Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

4 December 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 4 December 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 4 December 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.

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.       10 Bellevue Avenue, Greenwich

 

3.       33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Please Note:    The Applicant has withdrawn this DA prior to the Local Planning Panel Meeting

 

 

  


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 4 December 2018

10 Bellevue Avenue, Greeniwch

 

 

Subject:          10 Bellevue Avenue, Greeniwch    

Record No:    DA18/141-01 - 62635/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Henry  Burnett 

 

 

 

Property:

10 Bellevue Avenue, Greenwich

DA No:

DA141/2018

Date Lodged:

13 August 2018

Cost of Work:

$4,000,000.00

Owner:

FPG No. 4 Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

FPG No. 4 Pty Ltd

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Multi Dwelling Housing Development comprising 4 Dwellings, Basement Parking and Community Title Subdivision

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone?

Yes, multi dwelling housing is currently permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Consideration of a planning proposal to prohibit multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is detailed in this report.

Is the property a heritage item or within a conservation area?

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland?

No

BCA Classification

Class 2

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council policy and three (3) submissions received.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The Development Application is referred for determination to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as the proposal includes variations to the building height and floor space ratio development standard greater than 10%.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Development Application is for the construction of a two storey multi dwelling housing development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone comprising four dwellings across two buildings, basement parking and community title subdivision in to five allotments (including one community property allotment).

 

The applicant has described the Development Application as an amending Development Application to DA160/2017. The consent authority is required to look at the whole of the development that would result from carrying out the particular works proposed in the subject DA141/2018 and evaluate that development against the relevant controls in the applicable environmental planning instruments and applicable development control plan, and against planning criteria.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of LCLEP 2009 and does not comply with respect to the building height or floor space ratio development standards for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. A building height of 8.8m is proposed where a maximum of 5m is prescribed under Clause 4.3(2A) being a variation of 3.8m or 76%. A floor space ratio of  0.453:1 is proposed where a maximum of 0.4:1 is prescribed under Clause 4.4(2A) being a variation of 76.84m2 or 13.2%. The applicant has submitted a written request to vary both development standards pursuant to Clause 4.6. The written requests are not considered to substantiate that the variations are capable of being supported, and the objectives of the zone and development standards are not considered to have been satisfied, as outlined in this report.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of LCDCP 2010. The proposal results in a number of departures from LCDCP 2010 relating to the maximum number of storeys, building design and separation, extent of cut and fill, fence/wall heights and parking provision. The variations result in an unsatisfactory relationship with the streetscape and topography of the site, unreasonable amenity impacts on the public domain and adjoining properties, inadequate privacy for future occupants and an unsatisfactory parking provision.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and three (3) submissions were received. The submissions raise concern regarding the townhouse form of multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, amenity, view sharing, traffic and parking. The submissions are addressed in the body of this report.

 

A Class 1 Appeal for the deemed refusal of the Development Application has been filed with the Land and Environment Court.

 

It is recommended that the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse subject Development Application for reasons outlined within this report.

 

SITE

 

The site is legally described as Lot 2 DP 541077 with a street address of 10 Bellevue Avenue, Greenwich and total site area of 1,454m². The site is a corner allotment located on the north-eastern side of Bellevue Avenue. A Site Location Plan is attached (AT1).

 

The site is irregular in shape with a primary frontage to Bellevue Avenue of approximately 35m, and a secondary frontage to Bellevue Avenue of approximately 39m. The site has a natural fall from north-east to the south-west (average of 2 metres up to a maximum of 5 metres) and from north-west to south-east (average of 2 metres).

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

The site is currently occupied by one (1) detached dwelling houses with ancillary structures.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Date

Proposal

20/06/2017

Complying Development Certificate No. NW17/1993 (Council’s Ref. CD88/2017) granted consent for the demolition of existing dwelling house and ancillary development.

 

25/07/2017

Development Application No. DA90/2017 granted development consent under Delegated Authority for the subdivision of the existing lot into 2 Torrens Title lots.

 

17/04/2018

Development Application No. DA160/2017 granted development consent under Delegated Authority for community subdivision in to two lots, the construction a two storey dwelling house on each lot, and a basement parking level including a common property lot.

 

 

The applicant has lodged a Class 1 Appeal in the Land and Environment Court for the deemed refusal of the subject Development Application. The Panel, in considering this application, may give direction as to whether any delegation is provided under Clause 2.20(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. 

 

AMENDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

 

The applicant has described the Development Application as an amending Development Application to DA160/2017. The consent authority is required to look at the whole of the development that would result from carrying out the particular works proposed in DA141/2018, and not simply the amendments from DA160/2017. The development is required to be assessed against the relevant controls in the applicable environmental planning instruments and applicable development control plan. Accordingly, the subject Development Application has been assessed having regard to the whole development proposed and the relevant controls applying to multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP 2010. Further detail on Amending Development Applications and relevant case law is attached (AT2).

 

STRATEGIC BACKGROUND TO MULTI DWELLING HOUSING IN THE R2 ZONE

 

i.          Multi Dwelling Housing introduced in the Standard Instrument

 

Prior to the introduction of the Standard Instrument, single storey villa homes were permissible in the equivalent of the R2 zone, and two storey townhouse development in the equivalent of the R3/R4 zone. Upon introduction of the Standard Instrument a singular definition of multi dwelling housing was adopted. In order to retain single storey villa-style development in the R2 zone both the LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP 2010 adopted specific controls relating to building height, floor space ratio and the maximum number of storeys. Further discussion of this strategic background is attached (AT3).

 

ii.         Multi Dwelling Housing proposed to be Prohibited in the R2 Zone

 

The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code came in to force on 6 July 2018. Prior to the commencement of the Code, the Minister for Planning approved a deferral of the Code until 1 July 2019 for the Lane Cove local government area. Council resolved in May 2018 to submit a Planning Proposal to prohibit the land use ‘multi dwelling housing’ in the R2 Low Density Residential zone over concerns the Code would result in an unacceptable and unintended planning outcome. The Department of Planning and Environment approved the public exhibition of the planning proposal (known as Planning Proposal 33) on the 16 November 2018. At the time of writing this report public exhibition of the proposed amendment to LEP 2009 is likely to commence shortly (29 November 2018). Should the public exhibition of the plan occur before the determination of the subject Development Application then the certainty and immanency of the prohibition of multi dwelling housing will be given more weight under Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Further discussion of this strategic background is attached (AT3).

 

THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the construction of a two storey multi dwelling housing development comprising four dwellings within two buildings, basement parking and community title subdivision in to five allotments.

 

Basement Level: Parking for nine (9) vehicles including eight (8) residential spaces and one (1) accessible visitor parking space, storage for each unit, and individual lift and stair access for each unit.

 

Ground Floor Level: Each dwelling contains and entry portico, formal sitting, open plan dining and kitchen, bathroom and covered outdoor entertaining area.

 

First Floor Level: Each dwelling contains three bedrooms, a study, and two bathrooms. Dwelling 1 and 2 incorporate a balcony facing south-west off the master bedroom.

 

The proposal also includes earthworks, landscaping, retaining walls and a new front fence design incorporating the external face of part of the basement level with a height of up to 4.1m and a balustrade of 1.2m above being a maximum vertical height of 5.3m.

 

The proposal seeks consent for the community title subdivision of land into five (5) allotments comprising four (4) residential lots and one (1) community property allotment. The proposed lot sizes are as follows:

 

Proposed Lot

Proposed Area

2

410.1m2

3

282.2m2

4

417.9m2

5

309.7m2

Community Property (1)

275.5m2

 

SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

 

In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)  The provisions of:-

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Permissibility

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under LEP 2009. Multi dwelling housing is currently permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are addressed later in this report. Suitable consideration is to be given to Planning Proposal No. 33 as detailed elsewhere in this report.

 

Development Standards

 

i. Subdivision

 

The proposal is not subject to a minimum subdivision lot size by way of Clause 4.1(4) of LEP 2009 and is therefore satisfactory with respect to Clause 4.1 of LEP 2009.

 

ii. Height of Buildings

 

The Development Application is subject to Clause 4.3(2A) of LEP 2009 which states:

 

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

 

The following table provides a summary of compliance with the development standard as stated by the applicant:

 

LEP Max. Building Height

 

Proposed Max. Building Height

Extent of Departure

 

5m

 

 

8.8m

 

3.3m (76%)

 

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i) requires that for any proposed variation to a development standard that a consent authority be satisfied that the written request adequately addresses matters to be demonstrated by subclause (3) and that the proposed development would 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 to be carried out. The matters contained within subclause (3) are as follows:

 

(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.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard under Clause 4.6 of the LEP contained within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects which is attached (AT4). The main arguments contained within the Clause 4.6 request addressing the matters under subclause (3) are summarised as follows:

 

·    The height of 8.8m is for a limited portion of the roof ridge of dwelling 4 where the ridge is affected by the lower platform provided for the swimming pool which currently exists on the site. The remainder of dwelling 3 and 4 is at maximum height of RL 97.78 above an RL of 90.70 (approximately 7 metres). Dwellings 1 and 2 have a maximum height of RL 97.93 above an RL of 90.7 (approximately 7.2 metres). The proposal would comply with the 5m building height control if a flat roof design was provided. However, it is considered a pitched roof is more in keeping with the streetscape and character of the area.

 

·    The proposal seeks to locate the parking and service areas fully below ground within a basement, which does not contribute to bulk and scale, and allows for greater landscaping.

 

·    The proposed building massing is broken into two parts, with each presenting as a single dwelling so as to fit with the character, streetscape and proximate heritage items. 

 

·    The design and siting of the dwellings results in a sharing of amenity and better planning outcome. Namely, the proposed dwellings are situated to the south of the dwelling houses located on No. 8 Bellevue Avenue and No. 12 Bellevue Avenue, and have a pitch and roof design, which would allow for satisfactory solar access to adjoining properties.

 

Comment:

 

An assessment of the Clause 4.6 Request in relation to Clause 4.6(3)(a)-(b) is provided as follows:

 

a.         Measurement of Building Height

 

The Clause 4.6 written request erroneously measures the proposed building height from RL 90.7. This level is taken from a raised timber deck on piers which is situated up to 3 metres above the existing natural ground level. A photograph of the raised timber deck is included below as Figure 1. The Clause 4.6 request extrapolates that RL 90.7 is the appropriate level to consider building height from. However, the site is sloping and building height is to be measured in accordance with the definition contained within LCLEP 2009.

 

The site slopes from a high point of RL 90.5 to the north-east of the existing dwelling, to a low point of RL 88.21 adjacent to the south-west of the existing dwelling, and RL87.73 adjacent to the south-west of the timber balcony. At no point adjacent to the existing dwelling is the ground level RL 90.7.

 

It is therefore not considered appropriate to use this level as the existing ground level. The argument within the Clause 4.6 written request that the development would be otherwise compliant if the pitched roof was excluded, is not considered a well founded planning ground to justify contravening the development standard. Further, the Clause 4.6 understates the proposed extent of the building height variation and cannot be relied upon as an accurate assessment of the building height variation.

 

Figure 1: Site Photograph of Raised Deck

 

b.         Strategic Planning Background

 

The strategic background to multi dwelling housing in the R2 zone is attached (AT3). The proposal seeks approval for the multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and accordingly is subject to these restrictions. The subject proposal cannot be construed as being in the villa-style and has not had suitable regard to the context in which the development is proposed being principally characterised by single detached dwellings. Further, Planning Proposal 33 has received approval to be publically exhibited from the Department and is expected to be publically exhibited shortly. Should this occur suitable weight must be given to the draft environmental planning instrument having regard to its status as certain and imminent.

 

c.         Amending Development Application

 

The Development Application being sought as an amending Development Application does not provide any further weight to a variation being considered as previously discussed and attached (AT2).

 

It is considered that the proposal fails with respect to Clause 4.6(3) and accordingly the Clause 4.6 request is not supportable on this basis. 

 

However, for completeness Clause 4.6(a)(ii) of LCLEP 2009 is also addressed being an assessment of whether the proposal is in the public interest based on consistency with the objectives of the building height standard and R2 Low Density Residential Zone as follows:-

 

d.         Building Height Objectives

 

The objectives of the building height development standard specified under Clause 4.3(1) of LEP 2009 are as follows:

 

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

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

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

(d)  To relate development to topography.

 

The suitability of building height is extrapolated from a deck level that is not representative of existing ground level. The bulk and scale is beyond that envisaged for multi dwelling housing within the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and accordingly the visual and amenity impacts, when compared to villa-style development would not be acceptable. A single storey development which may provide for less building separation would result in a better planning outcome by reducing the visual impacts and improvising potential sunlight for the public domain. Further the development as proposed is not considered to suitably relate to the topography of the site as detailed in the assessment against LCDCP 2010. Accordingly, the proposed building height would be contrary to the objectives of the building height development standard.

 

e.         Zone Objectives

 

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone specified in the Land Use Table to Part 2 of LCLEP 2009 are as follows:

 

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

• To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

• To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

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

 

The proposed multi dwelling housing development is of a scale not envisaged for the zone and accordingly the proposal would not retain the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area. The proposed building height is for the purpose of providing more floor area for each dwelling. A single storey development would result in a better planning outcome and allow for the provision of a compliant FSR.

 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of LCLEP 2009 and accordingly is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

iii. Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

 

The Development Application is subject to Clause 4.4(2A)(a) of LCLEP 2009 which states:

 

Despite subclause (2), the maximum floor space ratio for multi dwelling housing on land in Area 1 on the Floor Space Ratio Map is 0.4:1

 

The following table provides a summary of compliance with the development standard based on the GFA calculations provided on the submitted architectural plans (see Drawing No. DA1.01 C):

 

LEP Max. FSR

 

Proposed FSR

Extent of Departure

 

0.4:1

 

 

0.453:1

 

76.84m2 (13.2%)

 

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard under Clause 4.6 of the LEP contained within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects. The main arguments contained within the Clause 4.6 request addressing the matters under subclause (3) are summarised as follows:

 

·    22m2 of Gross Floor Area is located within the basement level and does not contribute to the bulk and scale.

 

·    The proposal seeks to locate the parking and service areas fully below ground within a basement, which does not contribute to bulk and scale, and allows for greater landscaping.

 

·    The proposed building massing is broken in to two parts, with each presenting as a single dwelling so as to fit with the character, streetscape and proximate heritage items. 

 

Comment:

 

The proposal fails to address the strategic planning intention for allowing multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It in doing so has failed to establish that a breach in the floor space ratio has suitable environmental planning grounds or results in a better planning outcome. 

 

It is considered that the proposal fails with respect to Clause 4.6(3) and accordingly the Clause 4.6 request is not supportable on this basis.  However, for completeness the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are considered as follows:-

 

a.         Floor Space Ratio Objectives

 

The objectives of the floor space ratio development standard specified under Clause 4.4(1) of LCLEP 2009 are as follows:

 

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

 

The bulk and scale is principally an issue of building height and the massing of the Gross Floor Area in a two storey form. However, a component of this additional height results from the breach in FSR. That is, the additional FSR results in approximately one additional floor for a dwelling. A better transition in bulk and scale to the adjoining developments could be provided if a compliant FSR was provided for.

 

The Gross Floor Area is contained across three levels comprising a basement level, ground floor level and first floor level. The bulk and scale of the development from the south-west elevation appears as three storeys given the scale of the front fence (basement carparking wall), and the two storey dwelling above. The scale of this development is not considered compatible with the character of the locality.

 

b.         Zone Objectives

 

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone specified in the Land Use Table to Part 2 of LCLEP 2009 are as follows:

 

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

• To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

• To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

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

 

It was not envisaged that multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone would be a significant contributor to dwelling targets. Rather, the continued allowance of multi dwelling housing in the zone was for the purpose of providing for the housing needs of the elderly or persons with a disability. The envisaged built-form of this supply of housing is single storey only. The proposed multi dwelling housing development is of a scale not envisaged for the zone and accordingly the proposal would not retain the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 4.6(4) of LCLEP 2009 and accordingly is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

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

 

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

 

Discussion regarding the current planning proposal is attached (AT3)(ii).

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Comprehensive LCDCP 2010

 

i.          Assessment of Compliance

 

An assessment against the relevant controls within LCDCP 2010 has been undertaken as follows:

 

PART C RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

C2 Attached Dwellings and Multi-Dwelling Housing

2.2 Site Area and Frontage

a) Attached dwelling and multi-dwelling housing proposals require:

I. A minimum site area of 1,000m2 per development; and

II. A minimum site width at the front building line of 20m.

 

Provided.

Yes

c) An average site area 250sqm per attached dwelling or multi-dwelling unit (including common areas) is required.

Minimum site area of  282.2m2

Yes

2.3 Streetscape

a) New buildings are to recognise and respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of dwellings within the street.

The proposed multi dwelling housing built form is to be limited to single storey development which would be more compatible with the existing single storey dwellings within the streetscape.

 

No

b) Dwellings are not to be positioned over driveways to basement car park where this results in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity and continuity of the streetscape.

The dwellings are suitably set back and separated from the basement car park entrance.

Yes

2.4 Setbacks

2.4.1 Street setback

This is also the front setback for the dwelling addressing the street.

a) It is to be a minimum of 6.0m except in R2 zones where the setback is to be 7.5m.

7.5m

Yes

b) The secondary street setback for corner allotments is to be a minimum of 2.0m.

2.0m

Yes

c) In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.

Pergola to Dwelling 3 and 4 encroaches more than 500mm in to the front setback zone.

No, 1.5m departure, however considered reasonable given lightweight nature of structure.

 

2.4.2 Front setback:

b) Basement car parks are not to extend beyond the building envelope into the front setback.

The basement extends beyond the building envelope in to the front setback to the front boundary with a maximum width of 19 metres at the zero setback line of the front boundary.

 

No,  7.5m departure.

2.4.3 Side setback

b) A minimum of 1.5m for a two storey dwelling.

3.5m

Yes

2.4.4 Rear setback

This refers to setbacks from both, the site rear boundary and dwellings within a development.

a) A minimum of 3.0m.

8.0m

 

Yes

2.5 Fences

The provisions for fences in the dwelling house section shall apply

1.4.1 Front fences

Part solid and predominantly see through fences

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

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

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

 

The exposed basement level results in a wall height of up to 4.1m directly on the front boundary with a balustrade situated on top of the solid part, resulting in a total maximum height of 5.3m exceeding the DCP limitation for front fence height.

No, 3.5m departure to height, 1m departure to setback.

Splays

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

The site is a corner allotment. The proposal maintains the general current arrange of the splay.

Yes

1.4.2 Side and rear fences

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

Side fence to No. 12 Bellevue Avenue exceeds the maximum side fence height with a maximum height of 3.8 metres above an existing boundary wall which has a height of 2.7 metres above existing ground level. The total wall and fence height is up to 6.5 metres along the side boundary.  The fencing on south-east elevation obscures the finished ground floor level of Dwelling 4 and its relationship to natural ground level. The fence height is considered to be excessive and a result of a dwelling design that does not step with the topography of the site.

 

No, 4.7m departure.

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

Not proposed.

Yes

2.6 Landscaped Area

a) Landscaping is to relate to the ground level of the dwelling by direct access from a living area.

Accessible from rear living area for each dwelling.

Yes

b) A minimum of 35% of the site is to be landscaped area with a minimum width of 3.0m. For attached dwellings, this refers to each allotment individually.

37.2% deep soil. The area calculation includes areas less than 3 metres in depth and does not factor in OSD tank locations. Notwithstanding, the definition of landscaped area differs to deep soil and the proposal is considered to meet this control.

 

Yes

2.7 Cut and Fill

Refer to section 1.6 of this DCP Part for objectives and provisions regarding cut and fill.

1.6 Cut and Fill

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

Insufficient detail provided through lowest part of site within no sectional detail provided for dwelling 4.

 

No, insufficient detail provided.

b) The area of the site contained within the building footprint can be excavated or filled only where it is necessary to reasonably construct a dwelling on steeply sloping sites.

Noted. The proposal includes excavation outside of the building footprint above due to the scale of the development. Addressed elsewhere.

N/A

c) All dwellings are to adopt a split level approach to the design of the house to minimise excavation and fill to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site.

Dwelling 3 and 4 in particular should adopt a split level design. This has not occurred and would result in a development that does not respond to the topography of the site.

No

d)  Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation.

The proposal results in up to 4 metres of excavation for a basement storage area for Dwelling 1.

 

Fill is not clearly shown due to the obscuring of the south-east elevation (through fencing) and absence of sectional detail through Dwelling 4. However, extrapolating from the plans, the extent of fill to establish a ground floor level of RL89.5 would result in approximately 2.1 metres of fill assuming a slab thickness of 400mm (where the building platform is outside the basement extent).

 

No, 3m departure for excavation, and 1.1m departure for fill.

e) In such circumstances, Council may consider increasing the depth of excavation between the underside of the lowest floor to any point on the site where:

I. large exposed undercroft areas are not created

II. the excavation does not create adverse impacts on the stability or amenity of adjoining properties or the public domain.

The proposed excavation results in substantial areas of basement forward of the building line. This is not considered to be facilitated by this clause as it is not beneath the lowest floor and the basement level results in a large wall to the public domain with minimal opportunities for landscaping given the absence of deep soil zones.

N/A

f) Excavation or fill is not to result in the loss of any significant mature trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.

The excavation does not result in the loss of any significant mature trees within the side, front or rear boundary setbacks.

 

Yes

2.8 Building Design

a) Dwellings are to be oriented to face the street with additional dwellings oriented to follow the existing development pattern.

The dwellings are orientated to face the street.

Yes

b) The architectural style of development must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials, roof pitch and overall building character.

The architectural style is not consistent with the type of multi dwelling housing permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

No

c) Visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements in the block is to be maintained by the position of buildings.

 

Basement positioning results in discontinuity of landscaped front setback.

No

d) The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised.

The proposal results in a benching of the site through the size of the basement which minimises opportunities for setback planting.

 

No

 

e) On sloping sites car parking may be located below the residential level of the dwelling.

Provided, however situation of basement forward of dwelling not considered satisfactory.

 

No

f) On sites with a slope in excess of 5% each dwelling is to have a separate ground floor level with the difference being equal to the average slope of the site.

The site has up to a 15% average slope from the north-east to the south-west adjacent to the south-eastern side boundary.

 

The site has over a 5% average slope from the north-west boundary to the base of the pool adjacent to the south-east boundary.

 

Despite the above, the multi dwelling housing does not provide separate ground floor levels.

 

No

g) Side and rear facades are to be articulated to provide visual interest using windows, awnings, sun shading devices, upper storey setbacks or insets within the wall alignment.

Suitable articulation provided.

Yes

h) A mix of building materials and/or colours should be used to reduce the appearance of bulk and to integrate the buildings within the local area.

Suitable building materials.

Yes

i) Height

I. The maximum number of storeys for attached dwellings or townhouses in the R3 zone is 2 storey

II. The maximum number of storeys for a villa is 1 storey.

III. The minimum floor to ceiling height on ground floor is to be 2.7m and upper level(s) 2.4m.

The proposal is for multi dwelling housing in the R2 LDR zone which is commensurate with the villa style development. Accordingly, the height is limited to 1 storey by the DCP. A building height of two storeys is proposed.

No, one storey departure.

j) The minimum dwelling width is 5m (measured between the external walls).

Compliant, approximately 6.5m

Yes

2.9 Amenity

2.9.1 Privacy

a) Development should be located and oriented to maximise visual and acoustic privacy between buildings.

Given non-compliance with 2.9.1(a) below and the height of Dwelling 4 above natural ground level this is not considered to be achieved.

 

Yes

b) Building elements such as balconies and decks are to be designed to minimise overlooking of living areas and private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.

Balconies and decks are suitably located.

Yes

c) The windows of dwellings are to be located so they do not provide direct and close views into the windows of other dwellings, particularly those of living areas.

There is an interface issue between Dwelling 2 and 3 as detailed below.

See below.

d) A minimum of 12m separation is required between buildings within the development site where habitable rooms face habitable rooms.

7.445m between habitable rooms of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3.     

No, 4.555m departure.

e) A minimum of 9m separation is required between buildings within the development site where habitable rooms face non-habitable rooms or blank walls.

See above.

See above.

f) A minimum of 3m separation is required between buildings within the development site where non-habitable rooms/blank walls face other non-habitable rooms/ blank walls.

Not proposed.

N/A

g) Council will require a report by an acoustic consultant to be submitted with development applications for multi dwelling housing developments on sites adjacent to noise generating sources such as major roads and rail corridors (see Part B – General Controls for provisions regarding development near busy roads and rail corridors).

The site is not adjacent to the Pacific Highway and no acoustic report is considered necessary in this instance.

N/A

h) Internal habitable rooms of dwellings affected by high levels of external noise are to be designed to achieve internal noise levels of no greater than 50dBA.

See above.

See above.

2.9.2 Solar Access

a) Dwellings within the development site and any residential development beyond the site are to receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to habitable rooms and to at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Complies. 50% to No. 12 Bellevue Avenue in the morning period, however principal useable part does not receive 3hours.

Yes, however consideration should be given to principal useable part and the reduced impact if the correct housing form was provided (villa-style).

 

b) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, this should not be unreasonably reduced. Shadow diagrams are required with development applications to show solar access and the extent of overshadowing.

Complies.

Yes

2.9.3 Private and Communal Open Space

a) Private open space is to be:

I. Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

II. Located so as to maximise solar access.

III. A minimum of 4.0m dimension in any direction.

IV. A minimum unbuilt upon area of 50 m2 per 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling.

V. A minimum unbuilt upon area of 75 m2 per 4 or more bedroom dwelling.

 

Provided.

Yes

b) Private open space may be located on top of semi-basement parking. (Garage and carport roofs are to be non-trafficable).

Noted.

Yes

c) Private open space is to contain paving of at least 10m2 per dwelling.

Provided.

Yes

d) Private open space will not be permitted in the front setback area.

Not relied upon.

Yes

e) Communal open space is to be provided for a development of more than 5 townhouses or villas and is to be:

I. Located where it is highly visible and directly accessible to the maximum number of dwellings.

II. Designed with an integral role in the site, with uses such as circulation, BBQ, play areas or passive amenity.

III. Integrated with the deep soil zone to provide a landscaped setting with opportunities for large and medium size tree planting.

IV. A minimum of 10% of the site area.

V. Exclusive of shared driveway areas.

N/A

N/A

2.10 Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces

a) Garage and carport roofs are to be non-trafficable.

Noted.

N/A

b) Semi-basement parking may protrude up to a maximum of 1.2m above the ground level (existing) subject to achieving a high quality design solution where ventilation grilles are not located to front or rear gardens.

Control does not override prohibition on basement car parking within the front setback zone. However, behind the front setback, basement complies.

Yes

c) Driveway widths are to be kept to a minimum while complying with AS 2890.1 and AS2890.2.

The driveway width at the front boundary should be kept to a minimum. The present garage door is provided at a width of 7 metres where the actual cross-over is 3 metres at the kerb to 4.6 metres at the front boundary. Detail is to be provided how this design complies with the applicable Australian Standard. It is noted that no cross-sectional detail was provided for the driveway through the high and low points.

 

 

No, see Part R comment below.

d) A Transport and Accessibility Report may be required by the Traffic Manager.

At a minimum a report demonstrating compliance with Part R and AS2890.1, 2890.2 and 2890.6 should be provided.

 

No – see Part R comment below.

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

 

The proposal was not accompanied by an Access Report demonstrating how the proposal complies with Part F – Access and Mobility with regard to both the adaptable and visitable unit requirements.

 

Part O – Stormwater Management

 

The proposed stormwater management plan prepared by FIDUCIA, dated on 20/07/2018 revision D, Project No: 32977 and Drawing No: CI-2-520-01, was reviewed and found to be unsatisfactory for reasons outlined within the recommended reasons of refusal in this report.

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

The proposal fails to address Part R - Traffic, Transport and Parking and does not provide for motorbike parking, bicycle parking, the tandem spaces exceed 10% of the total parking provided, the adaptable unit is not provided with an accessible space, the visitor parking is non-compliant and insufficient dimensioning of spaces and turning templates have been provided to demonstrate compliance with AS2890.1-2004.

 

Part Q – Waste Management

 

The proposal fails to address Part Q – Waste Management applying to the ongoing management of waste with the submitted Waste Management Plan stating erroneously that the matter is not applicable.

 

ii.         Discussion of DCP Departures

 

The departures to DCP Part C are discussed in relation to their applicable section as follows:-

 

a.         Streetscape

 

The proposal does not respond to the rhythm of dwellings within the street as required by Clause 2.3(a) of Part C2. In particular the development does not comply with objective 2.3(5), (6) and (9). The development does not respond to the topography of the site and results in excessive front wall height at the street which would detract from the attractiveness of the street and pedestrian amenity. The rhythm of the streetscape is a mixture a single and two storey buildings and the subject development being multi dwelling housing, should contribute to the rhythm of the streetscape in a single storey form.

 

b.         Setbacks

 

The proposal results in a basement carpark beyond the building envelope into the front setback, contrary to Clause 2.4.2(b) of the DCP. The extension of the basement to the front boundary results in a loss of deep soil in the front setback zone, results in excessive wall heights on the front boundary, a loss of amenity to the public domain, and does not provide for a balance of built form and landscaping within the front setback.

 

c.         Fencing

 

The proposal results in a front fence (including balustrade) with a maximum height of 5.3 metres where the DCP allows for up to 1.8 metres with a 1m setback to allow for landscaping (Clause 1.4.1). The front fence is in essence the basement carpark wall and is predicated on establishing a benched area for the building platform. While there is an existing front fence of some height (2.1 metres approximately to the non-pier component of the wall), it is not of a similar scale to that proposed. The fencing as proposed would not contribute positively to the streetscape character and would be a substantial wall with no street level landscaping relief.

 

The side fence to the common boundary No. 12 Bellevue Avenue exceeds the maximum side fence height with a maximum height of 3.8 metres above an existing boundary wall which has a height of 2.7 metres above natural ground level. The total wall and fence height is up to 6.5 metres along the side boundary.  The fencing on south-east elevation obscures the finished ground floor level of Dwelling 4 and its relationship to natural ground level. The fence height is considered to be excessive and a result of a dwelling design that does not step with the topography of the site. The fencing will result in unacceptable visual and overshadowing impact to the adjoining dwelling and will likely be highly visible from the streetscape which is

 

d.         Cut and Fill

 

The proposal provides limited detail through the key parts of the site where the topography changes. In particular, the sectional detail through the south-east part of the site in relation to Dwelling 4 does not clearly show how unresponsive the design is to the topography of the site. It is considered, based on a consideration of the level details on the plans that if this detail was clearly shown, that the design would indeed be unresponsive to topography, at a critical point at which overshadowing of the adjoining property is a consideration due to the orientation of the allotment. The dwelling at this point likely results in 2.1 metres of fill which is not considered satisfactory. A split-level has not been adopted which exacerbates the extent of fill required. A more considered design approach could substantially improve the designs relationship to the existing ground level. It is again reiterated that the above ground pool and deck should not be used for the purpose of establishing the existing ground level in this part of the site. 

 

e.         Building Design

 

The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 2.8(b)-(f) and (i) of Part C2. In particular the design does not respond to the topography of the site, results in discontinuity of landscaping in the front setback through the removal of deep soil zones, results in a benching of the site to the street, and is in a form contrary to that envisaged for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone being two storeys where the DCP specifically states that multi dwelling housing is to be in the single storey (villa form). The building design is therefore contrary to the objectives of building design as it seeks to establish an identity contrary to that envisaged for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and results in a development that a low visual quality (through the benching rather than stepping of the design)

 

f.          Amenity

 

The proposal provides for 7.445m between habitable rooms of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3 being a 4.555m departure from the DCP. The intent of the DCP is not considered to be achieved given the entire elevation of each dwelling does not achieve the required separation. This would result in a decrease in amenity for future residents and results in unsatisfactory opportunities for overlooking.

 

SECTION 4.15 (CONTINUED)

           

(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

 

The proposal is likely to result in the adverse environmental impact to the built environment given the extent of departures from both the LEP and DCP standards.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site does not support the development of two storey multi dwelling housing contrary to the planning context for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone particularly given the designs unresponsiveness to the topography of the site and the sites prominence in the street.

 

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

 

The proposal was notified for 14 days in accordance with Council policy and three (3) submissions were received. The submissions are summarised and addressed as follows:

 

Issue

Comment

Building Height

Two storey multi dwelling developments are not permitted in R2 zoned areas. The developer having two approved houses is irrelevant.

 

This restriction is noted and the proposal is recommended for refusal on these grounds.

The measurement of building height appears to be based on a ground level higher than the actual existing ground level resulting in the proposed dwellings attaining a higher elevation than otherwise would be the case.

 

The errors regarding calculation of building height are noted and addressed earlier in this report.

This development would be more akin to a 3 storey property which is simply unfair to other local residents which are generally single storey to the east.

 

The massing is noted particularly given the projection of the basement and benching of the site as addressed in this report.

The proposal will alter the streetscape in a way that is not sympathetic with other federation properties to the immediate east (no. 2-8).

 

The impact on the streetscape is addressed in this report and is considered unsatisfactory.

Amenity

The proposed built form will result in overshadowing of No. 8 Bellevue (which is a heritage item).

 

The proposal is not considered to adversely impact No. 8 Bellevue with regard to overshadowing.

The proposal would shadow the dwelling of No. 12 Bellevue Avenue in the afternoon period mid-winter, despite the shadow diagrams not indicating as such.

 

The overshadowing impact of the proposal from the number of storeys and its unresponsiveness to the topography of the site are addressed in the report and considered unsatisfactory.

The proposal would result in privacy impacts to No. 12 Bellevue Avenue particularly in relation to the swimming pool area.

 

The impact on the front setback (and private open space area) are not considered satisfactory as outlined in this report.

View Sharing

 

The proposal would result in view loss to No. 6 Bellevue Avenue including district and water views to the west.

 

The proposal being two storey in form and not designed to step with the topography would have greater impact than a compliant design.

The proposal would result in view loss to No. 12 Bellevue Avenue towards the west.

 

The proposal being two storey in form and not designed to step with the topography would have greater impact than a compliant design.

 

Traffic and Parking

The driveway appears to have restricted sight lines and is a safety issue. Insufficient parking is provided.

 

The proposal does not result in a suitable parking outline as outlined within reason for refusal no. 11 within the recommendations of this report.

Other

The proposal does not appear to be in the public interest and for increase density for the developer only.

 

The unsuitability of the proposal with regard to FSR is addressed in the report.

The proposal includes works to a shared boundary wall between No. 10 and 12 Bellevue and the property owners of No. 12 Bellevue have not consented to any works.

 

The submitted plans indicate no works to the common wall however the fencing suitability is addressed elsewhere in the report.

 

(e) Public Interest

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it is fundamentally non-compliant with the objectives for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Conclusion

 

The Development Application has been assessed with respect to the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, and Lane Cove DCP.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Lane Cove LEP 2009 and does not comply with respect to the building height or floor space ratio development standards. The justification provided by the application is considered to be inadequate and appears to rely heavily on the application being considered in light of an entirely different set of planning controls.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 and the proposed design is not considered to respond to the topography of the site or be of a building design that adopts the villa form. Approving such would not be in the public interest and would set a particularly concerning precedent given there is such a clear planning framework established to limit the scale of multi dwelling housing within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

It is therefore recommendation of that the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse subject Development Application for reasons outlined within this report.

 

REFERRALS

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application DA141/2018 for the construction of a multi dwelling housing development comprising four dwellings, basement car parking and community title subdivision be refused on the following grounds:

 

Aims of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

1.         The development application should be refused because the proposed development is inconsistent with the aims of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

Particulars

(a)       Clause 1.2 of LCLEP 2009 outlines the following relevant aims:

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

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

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

            (i)          accords with urban consolidation principles, and

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

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

(b)       The proposed development is inconsistent with the existing and desired future character for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone having regard to the excessive building height, bulk and scale and floor space, which is not in line with community expectations and will in turn have an unacceptable amenity impact on adjoining properties, which is inconsistent with 1.2(2)(b) of LCLEP 2009.

(c)       The proposed development does not provide a density which responds to the envisaged character of the locality, or provide a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development, which is inconsistent with 1.2(2)(c) of LCLEP 2009.

Height of Buildings

2.         The development application should be refused because the proposed development does not comply with the development standard or objectives for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009.

Particulars

(a)       Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 states:

“4.3   Height of buildings

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

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

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

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

(d)  To relate development to topography.

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

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

 

(b)        Pursuant to Clause 4.3(2A) of LCLEP 2009, the maximum permissible building height for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is 5m.

(c)        The proposed development provides a maximum building height of 9.484m and exceeds the maximum 5m building height permitted by 4.484m or 89.7%.

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

(e)        The variation sought to the maximum building height standard is not supported as the proposed development does not meet the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings as the design of the proposal is not considered to respond to the topography of the land and creates the appearance of visual bulk when viewed from both the street and neighbouring properties.

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

(g)        There are insufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, including the strategic planning intent for continuing to allow for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and as such the variation sought to the maximum building height permitted is not considered to result in a better planning outcome.

(h)        The proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objective of the standard and zone in clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009.

Floor Space Ratio

3.         The development application should be refused because the floor space ratio, does not comply with the development standard or objectives for floor space ratio in clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009.

Particulars

(a)  Clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009 states:

4.4   Floor space ratio

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

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

(2)       The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(2A)     Despite subclause (2):

(a)       the maximum floor space ratio for multi dwelling housing on land in Area 1 on the Floor Space Ratio Map is 0.4:1, and

(b)        the maximum floor space ratio for a building containing shop top housing on land in Area 2 on the Floor Space Ratio Map is 2.5:1.

(b)       Pursuant to Clause 4.4(2A) of LCLEP 2009, the maximum permissible floor space ratio for the subject site is 0.4:1.

(c)       The proposal provides for a floor space ratio of 76.84m2 or 13.2% based on the calculations provided on the submitted architectural plans. It is noted the Clause 4.6 request provides for a lesser figure and it is unclear how this was reached.

(d)       The proposed floor space and resulting built form is not compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area and in that regard the proposed development is inconsistent with the objective of clause 4.4 of LCLEP 2009. 

Number of Storeys

4.         The development application should be refused because the number of storeys proposed for the multi dwelling housing development is inconsistent with the control and objectives for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Particulars

(a)       Objectives 2.8(1) and (2) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. To ensure the appearance of development is of a high visual quality and addresses the street.

2. To provide attractive building facades which establish identity and contribute to the streetscape.

(b)       Clause 2.8(i) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

“The maximum number of storeys for a villa is 1 storey.

(c)       The development exceeds the maximum number of storeys permitted for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Zone. In accordance with clause 2.8(i) two storey townhouse form is only permitted in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The development is therefore inconsistent with the envisaged character of multi dwelling housing in the R2 zone, being not of a villa-style.

Streetscape

5.         The development application should be refused because the development will result in unacceptable streetscape impacts being inconsistent with the objectives and clause 2.3(a) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010.

Particulars

(a)  Objectives 2.3(5), (6) and (9) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

5. To ensure the existing topography and landscape setting are enhanced and reinforced by new development.

6. To achieve development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character.

9. To encourage attractive street frontages and improve pedestrian amenity.

(b)       Clause 2.3(a) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

New buildings are to recognise and respond to the lot pattern and rhythm of dwellings within the street.

(c)       The development as proposed results in excessive bulk and scale and altering of the topography within the streetscape particularly to the primary frontage to Bellevue Avenue as a result of a design that does not adequately respond to the topographical constraints of the site and is considered out of character with the street and neighbourhood.

Setbacks

6.         The development application should be refused because the development result in a basement carpark that adversely impacts the landscaping to built form relationship and the amenity of the public domain being inconsistent with clause 2.4.2(b) in Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 relating to setbacks.

Particulars

(a)       Objectives 2.4(1), (4) and (5) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. Provide setbacks that complement the streetscape, allow flexibility in the siting of the buildings and control the balance of built form to landscape.

4. Achieve a high level of amenity for dwellings, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

5. Ensure that each lot provides deep soil areas and private open space.

(b)       Clause 2.4.2(b) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

Basement carparks are not to extend beyond the building envelope into the front setback.

(c)       The proposal includes a basement carpark of approximately 20m in width with a zero setback to the front boundary in a front setback zone of 7.5m.

(d)       The intrusion of the basement into the front setback zone results in an imbalance in landscaping and builtform when viewed from the public domain and neighbouring dwellings as a result of the basement excavation reducing opportunities deep soil landscaping within the front setback area. It is also noted that the OSD tanks are proposed within this area further depleting the deep soil area in the front setback zone.

Fencing

7.         The development application should be refused because the fencing (or external wall of the basement) will result in an adverse impact to the streetscape character, and visual impact to the adjoining developments.

Particulars

(a)       Objectives 1.4.1(1) of Part C1  (called up by Part C2) of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. Contribute positively to the streetscape character and design of the dwelling house.

(b)       Clause 1.4.1(c) of Part C1 (called up by Part C2) of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

Part solid and predominantly see through fences permitted up to 1800mm above ground level (existing) set back at least 1m from the front boundary with the solid portion no higher than 600mm”.

(c)       Clause 1.4.2(a) of Part C1 (called up by Part C2) of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

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

(d)       The front fence does not comply with the provisions of Clause 1.4.1(c) within a maximum height of 5.3m inclusive of the required balustrade, being a 3.5m departure from the control.

(e)       The side fence does not comply with the provisions of Clause 1.4.2(a) with a total maximum height when viewed from No. 12 Bellevue Avenue of 6.5m, being a 4.7m departure from the control.

(f)        The fencing is excessive resulting from a design that does not respond to the topography of the site at the lowest part of the site, resulting in an adverse impact to the streetscape character and an unsatisfactory visual impact to adjoining developments.

Cut and Fill

8.         The development application should be refused because it does not respond to the topography of the site, resulting in excessive cut and fill, contrary to the objectives and standards for cut and fill contained within Part C1 of LCDCP 2010.

Particulars

(a)       Objectives 1.6(1), (4) and (5) of Part C1  (called up by Part C2) of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. Contribute positively to the streetscape character and design of the dwelling house.

4. To create a consistent relationship between the dwelling and the street.

5. To ensure that excavation and filling of a site does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings.

(b)       Clause 1.6(a), (c) and (d) of Part C1 (called up by Part C2) of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

a.   All dwelling are to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP.

b.   All dwellings are to adopt a split level approach to the design of the house to minimise excavation and fill and to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site.

c.   Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the sites slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling within this extent of excavation.

(c)       The proposal provides insufficient detail to demonstrate the worst-case for fill. However, Dwelling 4 is considered to result in up to 2.1m of fill (outside of the basement excavation) being a 1.1m departure from the standard.

(d)       The design is considered to be unresponsive to the topography of the site and would result in unsatisfactory impact by way of amenity to adjoining properties, in particular No. 12 Bellevue Avenue, and results in an inconsistent relationship between the dwelling and the street, which in turn results in an unreasonable impact to streetscape character.

Building Design

9.         The development application should be refused because the building design is not considered to be site responsive contrary to clause 2.8 of LCDCP 2010.

Particulars

(a)       Objectives 2.8(1) and (2) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. To ensure the appearance of development is of a high visual quality and addresses the street.

2. To provide attractive building facades which establish identity and contribute to the streetscape.

(b)        Clause 2.8(b)-(f) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

            b. The architectural style of the development must be sympathetic to the adjoining and surrounding buildings in terms of height, materials, roof pitch and overall building character.

            c. Visual continuity of open space corridors and vegetation elements in the block is to be maintained by the position of buildings.

            d. The area of the site devoted to driveways and vehicle turning areas should be minimised.

            e. On sloping sites car parking may be located below the residential level of the dwelling.

            f. On sites with a slope in excess of 5% each dwelling is to have separate ground floor levels with the difference being equal to the average slope of the site.

(c)        The proposal does not provide for a split-level design, results in a discontinuity of landscaping, and is of a style not envisaged for the locality (townhouse compared to villa housing).

(d)        The proposal benches the development above the street level and therefore does not address the street, contribute to the streetscape or result in a high visual quality.

Amenity

10.       The development application should be refused because it does not allow for suitable building separation between Dwelling 2 and 3.

Particulars

(a)       Objective 2.9(1) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

1. To ensure that existing and future residents can enjoy reasonable privacy in their dwellings and private open space without being overlooked by adjoining neighbours.

(b)        Clause 2.9.1(d) of Part C2 of LCDCP 2010 provided as follows:

            d. A minimum 12m separation is required between buildings within the development site where habitable rooms face habitable rooms.

(c)        The proposal provides a building separation of 7.445m between Dwelling 2 and 3, being a 4.555m departure.

(d)        The entire building length does not receive the required separation at the first and second floor. This would result in a decrease in amenity for future residents through an increased potential for overlooking to occur.

Waste Management

11.       The development application should be refused because the proposal does not provide sufficient detail to enable an assessment against Part Q of the DCP with the submitted Waste Management Plan stating on-going waste management is not an applicable consideration.

Traffic and Parking 

12.       The development application should be refused because it does not comply with Part R of the DCP.

Particulars

(a)        Table 1 of Part R includes the following in relation to multi dwelling housing.

(b)        The proposed adaptable unit is not provided with a disabled space contrary to Table 1 (being one of the two required spaces to be a disabled space);

(c)        The proposed visitor parking is not provided with satisfactory visitor parking in accordance with Table 1. A total of two spaces are required comprising 1 disabled space and 1 standard space;

(d)        No motorbike parking has been provided contrary to R2.7;

(e)        No bicycle parking has been provided contrary to R2.6;

(f)        Greater than 10% for parking is provided as tandem spaces contrary to R2.9; and

(g)        Dimensioned plans, swept paths and driveway profiles have not been provided demonstrating compliance with AS2890.

Access and Adaptability

13.       The development application should be refused because insufficient information has been provided to enable an assessment against Part F of the DCP including the provision of an Access Report.

Stormwater Management

14.       The development application should be refused because it does not comply with Part O – Stormwater Management of the DCP.

Particulars

(a)        No pipe is allowed to run from one dwelling to another dwelling for future maintenance;

(b)        Separate OSDs are required given the subdivision proposed and on-going maintenance;

(c)        Driveway grate is not provided;

(d)        Subsoil drainage line is not provided;

(e)        At kerb discharge point from the OSD in corner, top of kerb is RL86.65 giving an invert level of RL86.5. The inverst of the OSD discharge pipe is RL86.46. This RL is not possible for gravity flow to kerb;

(f)        Runoff from upstream catchment is blocked by retaining wall and suitable drainage system is required for upstream catchment;

(g)        150mm discharge pipe to kerb is not possible; and

(h)        Only one access grate on top of OSD is not adequate.

Environmental Impact on Built Form

15.       The development application should be refused as the proposal would likely result in adverse environmental impacts on the built environment given the extent of departures to the LEP and DCP, and is therefore unsatisfactory with respect to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act, 1979.

 

Site Suitability   

16.       The development application should be refused because the site does not support the development of two storey multi dwelling housing and is therefore unsatisfactory with respect to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Public Interest

17.       The development application should be refused because the proposal is not in the public, interest having regard to the above contentions, and is unsatisfactory with respect to Section 4.15(e) of the EP&A Act, 1979.

 

Precedent

The development application should be refused because the proposal would result in an undesirable precedent for multi dwelling housing in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Locality Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Discussion on Amending Development Applications

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Strategic Background

2 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Clause 4.6 Request

37 Pages

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 4 December 2018

33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich    

Record No:    DA18/158-01 - 72999/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Henry  Burnett 

 

 

 

Property:

33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

DA No:

DA158/2018

Date Lodged:

6 September 2018

Cost of Work:

$22,699,680.00

Owner:

Stamen Greenwich Property Pty Ltd

Applicant:                     

Stamen Greenwich Property Pty Ltd

 

Description of Proposal

Residential Care Facility

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Permissibility

Yes, SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Notification

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and nineteen (19) submissions were received.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The proposal is referred to Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination under the following criteria:

 

·          Nineteen (19) submissions have been received by way of objection.

·          A variation of greater than 10% is proposed to a development standard within an environmental planning instrument

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal is for the demolition of part of an existing structure and construction of a part four/five storey residential care facility pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, comprising 92 residential suites and at-grade car parking for 25 vehicles.

 

The applicant has sought that the application be considered as additional works to accompany the previously approved alterations and additions under Development Application DA130/2017. This approach is not supported as the consent authority is required to assess the whole development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and is not limited to the extent of differences from DA130/2017. Further, given the extent of the proposed modifications to the existing structure, the proposal is no longer characterised as refurbishment or alterations and additions, but rather a new building.

 

The proposal does not comply with the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) provision under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The SEPP permits a FSR of 1:1 where a FSR of 1:2 is proposed being a variation of 20% or 885m2. The application was not accompanied by a written request seeking to justify a contravention of the development standard. Accordingly, in the absence of the applicant demonstrating that the non-compliance is unnecessary or unreasonable and there being sufficient environmental planning grounds to support a variation, it is considered that the proposed FSR would not be capable of being supported.

 

The proposal does not comply with the maximum (building) height permitted under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 or Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The SEPP permits a maximum height of 8m where 15.345m is proposed being a variation of 7.345m or 91.8%. The LEP permits a maximum building height of 9.5m where 16.75m is proposed being a variation of 7.25m or 76.32%. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request to both the SEPP and LEP height development standard. A variation to building height is not considered warranted in this instance having regard to the characterisation of the proposal as a new building, the design requirements/principles contained within the SEPP, and the objectives of building height and the R2 Low Density Residential zone, as outlined within this report.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and nineteen (19) submissions were received by way of objection. The concerns raised in the submissions relate to height and bulk, overlooking and privacy, overshadowing, tree removal and landscaping, traffic and parking. The submissions are addressed in this report.

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory and it is recommended that the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse the application for reasons outlined in this report.

 

SITE

 

The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 1135033 with a street address of 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich and total site area of 4,290m2. The site is a corner allotment with frontage to Greenwich Road and River Road West. The property is located on the southern side of River Road West and on the western side of Greenwich Road. A Site Location Plan is attached (AT1).

 

The site is irregular in shape with a frontage to River Road of 49.525m, Greenwich Road of 74.665m, the southern boundary with 35 Greenwich Road of 67.81m and an irregular non-linear western boundary of approximately 86.14m.

 

The subject site is currently occupied by an existing four storey boarding house known as ‘Greenwich Village Accommodation’. The property is bounded by existing vegetation and trees to the perimeter of the site and vehicular access to the property is provided from Greenwich Road.

 

The subject site adjoins a heritage item of local significance to the south – 35 Greenwich Road, Greenwich. Directly to the west of the site are dwelling houses located on Stella Vista Place.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Date

Description

15/03/2007

Development Consent DA225/2005 was granted by the Land and Environment Court to a proposal for subdivision of the site into 7 allotments with associated demolition and tree removal. This subdivision created the properties adjoining the subject site known as 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 & 11 Stella Vista Place.

 

28/02/2018

Development Application DA130/2017 approved under Delegated Authority for a change of use from a boarding house to a 92 bed residential aged care facility including associated alterations and additions to, and refurbishment of the existing building.

 

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the demolition of a significant part of an existing structure and construction of a four storey residential care facility pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, comprising 92 residential suites and at-grade car parking for 25 vehicles.

 

A description of the proposal at each level is provided in the following table:

 

Level

Description of Proposal

Proposed GFA*

Basement

·          Staff and resident facilities.

NIL

Ground

·          27 suites and communal areas.

1326.81m2

First Floor

·          33 suites and indoor and outdoor communal areas

1251.81m2

Second Floor

·          16 suites and indoor and outdoor communal areas

737.47m2

Third Floor

·          16 suites and indoor and outdoor communal areas

729.76m2

Roof/ Fourth Floor

·          Club room, toilets, library, quite lounge and service room.

169.77m2

Total

4215.62m2

*Stated GFA by applicant (Drawing No. 03) - see further discussion on the calculation GFA later in the report.

 

The proposed works to the existing structure to facilitate the above development are as follows:

 

Level

Description of Proposal

All Levels

·          Demolition of the majority of the non-linear north-western wall.

Ground

·          Demolition of the existing ground floor garage and services area;

·          Demolition of part of the existing ground floor slab to facilitate construction of a basement level.

First Floor

·          Demolition of majority of the first floor slab.

Second Floor

·          Demolition of the majority of the second floor slab.

Third Floor

·          Demolition of the entire slab to facilitate an increased floor level.

Roof

·          Replacement of existing roof and establishment of new roof and fourth floor level. 

 

AMENDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

 

The applicant has described the Development Application as additional works to accompany the previously approved alterations and additions under Development Application to DA130/2017. The consent authority is required to look at the whole of the development that would result from carrying out the particular works proposed in DA158/2018, and not simply the amendments from DA130/2017. The development is required to be assessed against the relevant controls in the applicable environmental planning instruments and any other relevant planning criteria. Further discussion on Amending Development Applications as it relates to the subject proposal and relevant case law is attached (AT2).

 

CHARACTERISATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

The proposal is considered to be a new development rather than refurbishment or alterations and additions to an existing building. The works proposed to the existing structure as detailed earlier in the report include substantial demolition works of slabs and an external wall.  It remains unclear how it is feasible to construct the development with the remaining slab. Accordingly, the proposal is assessed as a new development and not alterations and additions or refurbishment. Further discussion regarding the characterisation of the development and relevant case law is attached (AT3).

 

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

 

The following provides for an assessment of the relevant considerations pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

 

1.         Compliance with SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

 

a.         Permissibility

 

With respect to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 the following clauses are considered in respect to permissibility:

 

“Clause 4 Land to which Policy applies

(1) General
This Policy applies to land within New South Wales that is land zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if:

(a) development for the purpose of any of the following is permitted on the land:

(i) dwelling-houses,

(ii) residential flat buildings,

(iii) hospitals,

(iv) development of a kind identified in respect of land zoned as special uses, including (but not limited to) churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries, or

(b) the land is being used for the purposes of an existing registered club.”

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. Dwelling-houses are permitted within the R2 zone with development consent and therefore the Policy applies. A residential care facility is a form of development permitted under the Policy and is defined as follows in Clause 11:

 

11   Residential care facilities

In this Policy, a residential care facility is residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability that includes:

(a)  meals and cleaning services, and

(b)  personal care or nursing care, or both, and

(c)  appropriate staffing, furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care, not being a dwelling, hostel, hospital or psychiatric facility.

Note.

 The Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth requires residential care facilities to which that Act applies to meet certain requirements.

 

The proposed development is for residential care facility which provides meals, cleaning and personal and nursing care services for residents. Staff are available 24 hours a day on site to attend to residents’ personal and medical needs. Suites are appropriately furnished, and residents also have access to on-site facilities including a library, hairdresser, theatre/gym/chapel, lounge and dining areas and communal terraces and courtyards.

 

The proposal meets the definition of a residential care facility and is permissible pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

b.         Site Compatibility Certificate (Part 1A)

 

A site compatibility certificate is not required under Clause 24 as the subject site is land zoned primarily for urban purposes.

 

c.         Site-Related Requirements (Part 2)

 

The table below provides an assessment of the location and access requirements to facilities for the proposed development.

 

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

Clause 26 – Location and access to facilities

 

Residents to have access to identified services (banks, shops, service providers, etc) within 400 metres of the site or be within 400 metres from a public transport service.

 

The average gradient pathway is no more than 1:14, although the following gradients are also acceptable:

 

(i)         A gradient no more than 1:12 (8.3%) for slopes for a max. of 15m at a time;

(ii)        A gradient no more than 1:10 for a max. of 5m at a time;

(iii)       A gradient no more than 1:8 for distances no more than 1.5m at a time.

 

 

 

The site is located within a 200m radius of public transport/bus stops located on River Road West and Greenwich Road. The bus stop in front of the site on Greenwich Road provides access to local shops and the St Leonards Centre.

 

Suitable pathways for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, are provided to the bus stops from the subject site.

 

A sealed pathway is provided along the frontage of the site on both Greenwich Road and River Road West. These pathways do not exceed a gradient greater than 8.3% when calculated at 15m intervals.

 

The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop fronting the site on Greenwich Road is 1:25.

 

The average gradients from the pedestrian entry of the proposal to the bus stop on the northern side of Greenwich Road fronting the site is 1:34.

 

The subject site is also located 500m away from the local shops on Greenwich Road further south of the site which includes an IGA supermarket, Greenwich Village Medical Practice, Greenwich Village Pharmacy and Australia Post.

 

In this regard, the proposal satisfies the location and access to facilities requirements under the SEPP.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Clause 27- Bush fire prone land

 

Consent must not be granted on bush fire prone land unless

 

 

The site is not bush fire prone land.

 

 

Complies

 

Clause 28 – Water and sewer

 

Consent not to be granted unless the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.

 

 

The site is located within the Sydney Water service area and would be required to be connected to the required services.

 

Complies

 

Clause 29 – Compatibility criteria

 

Clause 29(2) requires certain criteria to be considered including compatibility with surrounding land uses having regard to:

 

·    The natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development.

 

·    The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

 

·    The impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The development proposes to remove 45 out of 93 property trees and has submitted an Arboricultural Assessment and Impact report and landscape plan to demonstrate how the site would be landscaped. The remaining 48 trees have been identified for retention, some with manageable construction impact.

 

The development contains appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of future occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The building bulk and scale is not compatible with the low density residential use of the land within the vicinity of the development having regard to the proposal being for primarily a new structure, the zoning of the site as R2 Low Density Residential and the unsatisfactory variations to key development standards as outlined later in this report (Building Height and Floor Space Ratio).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, see discussion in Part 1(g) below.

 

d.         Design Requirements (Part 3)

 

The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against the SEPP design requirements:

 

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

Clause 30 – Site Analysis

 

Consent not to be granted unless site analysis prepared by the applicant has been submitted and has formed part of the assessment.

 

 

 

 

A site analysis has been prepared by SB Architects in accordance with Clause 30. The Site Plan (Drawing No. 01) does not adequately show the building outline of No. 35 Greenwich Road. The impact of the proposal on No. 35 Greenwich Road is discussed later in this report.

 

 

 

 

Submitted.

 

Clause 32 – Design of residential development

 

Consent not to be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the principles set out in Division 2.

 

 

Division 2 – Design Principles

 

An assessment of Division 2 – Design Principles is provided below:

 

 

Clause 33 – Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

 

 

 

Recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

 

The proposal is seeking to demolish the majority of the existing building. Accordingly the new building is to have regard to the desired future character of the area. The applicant cannot rely on the existing building height as it is no longer retaining the majority of the structure. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the future envisaged character is a low density residential environment to the south of River Road West. This character is in part set by development standards contained within Council’s LEP relating to building height (9.5m) which generally aligns with a two storey character. The proposal seeks approval for a part two, part four and part five storey building. This is a new building, is considered to detract from the quality and identity of the area and has not had suitable regard to the future desired character of the area. 

 

 

Unsatisfactory.

 

Retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any heritage conservation areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a Local Environmental Plan

 

 

The site is not a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. The site however, adjoins a heritage item at 35 Greenwich Road. Council’s Heritage advisor has raised no objection on heritage grounds.

 

 

Complies

Maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

 

(i)    providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii)    using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and

 

 

 

 

(iii)   adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iv)  considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours

 

 

 

 

 

 

The suitability of the overshadowing to No. 11 Stella Vista Place or No. 35 Greenwich Road has not been established. Overshadowing should be compared to a compliant design (overall height and building height transitions) to understand the additional overshadowing, not compared to the existing structure as detailed on Drawing No. 18.

 

The proposal does not provide for a height transition taking into account the topography of the site. Based on the topography a suitable step in the design should be provided to both the southern and western interface.

 

The dwelling at No. 35 Greenwich has been characterised as a two storey dwelling but presents as single storey at the street frontage. The dwelling at No. 1 Stella Vista Place (with the rear fronting River Road West) is two storeys at the equivalent frontage to River Road West. The proposal adopts a building height of up to four storeys at River Road West and Greenwich Road. The scale is not considered compatible with adjacent development. The southern side of River Road West is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is a distinct area when compared to the north of River Road West which includes land zoned R4 High Density Residential. Given the proposal is for a redevelopment of the site, any new building should adopt a building height at the street frontage compatible in scale with the adjacent developments. Compatible does not mean the same as, however, having regard to the zoning of the site, the building height limit and the low density character of the area bounded by River Road West and Greenwich Road, a height of four storeys is not considered compatible.

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsatisfactory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsatisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsatisfactory

Be designed so that the front building of the development is set back in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line.

 

The building setbacks generally align with the setback pattern along both River Road West (being the rear setback of Stella Vista Place) and Greenwich Road (given the siting of No. 37 Greenwich Road), though given the proposed scale, and R2 Residential zoning of the site, an increased setback may be warranted.

 

Adequate

Embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape

 

Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has reviewed the plans and advised insufficient information has been provided to allow for a complete assessment of the proposal.

 

Insufficient information.

Retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees.

 

The development involves the removal of a substantial number of property trees (45) located within the proximity of works.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has reviewed the proposal and accompanying Arboricultural Assessment and Impact Report and raises no objections to the tree removal and Landscape Plan, having regard to the tree species and health of the trees and landscaping proposed to the perimeter of the site.

 

Complies

Be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.

 

The development is not within a riparian zone.

N/A

 

Clause 34 – Visual and acoustic privacy

 

The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by:

 

(a)  appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and

 

(b)  ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a new building a more considered approach to design should be provided including providing a suitable transition in the built-form to minimise the extent of overlooking of neighbours.

 

Conditions could be imposed to ensure that all works have been completed in accordance with the recommendations of the Acoustic Report to ensure that noise levels are acceptable for residents within the suites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsatisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

Clause 35 -  Solar access and design for climate

 

The proposed development should:

 

(a)  ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space, and

 

(b)  involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.

 

 

DA130/2017 justified solar access principally on existing conditions. The submitted plans with DA 158/2018 also seek to justify the solar access on the basis of existing conditions. The proposal is not for alterations and additions as it would result in substantial rebuilding of the existing structure. Accordingly, solar access should be compared to a SEPP-compliant design. It has not been demonstrated that adequate solar access is provided to the main living areas or substantial private open spaces of neighbours having regard to the subject site sitting higher than the neighbours and No. 35 Greenwich Road being located directly to the south of the proposed building.

 

 

Unsatisfactory

 

Clause 36 – Stormwater

 

The proposed development should:

 

(a)  control and minimise the disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties and receiving waters by, for example, finishing driveway surfaces with semi-pervious material, minimising the width of paths and minimising paved areas, and

 

(b)  include, where practical, on-site stormwater detention or re-use for second quality water uses.

 

 

No objections are raised on the grounds of stormwater subject to conditions. 

 

Complies

 

Clause 37 – Crime prevention

 

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

 

(a)  site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and

 

(b)  where shared entries are required, providing shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and

 

(c)  providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.

 

 

Suites have been designed with bedrooms facing the common walkways of the development and entry areas of dwellings and to provide passive surveillance to the street. Windows are provided to allow residents to encourage observation of public areas and landscape outlook.

 

Gates are provided to the entry points to the proposal from Greenwich Road and River Road West to control access and define the private and public domain.

 

The proposal allows for satisfactory passive surveillance to public areas onsite and towards the footpath and street.

 

Complies

 

Clause 38 – Accessibility

 

The proposed development should:

 

(a)  have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

 

(b)  provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

 

 

The development provides for adequate accessible footpaths to public transport and services. Common areas and pathways within the development achieve DDA compliance.

 

Pedestrians are able to access the site via pedestrian pathways, and vehicles have a separate access to and from Greenwich Road. Two lifts are provided to travel between the floors of the building, and all common areas are wheelchair accessible.

 

 

Complies

 

Clause 39 – Waste management

 

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

 

 

The plans nominate an at-grade bin area/loading area at the north-east corner of the site in ‘car park 1’. As the proposal is for a residential aged facility, waste collection would be carried out by a private commercial contractor.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Section have reviewed the proposal and raises no objections subject to conditions.

 

 

Complies

 

e.         Development Standards to be Complied with (Part 4)

 

The table below provides an assessment of the development standards to be complied with:

 

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Division 1 General

40 Development standards—minimum sizes and building height

(2) Site size
The size of the site must be at least 1,000 square metres.

 

 

The subject property has a total site area of 4,290m².

 

Complies

(3) Site frontage
The site frontage must be at least 20 metres wide measured at the building line.

 

 

The site has a frontage of:

River Road – 49.525m

Greenwich Road – 74.665m

 

 

Complies

(4) Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted

 

(a) the height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8 metres or less, and

 

 

(b) a building that is adjacent to a boundary of the site (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) must be not more than 2 storeys in height, and

 

 (c) a building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.

 

 

 

 

 

See Part 7 assessment below.

 

 

 

 

The proposal is a maximum 2 storeys for part of the south-western boundary. The proposal is for a new building and results in a building up to five storeys adjacent to the southern boundary.

 

 

The SEE does not identify the rear 25% of the site area. A rear setback on a corner allotment is still required to be designated. If measured from the Greenwich Road boundary, then within the rear 25% of the site is a building of up to 5 storeys. If measured from the River Road boundary then within the rear 25% of the site is a building of up to 4 storeys.

 

 

 

 

 

No, see assessment in Part 1(f) of this Report.

 

No, up to a 3 storey departure, see discussion in Part 1(g) below.

 

 

No, up to a 4 storey departure, see discussion in Part 1(g) below.

(5) Development applications to which clause does not apply
Subclauses (2), (3) and (4) (c) do not apply to a development application made by any of the following:

(a) the Department of Housing,

(b) any other social housing provider.

 

 

 

The subject development application is not made by the Department of Housing or any other social housing provider.

 

 

N/A

 

Division 2 Residential care facilities – standards concerning accessibility and useability

 

 

 

The SEPP does not have access standards for residential aged care facilities and relies on the access standards in the BCA.

 

 

 

Compliance can be achieved through appropriate conditions.

 

f.          Development Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent (Part 7)

 

The table below provides an assessment of the development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent if compliance is achieved:

 

Development Standard

Proposal

Complies / Comment

(a)        building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys)

 

The proposed building height has been calculated by the author of this report, having regard to the height definition of Clause 3 of the SEPP, to be 15.345m.

 

 

No, 91.8% (7.345m) departure, see discussion in Part 1(g) below.

(b)       density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio is 1:1 or less.

 

 

The maximum FSR allowable is 4,290m² or 1:1.

 

The proposed FSR has been calculated by the author of this report, having regard to the GFA definition in Clause 3 of the SEPP, to be 1.2:1 (5,175m2).

 

No, 20% (885m2) departure, see discussion in Part 1(g) below.

(c)        landscaped area: if a minimum of 25m² of landscaped area per residential care facility bed is provided

 

 

Required:

92beds x 25m² = 2,300m²

 

Proposed:

1,859.32m² (landscaped area at-grade, clear of building and driveways).

 

Landscaped area on the roof terraces (open air recreation facility/area) to be used by residents = 717m²

 

Rooftop terraces are not encouraged in the R2 zone and the privacy implications of such are addressed elsewhere in this report.

 

No, however in combination with above ground communal areas suitable landscaped area is proposed for each resident and the departure would be considered satisfactory.

 

(d) parking for residents and visitors: if at least the following is provided:

(i) 1 car space for each 10 beds in the residential aged care facility (or 1 parking space for each 15 beds if the facility provides for care only for persons with dementia), and

(ii) 1 parking space for each 2 persons to be employed in connection with the development on duty at any one time, and

(iii)1 parking space suitable for an ambulance.

 

 

Required:

92beds/10beds = 9.2 spaces

24 employees/2 = 12 spaces

Total required = 21.2 spaces + ambulance space

 

Proposed:

25 car parking spaces (including 3 small car spaces) + 1 ambulance bay

 

Complies, 3 space surplus.

 

g.         Discussion of SEPP Departures

 

The following provides an assessment of the SEPP departures where not fully addressed in the preceding tables:

 

 

 

 

i.          Building Height

 

The consent authority cannot refuse an application on the grounds of height if the building is 8 metres or less.

 

Reference is made to Clause 3 of the SEPP which defines height as follows

 

“Height in relation to a building, means the distance measured vertically from any point on the ceiling of the topmost floor of the building to the ground level immediately below that point.”

 

The proposed building height is measured to the proposed ceiling height of RL 84.875 to the ceiling of the uppermost level (described as the Roof Level). The Survey Plan provides a survey level of the existing ground floor as RL 69.53. The maximum proposed building height is therefore the difference between these two levels being 15.345m being a departure of 7.345m or 91.8%.

 

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard which is attached (AT4). A summary of the Clause 4.6 request as it relates to Clause 4.6(3)(a) and (b) is provided as follows:

 

·          The Clause 4.6 request is limited to the additional height proposed above the existing building and approved DA130/2017.

 

·          The additional height is a consequence of replacing the upper floors with compliant floor to ceiling heights and space for the provision of services under each level. The replacement and rationalisation of existing floors is necessary due to the difficulties and costs involved in retaining the existing building.

 

·          The height is appropriate given the height of the existing and approved building, the complaint and reduced FSR under the SEPP, the absence of  any significant amenity or visual impacts, and the extended floor to ceiling heights being beneath the previously approved parapet.

 

·          The proposal represents a better planning outcome. Building advice has suggested it would be difficult and costly to retain the existing floors and facades as approved. Replacing these provides the opportunity to rationalise the floor levels in accordance with the Building Code of Australia requirements and expected ceiling heights for a contemporary residential aged care facility.

 

·          The approved residential care facility is a significant visual and amenity improvement on the existing dilapidated boarding house. The final appearance will be the same or very similar to that previously approved (DA130/2017). 

 

Comment:

 

The justification limits consideration of the additional height to that proposed above the existing building and that approved under DA130/2017. As detailed previously in this report the proposal is considered to be a stand-alone Development Application and the development as proposed is no longer for alterations and additions but rather should be characterised as a new development given the extent of demolition now proposed. It is therefore considered that any Clause 4.6 should not rely on the existing/approved structure as being a ‘given’ height and limit the justification to that beyond the existing/approved structure, but rather the justification should relate to how the proposal compares with the applicable local planning controls (being in this instance a height of 9.5m under Lane Cove LEP 2009).

 

The discovery of complications with building DA130/2017 is not considered to be suitable planning justification for the additional height. If the structure was not capable of being refurbished to comply with the BCA this should have been identified at the appropriate stage and it should not be placed on the consent authority to consider a variation on the grounds of building advice or methodology. While the subject Development Application is being considered without reference to DA130/2017, a consideration in allowing the building height in that instance was that the height largely remained as existing as the proposal was for refurbishment of the existing structure including retention of the external walls and slabs.

 

The justification that FSR is reduced and remains compliant is not considered to be well-founded given the departures identified below in Part 1(g)(ii) of this report below.

 

The building height is not considered satisfactory in relation to the SEPP design criteria as previously outlined in this report relating to:

 

·          Compatibility of the bulk and scale;

·          Desired future character;

·          Overshadowing;

·          Building height transition adjacent to boundaries and within rear 25% of site;

·          Streetscape building height; and

·          Visual privacy

 

It is considered that the proposal fails with respect to Clause 4.6(3) and accordingly the Clause 4.6 request is not supportable on this basis.  However, for completeness Clause 4.6(a)(ii) of LCLEP 2009 is also addressed being an assessment of whether the proposal is in the public interest based on consistency with the objectives of the building height standard and R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Building Height Objectives

 

The objectives of the building height development standard specified under Clause 4.3(1) of LEP 2009 are as follows:

 

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

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

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

(d)  To relate development to topography.

 

The submitted Clause 4.6 is based on superseded objectives different to those listed above. It is difficult to assess the Clause 4.6 in this regard.

 

Notwithstanding, the amendments to the LEP objectives for building height can be generally said to have introduced a test of reasonableness.

 

In relation to objective 4.3(1)(a) the solar access assessment should be conducted in relation to a SEPP (or LEP) compliant design. The submitted shadow diagrams (Drawing No. 18) are misleading as the majority of the shadow is taken as existing, and only applies the test of reasonableness to the additional shadow. As stated in this report, the building should not be taken as existing given the extent of demolition proposed and accordingly, the assessment of reasonableness is not considered to be clear. A Clause 4.6 request in this instance should compare the amenity impacts of a compliant design with the proposed design. Only then could a considered decision be reached on the reasonableness of the impacts.

 

In relation to objective 4.3(1)(b) a number of concerns have been raised by neighbours regarding the visual privacy and bulk and scale impacts of the proposal. The objective requires particular consideration where there is a zone interface. While the subject site interfaces with a higher density zone to the north of River Road West, the site itself is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. As a new development the proposal is of a scale that would be more appropriate in a R4 zone and is not considered appropriate in the R2 context, particularly due to the resultant privacy and bulk and scale impacts.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with respect to Clause 4.3(1)(c) and sunlight to the public domain in relation to the mid-winter period between 9:00am to 3:00pm which is generally adopted as the relevant period.

 

In relation to Clause 4.3(1)(d) the SEPP generally adopts controls which would allow for the transition of building massing towards the rear boundary and adjacent to boundaries. Given the topography of the site falls away to the south and west, this building height transition is considered more critical for providing reasonable planning outcomes for the adjoining properties.

 

Based on the information submitted the proposal is not considered satisfactory with respect to objective 4.3(1)(a)-(d)

 

Zone Objectives

 

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone specified in the Land Use Table to Part 2 of LCLEP 2009 are as follows:

 

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

• To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

• To encourage new dwelling houses or extensions of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

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

 

The proposal provides for housing needs in accordance with the zone objectives. The provision of housing needs to be done so within a low density residential environment. This is taken to mean where new development is proposed it should be consistent with low density residential environment. The proposed building height, is not considered consistent with this environment being up to five storeys in height. The proposal is no longer for a refurbishment of an existing structure and accordingly as new development must have stronger regard to the low density residential environment envisaged to the south of River Road West.

 

 

 

ii.         Floor Space Ratio

 

The consent authority cannot refuse an application on the grounds of density and scale of the building if the floor space ratio is 1:1 or less.

 

The applicant has submitted a number of differing FSR calculations. Drawing No. 3 details an FSR of 0.983:1 (4,215.62m2), drawing no. 25 details an FSR of 1.056:1 (4,532m2), and the SEE details an FSR of 0.98:1.

 

Reference is made to Clause 3 of the SEPP which defines gross floor area as follows:

 

gross floor area means the sum of the areas of each floor of a building, where the area of each floor is taken to be the area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls (as measured at a height of 1,400 millimetres above each floor level):

 

(a)  excluding columns, fin walls, sun control devices and any elements, projections or works outside the general lines of the outer face of the external wall, and

 

(b)  excluding cooling towers, machinery and plant rooms, ancillary storage space and vertical air conditioning ducts, and

 

(c)  excluding car parking needed to meet any requirements of this Policy or the council of the local government area concerned and any internal access to such parking, and

 

(d)  including in the case of in-fill self-care housing any car parking (other than for visitors) in excess of 1 per dwelling that is provided at ground level, and

 

(e)  excluding space for the loading and unloading of goods, and

 

(f)  in the case of a residential care facility—excluding any floor space below ground level that is used for service activities provided by the facility.

 

The FSR calculation has been assessed by the author of this report having regard to the above definition and a Floor Space Ratio of 1.2:1 (5,175m2) was obtained, being a departure of 20% (885m2) from the development standard.

 

It appears that the measurements of GFA submitted by the applicant measure from the internal face of the external enclosing wall and exclude common vertical circulation.

 

The applicant has not submitted a Clause 4.6 written request seeking to justify the contravention to the development standard. Clause 4.6(2) and (3) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 state the following:

 

(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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

 

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

 

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

           

Based on the above clauses, Clause 4.6 can apply to another planning instrument (Clause 4.6(2)) and the consent authority cannot consider a variation to a development standard without a written request from the applicant seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard (Clause 4.6(3)). Accordingly, the Local Planning Panel (being the concurrence authority for the purpose of a variation greater than 10% to a development standard), cannot be satisfied that the matters of Clause 4.6(3) have been addressed by the applicant. In any event, the proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 4.6(4) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 as the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the zone or standard objectives, being an over-development of the site, that no longer retains any bulk and scale concession for it being a refurbishment of an existing structure as detailed in the characterisation of the development earlier in this report.

 

3.         State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. Further, the site does not have a history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and an inspection of the site has revealed no evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. The subject site has been primarily used for residential and religious purposes. As such, the development application is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP55.

 

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

 

The site is not located on the foreshore or adjacent to a waterway and therefore, with the exception of the objective of improved water quality, the development is consistent with the objectives and controls contained with the deemed SEPP.

 

5.         State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

 

·          The application is not subject to Clause 45 of the SEPP as the development does not propose works within the vicinity of electricity infrastructure that trigger a written referral to the energy authority.

·          The subject site has frontage to a classified road being River Road West. The application is not subject to Clause 101 of the SEPP as vehicular access is not proposed from River Road West.

·          The application is not subject to Clause 102 of the SEPP as the average daily traffic volume of River Road West is less than 40,000 vehicles.

 

6.         Compliance with Lane Cove LEP 2009

 

The building height is not considered satisfactory for the development standard and zone objective reasons outlined in Section 1(g)(i) of this report. It is noted that the maximum building height permitted under LEP 2009 is 9.5m where a maximum building height of 16.75m is proposed being a variation of 7.25m or 76.32%.

 

7.         Issues Raised in Submissions

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal should be assessed as a standalone Development Application and the previous DA130/2017 should be surrendered before the current DA is assessed.

 

Agreed - The Development Application has been assessed as a stand-alone Development Application. There is no requirement for the applicant to surrender the previous DA prior to the assessment of the current application.

 

The building height cannot be supported on the grounds of Clause 4.6 due to the extensive structural work and excavation for basement. The proposal results in excessive bulk, scale and building height, is not responsive to the topography and does not provide for a suitable height transition.

 

Agreed - The suitability of building height is addressed within the report.

The developer is seeking to demolish the existing building (leaving only the outer walls), excavate for a basement and rebuild. The proposal cannot be reasonably construed as alterations and additions to the existing building and should therefore be designed to comply with all the requirements for the R2 zone.

 

Agreed - The characterisation of the development has been addressed in detail within the report.

Given the proposal is for a new development, landscaping should comply.

 

Undetermined - Insufficient information has been provided to allow for a complete assessment of landscaping.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the location and access requirements contained within Clause 26 of the SEPP.

 

The Clause 26 assessment is contained within the report and is considered to be adequate.

The proposal does not satisfy the compatibility criteria contained within Clause 29 of the SEPP.

 

Agreed - The Clause 29 assessment is contained within the report and the impact of the bulk, scale and built form is not considered adequate.

 

The Traffic Report is inadequate in relation to traffic safety and on-site parking provision.

 

The assessment of traffic and parking is provided within the report.

Overshadowing is unacceptable to No. 11 Stella Vista and 35 Greenwich Road.

 

Agreed - An assessment of overshadowing is contained within the report.

The terrace on the second floor and Juliette balconies will result in overlooking and loss of amenity for adjoining residents.

 

Agreed - An assessment of visual privacy is contained within the report.

The outline of the dwelling at No. 35 Greenwich Road has not been clearly marked.

 

This omission has been detailed within the report.

The proposal does not address construction management which is of particular concern to No. 35 Greenwich Road given the proposed extent of excavation for a basement.

 

The application in its current form is not supported on the grounds that the development (including the demolition for the basement) is no longer a refurbishment and accordingly, based on an assessment as new development, is not considered satisfactory and recommended for refusal on other grounds.

 

There have been historic drainage issues with the adjoining properties. Concern is raised that the extent of excavation and development will result in drainage problems to No. 2, 3 and 5 Coolabah Avenue, Stella Vista Place and  No. 35 Greenwich Road.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections subject to conditions.

Tree removal has not been clearly identified and will result in a reduction in the green buffer.

 

Council’s Tree Preservation Office has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections subject to conditions.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Development Application has been evaluated under the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

The documentation submitted by the applicant to support the Development Application seeks to rely or benefit from the existing building and an approved Development Application for the refurbishment of that building to justify a suite of non-compliances.

 

As outlined in this report the Development is a stand-alone Development Application and is a new development and not alterations and additions or an amending application. The proposed residential care facility when assessed in this way is not considered satisfactory particularly in regard to the proposed building height, and a floor space ratio variation that was not accompanied by the appropriate written request for a variation.

 

The proposal in the context of a new application where a significant portion (if not all) of the existing structure is to be demolished represents an overdevelopment of the site, would result in a building that does not meet with the design criteria within the SEPP and is not consistent with the objectives and future desired character of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

It is recommended that the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse the application for the reasons outlined within this report as summarised within the recommended reasons for refusal below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A.         That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel exercising the functions of Council as Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, must refuse to grant development consent as no written request seeking to justify the contravention to the floor space ratio standard within SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 has been submitted. Accordingly development consent cannot be granted subject to Clause 4.6(3) of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

B.         That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel exercising the functions of Council as Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, refuse a variation to the height development standard prescribed by SEPP (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004, and Clause 4.3 of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan, as it is not satisfied that

 

(i)         The applicant’s request has met Clause 4.6(3); and

(ii)        The proposal will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and R2 Low Density Residential zone:

 

C.        That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel exercising the functions of Council as Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, refuse to grant development consent on the following grounds:

 

Aims of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

 

1.         The development application should be refused because it is inconsistent with the objectives of SEPP (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 2 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the                       following:

 

            2   Aims of Policy

(1)  This Policy aims to encourage the provision of housing (including residential care facilities) that will:

(a)  increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability, and

(b)  make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

(c)  be of good design.

(2)  These aims will be achieved by:

(a)  setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this Policy, and

(b)  setting out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and form, and

(c)  ensuring that applicants provide support services for seniors or people with a disability for developments on land adjoining land zoned primarily for urban purposes.

 

            (b)        While the proposal would result in an increase in supply and diversity of residencies                        the proposal has not had appropriate regard to the design principles contained                              within the SEPP and cannot therefore be said to be of good design.

 

Building Height

 

2.         The development application should be refused because the building height does not comply with the development standard or objectives for height of buildings and the R2 Low Density Residential zone contained with LCLEP 2009 given the height controls specified within LEP 2009 and SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004:

 

Particulars

(a)        SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 includes the following development standards:

           

Clause 40(4) – Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted

If the development is proposed in a residential zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted.

(a) the height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8 metres or less, and

(b) a building that is adjacent to a boundary of the site must be not more than 2 storeys in height, and

(c) a building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.

 

Clause 48 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse development consent for residential care facilities

A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a residential care facility on any of the following grounds

(a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys)

 

(b)        The proposal provides a maximum height of five storeys, exceeds two storeys adjacent to a boundary, exceeds one storey within the rear 25% of the site, and results in a maximum height of 15.345m.

 

(c)        Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 states:

 

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

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

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

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

(d)  To relate development to topography.

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

 

(d)        The maximum height shown under LCLEP 2009 is 9.5m where a maximum building height of 16.75m is proposed.

 

(e)        The reasonableness of the impacts of the proposed building height have not been established having regard to the criteria of the SEPP (Contention 4-8 below),and the building  height objectives of LCLEP 2009 relating to solar access, privacy and visual impacts to adjoining development.

 

(f)        The development is not characterised as a refurbishment and reliance on an existing building or a previous consent that relied on being primarily for refurbishment, is not considered suitable. Having regard to the future envisaged character of the R2 Low Density Zone and the zone objectives the proposal is not considered satisfactory.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

3.         The development application should be refused because the proposed development does not comply with the FSR specified in SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 and no Clause 4.6 (or SEPP 1) written request for a variation has been submitted.

 

            Particulars

            (a)        Clause 48(b) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the                   following:

 

                                    A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made                           pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a                              residential care facility on any of the following grounds:

 

                                    (b) density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a                       floor space ratio is 1:1 or less.

           

(b)        The FSR has been erroneously calculated as 0.98:1;

 

            (c)        The FSR proposed is 1.2:1 and no written request seeking to justify a contravention to                     the development standard has been submitted;

 

(d)        The consent authority cannot consider a variation to a development standard without a                 written request from the applicant prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of LEP                                     2009;

 

(e)        Accordingly, the proposal cannot be determined by way of approval, even prior to any consideration of merits. Notwithstanding, the other issues of merit are outlined below.

 

Compatibility with Adjoining Land Uses

 

4.         The development application should be refused because the proposal is not compatible with             the adjoining land uses.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 25(b)(v) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the following:

 

            The proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses having regard to (at least) the following criteria:

 

            (v) without limiting any other criteria, the impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.

 

(b)        The proposed bulk, scale and built form is not considered compatible with adjoining land uses having regard to the development being characterised as a new development and the unsatisfactory building height and floor space ratio proposed.

 

 

 

Compatibility with Future Desired Character

 

5.         The development application should be refused because the proposal is not compatible with             the future desired character.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 33(a) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the following:

 

            The proposed development should recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area

 

(b)        The proposal is characterised as a new building and does not recognise the future desired character of the area which is established to the south of River Road West by the designation and commencement of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Neighbourhood Amenity and Residential Character

 

6.         The development application should be refused because the proposal does not maintain             reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 33(c)(i)-(iii) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the following:

 

            The proposed development should

(c) Maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing;

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form;

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that area compatible in scale with adjacent development. 

 

(b)        The proposal is not considered to provide a suitable transition in height, be compatible with the street frontage heights to the south of River Road West, or have demonstrated the reasonableness of building setbacks and bulk given the overshadowing impacts proposed.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

7.         The development application should be refused because the proposal does not adequately             consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 34(a) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the following:

 

            The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping.

 

(b)        The proposal is characterised as a new building and concern is raised that the visual privacy of the downslope neighbours is not suitable given the number of storeys and Juliette balconies that would result in overlooking.

 

Solar Access and Design for Climate

 

8.         The development application should be refused because the proposal is not compatible with             the future desired character.

 

Particulars

(a)        Clause 35(a) of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 states the following:

 

            The proposed development should ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space.

 

(b)        It has not been demonstrated that adequate solar access has been provided to the main living areas of neighbours or substantial private open space areas, particular in comparison with a compliant-design. The reliance on an existing shadow is not considered well founded given the development is characterised as a new building and not a refurbishment of an existing building.

 

Public Interest

 

9.         The development application should be refused because the proposal is not in the public, interest having regard to the above contentions, and is unsatisfactory with respect to Section 4.15(e) of the EP&A Act, 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Amending Development Applications

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Characterisation of Development

2 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Clause 4.6 Request

16 Pages