the dwelling house on two levels. Details of the proposal follow.

 

Ground floor

·          an extension 3.2m deep occupying two thirds of the existing elevated front terrace is proposed across the width of the existing front living/dining room to create a family room; and

·          the balance of the terrace would be reduced to an overall depth of about 1.5m that would include a planter box with a depth of about 300mm along the front, and the reminder of its balustrade perimeter brick wall would be reduced in height from 1.8m to 1m.

 

First floor

 

A similar extension is also proposed across most of the width of two existing front bedrooms to create a main bedroom with an ensuite and robe room that would be accessed by a hall proposed between these two bedrooms.

 

Materials

 

The external walls would be rendered, and the upper level’s fibre cement boards would be painted.

 

Roof

·          the front part of the existing tiled pitched roof would be removed

·          its ridge would be raised and the roof extended over the proposed first floor extension at the same pitch (about 230) and tiled to match the existing tiled roof

·          a light grey metal roof with a pitch of 120 is proposed over the front ground floor extension.

 

Basement level

 

Conditions 13 and 14 of the consent granted for DA70/92 are relevant because the basement plan submitted with the current proposal shows an existing storeroom at the rear. However, this room does not exist, but as it was proposed it would reduce the existing car parking area.

 

Due to the previous depth of excavation of the site required to implement the works approved under DA70/92 because of the requirements of both conditions 13 and 14, all of the basement garage level should be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. Consequently, the proposal complies with the Floor Space Ratio development standard of 0.6:1 for this site under cl. 4.4 of the LEP.

 

Draft condition 3 requires the proposed storeroom on the basement level plan to be deleted. In addition, the combined basement and ground floor level plan included under draft condition 1(20) of those plans listed for approval, should be notated to reinforce the deletion of this rear storeroom.

 

Proposal Data Compliance

 

The Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP)

 

Zoning: R2 Low Density                              Site area: 300m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio (max)

0.6:1

0.6:1

Yes

Height of buildings (max)

10.75m, in part

9.5m

Yes*

 

*Only a relatively small area (about 15m2) of the proposed pitched roof would be above the 9.5m height standard as a result of previous excavation required at the basement level. This portion of the roof represents about 12% of the total roof area. The majority of the dwelling house would have a height of less than 8m. The applicant has submitted a variation to this height standard under cl. 4.6 of the LEP.

 

The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009: Part C.1 (the DCP)

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

Ground floor : 3.63m

First floor : 7.1m

 

Basement/garage level: unchanged

Consistent with area, or 7.5m

No, but as it would be consistent with the existing setback and have no adverse impacts it is supported.

 

Side setback (min)

East: ground and first floor level addition: 990mm.

 

 

West: 6.3m

1.5m : two storeys – a

first floor addition may follow the side setback of the existing floor level below.

No, but as it would match the setback of both existing levels, and because there would be no unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property, both are supported.

Rear setback (min)

Unchanged

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

No, existing

Wall height (max)

8.3m (east)

7m

 

No, in part, but supported because it would have no adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

 

Ridge height (max)

10.75m, in part.

9.5m

Yes: see* comment under LEP table above.

Subfloor height (max)

N/a - unchanged

1m

No, existing

Number of storeys (max)

Part 1 and part 2 above a basement level garage

2 + basement

Yes, and unchanged.

Landscaped area (min)

N/a - unchanged

35%

No, existing

Cut and Fill (max)

N/a - not proposed

1m

N/a

 

 

Solar access (min)

Exceeds 3 hours, and recreational areas generally unaffected.

3 hrs to north-facing habitable windows, and reasonable sunlight to the recreational areas of adjoining premises, between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

Yes

Deck/balcony depth (max)

1.5m (reduced from an existing depth of 5.2m)

3m

Yes (although the depth of the existing front terrace does not comply).

Private open space (min)

Landscaped area (on western side) unchanged

24m²

4m depth

Yes

BASIX Certificate

Supplied

Required

Yes

 

REFERRAL

 

Development Engineer

 

Confirms no OSD system is required and that all impervious areas should drain into the existing stormwater system.

 

Recommends draft conditions 39-50 to address stormwater disposal, as well as others of a general nature.

 

ASSESSMENT: S. 4.15 of the ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

 

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

 

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

 

(i) General

 

In relation to the LEP the proposal:-

·          is permissible in the R2 zone with consent;

·          generally satisfies the relevant objectives of the R2 zone (see sub-heading (ii) Zone below);

·          complies with its standard for Floor Space Ratio; and

·          apart from a small portion of the proposed replacement roof that would exceed its height standard, does not raise any other issues in relation to the LEP itself.

 

(ii) Zone

 

A summary of the objectives of the R2 zone, and a discussion of these objectives, is addressed under the next sub-heading (iii) Height standard.

 

(iii) Height standard

 

With a maximum overall height of 10.75m the proposal would exceed the height standard of 9.5m for this site under cl. 4.3 of the LEP by 1.25m. The applicant has submitted a written variation under cl. 4.6 of the LEP to this standard. For the reasons that follow this departure is supported.

 

Determination of height    

 

a) Judgment

 

The approach of Commissioner O’Neill of the Land and Environment Court of NSW (the LEC) in the matter of Bettar v Council of the City of Sydney (NSWLEC 1070) of 2014 (Bettar) has been used to determine the likely overall height of this development. In her Judgment the Commissioner stated that:

·          the height of a development was appropriate to the condition of the site and its context; and

·          existing ground level should bear some relationship to overall topography, including that of the site itself.

 

In Bettar the Commissioner stated that it was preferable to determine existing ground level across the site based on the level of the footpath at its property boundary, and not adopt the floor level of its existing basement buildings on the site that were, by definition, already below ground, because:

·          this approach related to context and overall topography, including that of the site itself; and

·          this would remain relevant even after buildings on the site had been demolished.

 

b) Subject site

 

The site has a fall of about 4m from its rear to its front boundary. The works approved under DA70/92 required the front part of the site to be excavated to a maximum depth of about 2.5m to provide a basement level garage and a storeroom at the front. 

 

By adopting an approach that is consistent with the Judgment in Bettar, the average slope from the existing (higher) natural ground level at the rear of the existing dwelling house to the basement level would mean that the height of the proposed roof above this area would be about 7m. Adopting this approach the proposal would comply with the height standard.

 

By contrast, if the floor level of the basement is adopted as existing ground level, the maximum height directly below the proposed roof would be 10.75m, and the area of the proposed roof that would exceed 9.5m would be about 15m2

 

c) Variation of the height standard

 

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

 

The proposal would result in a departure from the height standard imposed under cl.4.3 of the LEP. A discussion about the height standard, and the applicant’s variation submitted under cl.4.6 of the LEP to this standard, follows.

 

(i) Objectives of the height standard

 

In summary, the objectives of the height standard under Amendment No. 24 to the LEP gazetted in December 2017 are:-

 

·          to ensure buildings and public areas receive reasonable solar access;

·          to ensure that privacy and the visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties are reasonable;

·          to maximise sunlight for the public domain, and

·          to relate development to topography.

 

In summary, the applicant states that that the proposal would achieve these objectives because:-

 

·          overshadowing of the front, north facing windows of the dwelling house on the adjoining lot to the east of the site, at 73 River Road, would not have an adverse impact;

·          the proposed front addition that would occupy part of the existing elevated terrace would improve visual and acoustic privacy to neighbours;

·          sunlight to the public domain (River Road) to the north of the site would be unaffected; and

·          the steeped form and appearance of the proposed additions address the fall of the site and would maintain a similar height to the existing building and its roof; also, relative to the natural ground level of the site prior to the previous excavation to create the basement level, the proposed additions, including its extended roof, would fully comply with the 9.5m height standard; and in addition, by proposing a reduction in the height of the brick balustrade wall around the existing front terrace above the garage from 1.8m to 1m, would also reduce the bulk and scale of the dwelling house at the front and its overall appearance from River Road.

 

Comment

 

The proposal would achieve all four objectives of the height standard for the reasons provided by the applicant. In particular the proposal would:

 

·          minimise overshadowing to neighbouring properties whilst not affecting the public domain;

·          subject to the treatment required by draft condition 2 of a side window, and the eastern side of the remainder of the front terrace, address any potential loss of privacy to the adjoining property to the east, whilst also increasing the acoustic privacy of this same property by reducing the useable depth of the existing terrace to about 1m; and

·          address the stepped design of the existing dwelling house that relates to the original slope of the site and the previous excavation undertaken for its basement level.

 

(ii) Objectives of the R2 zone

 

In summary, the relevant objectives of the R2 zone are:-

 

·          to provide for the community’s housing needs within a low density residential environment;

·          to retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area; and

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

 

In summary, the applicant states that that the proposal would achieve these objectives because:-

 

·          the existing dwelling house is a permissible development in a low density residential zone;

·          the existing dwelling house would be retained;

·          the proposed alterations and additions would improve the amenity of its residents without having an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties; and

·          existing landscaping would be maintained and unchanged by the proposed works.

 

Comment

 

The proposed development would generally satisfy all of the three relevant objectives for the R2 zone provided by the applicant because:

·          it would maintain the existing dwelling house in a predominantly low density residential environment;

·          although it would generally retain the amenity of the adjoining residential properties on either side and to the rear of the site, the visual privacy of the adjoining property on the east side of the site would be maintained by the proposed treatment of a side window and by a privacy screen required along this same side, or by the retention of its remaining balustrade wall, under draft condition 2, and its acoustic privacy would be increased by the proposed reduction in the area of the elevated front terrace, whilst privacy to the adjoining property to the west is not an issue; further, although the proposed addition to the front of the existing dwelling house would be highly visible viewed head-on from River Road, it would only add a relatively small amount to its overall bulk and scale, whilst the dwelling house would otherwise generally be screened by trees and bushes and/or existing structures in the front yard of neighbouring properties on this same side of the street; and 

·          it would retain existing landscaping on the site.   

 

Clause 4.6   Exceptions to development standards

 

Clause 4.6 of the LEP addresses a development where there is a proposed departure of a development standard. The objectives of cl. 4.6 of the LEP 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.

 

Before granting development consent to a proposal that contravenes a development standard cl. 4.6(3) of the LEP requires Council to consider:-

 

…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.

 

A discussion of matters under cl. 4.6(3) of the LEP follows.

 

Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary?

 

In response the applicant states that:-

 

·          the objectives of the height standard would be achieved;

·          compliance with the height standard is unnecessary because its objectives would be achieved;

·          only the eastern side of the proposed roof above the basement level would breach the standard; the roof on the western side fully complies;

·          to fully comply would require some form of clumsy truncated roof that would be higher on its western side and lower on its eastern side; this would thwart the opportunity to improve the appearance and function and amenity of the dwelling house, and further, this design would not achieve any benefits regarding improved or reduced impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties;

·          the proposed additions would be consistent and compatible in height, bulk and scale with surrounding development that includes both two and three storey dwelling houses and a residential flat building;

·          for these reasons the standard would both be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this proposal because the objectives of the standard would be met, whilst the objectives of cl.4.6 of the LEP would also be met because the proposal would achieve a better outcome by allowing a minor variation to the height standard in the particular circumstance of this site; and

·          therefore strict compliance with the height standard would be unreasonable.    

 

Comment

 

The applicant’s justification is reasonable, particularly because:

 

·          the proposal would comply based on ground level prior to excavation necessary for the basement garage;

·          despite the proposed overall height caused by the garage excavation, the proposed addition and its extended and raised roof, would not result in a significant visual departure of the height standard;

·          the proposal would improve residents’ amenity without any adverse environmental impacts; and

·          as a result of the proposed addition the proposed height, bulk and scale of the dwelling house would be compatible with other dwelling houses in the area.

 

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard ?

 

In response the applicant states that:

 

·          as provided in the preceding section, the grounds justifying compliance with the height standard as being unnecessary are particular to the circumstances of the proposed development on this site;

·          previous excavation for a basement level garage and store has resulted in a dwelling house with a truncated height;

·          the proposed alterations and additions would have a stepped form and appearance that would respond to the slope of the site;

·          relative to natural ground level on the site prior to excavation the proposed additions, including the proposal to extend the existing roof, would fully comply with the height standard;

·          if the approach taken by the Commissioner in Bettar was applied, and it should, the proposal would fully comply with the height standard;

·          the proposal would be consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the relevant objectives of the R2 zone under the LEP 2009; and further, the proposal complies with the FSR standard under this same planning instrument; and

·          consequently, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds relating to the circumstances of the site and the existing and proposed development, to justify the intended departure from the height standard applicable to buildings under this same LEP.    

 

Comment

 

The applicant’s justification is reasonable, particularly because:-

 

·          the design of the proposed addition addresses the stepped design of the existing dwelling house; and

·          the proposed addition would fully comply with the height standard if ground level was adopted as per the Judgment in Bettar. 

 

Is the proposal in the public interest?

 

Clause 4.6(4) of the LEP states that Council, as the 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, …

 

The applicant states that a variation of the height standard would be in the public interest because the proposal would:

 

·          achieve an acceptable outcome and an appropriate level of consistency with the objectives of the height standard, particularly in relation to it being compatible with the residential character of the area; and

·          minimise the effects of bulk and scale whilst maintaining the amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly in relation to solar access and both visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Comment

 

The applicant’s written variation seeking a departure from the height standard is reasonable and is supported. Consequently, approval of the proposed addition would not be contrary to the public interest, and further, it would also:

 

·          satisfy the relevant objectives of the R2 zone and the height standard; 

·          result in a reduction in the depth of an existing non-compliant elevated front terrace that currently has the potential to create an adverse acoustic impact on adjoining properties; and

·          reduce the visual impact of this terrace by proposing a reduction in the height of its perimeter brick wall which at the front appears as a continuation of the garage wall below that currently creates a perceived overall wall height of about 5m and that is within about 2m of the site’s front boundary. 

 

Would the proposal result in a better planning outcome ?

 

Apart from an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards, cl. 4.6 requires a proposal to provide better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The proposal’s better outcomes are summarised below:

 

·          it would improve the amenity of its residents by providing additional living space;

·          although it would require a higher roof this would be consistent with the pitch and external finish of the existing roof; and

·          it would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties or the streetscape of River Road.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed contravention of the height standard of 9.5m under the LEP is satisfactory because:

 

·          it is consistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 zone under the LEP as previously stated;

·          it would retain the single dwelling house character of the site, and the residential amenity of the area;

·          the continued use of the land for residential purposes is consistent with these objectives;

·          the proposal is consistent with the objectives relating to the height standard because it would:

o    not result in any adverse impact on any adjoining property in terms of overshadowing, and further, it would not overshadow the public domain;

o    subject to draft condition 2, not result in a loss of privacy because of the proposed treatment of a side window and the construction of either a privacy screen along one side of the remaining front terrace, or the retention of its existing balustrade wall;

o    improve the acoustic privacy of the property on each side of the site by reducing the area of the front terrace;  

o    have a minor visual impact on some neighbouring properties; and

o    not alter the relationship of the existing dwelling house to the topography of the site;

·          it would not have an adverse impact on the locality;

·          the area of non-compliance that would cover about 15m2, or 12%, of the total roof area is relatively small, and therefore its visual impact would not be significant;

·          if the excavation that has created the basement level had not been undertaken, the proposal would fully comply with the height standard;

·          it maintains the site’s landscape qualities;

·          viewed from each side, it would be well screened viewed from River Road; and

·          the scale and design of the proposal complements the existing dwelling house and would fit in with the eclectic character of dwelling houses in the area.

For the reasons stated above the development’s proposed overall maximum height is supported.   

 

 

2. SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

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

 

Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) Any draft environmental planning instrument

 

Amendment No. 24 to the LEP has already been discussed. Whilst it was a draft amendment to the LEP when this application was submitted, it has been gazetted during this assessment.

 

There are no draft instruments relevant to the proposal.

 

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

 

The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP)

 

Part C.1 Objectives for Dwelling Houses             

 

The proposal satisfies its objectives because:

 

·          the existing dwelling house would be retained in its own landscaped lot;

·          the design of the proposed alterations and additions are reasonable and would have no adverse impact on neighbouring development or on the streetscape of River Road; and,

·          it would improve the amenity of its residents, and generally retain the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

In addition to the non-compliance with overall height that has been addressed previously under discussion of the LEP, the preceding DCP assessment table identifies those three other controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each departure is discussed below.

 

1. Wall height

 

Due to the fall of the site towards its eastern side boundary the existing eastern façade of the dwelling house has a maximum height of 7.5m, and the existing 10m long wall on this façade has a 2.5m long section that exceeds a height of 7m. The proposed addition to the first floor level would increase the maximum wall height to 8.3m and the length of wall that would exceed 7m to 6.5m. However this non-compliance is supported because:

 

·          in relation to the relevant objectives for Building Design:

 

o    the proposed addition would reinforce the typical bulk and scale of a number of existing dwelling houses on both sides of River Road close to the subject site;

o    with a stepped design, the addition would maintain the integrity of the design of the existing dwelling house; and

o    it would result in minimal overshadowing and light spillage, and subject to draft condition 2, no loss of privacy for adjoining properties, whilst views from neighbouring properties is not an issue and the amenity of adjoining properties would only be affected to a minor extent; and also because:

 

·                      as 6.5m of the proposed eastern wall that would exceed a height of 7m already includes a section 2.5m long, the overall increase of 4m in the extent of the wall that would be non-compliant would not be significant; and

·          the perceived bulk of the eastern wall is already reduced by three existing windows over both levels.

 

 

2. Setbacks

 

(i) Front 

 

The ground floor level of the existing dwelling house is setback 7.1m from the site’s front boundary. With a front setback of 7.1m the proposed first floor addition would be consistent with this setback. However, with a proposed front setback of 3.63m the ground floor level addition would not comply with the existing front setback. However, this non-compliance is supported because:

 

·          in relation to the relevant objectives for Setbacks:

 

o    it would be consistent with the existing front setback of both dwelling houses opposite the site; and

o    no vegetation would be removed; and also because:

 

·          whilst the existing garage has a front setback of 1.9m, and a  perceived wall height of about 5m viewed from River Road, the visual impact of the proposed addition would be reasonable because it would be behind this garage level;

·          the visual impact of the dwelling house would largely be unchanged; and

·          viewed from both sides existing trees and bushes and/or existing structures in the front yard of neighbouring properties would screen the proposed addition to a significant extent.

 

(ii) Side 

 

Both the existing ground and first floor levels are setback 990mm from the site’s eastern side boundary. The proposed addition at the front of each of these two levels would also be setback by this same amount. Since the ground floor level is above the basement level the proposed addition on each level should be setback a minimum of 1.5m from this side boundary. However both departures are supported because:

 

·          in relation to the relevant objectives for Setbacks:

 

o    no vegetation would be removed; and

o    there would be significant separation between both the subject dwelling house and the dwelling house on the adjoining lot to the east of the site, at 73 River Road, whilst sunlight, landscaping and ventilation would all be reasonable; and also because:

 

·          the numerical departure of 510mm that would extend for a length of about 3.5m would not be significant;

·          the proposed ground floor addition would project forward of the single storey dwelling house on this same adjoining property; 

·          it would be consistent with the setback of both existing levels; and

·          a first floor addition can maintain the side setback of the ground floor level below if there would be no unreasonable amenity impacts – the comments above confirm that this provision would be satisfied.

 

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

 

The proposal would require the removal of part of the tiled roof, the external glass door adjoining the front terrace and part of the front first floor level.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001 and therefore any consent will require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with this Australian Standard. Draft condition 33 (79) is included to address this requirement.

 

Section 4.15(1)(b) Any likely impacts 

 

1. Natural

 

As the alterations and additions are proposed on two floor levels that are each above ground level no landscaped area would be affected or any trees.  

 

2. Built

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the front of both existing residential floor levels would:

 

·          have a reasonable visual impact viewed from both adjoining properties;

·          have a relatively insignificant visual impact viewed from either side within River Road; and

·          generally maintain the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing dwelling house. 

 

However, so as to reduce potential overlooking into the front yard and front rooms of the single storey dwelling house on the adjoining property to the east of the site, at 73 River Road, draft condition 2 would require:

 

·          the  treatment of a proposed window on the eastern side of the dwelling house; and

·          a privacy screen along the eastern side of the remaining front terrace, or the retention of the remainder of its existing balustrade wall.

 

Subject to the inclusion of draft condition 2 the impact of the proposal on this adjoining property would be reasonable, whilst its impact on other neighboring properties and the streetscape would also be reasonable. 

 

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

 

Although opposite the site is a partly elevated three storey residential flat building, the subject site is located in a low density residential area. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling house are suitable for this site. Although the proposed works would generally result in a reasonable increase in the overall height of the existing dwelling house, this in conjunction with its slightly increased bulk and scale, would be compatible with neighbouring properties along both sides of River Road.

 

Section 4.15(1)(d) Any submissions made

 

One submission was received. The concern raised by the owners of the adjoining property on the east side of the site, at 73 River Road, related to a loss of privacy as a result of the proposed:

 

·          window in the eastern wall of the ground floor family room; and

·          reduction in the height of the perimeter wall around the front terrace from 1.8m to 1m.

 

These owners request that this window is treated, and either the height of the terrace perimeter wall is raised or a screen is attached along the eastern side of the remaining terrace.

 

 

Comment

 

From inspection this concern is valid. Consequently draft condition 2 is recommended that requires this window to be treated, and a privacy screen is attached along the eastern side of the remaining terrace, or that the height of the remainder of its balustrade wall is retained.

 

Section 4.15(1)(e) The public interest       

 

Although part of the proposed roof would exceed the height standard of the LEP, the dwelling house complies with its FSR standard, and its bulk and scale and solar impact are all reasonable.

 

Whilst the proposed front additions would not comply with some provisions of the DCP, the relevant objectives of these provisions would be satisfied and further, none of the departures would have an adverse impact on adjoining properties or the streetscape. Consequently, approval of the proposal would not be contrary to the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION                    

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant objectives for dwelling houses in the R2 zone under the LEP 2009 and its Floor Space Ratio standard. However, due to previous excavation at the basement level of the existing dwelling house, part of the proposed first floor level roof would exceed the height standard under this LEP. The applicant’s written variation under cl. 4.6 of the LEP to this standard is supported.

 

The proposal satisfies the majority of the numerical provisions under Part C.1 of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 and/or its relevant objectives. Where the proposal exceeds the numerical provisions of the DCP in relation to its overall height, wall height and its front and a side setback, none would have an adverse impact on adjoining properties, or the streetscape, and all are recommended to be supported.

 

Although one submission was received the concerns raised in relation to a loss of privacy can be addressed by draft condition 2 that would require the treatment of a side window, and a privacy screen along one side of the remainder of an existing terrace, or that the height of the remainder of its existing balustrade wall is retained. 

 

Subject to the privacy treatments required under draft condition 2 the proposal’s impact on an adjoining neighbour would be reasonable, whilst its overall impact on other neighbouring properties and on the streetscape of River Road would not be significant.

 

Matters in relation to s.4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

 

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore it is recommended for approval.

 

 

 

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 161/17 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house on Lot 2 DP 844527 and known as 75 River Road, Greenwich, subject to the following conditions:

 

Plans

 

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

·          A.01, dated 18.10.2017;

·          A.05.1, revision a, dated 18.10.2017 as amended up to 9.11.2017, and as further amended by Council in June 2018;

·          A.05.2, revision A, dated 13.12.2017;

·          A.6.01, revision a, dated 18.10.2017  as amended up to 9.11.2017; and

·          A.06.2, revision a, dated 18.10.2017 as amended up to 9.11.2017,

by Jeff Karskens Designer,

 

except as amended by the following conditions.

 

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

 

Specific            

 

2.         In order to reduce potential overlooking of the adjoining property at 73 River Road, the following privacy measures are required:

 

·          window W03, on the eastern side of the ground floor family room, is to be treated in obscure glass up to a height of 1.7m above the FFL, or the sill height of this window is to be raised to this same level, or a fixed privacy screen is to be attached to the outside of the window; and

·          a privacy screen 1.7m is to be constructed along the remainder of the eastern side of the ground floor level terrace or, alternatively, the existing height of the remainder of its perimeter wall is to be retained.   

 

PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To maintain the privacy of the residents of this adjoining property.

 

3.         So as to ensure that two cars can enter and exit the basement/garage level in a forward direction by use of the existing turntable imposed by conditions 13 and 14 respectively of the development consent granted by Council on 16 December 1992 in relation to DA70/92, no approval is granted, or implied, for a storeroom at the rear of this level. RELEVANT PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFCATE.

           

            Reason: To ensure adequate car parking is maintained for residents.

 

General                                               

 

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

           

            Reason: To ensure that 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.         (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.

 

7.         (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 Principal Certifier that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the Principal Certifier will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance, or an owner builder permit, is submitted.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

8.         (17) An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier before the occupation of the dwelling house.

 

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

 

9.         (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 neighbouring properties.

 

10.       (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.

 

11.       (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 neighbouring amenity. 

 

12.       (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.

 

13.       (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.

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

15.       (51) Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area. Clause 5.9(3) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 [the "LEP"], 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 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.

 

16.       (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)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

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

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

e)         Waterproofing of wet areas.

f)          Completion.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

a)         reinforced concrete work;

b)         structural steelwork; and

c)         upper level floor framing.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

18.       (58) A Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted certifying that the existing dwelling house is capable of carrying the additional loads. Such Certificate is to be submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure that the existing dwelling house is structurally capable of carrying the additional loading.

 

19.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED. Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

 

            Reason: To ensure public amenity.

 

20.       (61)  All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684 - 2010.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

22.       (63) All metal deck roofs are to be of a ribbed metal profile, or colorbond corrugated galvanized or zincalume iron, in a mid to dark colour range with an anti-glare finish.

 

            Reason: In order to reduce sun reflection and glare so as to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

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

 

a)         the roof framing; and,

b)         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. 

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

25.       (67) 

 

(a)        The use of mechanical rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for damage to adjoining properties.

 

(b)        Notwithstanding the prohibition under condition (a), the Principal Certifier may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

i.          A Geotechnical Engineer's Report that indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to the adjoining properties;

 

ii.          The report details the procedure to be followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties;

 

iii.         With the permission of the adjoining owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING - where approval of the owners/occupiers is refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages (if any) from the developers and where such permission is still refused Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval;

 

iv.        The Geotechnical Engineer supervises the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid down.

 

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

 

Reason: To protect adjoining properties.

 

26.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in the dwelling.

 

            This requirement is satisfied by:-

 

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in:

i.          Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

ii.          in Class 1b buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.4 and 3.7.2.5 of the Building Code of Australia

(b)                    Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)                    Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

 

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in:-

 

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms:

i.                      between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

ii.                      where bedrooms are served by a hallway, in that hallway; and

(b)                    any other storey not containing bedrooms.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

29.       (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 area.

 

30.       (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 neighbouring properties.  

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

32.       (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 to ensure public safety.

 

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

           

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

34.       (87) The pedestrians' portion of the footpath in front of the site is to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.

 

            Reason: To maintain pedestrian access.

 

35.       (128) Submission of documentation detailing the destination of materials in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted under this application. These details are required PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

36.       (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 are carried out lawfully.

 

37.       (141) Long Service Levy Compliance with s.6.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under s.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.

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Engineering                      

 

39.       (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 all works are in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

40.       (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 safety and amenity.

 

41.       (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 public works are carried out in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

42.       (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.

 

43.       (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.

 

44.       (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 public utility services.

 

45.       (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 maintain pedestrian access.

 

46.       (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 protect public infrastructure.

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

47.                   (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 of 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 of 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 Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS 3500 and Part O of Council's DCP-Stormwater Management.

 

Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

48.       (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 maintain public infrastructure.

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

49.       (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

 

50.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  A certificate from a registered and licensed Plumber, or a suitably qualified Engineer, must be obtained for the following matter. The plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant certificate is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the 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 stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Australian Standards and Council requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 3 July 2018

4/79-85 Mars Road Lane Cove West

 

 

Subject:          4/79-85 Mars Road Lane Cove West    

Record No:    DA18/33-01 - 28320/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Natalie Piggott 

 

 

 

Property:

Unit 4/79-85 Mars Road Lane Cove West

DA No:

DA18/33

Date Lodged:

 28/2/2018

Cost of Work:

$130,000.00

Owner:

J & A Isaacs & J Knox

Applicant:        

Jump Swim Schools

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Internal fit-out, signage and change of use to a swim school

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

3, 4 & 5 Apollo Place,

11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 25 & 29 Sirius Road

77, 87 & 91 Mars Road Lane Cove West      

 

Reason for Referral

 

Development Application DA18/33 is referred to Lane Cove Planning Panel for consideration and determination as the proposed development is for an internal fit-out that has received 10 unique submissions.

 

Executive Summary

 

Development application DA18/33 was lodged with Council on 28 February 2018 and proposed the internal fit out, change of use and signage within Unit 4 of the industrial complex.

 

In accordance with Council’s notification policy the application was notified to surrounding properties and 10 submissions were received identifying the following issues:-

 

·    Safety to parents and children from industrial use of site;

·    On-site and off-site parking issues; and

·    Inappropriate location for swim school.

 

The site is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial for which the proposal is permissible as it is classified as a recreation facility (indoor).

 

Unit 4 is located within an industrial complex that is predominantly warehousing and distribution type industries.  The units within the complex have loading docks with roller doors that are accessed by delivery vehicles and forklifts.  The complex also has a turning bay located next to Unit 4 which facilitates larger delivery vehicles and the like to perform reversing maneuvers to allow vehicles to turn around and exit the site in a forward direction without having to travel down into the basement car park.  The basement car park is accessed by a lift which is diagonally opposite Unit 4.  Access out from the lift lobby is unrestricted as the lobby door is operable from the inside, however access to the lift from the outside is restricted as the lobby door is locked from the outside and would require a key.

 

The industrial complex presents a high safety risk area in terms of conflicts between traffic management and pedestrians due to the nature of the tenancies and service vehicles. 

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal due to safety conflicts between the industrial use of the site and pedestrian access. 

 

SITE

 

The site is legally described as Lot 3 in SP86352 and formally known as Unit 4/75 – 85 Mars Road Lane Cove West.

 

Currently onsite is an existing industrial complex made up of individual light industrial units with mezzanine levels.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with the subject unit having a total floor area of 125m².

 

The overall site is adjoined by industrial buildings.  The unit within the complex is adjoined by other industrial tenancies that have loading docks located within the units.

 

The industrial complex has a basement car park which is serviced by a one way ramp in to the basement with a separate exit driveway.  The basement car park is serviced by a lift to the ground floor tenancies.

 

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

Figure 1: Site aerial highlighted in red with Unit 4 highlighted with an X

 

 

Previous applications/History

 

The site has a history of industrial tenancy applications.

 

Proposal

 

The application proposes a change of use to a swim school and internal fit out as follows:

 

·    Installation of 9.5m x 3.5m x 1.37m above ground swimming pool;

·    1.37m high deck around swimming pool with access stairs;

·    Change  rooms and baby change areas (existing disabled access toilet to remain);

·    Reception area; and

·    Plant and storage room.

 

 

 

Figure 2: Site Plan

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

 

(a)  The provisions of:-

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

State and Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policies

 

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 site has a history of light industrial use and as the proposal does not involve any physical works in terms of demolition any further investigation is not warranted in this case.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 Advertising and Signage:

 

An assessment of the proposed signage against the SEPP 64 Assessment Criteria and Part N Signage of LCDCP 2010 has been carried.

 

The proposed signage meets the assessment criteria of SEPP 64 and provisions of Part N Signage of LCDCP 2010.

 

 

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning: IN2 - Light Industrial          Site Area: 125m²

 

Clause 2.2 - Zoning

 

The site is zoned ‘IN2 – Light Industrial’ under the provisions of the LEP 2009.  The proposed development is permitted in this zoning.

 

 

Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives

 

The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone.  No concerns are raised in terms of the zoning objectives as the proposal is utilising an existing unit within a light industrial complex.

 

LEP

Proposed

Complies

4.3 Height of Buildings

P2:  18m

18m – no change

Yes

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

H: 1.0:1

125m² - no change to unit or overall site

Yes

 

Other Provisions

 

LEP

Proposed

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

 

Comprehensive LCDCP 2010

 

Part E – Industrial Development

 

Part E of LCDCP 2010 is primarily applicable to new industrial development and alteration and additions to existing development.  Given this application is for an internal fit out of an existing unit and does not propose any physical works to the building structure, there are no requirements under Part E of DCP2010 that are applicable.

 

Part N- Signage

 

PART N - SIGNAGE

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

2.2.5 Lane Cove West Business Park

Signage in the Lane Cove West Business Park should be consistent with the evolving business park style and scale of development and should be consistent with the scale of the development to which it relates. Minimal signage is necessary for business parks, as signs serve as directional assistance and convey the location of tenancies for users with direct dealings with the relevant business.

 The application proposes to install a flush wall business identification sign which is consistent with the surrounding tenancies of the site.

 

 

 

 

Yes

N. 3 General Signage Controls

A flush wall sign is to be a maximum of 5% of the tenancy frontage on which it is located on. Flush wall signs are to be located a minimum of 1m from ground level.

The application proposes to install a flush wall sign over 1m from ground level and is no more than 5% of the tenancy frontage. 

Yes

 

Should the Lane Cove Planning Panel approve the application a condition of consent would be imposed requiring the signage to comply with Part N of LCDCP 2010.

 

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

The following table sets out the parking requirements for the site.

 

PART R TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND PARKING

Development Control

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Car Parking Rates

 

 

Swimming pool / gymnasium

 

 

Table 1 – Car parking rates

1 space per 5 staff

+ 3 spaces per 300m² GFA

+ 1 disabled space per 20 car spaces (minimum 1 disabled space)

Required: 300/125 = 2.4 = 3

2 staff = 1 space

1 disabled space

 

Total 5 spaces required

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 spaces for clientele

1 space for 2 staff

No disabled parking provided

 

Total: 4 spaces provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

No

 

No

 

The unit has an area of 125m² and has 4 off-street parking spaces provided.  This is a deficiency of 1 parking space.  However even with full compliance with the above numerical requirement of 5 parking spaces, this would still not provide adequate parking given the nature of the proposed use of the site as a swim school. 

 

There would be 2 classes running at the school both with 3 children in each class and 2 staff members with staggered start times.  It is unlikely that 4 parking spaces would facilitate the parking needs of the school particularly when there is the potential of having 6 families onsite at any given time and 2 staff members.  The locality does not provide adequate on-street parking to subsidise the lack of off-street parking

 

It is therefore reasonable to expect supplementary parking to support the number of customers that would be expected to utilise the swim school and additional parking would be required to service the proposal.

 

Referrals

 

Development Engineer

 

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions.

 

Building Surveyor

 

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions.

 

Traffic Engineer

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has provided the following comments:

 

The site is located within an industrial development and requires pedestrians i.e. children and parents to cross the driveway to access the swim school. The current driveway caters for heavy industrial vehicles including forklifts. The swim school is also located near a turning bay where there are industrial vehicles undertaking u-turns. The vehicle movements are constant throughout the day and the mix of pedestrians (in particular children) and industrial vehicles is not ideal.

 

(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.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The proposed development is not considered suitable for the site as the highly trafficable nature of the industrial complex by delivery vehicles, forklifts and other related vehicles causes a safety conflict between parents and children gaining access to and from Unit 4 and the lift to the basement car park.  The Unit has no parking at the front of the unit to facilitate drop off or pick up.  There is a turning bay located next to the unit.

 

The safety conflict between the traffic and pedestrians arises from the following issues:-

 

1.   The complex is predominantly warehouse and distribution type industries.  The tenancies utilise forklifts in and around the units and require delivery trucks and other vehicles to service their businesses.  Parents and small children would be required to negotiate a driveway to and from Unit 4 and the lift lobby that would be utilised by delivery vehicles, forklifts, service and business vehicles and other site related vehicles;

2.   The complex has a turning bay located next to Unit 4.  This facilitates larger delivery vehicles and the like to perform reversing maneuvers that allow both access to loading docks and for the vehicle to turn around and exit the site in a forward direction without having to travel down into the basement car park.  These vehicles reversing would create potential safety risks to parents and children crossing over to and from the lift lobby to Unit 4 as the reversing vehicle’s ability to see pedestrians behind them would be limited particularly given the turning bay is located directly adjacent to Unit 4;

3.   Access to the lift lobby from the outside is restricted as the door is locked and would require a key.  This would require either parents to be issued a key to access the lift lobby or parents and children to make multiple trips back to the operator to get a key and return it.  This also creates the potential risk of parents and children walking down the non-pedestrian driveway and ramp to the basement to access their vehicle.   Whilst the door could be required to remain unlocked to allow access, the complex has a number of tenancies which access this lift lobby whom could inadvertently lock this door; and

4.   Given the unit does not have a parking space at the front and there is limited parking space within the basement car park, the turning bay or other tenancies spaces may be utilised by parents for drop off or pick up which would result in conflicts with tenant vehicles or delivery vehicles trying to maneuver into loading docks and/or turn around to exit the site.  

 

It is therefore considered that the site is not suitable for the 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:

 

1.   Safety:  Concerns are raised that the tenancies are used as commercial/light industrial businesses with high levels of delivery trucks, forklifts, service vehicles and business vehicles accessing these premises.  This would put users under potential threat of accidents and injuries.

 

Comment: The submissions have raised valid concerns in terms of safety conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.  The site is located within a light industrial complex with primarily warehouse and distribution type tenancies which are serviced by delivery/service vehicles, forklifts, business vehicles and the like.   A swim school within this area poses a safety issue as there is a conflict between vehicles servicing the tenancies within the complex and pedestrians accessing the swim school tenancy.  This is discussed further in this report.

 

2.   Parking: Concerns are raised that parents will park out the front of the unit, in other tenancy’s parking spaces or in the turning bay next to the unit as the proposal does not provide enough parking.  The proposal only has 4 parking spaces within the basement car park.  The site already has insufficient parking and there is no available on-street parking due to the high demand for parking in the area.

 

Comment: The proposed application provides 4 parking spaces within the basement car park and has no parking at the front of the unit.   Under Part R of LCDCP 2010 the proposal requires 5 parking spaces.  Whilst this may be a numerical non-compliance, the nature of the proposed use of the site as a swim school requires additional parking to support the number of clientele access the site.

 

The parking on site for the proposed development is therefore considered to be insufficient. 

 

3.   Suitability of the site.  Concerns are raised that the site is not suitable for a swim school within an industrial complex that is serviced by delivery vehicles posing a safety issue.

 

Comment: As discussed above the site is within an industrial complex which poses a safety conflict between pedestrians and service vehicles.  Given the complex contains primarily warehouse and distribution tenancies and is not pedestrianised, the swim school is not considered to be suitable for this area.

 

a)   Public Interest

 

b)   Having regard to the proposal and the potential safety conflicts within the site, it is considered that approval of the development is not in the public interest.

 

c)   Statement of reasons for approval/refusal

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal as the proposal creates an unacceptable safety risk area and safety conflicts 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered and the application has been found to be not in the public interest.

 

Whilst the proposed development is permissible in the IN2 – Light Industry zone, it is not considered to be appropriate due to the site being a high safety risk area from the vehicles servicing the complex and does not provide adequate parking facilities that alleviate this high safety risk.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be reasonable and is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse development consent to DA18/33 for Internal fit-out, change of use and signage on land at 4/79-85 Mars Road Lane Cove West for the following reasons:

 

1.         Suitability of the site

 

            The site is considered a high risk area for pedestrians and small children and is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

Particulars

 

a)         The site presents a safety conflict between pedestrians and vehicles servicing the site as pedestrians are required to negotiate the driveway between the lift lobby and the unit;

b)         Access to the basement car park is restricted by the lift lobby being inaccessible from the outside which creates a conflict between pedestrians trying to access the basement car park and the driveway.

 

2.         Inadequate Parking

 

            The site does not have adequate parking to facilitate the use of the unit as a swim school.

 

Particulars

 

a)   The complex provides 4 parking spaces for the tenancy at Unit 4.  Whist the parking requirement is 5 parking spaces, the use of the tenancy as a swim school would require supplementary parking to facilitate the number of families utilising the service of the swim school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 3 July 2018

2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA15/125-01 - 32115/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Henry  Burnett 

 

 

 

Property:

2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove

DA No:

DA15/125

Date Lodged:

11 May 2018

Cost of Work:

N/A – Modification does not alter cost of work.

Owner:

Yifang LC Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Section 4.55 Modification to a Residential Flat Building Development to Extend Working Hours

Zone

R4 High Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 2, 7a and 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council policy.

 

PURPOSE FOR REPORT

 

Section 4.55 Application DA15/125, that seeks consent to amend condition no. 8 to extend the Saturday working hours for a residential flat building development, is referred to Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination as it has received thirteen (13) unique submissions by way of objection.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

DA15/125 was approved for the construction of four residential flat buildings comprising 237 units.

 

The subject Section 4.55 Modification Application submitted by the applicant proposes to modify the approved working hours to extend the permitted Saturday construction period. The approved Saturday working hours are 8:00am to 12 noon. The proposed Saturday working hours are 7:00am to 3:00pm, being an additional four hours from that presently approved.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and thirteen (13) unique submissions were received by way of objection. The concerns raised relate to impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties and varied between objecting to any extension of working hours, to those who objected only to the morning extension.

 

The proposed extended working hours have been assessed having regard to the provisions of Section 4.55 of the Environmental Assessment Act, 1979 and are, in part, considered reasonable in the circumstances of this development as outlined in this report.

 

The Section 4.55 Modification Application is recommended for approval subject to amendments to the proposed modification to allow for construction on Saturday between 8:00am to 4:00pm, subject to all workers and contractor vehicles being accommodated within the site for Saturday work periods.

 

SITE

 

Property

Lots 75 to 77 (inclusive), 81, 82, 84 to 88 (inclusive) and 91 in DP10155;

Lots 501 and 502 in DP868066

Lots 891 and 892 in DP855900

Lots 831 and 832 in DP844967

Area

10,479m²

Site location

The subject site is located to the west of Lane Cove Town Centre, and has frontages to Birdwood Avenue to the north, Cox’s Lane to the west, Finlayson Street to the south and Rosenthal Avenue to the east.

Existing improvements

Four (4) residential flat buildings over basement car parking spaces with a public pathway through the site, connecting Rosenthal Avenue and Cox Lane. Construction works is currently being carried out for the approved proposal.

Adjoining properties

The subject site is surrounded by established and recently constructed residential flat buildings on Birdwood Avenue, Cox Lane, Finlayson Street and Rosenthal Avenue. There are also a number of detached dwelling houses within the vicinity of the site.

 

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

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

On 26 March 2014, the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel approved DA194/13 (Stage 1) which established the building envelopes and a range of provisions for a residential flat building at the subject site.

 

On 25 February 2016, the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel approved DA125/15 (Stage 2) for the demolition of dwelling houses and structures, construction of four (4) residential flat buildings comprising 237 units, 297 car parking spaces and associated site works, landscaping and public pathway through the site.

 

On 10 February 2017, Section 4.55(1A) to delete Condition 108c from DA125/15 was approved. Condition 108c related to the movement of construction vehicles associated with the development on the Pacific Highway, Epping Road and Longueville Road during peak hours.

 

On 8 June 2017, Section 4.55(1A) to DA125/15 was approved for internal and external changes to buildings and a reduction of the number of apartments from 237 dwellings to 233 dwellings.

 

On 24 November 2017, Section 4.55(1A) to DA125/15 was approved for internal changes to apartments, amendments to terraces and external façade of Building D.

 

On 21 March 2018, Section 4.55(1A) to DA125/15 was approved for the modification of Condition 149 to allow an Occupation Certificate to be issued for the development prior to the construction of the Rosenthal Avenue lift.

 

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

 

The applicant proposes to modify the approved working hours to extend the permitted Saturday construction period. The approved Saturday working hours are 8:00am to 12 noon. The proposed Saturday working hours are 7:00am to 3:00pm, being an additional four (4) hours from that presently approved.

 

The existing approved working hours are detailed in Condition No. 8 as follows:

 

8.      All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

  Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must not be carried out continuously for longer than 3 hours without a 1 hour break.

 

  Saturday                                        8am to 12 noon with NO excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N. 

 

Sunday            No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.

 

The Applicant proposes to modify Condition No. 8 in relation to Saturday working hours as follows:

 

8.      All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

  Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must not be carried out continuously for longer than 3 hours without a 1 hour break.

 

  Saturday                                        8am to 12 noon 7:00am to 3:00pm with NO excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N. 

 

Sunday            No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.

 

SECTION 4.55 ASSESSMENT

 

1.         Compliance with Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act, 1979

 

In accordance with Section 4.55(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact, Council may consider a modification of development consent provided:

 

(a)        the proposed modification is of minor environmental impact;

 

The proposed modification, as amended by the recommendations of this report, is considered to be of a minor environmental impact as detailed later in this report.

 

(b)       the proposal is substantially the same development;

 

The proposed modification relates to working hours only and does not alter the resulting development as approved. Accordingly, the proposed modification is substantially the same development.

 

(c)        has been notified in accordance with the regulations and a development control plan;

 

The proposed modification was notified to surrounding residents in accordance with Council’s notification policy.

 

(d)       Council has considered any submissions regarding the proposed modification;

 

In response to the notification of the proposed modification, 12 unique submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are considered later in this report.

 

2.         Compliance with Section 4.55(3) of the EP&A Act, 1979

 

Section 4.55(3) requires Council to consider relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) and any reasons given by the consent authority for the granting of the original consent.

 

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

 

(a)        The provisions of

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument

 

The proposed modification does not alter compliance with Lane Cove LEP 2009 as previously assessed.

 

(ii)        Any proposed instrument

 

N/A

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

The proposed modification does not alter compliance with Lane Cove DCP 2010 as previously assessed.

 

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

 

The likely impact of the development is unchanged. The likely impacts of the extend working hours are considered later in this report.

 

(c)        The suitability of the site for the development

 

The proposed modification is considered minor and would be in keeping with the character of the area.

 

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

 

Thirteen (13) unique submissions by way of objection were received in response to the notification of the proposed modification. The submissions are considered later in this report.

 

(e)        The public interest

 

On balance, the proposed modification, as amended by the recommendations of this report, is considered to be in the public interest for reasons outlined later in this report.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

 

The proposed modification was notified in accordance with Council policy. There are generally two views expressed within the submissions:

 

(i) That no modification to Saturday working hours should be supported; or

 

(ii) That the proposed modification to bring-forward Saturday morning working hours (from 8:00am to 7:00am) should not be supported but the proposed extended afternoon working hours (from 12 noon to 3:00pm) is not objected to.

 

The primary issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·    Neighbouring residents need an extended period of quiet for study, work, rest and/or relaxation.

 

·    An earlier start time would also bring forward the arrival time of workers to 6:30am which would further disturb neighbouring residents.

 

·    Additional staff should be provided by the builder rather than extended hours of construction.

 

Comment:

 

The following is both a consideration of the submissions raised and an assessment of the suitability of extended construction hours to the other relevant parts of Section 4.55 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment, 1979:

 

a.         Construction Progress

 

The construction of the development has commenced, the excavation has been completed and the superstructure constructed. The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by the applicant describes the current construction progress and proposed type of works to be conducted on Saturday as follows:

 

All demolition and earth works have ceased. No excavation, haulage truck movement, rock pickling, sawing, jack hammering, or pile driving will be undertaken in accordance with Condition 8.

 

The majority of the construction works to be undertaken during the extended hours consist of internal fit outs or low noise works:

 

·    Internally these works include floor and ceiling works such as tiling, gyprocking and plastering.

 

·    Externally, low noise works include brick laying, window installation, cladding and landscaping.

 

In summary, the primary construction completed to date includes the bulk excavation and concrete super structure. The remaining construction relates to the external facade and internal fitout works.

 

b.         Applicant Justification

 

The applicant has sought to justify the proposed working hours as follows:

 

·    The extended hours of construction as identified above would have minimal impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

·    The extended hours would be less than those permitted on the adjacent commercial site and would, by comparison, be low noise works.

 

·    Any traffic impacts arising due to construction would be reduced in the medium to long term as the project would be completed in a shorter period of time. (However, it is likely that on street parking would be reduced at a high demand time and day).

 

The reference made to the adjoining site is a reference to DA17/47 which was an early works approval for the Rosenthal Avenue car park redevelopment which included the following conditions of consent in relation to working hours:

 

All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)        7am to 5.30pm  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must not be carried out continuously for longer than 3 hours without a 1 hour break.

 

Saturday                                        7am to 4pm.  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must be carried in accordance with a noise management plan endorsed by Council prior to works commencing.

 

Sunday                                          No work Sunday or any Public Holiday…”

 

c.         Background to Working Hours for Residential Flat Building Development

 

Prior to 2012, the policy for Saturday working hours for Lane Cove Council was 7:00am to 4:00pm, applying to all development types, and with no restriction on the type of work that could be carried out.

 

The commencement of construction of the Mowbray Road Precinct resulted in community concern regarding both traffic and noise impacts particularly during the Saturday afternoon period.

 

In May 2012, Council resolved to amend the type of work that could be carried out within the Saturday construction period for multi unit development within the Mowbray Road Precinct. The restrictions prohibited excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.

 

In March 2013, Council resolved to adopt the Saturday restrictions for Residential Flat construction work for the entire LGA, and further restricted the extent of Saturday working hours to 8:00am to 12 noon. The current working hours policy and condition are reflected in the original consent to which the proposed modification relates.

 

d.         Suitability of Modification

 

i.          Morning Period Extension

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health provided the following comments in relation to the proposed morning period extension to working hours:

 

The critical issue is the start time of 7:00am which would potentially impact on amenity and sleep disturbance.

 

It is accepted that the weekend period is more sensitive being the break from the working week. Accordingly, maintaining a level of quiet in the morning period to reduce amenity and sleep disturbance is considered reasonable in this context to retain. The applicant’s justification is not considered reasonable in relation to the morning period given the proximity of the site to existing residential receivers. 

 

ii.         Afternoon Period Extension

 

The proposed afternoon construction period is not in accordance with the adopted policy for working hours. However, extended afternoon working hours are considered satisfactory in this case for the following reasons:

 

·    Basement parking could now be utilised to reduce the amount of on-street parking used by workers and limit noise from workers arriving to site before 8:00am;

 

·    The existing conditions of consent include measures to limit noise impacts noting the existing restrictions within Condition No. 8 would be retained (no excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken) and the existing Construction Noise Management Plan required under Condition No. 124 provides for measures to minimise noise.

 

·    The construction of the project has progressed to the point at which the excavation has finished and the superstructure have been largely completed. The remaining construction activities are generally lower noise generating;

 

·    The afternoon period is a less sensitive period than the morning period and there is still adequate time (from 4:00pm) daytime hours for a period of quiet; and

 

·    The additional hours would allow for faster completion of the development. The completion of the development would allow for the street block (being bounded by Birdwood Avenue, Rosenthal Avenue, Finlayson Street and Cox’s Lane) to be fully redeveloped under the current planning framework. It would also allow for reduced traffic in the locality arising from concurrent construction activities on multiple sites.

 

·    While not requested by the applicant it is considered reasonable that the commencement time be 8:00am and finish time be 4:00pm provided worker vehicles be accommodated on site.

 

d.         Recommended Modification to Condition

 

The amendment to Condition No. 8 as originally put forward by the applicant is, in part, not considered reasonable or satisfactory as discussed above. The following amendment to Condition No. 8 is recommended for approval:

 

8.      All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

  Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must not be carried out continuously for longer than 3 hours without a 1 hour break.

 

  Saturday                                        8am to 12 noon 8:00am to 4:00pm with NO excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N. 

 

Sunday                                             No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.

 

8(a).  All workers and contractor vehicles are to be accommodated within the site for Saturday work periods to improve the availability of on street parking at a high demand time and day.

 

         Reason: Managing construction impacts by improving on street parking availability at a high demand time and day.

        

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.55 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

 

On balance the proposed modification (as amended) would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Condition No. 8 be replaced as follows:

 

8.      All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

  Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm  High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting must not be carried out continuously for longer than 3 hours without a 1 hour break.

 

  Saturday                                        8am to 12 noon 8:00am to 4:00pm with NO excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N. 

 

Sunday                                             No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.

 

8(a).  All workers and contractor vehicles are to be accommodated within the site for Saturday work periods to improve the availability of on street parking at a high demand time and day.

 

         Reason: Managing construction impacts by improving on street parking availability at a high demand time and day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages