Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

4 December 2018, 5:00pm

LC_WebBanner


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 4 December 2018

Minutes

 

 

 

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

 

ALSO PRESENT:                   Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Henry Burnett, Senior Town Planner and Ms Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:     Nil

 

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

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

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

10 Bellevue Avenue, GreenWIch

 

DETERMINATION

 

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. 

 

3A.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the proposed development is contrary to a draft Planning Proposal which is currently on public exhibition, under which multi dwelling housing is prohibited development in the R2 Low Density Zone.

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.

 

Panel Reasons

 

The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for refusal contained in that report together with additional condition 3A,

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

 

The application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 5.15pm.