Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

3 September 2019, 5:00pm

 

 

LC_WebBanner

 

 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove on Tuesday 3 September 2019 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

1.       52A Arabella Street Longueville.................................................................... 4

 

2.       30-30A Landers Road, Lane Cove North......................................................... 46

 

3.       38-42 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove..................................................................... 80

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   3 September 2019

52A Arabella Street Longueville

 

 

Subject:          52A Arabella Street Longueville    

Record No:    DA19/36-01 - 28924/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Shortt 

 

 

 

Property:

52A Arabella Street Longueville

DA No:

DA2019/36

Date Lodged:

28/3/2019

Cost of Work:

$2,897,142

Owner:

Philip and Jean Barnard

Applicant:                        

Philip and Jean Barnard

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Construction of a 2-storey building with garage above and swimming pool.  

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

 

Is the property a heritage item

No, but as the site adjoins the foreshore of Woodford Bay it may also adjoin Kirk’s Factory which is an archaeological site under the LEP 2009 located in this general area.

 

Is the property within a conservation area

No

 

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

 

BCA Classification

Class 1a and 10b

 

Stop the Clock used

No

 

Notification

 

 

Neighbours                             33, 33A, 35, 35A, 37- 39, 48, 50- 50A, 52, 54, 56 Arabella Street, 1 Nott Lane.

 

Progress Association             Longueville Residents Assoc.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·    The proposal is to be determined by the panel because it would result in non-compliance with the development standard (FSR) by greater than 10%.

 

·    The proposed dwelling house and swimming pool are located on a greenfield site that formed the rear portion of 52 Arabella Street. When this site was subdivided into 2 Torrens title lots in May 2001 it created:

 

-  a front lot, Lot 201, at 52 Arabella Street; and

-  a rear lot, Lot 202, at 52A Arabella Street.

 

·    The 2 lots were divided along a low retaining wall which remains today.

 

·    Lot 202 is a vacant lot with an area of 1,218m2. It includes bushland; rock outcrops; and a rock ledge towards its eastern end about 5m high. The site has a dual zoning: its western portion (uphill) is zoned R2 and has an area of about 670m2, and its eastern portion (downhill) is zoned E2 and has an area of about 548m2.

 

·    At the time of its subdivision Council imposed a covenant requiring a bushland line setback 79m from Arabella Street over the majority of the site that is zoned R2 to protect bushland and this is shown on the submitted plans.

 

At the time of the release of the Subdivision Certificate the owners of both lots included a second covenant creating a building height plane (BHP) over Lot 202 (for their benefit as the owners of Lot 201) to protect views and reduce the potential adverse impacts of a future dwelling house on Lot 202.

 

·    Lot 201 (52 Arabella) has a frontage to Arabella Street and contains a dwelling house.

 

·    The proposal does not raise any significant issues in relation to either of the two covenants that apply to the site: small sections of the roof of the dwelling house would protrude through the BHP, and two attached cantilevered rear terraces would impinge the rear bushland (development) line. The former incursions are minor and conditions 3 and 4 are included to ensure compliance with the latter.

 

·    The proposal satisfies the development standard for height under the LEP 2009.

 

·    The proposal would have FSR of 0.57:1 or a variation of 14% above the LEP control 2009. The variation is supported in this instance as it a technical variation based on the duel zoning of the site which excludes the portion zoned E2 as part of the total site area.

 

·    The applicant submitted a clause 4.6 statement requesting approval for the variation of the development standard for FSR. Council is satisfied that Clause 4.6 of the Plan, and the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

 

·    It is noted that an identical application was approved on the site in 2011 (D2010/274). The previous DA was never taken up and lapsed in 2016. The previous DA had an identical building envelope, setbacks and density.

 

·    Although the proposal would result in 4 non - compliances with the DCP 2009 none would raise any significant issues and all are recommended for support.

 

·    Three (3) objections were received to the proposal: one from the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society, and two (2) on behalf of the owner of an adjacent dwelling house at 1 Nott Lane who engaged a town planning consultant to submit objections. Concerns raised include:

Overshadowing;

Privacy from 1st floor windows and deck;

Rear setback;

Non-compliance with FSR;

Vehicle manoeuvrability from garage into Nott lane;

Impacts during construction;

Impacts on sub-water surface flows;

Compliance with bushland controls;

Stormwater impacts;

Pedestrian access to foreshore; and

Top soil.

 

·    Overall the proposal would be a reasonable development and it is therefore recommended for approval subject to draft conditions of consent designed to minimise physical amenity impacts.

Figure 1: Location Plan.

Figure 2: Zoning map of subject site showing dual zoning over Lot 202.

SITE

 

The site is located within a battle-axe lot on the southeastern side of Arabella Street and is accessed via Nott Lane. The site is legally known as Lot 202 of Deposited Plan 1135793. The site has a width of approximately 15.24m and has a total area of 1218 sqm.

 

The site is located adjacent to residential dwellings which are between 1 and 3-storeys in height. The site is located on the bank of Woodford Bay and enjoys eastern views to the waterfront.  A number of adjacent dwellings are 3-storey stepped developments which follow the topography of the land.  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

      Figure 3: View down Nott Lane from Arabella St.     Figure 4: Southeast end of Nott Lane and site.

      Figure 5: View from rear of site looking northwest. Figure 6: View looking southeast to Woodford Bay.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

D/2010/274

 

On 5 April 2011 consent was granted for a dwelling house over three levels and a swimming pool. The current application is identical to the previous approval. The previous approval had the same building envelope, height, floor space, internal and external floor layout, swimming pool location.

 

D/2010/274A

 

On 18 March 2016 the approval was modified under Section 96 of the Act. Condition (2) required an easement for public access on the E2 section of the site and registered on the Certificate of Title prior to the submission of an Occupation Certificate. Legal advice from the applicant argued that there was no nexus between the approved development and providing public access through the site. Council’s solicitors reviewed the advice and agreed to subsequently delete the condition via the s96.

 

D2001/39

 

In May 2001 consent was granted for the subdivision of the original site at 52 Arabella Street into 2 Torrens title lots.

 

The approval established a bushland line (development line) for the rear lot (Lot 202) setback 79m from the original site’s Arabella Street frontage. At the time of the release of the Subdivision Certificate the s.88B Instrument also included a building height plane over the rear lot for the benefit of the owners of 52 Arabella Street (Lot 201).

 

D2001/285

 

In December 2001 consent was granted for a dwelling house on 3 levels on Lot 201(52 Arabella Street) and was approved under the then General Manager’s delegation in December 2001.This consent was subsequently amended in April 2002. The consent lapsed and is no longer valid.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The application is for a 2-storey dwelling house over 3 levels, and a swimming pool, details of which follow:

 

·    the upper level (level 3) would have a similar level to Nott Lane; it would include the main entry; a study, entry foyer and an attached double garage, lift core and stairwell to provide access to the lower levels;

·    the middle level (level 2) would be 4m below the level of the turning area in Nott Lane; it would include a bedroom with an ensuite and a laundry at the front; a central lounge with an adjoining balcony; and an open plan kitchen/ dining/ pantry family room with an adjoining rear terrace, internal stairwell and a lift core provide access to other levels; and

·    the lower level (level 1) would be 8m below the level of the same turning area; it would include 3 bedrooms with ensuites; including a master bedroom and adjoining rear terrace on two sides; a rumpus room with an adjoining north facing terrace; and a 3.5m x 7.8m swimming pool with a variable depth up to 1.8m located at the rear northeast corner with a concourse adjoining the dwelling house. Lift core and internal stairwell to provide access to upper levels.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning: part R2 – Low Density Residential and part E2 – Environmental Conservation

 

Total site area: 1,218m² (R2 component approx.670m2; and E2 component approx. 548m2)

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.57:1

0.5:1

No

 

But supported in this instance

 

Refer to clause 4.6 section

 

Height of Buildings

 

9.495 m

9.5m

Yes

 


 

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

 

48m from Arabella Street alignment battleaxe lot

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

 

Side setback (min)

 

1300mm

 

1500mm

1200mm single-storey

 

1500mm two-storey

Yes

 

Yes

Rear setback (min)

 

50% rear setback

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

 

Yes

 

 

 

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

7.4m

 

7.0m

 

No in part

 

But supported in this instance

 

Refer to variations to Council’s Control sections

Maximum Ridge height

9.495m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

(Although incorrectly notated as ‘1.5m’ on section plan. Scales as 1m)

1m

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

2 + basement

2

Yes

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

60%

 

 

 

35%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Foreshore Building Line (min)

N/A

N/A

Yes

 

Works are a minimum of 44m from MHWM line

 

Foreshore setback line

N/A

Consistent with foreshore setback line

Yes

 

 

Cut and Fill (max)

Cut 4.7m

 

Fill 1m

1m

No

 

But supported in this instance

 

 

Refer to variations to Council’s Control sections

Solar Access

 

No habitable windows affected. Reasonable sunlight achieved to private opens space between 10am and 1pm.

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

 

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

4.4m – 5.9m

 

3m

 

No

 

But conditioned to comply

 

Private open space

 

46sqm

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

 

Basix

Submitted

Required

Yes

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

2

Yes

Driveway width

3m

3m at the lot boundary

Yes

 

Private Swimming Pools

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Setback to Neighbour’s House (min)

17m

3m to waterline

 

  Yes

 

Setback to boundary (min)

2.4m

1m to waterline

  Yes

Height (max)

(steeply sloping sites)

1.68m                                   on a steep slope

1.8m

  Yes

 

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

1.38m

Coping to be set back at a ratio of 1:1 (1.68m)

 

 

No in part

 

But supported in this instance

 

Refer to variations to Council’s Control sections

 


 

 

Bushland

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

 Bushland Buffer Area

11m minimum separation between E2 zone (bushland) and built structures

 

The rear balcony and

 Minimum 10m buffer between bushland and built area.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Bushland Buffer Area

No paving or decking proposed within the buffer area.

Paving and decking not to exceed 25% of the buffer area.

Yes

Bushland Buffer Area

Within buffer are is lawn and stormwater facilities

Permitted in the buffer area are:

 

(ii) stormwater detention/absorption pits

(iii) lawn / landscaping

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

The proposal is for a new 2-storey dwelling house and pool on the existing vacant lot of land.

No OSD is required as the site is within Council’s OSD exclusion area. All new impervious areas have been conditioned to drain to the proposed new stormwater system. A new layback is proposed in Nott Lane and has been conditioned. The proposed excavation has been conditioned in the interest of all adjoining structures. No objections subject to recommended draft conditions.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s tree officer reviewed the documents provided and visited the site. The Arborists report notes 17 trees from the survey plan, eight of which have been removed prior to the assessment and will not feature in the report’s assessment. The proposal seeks to install the dwelling structure and stormwater pipes within the Tree Protection Zones of neighbouring trees and Council owned Bushland to the rear of the site adjoining Woodford Bay.

The Arborists report and plans provided have demonstrated it is possible to manage the impact on the surrounding trees and vegetation with an acceptable level of impact. It is also noted the Stormwater Engineer has clearly stated that the recommendations contained within the Arborist report are consistent with the proposal and would be carried out accordingly.

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions. Supported by the planning assessment officer.

 

 

Bushland Officer

 

Initially Council’s bushland officer requested confirmation that no building works are to occur within 43m from the rear boundary. This measurement was determined by 33m of E2 bushland existing along the bottom boundary and 10m bushland buffer zone. Further information submitted following the initial referral satisfied the bushland officer and confirmed that has met the bushland buffer criteria of allowing a minimum 10m distance from E2 zone to the closest built structure. The bushland officer referred to Council’s tree officer to assess and provide advice on the significance and retention value of tree 8 (Spotted gum). The tree officer raised no objection to the tree removal.  See recommended bushland draft conditions. Supported by the planning assessment officer.

 

Landscaping /Open Space

 

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions. Supported by the planning assessment officer.

 

Aboriginal Heritage Office

 

The proposal which mirrors the previous now lapsed DA was not referred to the Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO) in this instance. The previous referral in 2011 discovered no items of Aboriginal significance. Regardless a condition has been recommended by Council’s bushland officer requiring the following:

 

·    All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  If during the course of construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

ASSESSMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979

 

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

 

1. Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

General

 

Zone.

 

The site is subject to dual zoning over a single lot.  The upper portion has an approximate area of 670sqm and is zoned R2 low density residential. The lower portion of the site leading down to the foreshore has an area of approximately 548sqm and is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. All building works are located in the upper section zoned R2.

 

The proposal would provide a dwelling house, which adds additional housing stock to provide for the housing needs of the community and retains significant landscaping. The proposal would step down with the contours of the slope to ensure it is not highly visible from Nott Lane. The proposed development would not unreasonably compromise solar access to neighboring properties.

 

Development Standards

 

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings.

 

The proposal complies with the height standard of 9.5m at a maximum height of 9.45m.

 

Clause 4.4 FSR - A variation is sought for the FSR.  Please refer to attached Clause 4.6 section below.

 

Heritage

 

(a)  Archaeological - Kirk’s Factory, which produced soap and candles, was located along the foreshores of Woodford Bay. In the Lane Cove Library’s document Exploring Historic Longueville – by Car or Foot (1993), the greater part of the complex was located close to what is now Lucretia Avenue and Dunois Street, with the last building remnants located near the former. The works had a jetty at what is now Woodford Street.

 

(b)  Aboriginal - Based on available evidence it would appear - in relation to the subject site at least - that there are no parts of the factory complex remaining and, in any event, the proposed development would be setback more than 44m from the foreshore.  Consequently it would be reasonable to deduce that the proposal would not have any effect on this heritage item, and therefore Council’s heritage conservation obligations under cl. 5.10(7) for Archaeological sites are abrogated. 

 

Variation of the FSR standard.

 

CLAUSE 4.4 – FLOOR SPACE RATIO

 

In accordance with Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio of LCLEP 2009 a maximum floor space ratio (FSRs) apply to the subject site of 0.5:1.

 

The maximum FSR permitted for development on the subject site is indicated as follows in the table below:

 

Site Area of 52A Arabella St.

Site Area in sqm

Maximum permissible FSR

Maximum permissible  GFA

Proposed GFA

Proposed FSR

Complies

Area of site zoned R2

670

 

0.5:1

335

376

0.57:1

No

However supported

Refer to clause 4.6 variation

Area of site zoned E2

548

NIL

NIL

NIL

NIL

Yes

Total Site Area

1218

-

335

376

0.316:1

Yes

 

However due to the dual zoning of the site, the portion zoned as E2 does not generate any floor area. Therefore only 670sqm of the 1218 sqm lot can technically be used to calculate FSR. The remaining 598 sqm or 47% of the site is not permitted to be used in the FSR calculation.

 

SITE CONTEXT

 

The subject site is known as 52A Arabella Street and comprises of one allotment known as Lot 202 in Deposited Plan 1135793. Lot 202 is a vacant lot with an area of 1,218m2. The site has a dual zoning: its western portion is zoned R2 and has an area of about 670m2, and its eastern portion is zoned E2 and has an area of about 548m2 pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009.

 

 

CLAUSE 4.5 – CALCULATION OF FLOOR SPACE RATIO AND SITE AREA

4.5 (4) (a) Exclusions from the site area.

 

The following land must be excluded from the site area:

 

(a)  Land on which the proposed development is prohibited, whether under this Plan or any other Law.

 

Dwelling houses are not permitted in the E2 zone. Therefore the proposed development is technically not permitted to use the land zoned ‘E2’ in their site area calculations.

 

Under clause 4.5 (4) (a), the FSR is based only on the land zoned R2. This portion of the lot zoned R2 has an area of 670m². The FSR control of 0.5:1 would result in a total maximum permitted GFA of 335m² (50% of 670m²).

The proposed development provides a total gross floor area (GFA) of 376m², well below the maximum FSR of 609sqm for the entire Lot 202 but exceeds the maximum The non-compliance is 41 above the FSR control.

 

EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN LANE COVE LEP 2009

 

Objectives of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009

 

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

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

The Applicant’s written request to vary the FSR development standard, under the provisions

of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 was provided.

 

Assessment of the exception under Clause 4.6:

 

In assessing an exception to vary a development standard, the following needs to be considered:

 

1.   Is the planning control a development standard?

 

Yes, Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio is a development standard.

 

2.   What is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of Clause 4.4 is to ensure that the built form of new developments reinforce and respect the existing character and scale of land uses, having regard to the area of the site and the type of development proposed. Clause 4.4 specifically states that the objective of Clause 4.4(1)(a) is “to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.”

 

3.   Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

Preston CJ, in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, stated that “the rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

 

Strict compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the subject proposal given the following.

 

·    Variation sought to the FSR development standard is considered to be a technical variation and is minor as it is only sought to part of the site as a result of the dual maximum FSR standards which apply to the subject site.

·    In addition, Preston CJ, in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, established a number of ways of determining whether compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The most common approach is to establish that compliance with the objectives of the control is achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the particular standard.

·    In accordance with Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of LCLEP 2009, the consent authority must be satisfied that “the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out”.

 

Objectives of the particular standard

 

The objectives of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio are as follows:

 

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.

Comment:

The proposal retains an appropriate building density on the site, consistent and compatible with the scale of development within the immediate locality. The proposed development complies with the overall height standard and is compatible with the desired future character of built form within the Longueville locality. In addition, the proposal responds to the site specific LEP and DCP which applies to the subject site.

Having regard to the above, strict compliance with the FSR development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary, in the circumstances of the case.

 

Objectives for development within the zone

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Residential Low Density pursuant to LCLEP 2009.

 

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

 

Zone R2 Residential low density

 

1 Objectives of zone

 

·    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 extension of existing dwelling houses that are not highly visible when viewed from the Lane Cove River or Parramatta River.

·    urban design maximising attractive public domain and adequate circulation space for current and future users.

·    To maximise sunlight for surrounding properties and the public domain.

 

Comment:

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of the R2 zone. In particular:

·    The proposal provides a dwelling house, which adds additional housing stock to provide for the housing needs of the community. The proposal is for a single dwelling which is consistent with the low-density residential character of the R2 zone. The proposal is in a similar location and setbacks to a number of dwellings in the vicinity including 78A, 78B, 78C, 78D and 80 Arabella Street.

·    Currently the site is vacant and filled with weedy species and is considered unsightly. The application proposes a high quality designed residential dwelling that improves the existing residential amenity of the site without compromising the amenity of neighboring sites;

·    The proposal steps down with the contours of the slope to ensure it is not highly visible from Nott Lane.

·    The application proposes a new dwelling house which is set back approximately 44m from the foreshore. The E2 zoned portion of the site is filled with significant canopy trees and vegetation ensuring that the new dwelling would not be highly visible when viewed from Woodford Bay (Lane Cove River);

·    The proposed development would not unreasonably compromise solar access to neighboring properties. It has been designed to maximize solar access to the surrounding properties and the public domain.

·    The proposed variation of the FSR control is a technical variation with a total FSR (inclusive of areas of the Lot zoned R2 and E2) being 0.3:1 when measured against the total site area.

 

In this regard, strict compliance with the FSR development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in these circumstances.

 

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

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, indicates that merely showing that the development standards achieves the objectives of the development standard is insufficient to justify that a development is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the purposes of an objection under Clause 4.6. The case also demonstrates that the requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstance of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

Despite the non-compliance with the maximum FSR for part of the site, the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the zone and has demonstrated the following:

 

·   The development fully complies with the maximum building height control and provides a considered design that promotes an appropriate density, when considered in context, noting the minor increase in floor space for part of the site.

·   The overall design of the proposal is generally consistent with the controls contained within LCLEP 2009, LCDCP 2010.

·   The variation to the FSR development standard for the proposal does not contribute to the building being of an unreasonable bulk and scale.

·   The proposal would not result in any additional adverse amenity impact on neighbouring properties with respect to solar access or privacy subject to conditions.

 

5.   Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the relevant objectives of the land zone?

 

The bulk and scale of the building is compatible with the character of built form within the area and would not result in an unreasonable impact on the solar access of neighbouring properties. The proposal remains consistent with both the objectives of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio and the R2 Residential Zone

 

6.   Will strict compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?       

 

Strict compliance with the development standard would not hinder attainment of the objectives specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act as the proposed development would retain the amenity, and protect the existing E2 zoned landscape, vegetation and amenity for the community, particularly that of neighbouring sites, and promote the orderly, economic use and development of land.

 

7.   Is the exception well founded?

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objective of the FSR development standard as the bulk and scale of the development is in keeping with the desired and prevailing character of development in the Longueville locality. As such, the exception is considered to be well founded in this context.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council has considered the request for a variation to the FSR development standard under Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009. Strict compliance with the FSR standard is considered to be unreasonable and necessary in the circumstances of the case being the protection of landscape and vegetation amenity in the adjoining E2 zone while accommodating minor and reasonable deviation from the prescriptive standard Floor Space Ratio detailed in this report. On balance, the proposed development is satisfactory, and the request for variation is considered to be well founded and supported.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

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

 

 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The site at 52A Arabella Street Longueville is subject to the controls of the SREP as it is within proximity to Woodford Bay (Sydney Harbour). Pursuant to Clause 5, the Consent Authority for land-based development is the council of that Local Government Area. Land based development means any development carried out wholly above the mean high-water mark. In this instance the development seeks approval for the construction of a swimming pool with partially clear glass (east side) and timber (west side) child safety fence. The distance from the mean high-water mark is greater than 30m and therefore it would not be highly visible from Sydney Harbour. No significant trees are proposed to be removed. In this regard the proposal complies with the SREP and is considered acceptable.

 

SREP 2005

 

(i) Aims

 

The proposal would satisfy the aims of this deemed Policy because it would preserve the site’s setting in relation to the foreshore whilst resulting in no significant natural impacts.

 

(ii)  Matters for consideration

 

The proposal has been assessed against the following relevant clauses.

 

(a) Clause 20 - General

 

The application has addressed the relevant matters.

 

(b)  Clause 21 – Biodiversity, ecology and environment protection

 

The proposed dwelling house and swimming pool would be setback over 44m from the foreshore of Woodford Bay. This, in conjunction with the retention of all of the trees in the lower section of the site, and the screening potential of existing trees on both adjoining and adjacent sites, would ensure that the development would have a relatively benign visual impact viewed from the water. 

 

The proposed dwelling house would result in impacts similar to those of existing dwelling houses close by. The submitted landscape plan includes landscaping around the proposed dwelling house and swimming pool on the upper section of the site whilst retaining existing trees and the understorey within its rear lower section.  

 

(c) Clause 22 – Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

 

The intention is to maintain and improve public access to and along the foreshore without adversely impacting on any watercourse, sensitive land or remnant vegetation. Since all proposed works would be setback from the rock ledge, the privately owned land below (that includes a walking track through it) would not be disturbed.

 

Draft condition 2 is included so that Council can secure an easement over that part of the site zoned E2 to allow public access through this lower part of the site that currently is in private ownership.    

 

(d) Clause 25 - Foreshores and waterways scenic quality

 

The scale, form, design and siting of the proposal are reasonable having regard to existing dwelling houses close by, including other waterfront properties, and dwelling houses along the ridge in Arabella Street. The character of the locality, with its 2 and 3 storey dwelling houses, would not be changed viewed from the foreshore.

 

Draft conditions 3 and 4 are recommended to address potential overlooking of the rear yards of adjoining residences. The proposed development’s visual impact on the formed section of Nott Lane would be significantly less than that of the other three existing dwelling houses, whilst the impact on its unformed section would be less than that of the dwelling house at 1 Nott Lane. The existing trees and understorey in the lower section of the rear yard would be retained and protected by conditions whilst a further condition would require the bushland trees adjacent to the site to be subject to a bond. Further, the proposed dwelling house would blend with the style of other dwelling houses in the area.

 

(e)  Clause 26 -  Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views.

 

The proposal would not have an adverse impact on water views available from neighbouring residences, and it would not affect the public vista of Woodford Bay, nor the iconic and/or CBD views beyond, obtained from the high western end of Nott Lane.

 

(f)   Clause 27 - Boat storage facilities

 

The existing boat shed would not be affected by the proposal.

 

SREP DCP 2005

 

As per part 3 Landscape Assessment, No: 52A Arabella Street is located adjacent to Woodford Bay defined as Landscape Character Type 9, which are areas that contain natural foreshores interspersed with more developed areas and provides a key feature and visual variety to the total landscape. Development within this area should retain its natural features, and only development consistent with the scale, design and siting of that which exists is to be encouraged.

 

The objectives of character type 9 are met based on the following:

·    the development would be set back behind the bushland line established by Council in 2001 and over 44m from the foreshore and would not be highly visible from Woodford Bay;

·    the proposed dwelling house itself would be of similar bulk and scale to existing dwelling houses in the area and the ridge height of the proposed dwelling house would be considerably less than that of neighbouring residences because its upper level would be located on that part of the site with a similar level to the lower eastern end of the formed section of Nott Lane; and

·    and it would be screened viewed from the foreshore of Woodford Bay because all trees at the rear of the proposed dwelling house would be retained. The proposal would not result in any adverse cumulative impacts.

 

Part 5 of this DCP addresses Design Guidelines for Land – Based Developments. A review of the proposal in relation to the relevant clauses follows.

 

(i) Foreshore access

 

This issue has been discussed under the SREP. There is a current set of timber stairs adjacent to Nott Lane which need upgrading. The previous (D2010/274) included a condition requiring an easement for pedestrian access on the part of the site zoned E2 to the foreshore. Legal advice from the applicant argued that there was no nexus between the approved development and providing public access through the site. Council’s solicitors reviewed the advice and agreed to subsequently delete the condition in a S.96 amendment. In light of the above, an easement for public access will not be required as part of the subject DA.

 

(ii)   Clause 5.3: Siting of buildings and structures

 

Other than two sections of cantilevered rear terraces, the proposed dwelling house and swimming pool would be setback behind the bushland line established by Council in 2001 and 11m from the E2 boundary line. Due to the setback the proposal would not disturb vegetation within the lower section of the site. In addition, the development would not adversely affect water views from adjoining and/or adjacent residences, nor would it affect the public vista of Woodford Bay and/or the iconic views beyond viewed from Nott Lane.

 

 

(iii)  Clause 5.4: Built form

 

The design of the proposal would be sympathetic to its surroundings, and its scale of the built form would be of a similar scale to other dwelling houses in the vicinity, including other battle axe properties fronting the waterfront. 

 

The proposed series of shallow hipped roofs; tiering of the dwelling house into 3 main sections; and its recessed sections, would collectively reduce its bulk and scale into smaller elements. In addition the proposed low – pitched sections of roof and overall height of the dwelling house would ensure views of Woodford Bay would not be adversely affected. A condition is included to prevent roof glare.

 

The articulated and partly recessed facades, and use of neutral colours, would assist in breaking up the mass of the dwelling house viewed from adjoining and/or adjacent residences. Further, the proposed dwelling house would be consistent with other residences in the area and the neutral tone of its external finishes and colours would assist in screening it viewed from Woodford Bay.  

 

(iv)  Clause 5.6: Planting

 

The submitted landscape plan would replace those tree species that would be removed from the upper section of the site. A draft condition in the consent requires a 1:1 tree replacement ratio.

 

(v)  Clause  5.12: Boat sheds

 

The existing boat shed would not be affected by the proposal.

 

(vi)  Clause 5.13: Swimming pools

 

The proposed swimming pool would not have an adverse visual impact because it would be screened by all of the existing on - site trees that would be retained in front of this structure.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

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

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 4.15(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding section identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with.  Each of the departures is discussed below.

1.   Wall height

 

The proposed maximum wall height is 7.4m which exceeds the control by 400mm. This non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance for the following reasons:

 

(a)  The objectives for building design would be satisfied because:

·    the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling house would reinforce that of existing dwelling houses in the area;

·    the development’s south elevation to Nott Lane, which would generally be 2 storeys divided into 3 main sections with some recesses, would reduce its visual impact from this laneway; and

·    there would be no issues arising from the proposed dwelling house on any one of the 3 adjoining residences in terms of overshadowing; light spillage; loss of views; or general amenity, and subject to the inclusion of conditions 5 and 6 that would reduce potential overlooking from the kitchen and the mid - level rear terrace on the south elevation, and from the north facing foyer on the north elevation, respectively, over both adjoining properties; and because:

(b)  the numerical departure of 400mm over a 1m wide section of the south elevation would not be significant; and

(c)  the proposal complies with the overall height control of 9.5m.

 

2.   Cut and Fill

 

Normally the maximum extent of cut allowed is 1m but on sloping sites this may be increased to a maximum of 1.5m. Although the proposed cut of 4.7m would be well in excess of this provision the non – compliance is recommended for support because:

 

·    the topography of the site falls dramatically over the upper part of the site from RL 26.50 to RL 22.40 where the excavation starts. In context to the slope the required volume of excavation would be relatively minor;

·    the split-level approach to the design of the dwelling house requires a certain level of excavation to counteract the site’s significant changes in level;

·    the level of excavation is not highly visible from the public way or neighbouring properties as the excavation would commence at a level below that of adjoining properties and the turning area in Nott Lane;

·    no undercroft area would be created;

·    the dwelling house would not exceed 2-storeys in external appearance;

·    there would be no adverse impacts on adjoining properties; and

·    Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions to address stormwater run – off which would enable a greater volume of water to be collected prior to its discharge into the more sensitive lower sections of the site.  

 

3.      Deck/balcony (terrace) depth

 

The proposed elevated terrace at the rear of the middle level family room would have a variable depth of between 4.4m and 5.9m. It would be contrary to the two relevant amenity objectives (to provide reasonable acoustic and visual privacy, and to minimise overlooking), because its depth would allow the elevated space for entertainment purposes and allow the rear terrace and swimming pool of the adjoining dwelling house to the south at 1 Nott Lane to be overlooked.

 

Draft condition 3 would be included to reduce the depth of this terrace to the maximum of 3m in accordance with the DCP, and draft condition 4 requires a privacy screen along its south side (and, in so doing, the terrace would not impinge the bushland line on the site).

 

4.   Swimming pool

 

The pool coping is located 1.68m above the natural ground level due to the steep slope of the site. At the required setback at a 1:1 ratio the pool coping should be located at least 1.6m from the property boundary. The proposed coping is setback a minimum 1.38m from the boundary which breaches the setback control by 30cm.

 

The non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance due to the following:

·    The pool would not result in adverse amenity impacts. It would have significant separation distance and is located over 30m from habitable rooms;

·    Beyond separation distance, significant vegetation provides further screening of the pool from the neighbour to the north at 50 Arabella;

·    The 30cm non-compliance is minor in context to pool location; and

·    No concerns were raised by the neighbouring property in relation to the pool.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 4.15(1)(d))

 

As a result of the notification period three (3) submissions were received. One submission was received by the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society. Two submissions were received by a planning consultant (aSquare planning) on behalf of the adjacent neighbor at 1 Nott Lane.

 

1.   Concerns relating to accuracy of shadow diagrams and overshadowing to private open space adjacent of the neighbor at 1 Nott Lane.

 

Comment: North facing windows of 1 Nott Lane receive adequate sunlight at mid-winter. This was acknowledged in the submission by (aSquare planning).

 

Due to lack of detail in the original shadow diagrams, amended additional shadow diagrams were submitted at the request of Council.  The revised shadows were at hourly intervals and demonstrated in more detail the potential impacts on the neighbor at 1 Nott Lane.

·    Ground Floor terrace – off living room receives sunlight to approximately 50% of floor area at 10am and approximately 30% of floor area at 11am.

·    Lower ground floor out door area adjacent to pool - receives sunlight to over 50% of floor area at 10.00am, 11.00am and 12 noon.

·    Pool - receives sunlight to over 50% of pool area at 10am, 11am and 12 noon.

·    1st Floor terrace – (Approx. 27sqm) sits above ground floor terrace and is directly accessible from all three first floor bedrooms is likely to receive sunlight at 10am and 11am.

·    Lawn garden receives adequate sunlight at 9am, 10am, 11am and 12 noon.

 

The 5 above outdoor recreational areas accumulatively receive reasonable sunlight at mid-winter. The proposal complies with the DCP controls and achieves reasonable sunlight.

 

2.   Concerns with non-compliance with FSR control. Our opinion is that the Clause 4.6 variation is not well founded and the non-compliant FSR should not be supported on the basis that the proposal will have unacceptable visual bulk impacts and overshadowing due to this location beyond the rear building line of 1 Nott Lane, demonstrating that there are not sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation to the development standard.

 

Comment: The proposal breach in the FSR controls is a technical non-compliance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation to development standard is assessed in the attached document. The clause 4.6 variation is considered to be well founded and not result in unacceptable amenity impacts relating to overshadowing or privacy. Refer to Clause 4.6 assessment.

 

3.   Concerns relating to visual and acoustic privacy to 1 Nott Lane. The proposal will likely cause unreasonable impacts upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and noise generation given the significant windows opening to the southern elevation and two terraces, both with openings to the southern elevation and towards 1 Nott Lane’s private areas, including swimming pool, pool terrace and lawn. Although the site is separated 6 metres from the boundary of the adjoining lot, concern is raised to the potential for overlooking towards the rear open space of 1 Nott Lane. Privacy treatment to the south facing windows and to the southern end of the proposed terraces should be required to ensure that this is prevented.

 

Comment: A draft condition is recommended in the consent to reduce the depth of the terrace to the maximum of 3m to comply with the DCP and reduce overall potential acoustic privacy impacts.  Another draft condition is recommended to include a 1.7m high privacy screen along the south side of the 3m deep terrace to reduce overlooking over the rear portion of the dwelling house and its adjoining terrace at 1 Nott Lane. The changes to the 1st floor terrace would ensure the proposal does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

 

4.   Concerns about vehicle maneuverability from the proposed garage into Nott Lane. The proposal seeks to have vehicular access from the laneway to the front (western) portion of the site. We request that Council ensure that all vehicles leave in a forward direction from the site.

 

In addition, we note that the turning area at the end of Nott Lane is not suitable for use by residents or visitors to the proposed dwelling, as the angle between the access point in the proposed development and the turning area is far too acute to be manoeuvrable in any practical sense. As result the development will require enough trafficable area and/or a turntable to ensure that all vehicles accessing the proposed development including construction trucks, removalist and delivery vans can turn around within the development to exit the dwelling area in a forward direction. We request that this be a requirement of any approval on the site.

 

Comment: The side setback from Nott Lane complies.  The previous approval in 2011 proposed a driveway and parking area with identical dimensions and was supported subject a condition recommending the width of the proposed driveway be increased from 3m to 4.5m to improve access into and off the site. The previous identical application and on – site turning was reviewed by Council’s Traffic officer who has advised that whilst it is satisfactory reversing out of a residential lot is allowed. Refer to draft condition 5.

 

5.   Concerns about location of dwelling. The proposal seeks to provide a dwelling located to be set back only marginally from the boundary line between the R2 zone and the E2 zone resulting in a visual bulk impact as viewed from 1 Nott Lane with the dwelling extending significantly further beyond the rear building line of 1 Nott Lane.

 

Comment: The controls require a minimum rear setback of 10m or 35% of the site depth. The development complies and provides a rear setback of greater than 50% of the site length due to the E2 – Environmental Conservation Zone at the rear of the site.

 

The dwelling house and swimming pool footprints are in line and comply with the bushland (development) line imposed by Council which is some 11m back from the E2 zoning on the site. A draft condition has been recommended to reduce the depth of both cantilevered rear terraces so that each would not impinge the rear development line.

 

The proposed setback is in the same location as the rear setback of the previous approved DA on the site D/2010/374. The overall impact of the proposed dwelling house on the adjoining neighbour’s aspect would be reasonable.

 

6.   Impacts on Nott Lane during and post construction. We request that conditions be imposed to ensure that Nott Lane is not used for the storage of building materials or the like and is to be clear and trafficable at all times during and post construction. In this regard, construction and delivery vans are not to stand or park in the laneway at any time. Comment: Draft conditions are recommended in the consent to mitigate amenity impacts including:

 

(11) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside of Nott Lane or Arabella Street.

(12) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

(13) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED. Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

7.   Request that a dilapidation report be submitted. In addition, concern is raised to the potential for damage to the laneway and the adjoining property we request that a condition be imposed requiring a dilapidation report with respect to the laneway (private road) and 1 Nott Lane (dwelling, pool, pool terrace and pool shed) to assist with any potential remediation works which may be required.

 

Comment: A draft condition is recommended requiring dilapidation reports to for any structure within the structural zone of influence located within 5m on neighboring properties where excavation is greater than 1m in depth. A dilapidation survey is required to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. A 2nd dilapidation report recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed in the 1st report prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Refer to draft condition (73).

 

8.   Concerns relating to sub surface water flows into bushland in the E2 zone downhill of the site.

 

Comment: To mitigate the loss of groundwater flows its impacts on bushland downhill, a draft condition is recommended for a dispersion system that evenly spreads the water runoff to be incorporated as part of the stormwater management of the site. Refer to draft condition (71).

 

9.   Concerns with stormwater discharging in the bush and erosion impacts downhill from the headwall.

 

Comment: To mitigate stormwater runoff and loss of groundwater flows its impacts on bushland a condition has been included that would require an amended stormwater/drainage plan with the addition of dispersion trench system that evenly spreads the water runoff. Refer to draft condition (71).

 

10. Concerns relating to compliance with Part H of the Lane Cove DCP. In particular compliance is to be confirmed demonstrating protection of the bushland buffer.

 

Comment: The proposal complies with Part H. The building works are a minimum of 11m from the E2 zone line which complies with the 10m buffer setback. The proposal was referred to Council’s bushland officer who raised no objections after additional information was detailing compliance of the buffer zone of over 10m from the E2 Zone boundary and over

 

11. Request that pedestrian access via Nott Lane to the foreshore should be restored separate from dwelling access.

 

Comment: The previous (D2010/274) included a condition requiring an easement for pedestrian access on the part of the site zoned E2 to the foreshore. Legal advice from the applicant argued that there was no nexus between the approved development and providing public access through the site. Council’s solicitors reviewed the advice and agreed to subsequently delete the condition in a S.96 amendment. In light of the above, an easement for public access will not be required as part of the subject DA.

 

12. Request that top soil should be removed from the site and not used as fill or landscaping due to it being compromised by weed seed.

 

Comment: A draft condition is recommended to be included to ensure that weedy topsoil should not be reused to protect the integrity of the bushland. Refer to draft condition (85).

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

The application meets with the Height controls as required in the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and generally meets with the Part C Residential Development Objectives in the Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval. That having regard to issues referenced in the submitted EIS, internal referral advice, concerns detailed in submissions and the assessment undertaken as part of this report it is recommended that this development proposal be approved subject to the following draft conditions.

 

 


 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 3 September 2019, exercising the functions of the Council as Consent Authority pursuant to Clause 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 approve a variation to the height prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as it is satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 3 September 2019, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, grant consent to Development Application DA19/36 for a serviced apartment development on 52A Arabella Street Longueville, subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Council grants development consent to:

·    Development Application DA19/36

·    For Construction of a construction of a 2-storey building with garage above and swimming pool.  

·    On 52A Arabella Street Longueville.

 

subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

Drawing Number:

Prepared by:

Dated:

Job No: 2415

01 Issue B

Site Analysis & Site Plan

Architex

25.02.19

Job No: 2415

02 Issue E

Site Plan

Architex

31.07.19

Job No: 2415

03 Issue C

Level 1

Architex

31.07.19

Job No: 2415

04 Issue A

Level 2

Architex

14.11.18

Job No: 2415

05 Issue B

Level 3

Architex

14.11.19

Job No: 2415

06 Issue C

Elevations

Architex

25.02.19

Job No: 2415

07 Issue C

Sections

Architex

26.06.19

1970.GD.03 - Issue A

Landscape Plan –

Level 1

Greenland Design

July 2019

1970.GD.04 – Issue A

Landscaping Plan – Level 3

Greenland Design

July 2019

1970.GD.05 – Issue A

Tree Retention Plan

Greenland Design

July 2019

1970.GD.06 – Issue A

Landscape Calculation

Greenland Design

July 2019

1970.GC.07 – Issue A

Section & Elevation

Greenland Design

July 2019

1970.GD.08 – Issue A

Landscape Details & Specifications

Greenland Design

July 2019

 

except as amended by the following conditions.

 

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

 

2.         No part of the development is to extend beyond the bushland line fixed by Council    under the subdivision of the site (D39/01). The following structures are to be reduced:

 

·    the rear terrace on Level 1; and

·    rainwater tank under the rear terrace on Level 1.

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure setback complies with bushland line.

 

3.         In order to reduce its potential to cause an adverse acoustical impact on the    adjoining property to the south at 1 Nott Lane, the depth of the rear terrace on Level 2    is to be reduced to a maximum of 3m as permitted under Council’s DCP 2009. PLANS    ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION    CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To reduce any potential acoustic impacts.

 

4.         The following privacy measures are required in order to address the development’s    potential to overlook the rear terrace and swimming pool of the property at 1 Nott    Lane:                                                                                                                                                                                    

·    the kitchen window is to be finished in obscure glass up to a height of 1.7m above the FFL or, alternatively, the sill of this window is to be raised to this same level; and

·    a privacy screen 1.7m high is to be attached along the south side of the rear terrace of Level 2.

 

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

 

            Reason: To reduce any potential visual privacy impacts.

 

5.       Proposed Vehicular Crossing: The proposed vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. The driveway opening along the boundary is be increased to 4.5m wide. A ‘Construction of Residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All works associated with the construction of the crossing shall be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To allow increased space for vehicle movement.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

8.         (11)  The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water online approval portal “Sydney Water Tap In”, please refer to web site www.sydneywater.com.au. This is to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt with conditions shall be issued by Sydney Water (if determined to be satisfactory) and is to be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

10.       (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier before the occupation of the building.

 

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

 

11.       (35)  All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                    7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                   7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

 

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

 

12.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

13.       (37) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

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

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

15.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

 

a)      the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifier;

b)      the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)      a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

 

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

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

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the Australian Standards.

 

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

 

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

b)      All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

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

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

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

f)       Waterproofing of wet areas.

g)      Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

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

i)        Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling.

k)      Completion.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

22.       Standard Condition (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing;

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect residential amenity.

 

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

 

a          Dampcourse level;

b          The establishment of the first-floor level;

c          The roof framing; and

d          The completion of works.

 

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

 

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

 

26.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations.  Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the Australian Standards.

 

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

 

            Reason: To protect the surrounding environment.

 

32.       (132)  It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

            Reason: To ensure all works are carried out lawfully.

 

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

 

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

 

Reason: To ensure the levy is paid.

 

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

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

Tree Preservation Conditions

 

35.     Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in non-rural areas) 2017. Part 2 Section 7(1) of the SEPP states “A person must not clear vegetation in any non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part.” Clearing of vegetation includes “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or b) lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.” Removal of trees or vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000.

 

36.    This condition of consent gives approval for the removal of trees 8 and 16 as identified in the Arborist Report prepared by Redgum Horticultural dated 11th July 2019 Trees are to be removed upon issue of the Construction Certificate only.

 

          Reason: To protect trees in the event the development is terminated

 

37.     Trees removed as part of the DA process must be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 and all plantings/landscaping must comply with part J Landscaping of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 and be installed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To provide adequate offset planting and maintain canopy cover.

 

38.     All trees not identified in this development consent are to be retained and protected for the life of the development.

 

          Reason: To maintain canopy cover within the LGA and protect trees not impacted by development.

 

39.     Pursuant to Section 80A(6)(a) and (7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant must, prior to the issue of the construction certificate, provide security in the amount of $10,000 (by way of cash deposit with the Council, or a guarantee satisfactory to the Council) for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to all trees that are standing in the reserve immediately adjoining the land subject of this development consent. This bond may be forfeited in the event of damages to any of these trees because of the development works as determined by Council’s Tree Management Officer, at a minimum the cost of replacing the tree including labour will be deducted from the bond. The applicant shall contact Council to have the street tree inspected following issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To provide guarantee Council owned Bushland will be maintained during the development and provide funds for mitigation of impacts in the event of a breach.

 

40.     This condition of consent gives approval for the pruning of trees located within the site boundaries to remove dead wood and damaged branches overhanging the site. All neighbouring trees must have written permission from the owners prior to pruning taking place. The Project Arborist is to oversee all pruning which is to be carried out by an Arborist with a minimum AQF Level 3 qualification.

 

          Reason: To ensure trees are pruned in accordance with AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees (2007) and with the correct permissions

 

Tree Protection

 

41.     Trees identified as 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 in the Arborist Report prepared by Redgum Horticultural dated 11th July 2019 are to be provided physical protection for the duration of the development. Trees are to be protected in accordance with Appendix F and Part B of the Arborist Report.

 

          Reason: To minimise the risk of excessive disturbance through the development process.

 

42.     Sediment control barriers are to be installed in accordance with the Stormwater plan provided by Architex dated July 2019 at the rear of the site.

 

          Reason: To protect the retained trees and Bushland from site runoff.

 

43.     All tree protective measures including sediment control must be in place prior to any works commencing on the site and must be maintained for the duration of works on the site. The Project Arborist is to provide written certification to approve tree protective measures are compliant prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

          Reason: To assist with maintaining compliance to development conditions and retaining trees in a viable condition.

 

44.     A Project Arborist of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification is to be appointed prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to oversee/monitor trees condition during construction and sign off on tree protection measures. Trees are to be monitored throughout construction and a certificate produced upon completion demonstrating the trees have been maintained in good condition. All certificates are to be submitted to the Principal Certifier within five days of site attendance and must be available to council immediately upon request; failure to produce the latest certificate will be considered a breach of conditions. Final certification is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To appoint an independent professional to assist in the ongoing management of trees and compliance to conditions.

 

45.     Trees identified as 4, 7 and 12 In the Arborists Report prepared by Redgum Horticultural dated 11th July 2019 are to be provided tree sensitive design where the proposed building encroaches into the Tree Protection Zone. Installation is to be in accordance with the Arborists Report which states; The section of the development within the TPZ of this specimen is to be constructed with no fill, using pier and beam construction with a suspended slab to reduce any impact on its stability with piers to be dug by hand with non-motorised machinery to further assist in its protection.

 

          Reason: To minimise development impacts on retained trees.

 

46.     All piers within the Tree Protection Zones of retained trees are to be manually excavated or using Hydrovac; all roots greater than 40 millimetres are to be retained. In the event roots are located in the proposed location, the pier shall be relocated to retain the root. Roots less than 40 millimetres in diameter may be pruned by the project Arborist only who is to document pruned roots and provide written certification identifying compliance to this condition. The certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifier and approved prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To retain as many tree roots as possible and minimise development impact.

 

47.     All excavations are to be carried out in consultation with the Project Arborist who is to oversee and sign off on any excavations within the Tree Protection Zones of retained trees. The certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifier and approved prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

          Reason: To minimise the risk of damaging retained trees during the excavation stage of the development.

 

48.     Footing, trench or excavation that is within the TPZ of any retained trees, particularly the installation of storm water pipes, must be carried out under the guidance of the Project Arborist and using non-destructive techniques. Techniques include Hydrovac, air Knife or manually excavating.

 

          Reason: To allow the installation of the proposed stormwater pipes below the roots of retained and neighbouring trees.

 

49.     The Project Arborist is to submit a statement upon completion of the development that all conditions related to working around trees have been complied with. The statement is also to recommend remedial advice for trees post construction to mitigate construction impacts long term. The statement is to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifier Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

          Reason: To ensure compliance.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

To be satisfied prior to issue of a Construction Certificate:

 

Objectives for landscaping of new development

 

50.     Replacement trees must be able to reach the potential mature dimensions of the removed trees.  All specimens must conform to Australian Standard 2303: Tree Stock for Landscape Use and be of an appropriate pot size for the intended location and use to ensure best chance of long-term health and vigour. All boundary screen plant species to be used for landscaping must be a native species in keeping with Lane Cove Councils landscape policy to be installed in pot sizes no smaller than 100 litres.

 

          Reason: Landscaping objective.

 

51.     The proposed landscape treatment should be compatible with the existing environmental character of the area and be planned so as not to affect adjoining properties. The use of native trees and shrubs to provide privacy screening is desirable.

 

          Reason: Landscaping objective.

 

52.     Existing natural features such as rock outcrops, cliffs and natural bushland should be conserved where reasonably possible.

 

          Reason: Landscaping objective.

 

To be satisfied prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate:

 

53.     A landscape practical completion report must be prepared by the consultant landscape architect and submitted to Council or the accredited certifier within 7 working days of the date of practical completion of all landscape works. This report must certify that all landscape works have been completed in accordance with the landscape working drawing. A copy of the report must be submitted to Council; Where the project is being supervised by a private certifier, for the purposes of public record, a copy of the certification must be forwarded to Council within five (5) working days of the date of issue.

 

          Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

54.     A copy of the agreed maintenance schedule of all site landscaping shall be submitted by a qualified horticulturist, landscape contractor or landscape architect, for a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the Certificate of Occupation.

 

          Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

55.     A qualified practising landscape architect or landscape designer is to certify that the proposed subsoil drainage and any associated waterproofing membrane, have been installed in accordance with the details shown on the landscape working drawings and specification. Works are not to progress until the principal certifying authority has confirmed that this condition has been satisfied; Where the project is being supervised by a private certifier, for the purposes of public record, a copy of the certification must be forwarded to Council within five (5) working days of the date of issue.

 

          Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

56.     At the completion of the landscape maintenance period, the consultant landscape architect/ designer must submit a final report to Council or the accredited certifier, certifying that all plant material has been successfully established, that all of the outstanding maintenance works, or defects have been rectified prior to preparation of the report and that a copy of the 12-month landscape maintenance strategy has been provided to the Owner/ Occupier.  A copy of the report must be submitted to Council; Where the project is being supervised by a private certifier, for the purposes of public record, a copy of the certification must be forwarded to Council within 5 working days of the date of issue.

 

          Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

57.     All plants shall be maintained in a healthy condition for the life of the development with replacement plants installed within 6 months of their demise. 

 

          Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

58.     The Applicant must ensure that there are enough groundcovers and low shrubs planted at appropriate distances and depths to eliminate bare mulched gardens areas within twelve (12) months of completion of all landscaping works. Where screen planting is required throughout the development, plants must have a height of 2 m at planting. 

 

59.     The Applicant must ensure that all landscaping is completed to a professional standard, free of any hazards or unnecessary maintenance problems and that all plants are consistent with NATSPEC

 

         Reason: Landscaping requirement.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure all works are in accordance with Council’s requirements

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure public safety and amenity

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure public safety

 

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

 

Reason:    To maintain Council infrastructure

 

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

 

Reason:    To protect, maintain and provide utility services

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure pedestrian access is maintained

 

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

 

Reason:    To protect public infrastructure

 

68.     (A9) Services Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the applicant.

 

Reason:    To protect and maintain infrastructure assets

 

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

 

Reason: To ensure all proposed parking arrangements are designed to meet the relevant Australian Standard

 

70.       (R1) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The proposed rainwater tank is to be installed in    accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards.

Note:

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

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

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

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Council policy and the Australian Standard

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

71.     (D3)  Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is not approved in its current form. The system is also to incorporate a dispersal trench in accordance with section 5.3 of Part O of Council’s DCP Stormwater Management.

 

          An amended plan with an additional stormwater trench is to be re-submitted and certified by a suitably qualified engineer.  The amended plans are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority stating that the design fully complies with, AS-3500 and Part O of Council's DCP - Stormwater Management. The plans and certification shall be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the certified plans for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason:    To ensure the proposed stormwater designs meet and satisfy Part O of Council’s DCP and to protect bushland from erosion and not compromise sub-surface water flows.

 

72.     (E5) Construction adjacent to or parallel to a drainage Easement / pipeline:  The footings of the proposed structure adjacent to the Council drainage easement shall be taken below the zone of influence of the Council stormwater line. The location and depth of the footings in relation to the stormwater line, along with the design of the footings, are to be detailed on engineering plans. The engineering plans are to be completed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer and be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

          On completion of the works and prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate the design engineer shall certify that structure has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and is within acceptable construction tolerances. The certification is to include a Work as Executed plan. The Work-as-Executed must show the location of all structures in the vicinity of the Council drainage easement, indicating that all footings are located below the zone of influence of the Council stormwater line.

 

Reason:     To protect and maintain Council Stormwater infrastructure

 

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

 

          The applicant shall:-

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

(d)  Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer.

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed shall be submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

Reason:     To ensure safe work practices are applied and in the interest of all adjoining structures

 

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

 

Reason:     To protect and maintain public infrastructure

 

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

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure adequate management and indemnity from overland flow

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

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

 

Reason:    To ensure worksite pollutions are controlled accordingly to protect the environment

 

Engineering condition to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

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

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

 

Reason:    To ensure stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Australian Standards and Council’s requirements

 

Bushland Officer Referral

 

78.     (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a locked container / cage.  Any building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

 

          Reason: Amenity of bushland.

 

79.     (321)  There shall be no access through the adjacent park/reserve to carry out any building works, storage of materials, storage of soil or storage of rubbish during construction.

         

          Reason: Safety and amenity

 

80.     (332)  During construction / landscaping the designated environmental/ bushland area within the property and adjacent public bushland area must be kept clean of all building materials and rubbish.  Any rubbish that is blown into these areas must be immediately cleaned up.

 

          Reason: Safety and amenity

 

81.     (333)  In the event that there occurs any accidental or intentional dumping of building material in the bushland area, Council’s Coordinator of Bushland must be notified immediately.  Any clean- up operation which involves disturbing the vegetation, leaf litter, soil crust, or natural bedrock, must be coordinated through Council’s Coordinator of Bushland.

 

          Reason: Amenity of bushland.

 

82.     (335)  All outside lighting must be appropriately baffled to minimise light pollution into the bushland area and neighbouring properties.

 

          Reason: Amenity of bushland.

 

83.     (150) Native plants are to be installed and used as screening to provide a buffer to absorb light and noise pollution from entering the bushland. Council’s Backyard Habitat Officer is to be consulted for appropriate planting suggestions for screening.

 

          Reason: Amenity of bushland.

 

84.     (305)  All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  If during the course of construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

          Reason: Protection of Aboriginal heritage.

 

85.     Any top soil should be removed from the site and not used as fill or landscaping due to it being compromised by weed seed and to protect the integrity of the bushland downhill.                            

 

          Reason: Protection of bushland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Neighbour Notification Plan

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Site Location Plans

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 3 September 2019

30-30A Landers Road, Lane Cove North

 

 

Subject:          30-30A Landers Road, Lane Cove North    

Record No:    DA15/148-01 - 45894/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Greg Samardzic 

 

 

 

Property:

30-30A Landers Road, Lane Cove North

DA No:

DA148/2015

Date Lodged:

8 May 2019

Cost of Work:

Unchanged

Owner:

Entrepreneur Enterprises

Applicant:                        

Jenny’s Kindergarten & Early Learning Centres

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Section 4.56 to an approved Land & Environment Court child care centre to increase children places from 56 to 93 (increase of 37 spaces)

Zone

R4 High Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 7a, 9b and 10b

Stop the Clock used

Yes

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council’s policy 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The Section 4.56 Modification Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as a total of 13 submissions have been received.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal seeks to modify a Land & Environment Court approved child care centre to increase the children places from 56 to 93.

 

The original Development Application lodged was for a 116-place child care centre. It was agreed at the Section 34 Conciliation Conference that the appropriate maximum capacity of the children centre to maintain the existing residential amenity would be set at 56 children. To accommodate the increase in children places by another 37 places, the proposal as amended seeks to provide for a drop off/pick up zone within Cox Lane for a total of three car parking spaces. However, it is not considered appropriate in this instance to relocate the car parking impacts resulting from such a large increase in children off site. All car parking impacts associated with the centre should be contained on site.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as detailed in the report, and is considered unsatisfactory. The proposal as amended is not considered to be substantially the same development as the development as amended would be considerably different to the intensity and scale originally approved by the Land and Environment Court. The original application and including the conditions imposed was key in addressing any potential adverse impacts and managing any adverse impacts. The proposal as amended results in a substantial car parking variation by a total of 9 car parking spaces and the variation is not supported as car parking impacts was a key contention under the original Court proceedings.  

 

An additional business identification sign is proposed on the Epping Road frontage to the four existing signs already approved. The additional sign is not supported on the basis that there is already another sign located on that same frontage and would be contrary to the residential zoned locality.

 

The proposal was notified and a total of 13 submissions were received raising concerns with the adverse traffic and amenity impacts resulting from the proposed increase in children numbers and the provision of the drop off/pick up zone on Cox Lane. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed in this report. 

 

The Section 4.56 Modification Application is reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel due to the number of submissions received.

 

SITE AND SURROUNDS

 

The subject site is located at the south-western corner of Landers Road and Cox Lane in Lane Cove North. The site has an area of 875.1m2 with a 23.65m frontage to Landers Road, 18.28m frontage to Epping Road at the rear and a 42m frontage to Cox Lane Cove to the east. The slope falls approximately 5m from its north-eastern corner at the front of the site to the south-western corner at the rear. There is a three storey child care centre building with a basement for 19 car parking spaces currently located on the site. 

 

Surrounding developments comprise dwelling houses along the northern side of Landers Road in R2 Low Density Residential zone and residential flat buildings along the southern side of Landers Road in R4 High Density Residential zone. Both of two adjacent residential flat building at 24-28 and 32-34 Landers Road at the southern side of Landers Road are three storey buildings.  Site Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

Development Consent DA15/148 was granted by the Land and Environment Court (Proceedings No. 11157 of 2015) after the conciliation conference and hearing pursuant Section 34(3) of the Environment Court Act 1979 on 15 June 2016 for a 56-place child care centre. The original Development Application lodged was for a 116-place child care centre. On 16 July 2019, a deemed refusal appeal against the subject application to increase children places from 56 to 93 was lodged with the Land and Environment Court (Proceedings Nos. 2019/220493).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The Land and Environment Court approval was for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey child care centre for 56 children over 1 level of basement car parking containing 19 spaces. Condition No. 3 read as:

 

3.         The maximum number of children in the child care centre must not exceed 56 at any             time made up of the following ages:

 

          0 to 2 years of age:     maximum of 28 children

          2 to 3 years of age:     maximum of 10 children

            3 to 5 years of age:     maximum of 18 children

 

The original Development Application lodged was for a 116-place child care centre comprising:

 

·    0 to 2 years of age:     maximum of 28 children

·    2 to 3 years of age:     maximum of 33 children

·    3 to 5 years of age:     maximum of 55 children

 

Condition No. 12 reads as:

 

12.       19 on-site car parking spaces including an accessible car space must be provided for the             uses of the development at all times, of which a minimum of 11 car spaces must be             allocated for the drop off/pick up provisions of the development. 

 

The subject Section 4.56 Modification Application is to increase the current capacity of the centre from 56 to 93 children (an increase in 37 children) that would be accompanied by a total of 15 educators and two support staff. The following age groups are as follows:

 

·    0 to 2 years of age:     maximum of 28 children

·    2 to 3 years of age:     maximum of 15 children

·    3 to 5 years of age:     maximum of 50 children

 

The justification for the proposed increase in numbers is that the existing unencumbered indoor and outdoor spaces of the centre can adequately accommodate the increased capacity and therefore no alterations or additions to the existing child care centre building are proposed.

 

The applicant has stated that the current child care centre is operating at a maximum of 56 children in accordance with the Court approved consent.

 

Works associated with the proposal include:

 

·    The creation of a proposed drop off/pick up zone for 3 car parking spaces within Cox Lane.

·    The reconfiguration of the existing basement carparking area to improve maneuverability and efficiency.

 

It is noted that the subject application was lodged without relevant owners consent from Council in relation to the creation of the drop off/pick up zone within Cox Lane.

 

The proposal also includes the installation of an additional business identification sign to the southern elevation of the southern wall of the development. The business identification sign is 1500mm in diameter and would be securely fixed to the blank wall fronting Epping Road.

 

There are no other works or modification to the operational hours as part of the subject application.

 

 

 

 

SECTION 4.56 ASSESSMENT

 

1.         Compliance with Section 4.56(1)(a) of the EP&A Act, 1979

 

Under the provisions of Section 4.56(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Council may, in response to an application, modify a consent granted by the Land and Environment Court if the development, as modified, is substantially the same development as originally approved.

 

The original Development Application lodged was for a 116-place child care centre and was refused by Council. The modification to increase children numbers to the Court approved 56-place child care centre would increase the intensification of use that would be experienced by adjoining and surrounding residents. The proposed additional 3 car space drop off/pick zone on Cox Lane to accommodate the increase in children is not supported from a traffic perspective and involves a substantial shortfall in required car parking numbers. The subject application was lodged without seeking relevant owners consent from Council in relation to the creation of the drop off/pick up zone within Cox Lane.

 

Whilst the building has been designed to cater for a maximum of 93 children based on the indoor and outdoor areas provided however the increase in children would represent a technical shortfall of 9 car parking spaces which is a significant variation. With the large increase in numbers, it would be likely that the basement would achieve full capacity quickly during peak times and (37) parents would be forced to reverse back out in front of the basement garage door and park on either on Cox Lane or Landers Road which is an undesirable outcome. As the required additional car parking is not provided on site, the intensification of use is unacceptable as the increase in children are not considered to be minor.

 

It is not appropriate to adopt a large increase in numbers with no provision of additional car parking spaces on site and due to the concerns raised by residents (13 separate submissions), the proposal as amended would be contrary to the appropriate intensity of use already established by the Court in the first instance and would have unreasonable traffic impacts to adjoining streets and particularly Cox Lane. As such the proposal does not satisfy the ‘substantially the same’ development criteria. The applicant in modifying the original Land and Environment Court child care centre approval on the subject site would unreasonably intensify the amount of activities being conducted on the premises and would result in additional adverse impacts offsite.

 

On this basis it is recommended that the subject Section 4.56 Modification Application be refused.

 

2.         Compliance with Section 4.56(1A) of the EP&A Act, 1979

 

Section 4.56(1A) requires Council to consider relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) and any reasons given by the consent authority for the granting of the original consent.

 

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

 

(a)        The provisions of

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument

 

            SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

 

The proposed modification has been assessed against the SEPP and the Child Care Planning Guidelines as follows:

 

SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, commenced on 1 September 2017. The original Development Application was lodged prior to the commencement of the SEPP. In this regard, an assessment of the proposal as amended in accordance with the relevant provisions of the SEPP has been carried out below.

 

The SEPP comprises of:

 

-     Part 3 Early Education and Care Facilities – Specific Development Controls

-     Child Care Planning Guideline - 7 Guideline Principles and Considerations

-     National Quality Framework or Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012

 

Part 3 Early education and care facilities—specific development controls

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

22 Centre-based child care – concurrence of Regulatory Authority required for certain development – N/A

(1) This clause applies to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility if:

(a) the floor area of the building or place does not comply with regulation 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations, or

Requires: 3.25m2/child

302.25m² /93 children

 

Provided:

= 317.64m²

Yes

(b) the outdoor space requirements for the building or place do not comply with regulation 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements) of those Regulations.

Requires: 7m2/child

651m2 /93 children

 

Provided:

652.68m²

 

 

Yes

23 Centre-based child care facility—matters for consideration by consent authorities

Before determining a development application for development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility, the consent authority must take into consideration

any applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline, in relation to the proposed development.

 

Refer to assessment in separate table below.

25  Centre-based child care facility—non-discretionary development standards

(1) The object of this clause is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to a centre-based child care facility that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for those matters.

(2)  The following are non-discretionary development standards for the purposes of section 79C (2) and (3) of the Act in relation to the carrying out of development for the purposes of centre-based child care:

(a)  location—the development may be located at any distance from an existing or proposed early childhood education and care facility,

Existing child care centre.

Yes

(b)    indoor or outdoor space

(i)  for development to which clause 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements) or 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations applies—the unencumbered area of indoor space and the unencumbered area of outdoor space for the development complies with the requirements of those clauses, or

(ii)  for development to which clause 28 (unencumbered indoor space and useable outdoor play space) of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 applies—the development complies with the indoor space requirements or the useable outdoor play space requirements in that clause,

Indoor Space

The proposal complies with the required indoor space as outlined in the Regulations.

 

Outdoor Space

The proposal complies with the required outdoor space for the proposed 93 children placement sought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 28 applies to temporary emergency relocation of early education and child care facility – exempt development

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Applicable

 

(c)    site area and site dimensions—the development may be located on a site of any size and have any length of street frontage or any allotment depth,

Existing child care centre.

Yes

(d)  colour of building materials or shade structures—the development may be of any colour or colour scheme unless it is a State or local heritage item or in a heritage conservation area.

Existing centre.

 

 

Yes

(3)    To remove doubt, this clause does not prevent a consent authority from:

(a)    refusing a development application in relation to a matter not specified in subclause (2), or

 

The subject Modification Application is recommended for refusal. Grounds for refusal are not specified in subclause (2).

(b)    granting development consent even though any standard specified in subclause (2) is not complied with.

26 Centre-based child care—development control plans

1) A provision of a development control plan that specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to any of the following matters (including by reference to ages, age ratios, groupings, numbers or the like, of children) does not apply to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility:

(a) operational or management plans or arrangements (including hours of operation),

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part I – Child Care Centres contains provisions relating to the following clauses and an assessment has been carried out in a separate table below (although cannot be used as reasons for refusal).

 

(b) demonstrated need or demand for child care services,

(c) proximity of facility to other early childhood education and care facilities,

(d) any matter relating to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility contained in:

(i) the design principles set out in Part 2 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, or

(ii) the matters for  consideration set out in Part 3 or the regulatory requirements set out in Part 4 of that Guideline (other than those concerning building height, side and rear setbacks or car parking rates).

(2) This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

27 Mobile child care—exempt development: Not applicable

28  Emergency relocation of early childhood education and care facility—exempt development: Not applicable

29 Home-based child care—exempt development: Not applicable

30 Home-based child care—complying development: Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Care Planning Guideline

Design Quality Principle

Considerations

Comment

Part 2 Design Quality Principles

Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context, including the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. Well-designed child care facilities respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including adjacent sites, streetscapes and neighbourhood. Well-designed child care facilities take advantage of its context by optimising nearby transport, public facilities and centres, respecting local heritage, and being responsive to the demographic, cultural and socio-economic makeup of the facility users and surrounding communities.

The centre is located within an area which is well serviced by public transport and close proximity to Lane Cove Town Centre, in addition to surrounding residences.

 

A child care centre at 56 children at the subject site is compatible with the context of its surrounding locality. However, the proposed intensification of the existing centre is not considered to be appropriate having regard to non-compliances with car parking.

Built form

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the surrounding area. Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements. Good design also uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook. Contemporary facility design can be distinctive and unique to support innovative approaches to teaching and learning, while still achieving a visual appearance that is aesthetically pleasing, complements the surrounding areas, and contributes positively to the public realm.

The subject application is an ad hoc response to increase children numbers for the existing centre which would result in significant adverse impacts onto adjoining residences due to the location of the outdoor play areas provided within the front and side setback areas including above ground creating potential land use conflicts which are unreasonable and would result in the loss of amenity.

 

 

Adaptive Learning Space

Good facility design delivers high quality learning spaces and achieves a high level of amenity for children and staff, resulting in buildings and associated infrastructure that are fit-for-purpose, enjoyable and easy to use. This is achieved through site layout, building design, and learning spaces fit-out. Good design achieves a mix of inclusive learning spaces to cater for all students and different modes of learning. This includes appropriately designed physical spaces offering a variety of settings, technology and opportunities for interaction.

The site layout and relationship of indoor and outdoor spaces are already approved by the Court.

 

Sustainability

 

Sustainable design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. This includes use of natural cross ventilation, sunlight and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and re-use of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation. Well-designed facilities are durable and embed resource efficiency into building and site design, resulting in less energy and water consumption, less generation of waste and air emissions and reduced operational costs.

Existing child care centre.

 

 

 

 

Landscaping

 

Landscape and buildings should operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A contextual fit of well-designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Well-designed landscapes make outdoor spaces assets for learning. This includes designing for diversity in function and use, age-appropriateness and amenity. Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

Existing landscaping.

Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for children, staff and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive learning environments and the well-being of students and staff. Good amenity combines appropriate and efficient indoor and outdoor learning spaces, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility. Well-designed child care facilities provide comfortable, diverse and attractive spaces to learn, play and socialise.

The proposal is deficient in providing sufficient car parking spaces on site which presents amenity concerns due to the conflicts with the child care use and neighbours.

Safety

Well-designed child care facilities optimise the use of the built and natural environment for learning and play, while utilising equipment, vegetation and landscaping that has a low health and safety risk, and can be checked and maintained efficiently and appropriately. Good child care facility design balances safety and security with the need to create a welcoming and accessible environment. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are inviting, clearly defined and allow controlled access for members of the community. Well-designed child care facilities incorporate passive surveillance and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).

The provision of the drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane and with the shortfall in car parking present potential safety concerns as pedestrian and adjoining neighbour’s access can also be obtained easily due to the shared access arrangement within the public lane.

 

 

It is advised that the applicant did not address the Child Care Planning Guidelines for the proposed development as amended.

 

The relevant Part 3 Matters of Considerations are:

 

3.1 Site selection and location

·    To ensure that appropriate zone considerations are assessed when selecting a site.

·    To ensure that the site selected for a proposed child care facility is suitable for the use.

3.2 Local Character, streetscape and the public domain interface

·    To ensure that the child care facility is compatible with the local character and surrounding streetscape.

3.5 Visual and acoustic privacy

·    To minimise the impact of child care facilities on the acoustic privacy of neighbouring residential developments.

3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation

·    To provide parking that satisfies the needs of users and demand generated by the centre.

·    To provide vehicle access from the street in a safe environment that does not disrupt traffic-flows.

·    To provide a safe and connected environment for pedestrians both on and around the site.

 

Comment:

 

It is not considered that the proposed development as amended satisfy context, built form, amenity and safety design quality principle considerations. The centre is located within a predominant residential area. A child care centre at 56 children at the subject site is compatible with the context of its surrounding locality. However, the proposed intensification of the existing centre is not considered to be reasonable or appropriate having regard to non-compliances with car parking.

 

The subject application is an ad hoc response to increase children placement for the existing centre which would result in significant adverse impacts onto adjoining residences due to the location of the outdoor play areas provided within the front and side setback areas including above ground creating potential land use conflicts. The proposal is deficient in providing sufficient car parking spaces on site which presents amenity concerns due to the conflicts with the child care use and neighbours. The provision of the drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane and with the shortfall in car parking present potential safety concerns as pedestrian and adjoining neighbour’s access can also be obtained easily due to the shared access arrangement within the public lane.

 

Whilst the original application was determined prior to the introduction of the Child Care Planning Guidelines, it has been used as guide to assess the subject application which has indicated that proposed intensification of use within the existing facility would materially change the existing use and would not satisfy the above considerations or objectives.

 

NATIONAL CHILDREN (EDUCATION AND CARE SERVICES) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS REGULATION 2012

 

Regulation 107 (or Clause 28)   Space requirements—centre based education and care services

 

Indoor Space

 

(2)  The premises of a centre based education and care service must have at least 3.25 square metres of unencumbered indoor play space per child that is exclusively for the use of children provided with education and care while in attendance at the service.

(3)  For the purposes of calculating unencumbered indoor play space, items such as any passage way or thoroughfare, door swing areas, kitchen, cot rooms, toilet or shower areas located in the building or any other facility such as cupboards and areas set aside as referred to in subclause (1) are to be excluded.

Comment:

 

Complies – a total area of 302.25sqm of indoor play space is required based on 93 children and total area of 317.64sqm is provided. 

 

Outdoor Space

 

(4)   Subject to subclauses (7) and (8), the premises of a centre based education and care service must have at least 7 square metres of useable outdoor play space per child that is exclusively for the use of children provided with education and care while in attendance at the service.

(5)  For the purposes of calculating useable outdoor play space, items such as car parking areas, storage sheds and other fixed items that prevent children from using the space or that obstruct the view of staff supervising children in the space are to be excluded.

 

Comment:

 

Complies - a total area of 651sqm of outdoor play space is required based on 93 children and total area of 652.68sqm is provided. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The proposal also includes the installation of an additional business identification sign to the southern elevation of the southern wall of the development. The business identification sign is 1500mm in diameter and would be securely fixed to the blank wall fronting Epping Road. There are 4 signs already approved under the original application which includes one sign facing Epping Road, one facing Cox Lane, one at the entry and one at the front. The relevant requirements of SEPP 64 are as follows:

 

 

Clause 3(1)(a) Assessment

 

(1)  This Policy aims:

(a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and

 

The proposed sign in addition to the existing 4 signs attached to the existing child care centre does not provide for a rationalised signage scheme for facility, are not in proportion to the scale of the building and are in keeping with the existing residential character of the locality.

 

Schedule 1 Assessment:

 

Guide or Control

Assessment

Compliance

Character of the area

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

 

 

Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

 

The proposed signage in addition to the existing 4 signs would not be compatible with the character of the area.

 

The proposal would change the advertising home business theme of the residential area into a more commercial theme.

No

Special Areas

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The sign would add to the minor scale of the signage to be attached to facility and it would adversely impact on residential areas of Lane Cove LGA.

No

Views and vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

 

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

 

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The sign would not obscure or compromise important views.

 

The sign would be attached to the building.

 

No impact.

 

Yes

Streetscape, setting or landscape

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

 

 

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

 

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

 

 

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

 

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management

The sign would have an adverse impact on the streetscape setting.

 

The sign would not contribute positively to the streetscape and setting where it would not be consistent with signage within the Lane Cove LGA.

 

The sign would add to clutter.

 

 

The proposal would not screen unsightliness.

 

The sign is attached to the building.

 

 

No.

No

Site and building

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

 

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

 

 

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The additional sign along Epping Road would not be appropriately proportioned for the bus shelter structures.

 

An additional sign would not respect the surrounding residential uses.

 

No innovation or imagination shown.

No

Associated Devices and Logos

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

The proposed sign would be integrated with the existing structure.

 

No lighting would be required.

Yes

 Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

 

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

 

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

 

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

 

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

No illumination proposed.

 

 

 

 

Yes

Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

 

 

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

 

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The sign is appropriately set back from the kerb to enhance safety.

 

The sign would not adversely impact upon safety for pedestrians or bicyclists.

 

The sign would not obstruct sightlines from public areas.

Yes

 

Comment;

 

The proposed additional signage is not considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 3(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the SEPP. The proposed sign is not supported and would not assist in providing for a rationalised signage scheme for the child care centre that is in proportion to the scale of the proposed building or its façade. The proposed additional sign to the existing four signs already present and approved by the Court is not in keeping with the signage and residential character of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage. Also refer to Part N DCP assessment later in this report for further discussion.

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Resident and the proposal as amended continues to comply with the floor space ratio and building height development standards of the LEP. As discussed above and to be further discussed, it is considered that the proposed modifications would not satisfy the following aim and zone objectives of the LEP as follows:

 

‘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.

 

To ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is respected.”

 

As a result, refusal is recommended.

 

(ii)        Any proposed instrument

 

N/A

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

The proposed modification has been assessed against the relevant parts of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 as follows:

 

 

 

 

Part I – Child Care Centres

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part I – Child Care Centres

 

Provision

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

I.3.1  Indoor play area

3.25m2/child

See table above

Yes

I.3.2  Other indoor space

Minimum 5m2 for each employee (85m2 required)

 

17 staff (15 teachers + 2 support staff)

 

Administration room required

35.75m2 @ 1.7 m² /employee

 

 

 

 

Admin and office space are provided on the ground level

No, unchanged and the variation was acceptable under original application

 

Yes

 

I.3.3  Outdoor play area

7m2/child

 

30% Natural Planting area

 

 

 

 

 

Access to three hours of sunlight a day (in commercial areas)

 

Provision of a variety of surfaces (including sand, soft fall, paving and timber platforms)

 

Children have access to 3 hours of sunlight a day

 

 

Special attention must be given to reduce or minimise noise, pollution and wind. 

See table above

 

Plantings unchanged at 24%

 

 

 

 

The site is located within residential area

 

 

Sand pits, soft areas, rated surface turf, hard paved and timber decking provided

 

 

The outdoor play areas are would receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access. 

 

Existing outdoor play areas.

Yes

 

No, however the variation was acceptable under original application

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes 

I.4  Built form & building appearance

a) Child care centres must comply with the same standards for built form controls as provided under the DCP of the respective zone.

The proposed childcare centre is located within R4 zone and the existing building would be retained.

Yes 

 

b) The design and layout of the child care centres must respond to the character of the existing neighbourhood and streetscape.

The subject application is an ad hoc response to increase children numbers for the existing centre which would result in significant adverse impacts onto adjoining residences due to the location of the outdoor play areas provided within the front and side setback including limited on-site car parking creating potential land use conflicts. The subject building and site are not suitable to accommodate such a large increase in children numbers.

No, however built form, design and layout is existing and approved by the Court. 

 

c) In low density residential areas, child care centres are encouraged to be single storey in height for reasons of safety and access. In the case of 2 storey buildings, the second storey should only be used for the purposes of storage and staff facilities.

The subject site is located in a high-density residential area however adjoins a low density residential area and any further intensification of use is not supported in this instance.

No, however similar to the adjoining residential flat building and approved by the Court. 

 

d) All child care centres are preferred to be located at ground floor level where achievable and in areas where the opportunity for natural landscaping comprising deep planting is possible (i.e., not located entirely over a basement area).

The proposed centre is located on three levels and any further increase in children number are not supported.

No, however approved by the Court. 

 

e) In buildings including both residential uses and child care centres, the residential areas of the property are to be designed so as to prevent access to them by non-resident children. This includes both indoor and outdoor areas (such as washing lines etc.)

The building does not include any residential uses.

NA

I.5  Car parking / traffic

For the Childcare Centre:

1 space/2 full time employees

 

1 drop off space/5 children

 

1 disabled car space/20 car spaces

 

 

 

17 staff / 8.5 spaces required.

 

18.6 spaces required.

 

2 spaces (not additional to total requirement).

 

27.1 (28) spaces required.

 

19 spaces provided to include 6 staff within existing basement

 

3 on street spaces provided

No, the shortfall in 9 car spaces is not supported.

 

 

 

The centre should not be located on a road which carries traffic volumes in excess of 1,000 vehicles per hour, unless satisfactory off-street parking and entry/ exit provision is made.

Burns Road is a local road and carries traffic volumes less than 1000vph.

Yes

 

I.6  Accessibility 

Access should be in accordance with Australian Standard 1428.1 to 4 to comply with Part D of the Building Code of Australia

Unchanged

Yes

I.7  Safety/security/fencing

a)  Floor should be of a non-slip surface and easy to clean

Unchanged

Yes

b) Fire safety precautions must be provided in accordance with Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1851.1–1995.

Compliance with BCA proposed

Yes

c) Every gate should be provided with a childproof self-locking mechanism, but must still be accessible for adults in wheelchairs.

Unchanged

Yes

d) Child Care Centres which are not entirely located at ground level must satisfy Council as to their high safety level relating to fence / balcony heights, reduced window opening sizes etc.

Unchanged

Yes

e) Any part of the Child Care Centre that is designated for outdoor play space must be fenced on all sides.

Outdoor play areas are fenced on all sides

Yes

f) Any side of a stairway, ramp, corridor, hallway or external balcony that is not abutting a wall must be enclosed to prevent a child being trapped or falling through.

The proposed indoor and outdoor areas are surrounded by fences

 

Yes

g) Fences should be designed to minimise noise transmission (on busy roads), improve privacy and must not dominate the streetscape. Materials and finishes for fences may be used that complement the surrounding streetscape.

Existing fencing at the eastern outdoor play areas currently not improving privacy.  

 

Rear fence is acceptable

 

West fence is acceptable

 

Front fence is acceptable

No, however approved by the Court

I.8  Environmental hazards/air quality

 

a) In Child Care Centres located on roads where there is an average daily traffic rate of more than 5,000 per day, exposure to air and noise pollution sources should be minimised by the use of air conditioning and the location of outdoor play areas.

Existing air conditioning and outdoor play areas.  

Yes 

 

b) To avoid mosquito bite infections Council may require that all doors and windows should be screened. Mosquito breeding must be minimized by ensuring that drains and gutters are cleared and/or covered and that dark, damp areas are clear of vegetation and clutter.

Unchanged

Yes 

I.9 Landscaping /planting

 

a) Planting should be used for its quality of shading, screening and decorating outdoor areas.

Trees located on the northern and western boundary will shade the place during the hottest part of day.

Unchanged

Yes

 

 

b) The planting and vegetation should provide educational features.

Unchanged

Yes

c) Where the outdoor play area is proposed above ground level natural plants are to be provided in pots.

Unchanged

Yes

I.10  Privacy and Noise Minimisation

 

Effort should be made to reduce any possible adverse noise impact into the child care centre. In certain situations, this may require double-glazing of windows or appropriate location of windows.

Unchanged 

Yes

 

b) The development application should demonstrate that privacy and noise minimisation for neighbouring properties have been considered in designing the centre.

Insufficient acoustic information lodged to address that the fence bordering the outdoor play area on the eastern boundary is not of solid construction (currently a fence with gaps) where the Acoustic Report was required to address this

No, not supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer

I.11

Sustainability

Applications in residential zonings need to indicate that they fulfil any requirements for a BASIX Certificates which may have been introduced by the State government for relating to water and energy efficiency etc. 

Unchanged

Yes

I.12 Hours of Operation

The maximum hours of operation shall be between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday till Friday, in a residential zone.

Unchanged

Yes

 

 

Built Form, Fencing and Noise Minimisation

 

The following development standards are relevant:

 

Clause I.4

b) The design and layout of the child care centres must respond to the character of the existing neighbourhood and streetscape.

 

c) In low density residential areas, child care centres are encouraged to be single storey in height for reasons of safety and access. In the case of 2 storey buildings, the second storey should only be used for the purposes of storage and staff facilities.

 

d) All child care centres are preferred to be located at ground floor level where achievable and in areas where the opportunity for natural landscaping comprising deep planting is possible (i.e., not located entirely over a basement area).

 

Clause l.7

g) Fences should be designed to minimise noise transmission (on busy roads), improve privacy and must not dominate the streetscape. Materials and finishes for fences may be used that complement the surrounding streetscape.

 

 

Clause l.10

b) The development application should demonstrate that privacy and noise minimisation for neighbouring properties have been considered in designing the centre.

 

The relevant DCP objectives are:

 

Clause l.4

1.   To ensure child care centres are compatible with the scale of existing buildings in the vicinity.

2.   To ensure that the appearance of the development is of a high visual quality and enhances and compliments the streetscape of the area.

Clause l.10

3.   To provide visual and acoustic privacy for children, staff and nearby residents.

 

The main objectives of the DCP under Clause 1.6 are:

 

1.   To encourage the provision of child care centres in the Lane Cove Government Area which meets the needs of the community, in particular with the provision of spaces 0-2 year olds.

2.   To ensure that sites containing child care centres are appropriate for that purpose and provide a functional and pleasant environment for their users.

3.   To ensure that sites containing child care centres are compatible with the environment in which they are situated, particularly in terms of visual character, landscaping etc.

4.   To ensure that potential adverse impacts from child care centres on surrounding residential areas, such as those created by noise, traffic generation and on-street parking, are minimised.

 

Further, Clause I2 – Locational Considerations states that:

 

Child Care Centres to limit the maximum number of places at any one child care centre in residential zone to 60.

 

It is advised that the applicant did not address the above provisions.

 

Comment:

 

The subject building and site are not suitable to accommodate such a large increase in children numbers. The subject site is located in a high-density residential area however adjoins a low-density residential area and any further intensification of use is not supported in this instance. The facility is located on three levels and any further increase in children numbers are not supported. Whilst the Child Care SEPP states that an application cannot be refused on children numbers however the standard can be used as a guide in establishing what would be an appropriate scale for a child care centre located within a residential area.

It is noted that there are no increases in number of children between the ages of 0-2.

 

Based on a merit assessment of the subject application, it is considered that a 56 -place child care centre would be more of an appropriate scale compared to a 93-place facility proposed.

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

In relation to parking under Table 1 of the DCP the following assessment is provided:

 

Provision

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

I.5  Car parking / traffic

For the Childcare Centre:

 

1 space/2 full time employees

 

1 drop off space/5 children

 

1 disabled car space/20 car spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 staff / 8.5 spaces required.

 

18.6 spaces required.

 

2 spaces (not additional to total requirement).

 

27.1 (28) spaces required (to be rounded up).

 

19 spaces to include 6 staff within existing basement

 

3 on street spaces are provided along Cox Lane

No – 9 space shortfall not supported

 

The applicant provided the following justification/s to the proposed variation to car parking as follows:

 

The proposed parking provision of 22 parking (including the 3 drop off/pick up spaces) for 6 staff and 16 visitor spaces is appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·    There are realistic transport alternatives to private cars in the locality with the site within 400m to high-frequency bus services (37 bus routes). The travel survey indicates only 4 staff drive to/from work with 4 staff use public transport.

·    The additional parking demand associated with the increased enrolment would present a very minor impact for residents on the on-street parking spaces. The additional on-site staff spaces would eliminate reliance of staff on the on-street parking along Cox Lane.

·    The original DA development resulted in 6 additional on-street parking spaces for the use of surrounding residents. The allocation of 3 parking spaces along Cox Lane would still result in 3 additional on-street spaces as compared to the parking condition prior to construction of the centre.

·    Further, these spaces would only be for the short-term use of the centre during peak hours and would remain for the use of residents outside of these peak hours.

·    While the increase in on-site parking is limited by the existing basement carpark footprint, the additional demand can be accommodated easily within the existing on-street spaces along Landers Road. Landers Road presents a convenient and safe area with low traffic volumes (no more than 4 vehicles per minute) during peak hours.

·    The typical place of residences for staff would be the surrounding local residential neighbourhood. The travel mode survey showed 4 (31%) staff walk to/from work.

·    The proposed increase in enrolment would benefit both parents/carers and children who live nearby. This is evidenced by the travel survey which indicated up to 90% of the children are from the surrounding residential developments within the Lane Cove LGA.

 

The relevant Clause 2.1 Parking general DCP objectives are:

 

1.   Ensure that reasonable parking needs are met.

2.   Ensure that developments do not impose excessive demand for on-street parking on surrounding streets.

3.   Ensure that car parking spaces are convenient and accessible do that they are utilised for their intended purpose.

4.   Provide a lower level of car parking in areas with good access to public transport and services.

 

Comment:

 

The justifications for the parking shortfall of 9 spaces and to the provision of three on-street spaces are stated in the submitted traffic report. The proposed justifications to the variation found within the traffic report are not supported and refusal is recommended. Council’s Traffic and Transport Coordinator has reviewed the proposal and it is not supported for the following reason:

 

The additional pick up and drop off spaces within Cox Lane is not supported. Given the narrow width of Cox Lane, it is difficult for additional traffic to turn around on Cox Lane. Furthermore, the use of a public road for exclusive use by the child care centre is not supported by Council. In addition, insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the redesign of the basement car park. Also, the area provides pedestrian access to and from Epping Road for the residents of Landers Road and beyond.

Part N – Signage and Advertising

 

The proposed sign is prohibited in accordance with Clause 2.4 of Part N which states all signage and advertising within residential zoned land is prohibited except home business signs.

 

The relevant DCP objectives are:

 

1.   To ensure the safety of residents and users of Lane Cove.

2.   To minimise visual clutter and the unnecessary proliferation of signage.

 

The applicant did not provide a justification to the proposed variation to signage.


 

 

Comment:

 

The proposed sign is not supported and would not assist in providing for a rationalised signage scheme for the child care centre that is in proportion to the scale of the proposed building or its façade. The proposed additional sign to the existing four signs already present is not in keeping with the signage and residential character of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

 

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

 

The likely impacts of the proposal as amended would change from the original application due to the proposed substantial increase in traffic activities that would be conducted on the subject site which in turn would increase adverse impacts onto the surrounding residential properties with the provision of a drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane.

(c)        The suitability of the site for the development

 

The suitability of the site would not remain unchanged from the original application where insufficient car parking on site has been provided to accommodate the proposed large increase in children numbers. The proposed increase in children placement and associated building works represents as an overdevelopment of the site. The increase in the capacity of children for the centre by 37 placements would involve adverse traffic issues on the site and in the immediate locality due to the deficient parking provided on site.

 

The nature of the proposed Modification Application is an ad hoc response to utilise the indoor and outdoor areas available at the existing facility without proper regard to any other relevant considerations or impacts resulting from the increased capacity of children.   

 

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

 

In response to the notification of the proposed modification and 13 submissions were received.

 

(e)        The public interest

 

The proposed modification is not in the public interest as it would provide for further adverse impacts onto surrounding properties. The requirement to provide 28 on-site parking spaces is supported to ensure the proposal adequately provides for on-site parking for staff and customers in accordance with the DCP. Approval of the proposed development as amended is not considered to have proper regard to the amenity and safety of children attending the centre due to the proposed intensification of use on the subject site.

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections in relation to stormwater matters.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal and has not supported the proposed development as amended as there have been complaints received from residents in relation to the current operation of the child care centre at 56 children where approval of the subject application would exacerbate the current acoustics impacts onto the immediate locality.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION

 

In response to the notification of the proposed modification, 13 submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are summarised and addressed in the following table:

 

Concern

Comment

Traffic and noise are already beyond tolerable levels and to nearly double the numbers would be putting people at risk.

The proposed modification would represent as an overdevelopment on the subject site causing additional adverse impacts onto surrounding residences.

The Court consent did not limit the indoor and outdoor play areas of the building when numbers were reduced from 116 to 56 children. This has now resulted in the lodgement of the subject application to increase numbers without the need to increase floor or play areas. The proposed numbers are a return to the original numbers originally proposed and was disallowed. This is not a minor modification rather a substantial one in particular in relation to car parking.

The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed modification would be substantially the same development considering it was already established by the Court what the appropriate intensity of use would be set at. The proposed shortfall in car parking numbers are not supported and refusal is recommended.

The proposed drop off/pick up point along Cox Lane is pointless as there is nowhere to turn on Cox Lane and residents do not want the forecourt of the adjoining residential flat building to be a turning point for the dropping off spaces as there is insufficient space on Cox Lane to turn around.

The proposed drop off/pick up zone is not supported and is not an appropriate justification to support the large increase in children numbers on the subject site.

The proposal to ‘pinch’ a piece of Cox Lane would make emergency access to the adjoining residential flat building development more difficult.

The proposed modifications are not considered to be satisfactory in this instance as it would provide for additional access issues for the adjoining residential flat building development at 24-28 Landers Road.

There is no reason to remove the trees on to accommodate the proposed modification.

The removal of this tree is not supported.

Parents dropping off their children are already blocking access to Cox Lane. Illegal parking and parking in resident’s driveways on Landers Road are occurring rather parents to use the existing basement car park due to its access off a 7m wide lane making a vehicle pass an oncoming vehicle difficult and with no turning head. This is not assisted on Wednesdays when garbage collection occurs or when a removalist or an emergency truck arrives at 24-28 Landers Road as only one vehicular access point is available to the site on Cox Lane. People using the lane for drop off would have to use the existing driveway to the basement or the driveway to 24-28 Landers Road to turn around requiring a reverse movement. Council’s DCP does not allow for reversing of vehicles onto the street as it is dangerous for a child care use and pedestrians.

It is considered that approval of the subject application would exacerbate the current traffic and car parking problems being experienced at the subject site and within the immediate locality. The subject site is not suitable to accommodate such a large increase in children.

There is already another centre on Landers Road and there are many vacancies within the Lane Cove area. There is not a demand for more places.

This issue cannot be a reason of refusal as stated by the provisions SEPP Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres 2017.

The proposal would cause a significant hazard for pedestrians. Many people use Cox Lane to access the bus stop on Epping Road.

A 1.2m wide footpath is still provided for however the proposed drop off/pick up zone is not agreed with as it would adversely impact upon pedestrian safety as there are at least 180 pedestrians who use the stairs and footpath on Cox Lane to Epping Road on each weekday.

The car parking shortfall is excessive and the proposal does not comply with Clause 2.12(d) in that Landers Road and Cox Lane do not provide available convenient and safe on-street parking (with the provision of indented parking bays) as the street or lane do not experience low traffic volumes which would affect the safety and amenity of the locality and cause traffic problems.

It is agreed that the parking shortfall is excessive and should not be supported. All car parking generated by the proposed use as amended should be provided on site and its impacts should not transferred off site. It is considered that the proposal as amended does not comply with Council’s parking DCP and refusal is recommended.

The proposed drop off/pick up zone would result in the loss of parking to residents and their visitors.

It is likely that this outcome would occur and would create additional adverse impacts onto residents at 24-28 Landers Road.

The accuracy of the travel mode survey in the traffic report is questioned as there are only 13 entries indicating the mode of transport.

The justifications provided within the traffic report to support the proposed modification is not agreed with in this instance.

As the centre is already operating, the acoustic assessment should be based on actual noise measurements taken at the boundary of the nearest residence rather than a predicted level.

Appropriate acoustic testing of the existing centre should occur.

One zone objective is to ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is respected. The residents fail to see how this objective is achieved.

It is considered that the relevant zone objective discussed would be contravened should approval be granted to the subject application.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Sections 4.56 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered.

 

The proposed increase in children places and to create a three space drop off/pick up zone is not supported. The existing child care centre has 56 children and it provides for adequate parking on-site. The increase in children numbers to 93 children would result in deficient car parking being provided on site and would spread the traffic impacts off site affecting surrounding residential properties. The increase in children numbers is an ad hoc response to fully utilise the indoor and outdoor play areas that are available. Approval of the proposed development as amended is not considered to be in the public interest having regard to the amenity and safety of the children and residents.

 

The application is recommended for refusal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting 3 September 2019, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, refuse the subject Modification Application to Development Consent D148/2015 to:

 

-     Increase the number of children of the childcare centre from 56 to 93.

-     Provision of a 3 car space drop off/pick up zone within Cox Lane.

-     Installation of a new business identification sign.

 

for the following reasons:

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

1.         The proposed development as amended is not considered to be substantially the same             development. The modification seeks to drastically change the extent of the operation being             conducted on the premises as previously approved.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  Pursuant to Section 4.56(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is not satisfied that the development as amended is substantially the same development as the development for which the Court originally granted consent to due to the proposed intensification of use and increased amount of activities that would be conducted on the subject site adversely affecting surrounding residential properties.

 

(b)  The modification to increase children numbers to the Court approved child care centre would increase the intensification of use that would be experienced by adjoining and surrounding residents. The proposed additional 3 car space drop off/pick zone on Cox Lane to accommodate the increase in children is not supported from a traffic perspective and involves a substantial shortfall in required car parking numbers. No owners consent has been obtained from Council for the proposed drop off/pick up zone. Whilst the building has been designed to cater for a maximum of 93 children based on the indoor and outdoor areas provided however the increase in children would represent a technical shortfall of 12 car parking spaces which is a significant variation.

 

(c)  With the large increase in numbers, it would be likely that the basement would achieve full capacity quickly during peak times and the remainder of parents would be forced to reverse back out in front of the basement garage door and park on either on Cox Lane or Landers Road which is an undesirable outcome. As the required additional car parking is not provided on site, the intensification of use is unacceptable as the increase in children are not considered to be minor. It is not appropriate to adopt a large increase in numbers with no provision of additional car parking spaces on site and due to the concerns raised by residents (13 separate submissions lodged), the proposal as amended would be contrary to the appropriate intensity of use already established by the Court in the first instance.

 

(d)  As such the proposal does not satisfy the ‘substantially the same’ development criteria. The applicant in modifying the original Land and Environment Court child care centre approval on the subject site would unreasonably intensify the amount of activities being conducted on the premises and would result in additional adverse impacts offsite.

 

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 Aims and Zone Objectives

 

2.         The proposal as amended does not meet the aims and R4 High Density Residential zoning             objectives of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)  The proposed development as amended would not meet the 1.2(2)(b) of the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 which requires the following:

 

            ‘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.

 

(b)  The proposed development as amended would not meet the following zone objective:

 

            “To ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood is             respected.”

 

(c)  The proposed increase in children placement and associated works to create a three space drop off/pick up zone represents as an overdevelopment of the site. The existing child care centre has a child placement of 56 and currently provide adequate parking on-site. The increase in the capacity of children for the centre by 37 placements would involve adverse traffic issues on the site and in the immediate locality due to deficient parking provided on site. The subject application is an ad hoc response to fully utilise the indoor and outdoor play areas that are currently available. Approval of the proposed development is not supported having regard to the amenity and safety of children attending the centre and due to the nature of the proposed modification proposed.     

 

Car Parking and Traffic

 

3.         The proposal as amended fails to provide sufficient on site car parking and the proposed             drop off/pick up zone adjacent to Cox Lane is inappropriate to accommodate the proposed             increase in children.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)  The proposal as amended requires a total of 28 parking spaces for 93 children and 17 staff in accordance with Part R of LCDCP 2010 – Table 1.

 

(b)  The proposal as amended provides for 19 basement parking spaces and a 3 space drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane. Insufficient parking has been provided on-site to accommodate 93 children and 17 staff for the child care centre in accordance with Part R of LCDCP 2010.

 

(c)  The proposed development as amended would not meet Clause 2.1 Parking general of Part R of LCDCP objectives are:

 

1.   Ensure that reasonable parking needs are met.

2.   Ensure that developments do not impose excessive demand for on-street parking on surrounding streets.

3.   Ensure that car parking spaces are convenient and accessible do that they are utilised for their intended purpose.

4.   Provide a lower level of car parking in areas with good access to public transport and services.

 

(d)  The justifications for the parking shortfall of 9 spaces relates to the provision of three spaces on street and reasons stated in the submitted traffic report. The proposed justifications to the variation found within the traffic report are not supported and refusal is recommended.

 

(e)  Having regard to the constrained nature of the subject site, the proposed drop off/pick up zone solution and associated widening of Cox Lane are not supported given the narrow width of Cox Lane. It would be difficult for additional traffic to turn around on Cox Lane. The use of a public road for exclusive use of private parking is not supported.

 

Residential Amenity

 

4.         The proposal as amended would not maintain and protect the current residential amenity of             adjoining and surrounding residential properties.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)  The proposed development as amended would not meet Principle 1 - Context, Principle 2 – Built Form, Principle 6 – Amenity and Principle 7 – Safety Part 2 design quality principles of the Child Care Planning Guidelines.

 

(b)  The proposed development as amended would not meet the following Part 3 Matters of Consideration objectives of the Child Care Planning Guidelines as follows:

 

                        3.1 Site selection and location

·    To ensure that appropriate zone considerations are assessed when selecting a site.

·    To ensure that the site selected for a proposed child care facility is suitable for the use.

                        3.2 Local Character, streetscape and the public domain interface

·    To ensure that the child care facility is compatible with the local character and surrounding streetscape.

                        3.5 Visual and acoustic privacy

·    To minimise the impact of child care facilities on the acoustic privacy of neighbouring residential developments.

                        3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation

·    To provide parking that satisfies the needs of users and demand generated by the centre.

·    To provide vehicle access from the street in a safe environment that does not disrupt traffic-flows.

·    To provide a safe and connected environment for pedestrians both on and around the site.

 

(c)  It is not considered that the proposed development as amended satisfy context, built form, amenity and safety design quality principle considerations. The centre is located within a predominant residential area. A child care centre at 56 children at the subject site is more compatible with the context of its surrounding locality. However, the proposed intensification of the existing centre is not considered to be appropriate having regard to non-compliances with car parking.

 

(d)  The subject application is an ad hoc response to increase children placement for the existing centre which would result in significant adverse impacts onto adjoining residences due to the location of the outdoor play areas provided within the front and side setback areas including above ground creating potential land use conflicts. The proposal is deficient in providing sufficient car parking spaces on site which presents amenity concerns due to the conflicts with the child care use and neighbours. The provision of the drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane and with the shortfall in car parking present potential safety concerns as pedestrian and adjoining neighbour’s access can also be obtained easily due to the shared access arrangement within the public lane.

           

(e)  Whilst the original application was determined prior to the introduction of the Child Care Planning Guidelines, it has been used as guide to assess the subject application which has indicated that the proposed increase in children numbers would be an over-intensification of use and would not satisfy the above considerations or objectives.

 

(f)  The proposed development as amended would not meet with Clauses l.4(b), (c) & (d), l.7(g) and l.10(b) of Part I of LCDCP as follows:

 

            Clause I.4

            b) The design and layout of the child care centres must respond to the character of             the existing neighbourhood and streetscape.

 

            c) In low density residential areas, child care centres are encouraged to be single             storey in height for reasons of safety and access. In the case of 2 storey buildings,             the second storey should only be used for the purposes of storage and staff             facilities.

 

            d) All child care centres are preferred to be located at ground floor level where             achievable and in areas where the opportunity for natural landscaping comprising             deep planting is possible (i.e., not located entirely over a basement area).

 

            Clause l.7

            g) Fences should be designed to minimise noise transmission (on busy roads),             improve privacy and must not dominate the streetscape. Materials and finishes for             fences may be used that complement the surrounding streetscape.

 

            Clause l.10

            b) The development application should demonstrate that privacy and noise             minimisation for neighbouring properties have been considered in designing the             centre.

 

(f)  The proposed development as amended would not meet with Clauses l.4 & l.10 and 1.6 objectives of Part I of LCDCP as follows:

           

            Clause l.4

      1.To ensure child care centres are compatible with the scale of existing buildings in       the vicinity.

      2.To ensure that the appearance of the development is of a high visual quality and       enhances and compliments the streetscape of the area.

            Clause l.10

      1.         To provide visual and acoustic privacy for children, staff and nearby       residents.

                        Clause 1.6

                        2.To ensure that sites containing child care centres are appropriate for that purpose                         and provide a functional and pleasant environment for their users.

                        3. To ensure that sites containing child care centres are compatible with the                                  environment in which they are situated, particularly in terms of visual character,                            landscaping etc.

                        4.To ensure that potential adverse impacts from child care centres on surrounding                         residential areas, such as those created by noise, traffic generation and on-street                         parking, are minimised.

 

(g)  The subject building and site are not suitable to accommodate such a large increase in children numbers. The subject site is located in a high density residential area however adjoins a low density residential area and any further intensification of use is not supported in this instance. The centre is located on three levels and any further increase in children numbers are not supported. Based on a merit assessment of the subject application, it is considered that a 56 place child care centre would be more of an appropriate scale compared to a 93 place facility.

 

(h)  The proposed development as amended is not supported as there have been complaints received from residents in relation to the current operation of the child care centre at 56 children where approval of the subject application would exacerbate the current traffic and acoustics impacts onto the immediate locality.

 

Signage

 

5.         The proposed sign in addition to the existing 4 signs already attached to the centre is             considered to be excessive and unwarranted in this instance.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)  The proposed development as amended would not meet Clause 3(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage which requires the following:

 

            ‘3 Aims, objectives etc

 

            (1)  This Policy aims:

            (a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

            (i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

            (ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

            (iii) is of high quality design and finish, and’

 

(b)  The proposed development as amended would not meet the Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria: 1 Character of the area; 2 Special areas; 4 Streetscape, setting or landscape; and 5 Site and building matters. 

 

(c)  The proposed signage is not considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 3(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the SEPP. The proposed sign is not supported and would          not assist in providing for a rationalised signage scheme for the child care centre that is in proportion to the scale of the proposed building or its façade. The proposed additional sign to the existing four signs already present is not in keeping with the signage and residential character of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

 

(d)  The proposed sign is prohibited in accordance with Clause 2.4 of Part N of LCDCP which states all signage and advertising within residential zoned land is prohibited except home business signs.

 

(e)  The proposed development as amended would not meet Clause 2.4 Prohibited signage of Part N of LCDCP objectives are:

 

                        1.To ensure the safety of residents and users of Lane Cove.

      2.To minimise visual clutter and the unnecessary proliferation of signage.

 

(f)  The proposed sign is not supported and would not assist in providing for a rationalised signage scheme for the child care centre that is in proportion to the scale of the proposed building or its façade. The proposed additional sign to the existing four signs already present is not in keeping with the signage and residential character of the locality. Deletion of the sign would assist in reducing visual clutter at the subject site.

 

Intensification of Use

 

6.         The proposed modification would involve a significant intensification of the existing use             adversely impacting on adjoining and surrounding residential allotments.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  Pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development as amended would contain adverse traffic, parking and acoustic impacts onto the immediate locality due to its increased amount of increased people and vehicles accessing the premises and its close proximity to adjoining and surrounding residential allotments.

 

(b)  The likely impacts of the proposal as amended would not remain unchanged from the original application due to the substantial increase in the amount of activities that would be conducted on the subject site which in turn would increase adverse impacts onto the surrounding residential properties with the provision of a drop off/pick up zone along Cox Lane.

 

Site Suitability

 

7.         The site is not suitable for the proposed development as amended.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  Pursuant to Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended with the increased child placements in its current form, having regard to the above matters.

 

(b)  The suitability of the site would not remain unchanged from the original application where insufficient car parking on site has been provided to accommodate the proposed large increase in children numbers. The proposed increase in children placement and associated building works represents as an overdevelopment of the site. The increase in the capacity of children for the centre by 37 placements would involve adverse traffic issues on the site and in the immediate locality due to the deficient parking provided on site.

 

(c)  The nature of the proposed Modification Application is an ad hoc response to utilise the indoor and outdoor areas available at the existing facility without proper regard to any other relevant considerations or impacts resulting from the increased capacity of children.   

 

Public Interest

 

8.         Approval of the proposal as amended would not be in the public interest.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)  Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the subject modification application should not be approved having regard to concerns raised in the submissions received by Council and the above matters.

 

(b)  The proposed modification is not in the public interest as it would provide for further adverse impacts onto surrounding properties. The requirement to provide 28 on-site parking spaces is supported to ensure the proposal adequately provides for on-site parking for staff and customers in accordance with the DCP. Approval of the proposed development as amended is not considered to have proper regard to the amenity and safety of children attending the centre due to the proposed intensification of use on the subject site.

 

Undesirable Precedent

 

9.         The proposal development as amended would set an undesirable precedent for a similar             development in residential areas in relation to:

           

            (a)        Child care centres operating with insufficient on-site car parking.

            (b)        Child care centres containing excessive signage clutter.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Notification Plan

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Site Plan

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 3 September 2019

38-42 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          38-42 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA18/14-01 - 43932/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Greg Samardzic 

 

 

 

Property:

38-42 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove

DA No:

DA14/2018

Date Lodged:

19 July 2019

Cost of Work:

$7,042,418.00

Owner:

Vatera Pty Ltd

Applicant:                        

MHN Design Union

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Section 8.2 review for demolition of existing commercial buildings, construction of a mixed-use building being shop top housing and basement car parking.

Zone

B2 Local Centre

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

Is the property a heritage item

No

Is the property within a conservation area

No

Is the property adjacent to bushland

No

BCA Classification

Class 2, 5, 6 and 7a

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council’s policy 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The Section 8.2 Review is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as the original Development Application was determined by the panel on 20 February 2019 however the refusal notice was issued to the applicant on 4 March 2019 (attached (AT6). The 6-month period to determine a Section 8.2 Review is to be counted from the date of the issued refusal (i.e. 4 March 2019).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Section 8.2 Application seeks review of the refusal determination of the original Development Application DA14/2018. The Section 8.2 Application has been assessed having regard to the applicant’s additional information and amended plans including the original determination of the application. The applicant has amended the proposed design to address the reasons for refusal by:

 

·    Modifications to the car parking layouts.

·    Set back the top floor on Burns Bay Road and rear setback increased.

·    Redesign of the front façade to present a two-storey frontage to Burns Bay Road.

·    Redesign of the apartment bedroom windows facing the central courtyard to address overlooking and privacy issues.

However, it is considered that the design changes have not addressed the overall concerns with the proposed development. The application remains unsatisfactory in relation to building height, bulk and scale, common open space/landscape, building separation and car parking/land use conflict arrangements. It is recommended that the Lane Cove Planning Panel review and confirm the updated recommended reasons for refusal.

 

SITE

 

The subject site is legally described as Lots 19 and 21 in DP 530200 and Lot 1 in DP 550930 and formally known as 38, 40 and 42 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove. The site has a total site area of 778.6m² with a total frontage to Burns Bay Road of 15.47m, 15.235m to the rear Sera Street frontage and an average depth of 51.1m.  The site is located within Lane Cove Town Centre on the southern side of Burns Bay Road, between Longueville Road to the east and Tambourine Bay Road to the west. 

 

There are 3 existing commercial buildings located on the site. 38 Burns Bay Road is a part 1/part 2 storey building that currently had Dymocks trading out of the ground floor tenancy, No. 40 Burns Bay Road is a part 2/part 3 storey building that is currently vacant and 42 Burns Bay Road is a part 1/part 2 storey building currently vacant.  Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

Surrounding development comprises predominantly retail and commercial development.

 

Figure 1: Aerial of Subject Site

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/ HISTORY

 

Previous development applications lodged for the site include DA13/30 and DA14/54.

 

DA13/30

 

Development Application DA13/30 proposed the demolition of all existing buildings and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building.  The application was refused by Council on 13 June 2013 for the following reasons:-

 

1.   The proposed development exceeds the building height standard of the LEP and the design does not relate to the topography of the land;

2.   The exception to the building height standard is not well found;

3.   The proposal exceeds the FSR standard of the LEP;

4.   The bulk and scale is excessive;

5.   The development does not meet the setback provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP);

6.   The development does not meet the objectives of the zoning of B2 Local Centre;

7.   Car parking design fails to meet the provisions of the DCP; and

8.   The proposed development is not in public interest.

 

The owner of the property lodged an appeal in the Land and Environment Court against Council’s decision. The appeal was dismissed on 15 October 2013.

 

DA54/2014

 

Development Application DA54/2014 proposed the demolition of the 3 existing commercial buildings and construction of a mixed use building comprising 3 levels with a mezzanine of commercial/retail space and 3 dwellings.

 

The development proposed a building height of 16.5m which breached the 9.5m height limit for the site.  A Clause 4.6 objection was lodged with the application.  The height variation was supported due to the increased setback, compliance with parking requirements, the site constraints and sloping nature of the site.

 

The application was approved by the Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel on 12 November 2014 subject to conditions.

 

DA14/2018

 

Development Application DA14/2018 proposed the demolition of the existing buildings and construct a 5 storey mixed used development comprising of the following:-

 

·    Basement: 6 residential parking spaces, 1 services apartment space, 6 tandem retail parking spaces, 4 tandem commercial parking spaces, 12 storage areas, plant room, 2 motorcycle parking spaces, residential lift, internal access stairs, separate fire stairs and commercial lift pit;

·    Ground floor: 5 residential parking spaces, 1 commercial disabled parking space, 2 loading bays for van and SRV – 1 of which to be utilised as a retail parking space,  bulky waste storage room, retail waste storage room, services apartments waste storage room, end of journey facilities, residential waste bin storage room, fire stairs, commercial/retail bike parking lockers, commercial lift, residential lift, internal access stairs, car park driveway entry and;

·    Level 1: 3 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments at Sera Street frontage, commercial premises with bathroom facilities and kitchenette area, plant rooms, internal access stairs, residential lift, commercial lift and pedestrian access way;

·    Level 2: Retail tenancy premises at Burns Bay Road frontage, pedestrian entry from Burns Bay Road frontage, 2 x visitor bike parking rakes, smoke lobby, commercial lift, residential lift with lobby area, internal access stairs and 3 x 1 bedroom services apartments facing Sera Street;

·    Level 3: 2 x 2 bedroom apartments, 4 x 1 bedroom apartments, residential lift, internal access stairs and recessed landscaped areas; and

·    Level 4: 2 x 2 bedroom apartments, 3 x 1 bedroom apartments, partially covered communal open space with ancillary facilities, residential lift and internal access stairs; and

·    Strata subdivision.

 

The application sought to rely upon the approved building height plane from the previously approved development application. The application was refused by the Lane Cove Planning Panel on 20 February 2019.

 

DETERMINATION UNDER REVIEW

 

The determination of Development Application DA14/2018 is the subject of this review. The Section 8.2 Application seeks review of the refusal determination of the original Development Application DA14/2018 on 20 February 2019 by the Lane Cove Planning Panel however the refusal notice was issued to the applicant on 4 March 2019. The 6-month period to determine a Section 8.2 Review is to be counted from the date of the issued refusal (i.e. 4 March 2019).

 

The notice of determination included the following reasons for refusal:

 

Permissibility

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the definition of shop top housing as contained in the Dictionary to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and is therefore prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

Height

 

2.         The proposed development breaches the height control. The excessive height towards Sera Street dominate the streetscape. The proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the Building Height standard, and the objectives for development in the zone. There are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation. The Clause 4.6 request for variation is not considered to be well founded and not supported.

 

Design

 

3.         The proposed development presents as 3 storeys towards Burns Bay Road where as the neighbouring sites are 2 storeys in presentation. The proposed development towards the rear would present as five storeys even though the two upper levels have been setback.  The adjoining building is 3 storeys. The proposed development would dominate the streetscape.

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply with the rear setback requirements being 2 storey:  Nil (commercial use) and 3m (residential use/shop top housing) 3+ storey: 6m. The proposed development would dominate the streetscape.

 

5.         Residential and commercial/retail parking and services/delivery areas conflict with pedestrian access. Level 2 residential lift opens on to commercial tenancies being a conflict and impacts upon the amenity of residential units.

 

6.         The proposed development does not provide for adequate landscape area and communal open space a minimum of 25% being 194m2.

 

7.         The basement car park does not have commercial lift access to the basement parking level which does not provide equitable access to the commercial/retail tenancies.

 

8.         A separation of the dwellings which front internal courtyards vary from 7.45m to 9.3m between bedroom windows of apartments. This separation is less than 12m which has been addressed by a continuous privacy screen. This addressed by providing a continuous privacy screen which is not considered acceptable as it would adversely impact upon the amenity of the dwellings.

 

9.         The bulk and scale of the development which results from the non-compliance with the height standard is not in character or context with the surrounding development.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

10.       The proposed development should be refused as the proposed parking is unacceptable and does not comply with the requirements of Part C and Part R of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:

 

a)         Insufficient parking spaces have been provided on-site to accommodate the development in accordance with Part R of LCDCP 2010. The proposal requires a total of 26 parking spaces and only 24 parking spaces have been provided. This is a shortfall of 2 parking spaces. Shared parking spaces with loading bays are not supported.

 

b)         The commercial/retail tandem car parking spaces create potential traffic conflicts for the future tenancies as the tandem parking spaces may not be allocated to the same tenancy.

 

c)         The driveway ramp widths and circulation roadway are not in accordance with AS2890.1. There is insufficient width to provide a two-way driveway ramp between the ground floor and basement car parking levels and a single width ramp has been provided. This is insufficient as the one-way ramp does not provide adequate vehicular access between the ground floor and basement car parking as the width does not allow for any queued vehicles to maneuver around each other creating traffic conflicts within the parking which would create safety impacts, congestion and delays within the car park.

 

d)         The shared parking between the residential and commercial/retail components of the proposed development on the basement car park level creates safety concerns for the residents of the development and users of the retail/commercial parking spaces. The commercial lift does not have access to this basement car park and the retail/commercial patrons would be required to traverse either up the internal stairs or, for equitable access, up the driveway ramp to the ground floor parking level to access the commercial lift.  No pedestrian path is provided at 1:14 grade to facilitate equitable access.

 

e)         Having regard to the constrained nature of the site, the alternative parking solutions of tandem parking spaces and mixed commercial/retail and residential car parking provided by the Applicant are not supported.

 

Landscape and Communal Open Space

 

11.       The proposed development should be refused as the amount of landscaping and communal open space provided should be increased to a minimum 25% of the site area.

 

Particulars:

 

a)         The proposed development has an insufficient amount of landscaping and communal open space that does not provide the future residents with a high level of amenity.

 

b)         The Level 4 communal open space should be increased by an additional 100m2 to provide a landscaped communal open space area that would have a high amenity value to the future residents which would include facilities such as accessible bathroom, BBQ, power outlets, water and sink connections, tables with seating, overhead shading, podium tree canopy plantings to provide natural shade and landscaping.

 

The Site

 

12.       The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed.

 

The minutes from the Lane Cove Planning Panel included the reasons for the decision:

 

·        The Panel acknowledges that the applicant made a request to defer the matter to allow proposed amendments to be considered.  However, the Panel is of the view that the changes required to achieve an acceptable design resolution are of a magnitude which would necessitate the submission of a fresh DA.

 

·       The Panel agrees with the assessment and reasons for refusal as stated in the Officer’s report,and has included some additional reasons following consideration.

 

·       The Panel wishes to convey to the applicant that any new application should take into consideration the following matters:

 

·        the upper level setbacks to both Burns Bay Road and Sera Street should be increased to mitigate the impacts of the excessive height of the building;

 

·        front and rear elevations should be designed so as to reduce the visible bulk of the building;

 

·        Internal access to all residential apartments should be separated from access to serviced units and commercial/retail spaces; and

 

·       Separation between habitable windows should comply with the Apartment Design Guide.

 

On 30 July 2019, a Class 1 appeal against the above refusal of the original application was lodged with the Land and Environment Court.

 

SECTION 8.2 APPLICATION

 

Pursuant to Section 8.2(1)(b) the applicant has requested that the Council review its determination of Development Application DA14/2018. The Section 8.2 Review Application was accompanied by the additional documentation and amended plans.

 

The proposal as amended is for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 5-level mixed use building containing retail/commercial tenancies, serviced and residential apartments. The proposed development is to accommodate:

 

·    280sqm of retail floor space fronting Burns Bay Road.

·    180sqm of commercial floor space.

·    6 serviced apartments.

·    11 residential apartments.

·    13 off street car parking spaces associated with the retail/commercial/serviced apartment component of the development and 11 spaces associated with the residential apartment component.

·    Strata subdivision of the development upon completion.

 

The proposed building is to contain horizontal and vertical modulation and articulation. The building is to be largely contained within the building envelope approved by Development Consent DA54/2014 issued by Council on 12 November 2014. 

 

The building is to comprise:

 

·    Basement level: 14 car parking spaces for use by apartments and serviced apartments, 8 bicycle and 2 motorcycle parking spaces, residential storage, plant rooms, lift and stairs.

·    Leve1 – Sera Street: vehicular entry from Sera Street, 2 loading bays, 10 car parking spaces and 4 bicycle spaces for use by retail/commercial tenancies, waste storage facilities, bulk waste storage, plant rooms, lift and stairs.

·    Level 1: 180sqm commercial floor space, 3 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments, toilet facilities, lift and stairs.

·    Level 2 – Burns Bay Road: 280sqm retail floor space fronting Burns Bay Road, 3 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments, residential apartment entry foyer, 4 bicycle spaces for use by retail/commercial tenancies, lift and stairs.

·    Level 3: 4 x 1 bedroom apartments and 2 x 2 bedroom residential apartments, lift and stairs and pedestrian link connecting apartments adjacent to Burns Bay Road to the lift.

·    Level 4: 3 x 1 bedroom apartments, 2 x 2 bedroom residential apartments, communal open space of 47sqm and includes BBQ facilities and an accessible toilet, lift and stairs and pedestrian link connecting apartments adjacent to Burns Bay Road to the lift.

·    Roof level: Residential lift overrun and plant enclosures and skylights over apartments in the building’s Sera Street element.

Apartments range between 50 – 82sqm and are to have balconies attached to their living rooms. Three adaptable residential apartments are proposed. Separate lifts are to connect the retail/commercial component of the development and its residential and serviced apartment components. The lifts are to provide a vertical connection to all floors including the car parking areas and service areas.

 

The car parking areas are to provide a total of 24 off street car parking spaces consisting of:

 

·    10 spaces to be used by the retail/commercial areas.

·    3 spaces to be used by the serviced apartments.

·    11 spaces to be used by the residential apartments.

 

The 10 retail/commercial spaces are to be located at the Sera Street level and 14 spaces associated with the residential and services apartments are to be located within the basement level. The 2 parking levels are to be connected by a car lift. One of the spaces in the commercial/car park and 3 spaces in the residential car park are to be disabled spaces. Security controlled access measures are to be in place to restrict access to the basement residential level.

 

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

 

SECTION 8.2 ASSESSMENT

 

The applicant included a statement to each of the reasons of refusal as outlined below:

 

Permissibility

 

1.   The proposal does not satisfy the definition of shop top housing as contained in the Dictionary to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and is therefore prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

Legal advice prepared by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers on 4 June 2018 was submitted when the application was originally made indicated that the apartments at Levels 3 and 4 above the ground floor retail premises and service apartments represented ‘shop top housing’. This advice was considered by Council and by letter dated 29 August 2018, Council advised the applicant that it was satisfied that the serviced apartment component of the development was permissible as it met the definition of commercial use and that the issue of permissibility had been resolved. Consequently, the assessment report prepared by Council’s officers did not raise any issue relating to the permissibility.

 

Despite this, the Lane Cove Planning Panel’s primary reason for refusing the application was on the basis that the proposal did not satisfy the definition of ‘shop top housing’ in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP) and was therefore prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

The ground floor level of the building contains a retail/commercial tenancy fronting Burns Bay Road and 3 x serviced apartments at the rear orientated to Sera Street. Under the definition contained in LCLEP, the retail/commercial tenancy represents development for the purposes of ‘commercial premises’, while the ‘serviced apartments’ and are a type of ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ or in the broad definition represent in the form of ‘business premises’ as indicated in the legal advice submitted with the application. In any event, the definition of ‘residential accommodation’ which includes ‘shop top housing’ specifically excludes ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’.

The apartments at the 2 levels above the Burns Bay Road would represent ‘shop top housing’ under the criteria adopted by Justice Sheahan in Hrsto v Canterbury City Council (No. 2) [2015] NSWLEC 121 when he endorsed Council’s submissions in that matter, which were:

 

34. Residential development that has a floor level that is lower than the top most part of ground floor retail premises or business premises could not be properly characterised as ‘shop top housing’.

 

35. The respondent accepts that dwellings do not need to be directly or immediately above ground floor retail premises or business premises in order to be characterized as ‘shop top housing’. If it was intended that ‘shop top housing’ be limited to dwellings that are directly or immediately above ground floor retail premises or business premises it is expected that those words have been included in the definition of the term ‘shop top housing’.

 

36. The Respondent contends that dwellings must be in the same building as the ground floor retail premises of business premises for the purposes of the term ‘shop top housing’. However, the Respondent accepts that a broad interpretation of the word ‘above’ in the definition should be given which would suggest that the dwellings need only be at a floor level that is higher than the top of the ground floor retail of business premises and do not need to be contained in an envelope on the higher floor level that would be intersected by a line drawn vertically from within the envelope of the ground floor retail or business premises.

 

The B2 Local Centre zone specifically permits development for the purposes of “commercial premises”, “tourist and visitor accommodation” and “shop top housing”. It is contended that the Panel was manifestly wrong in concluding that the proposal:

 

·        did not meet the definition of “shop top housing” in LCLEP; and

·        was prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The relevant definition is as follows:

 

shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises.

 

It is evident from the submitted floor plans that the proposed development does not satisfy the above definition as there are two levels of commercial or retail tenancies which includes serviced apartments on both levels. Much of the development is not for the purposes of ‘shop top housing’ as defined above where there would be two whole levels above natural ground level containing commercial or retail usages. It is considered that the applicant has not submitted any further evidence to sufficiently overturn the original decision of the Lane Cove Planning Panel on 20 February 2019 in relation to permissibility.

 

The location of the serviced apartments is raised as there is potential for them to be converted into residential apartments and which would further compromise whether the proposed development constitutes as being a ‘shop top housing’ development. The proposed development as amended is still not supported and it is recommended that at least one of the commercial/retail levels be deleted or the development be appropriately stepped in line with existing natural ground levels to ensure that there is retail or commercial at grade level along Sera Street.

 

 

Height

 

2.   The proposed development breaches the height control. The excessive height towards Sera Street dominate the streetscape. The proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the Building Height standard, and the objectives for development in the zone. There are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation. The Clause 4.6 request for variation is not considered to be well founded and not supported.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

It is acknowledged that the building would exceed the building height standard contained in Clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP. This matter is addressed in more detail within the submitted Clause 4.6 written request. The request concludes that:

 

·    the building height standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify variations from it; and

·    the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

In terms of the contention relating to the height of the building in its Sera Street elevation, Council’s consultant architects, Smith & Tzannes, who reviewed the original design indicated that:

 

·    built form and scale: The Sera Street frontage is a service street but is sufficiently activated by the two levels of serviced apartments above. The materiality and form express the different uses of the building and provide appropriate scaling to the rear – complimented by the setback to the upper residential levels. Utilising this space for serviced apartments is possibly better than retail uses with respect to activation and surveillance of the laneway.

·    density: Aside from the relationship (to) the Burns Bay Road street wall…, the development provides an adequate built form response to the site and appropriate mix of commercial and residential uses.

 

The proposed building is to be largely contained within the building envelope and profile approved by Council on this land by virtue of Development Consent DA54/2014 issued on 12 November 2014. In addition, the height of the building is commensurate with the height of other contemporary developments on land with similar topographical characteristics in the Town Centre including:

 

·    Market Square at 24-28 Lane Cove Plaza;

·    102-104 Longueville Road;

·    152-154 Longueville Road; and

·    The building approved on this land by Development Consent DA54/2014.

 

The proposal as amended is suitable under the terms of Clause 4.6(2) of LCLEP, despite its variation from the numerical value of the building height standard. 

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

Clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009 states that 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. The maximum permissible building height for the site is 9.5m in accordance with the building height map of the LEP. The proposed building height is approximately 17.4m towards the rear along Sera Street which exceeds the maximum permitted building height by approximately 7.9m a variation of 83%. This is a significant departure from the LEP.

 

The proposed development seeks to rely upon the approved building height plane approved under a previous application to justify variation to the height standard. This approach is not supported. Every request for variation to a development standard are to be assessed under the provisions of the clause and each on its own merits. It is recommended that a major redesign occurs with lodgment of a new Development Application which is more line with the topographical constraints of the subject site.

 

Design

 

3.   The proposed development presents as 3 storeys towards Burns Bay Road where as the neighbouring sites are 2 storeys in presentation. The proposed development towards the rear would present as five storeys even though the two upper levels have been setback.  The adjoining building is 3 storeys. The proposed development would dominate the streetscape.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The revised plans have setback the external wall of the apartments on topmost floor by 3m from the Burns Bay Road boundary and would create a 8.1m street wall and 2-storey element adjacent to the Burns bay Road boundary. This treatment is not dissimilar to the contemporary development on the nearby property at 12-16 Lane Cove Plaza approved by Council by Development Consent DA34/2014 on 15 May 2014. The streetscape presentation of the building to Burns Bay Road needs to be considered in the wider terms of the nature and scale of the extensive contemporary development fronting the southern side of the street in this area.

 

The mixed-use development on 12-16 Burns Bay Road presents a 3-storey element to the Plaza with 2 residential levels over ground floor shops and Market Town on 24-28 Lane Cove Plaza has a similar street wall height to the former, despite containing only 2 commercial storeys. The proposal would in terms of its height be consistent with the established streetscape in Burns Bay Road and the Plaza and the village character of the town centre.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The proposed design amendments are minor in the overall design scheme and does not fully satisfy this reason for refusal in that the development would still be in principle 3 storeys to Burns Bay Road and 5 storeys to Sera Street. The excessive height towards Sera Street still dominates the streetscape and the bulk or scale of the development would be excessive when compared to adjoining developments. It is recommended that at least one level of the proposed development be deleted to ensure there is an improvement to the overall design of the development.

 

4.   The proposed development does not comply with the rear setback requirements being 2 storey:  Nil (commercial use) and 3m (residential use/shop top housing) 3+ storey: 6m. The proposed development would dominate the streetscape.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The plans have been revised to:

 

·    increase the setback from Sera Street to a minimum of 3m;

·    delete the balconies associated with the serviced apartments on Levels 1 and 2; and

·    set down the roof over the Level 2 serviced apartments to reduce the overall height of the southern elevation of the building by 1.4m.

 

This has increased the articulation and modulation of the Sera Street elevation, particularly when regard is given to the greater setbacks of the main walls of the apartments at Levels 3 and 4 from Sera Street. Up to 3-storeys, the setback of the proposed building from the site’s Sera Street boundary is to be a minimum of 3m. Above 3-storeys:

 

·    the balconies of the residential apartments are to be setback between 4.4m and 5.2m from the Sera Street boundary; while

·    the main walls of the apartments are to be setback between 5.1m and 8m from that boundary.

 

These setbacks are commensurate with those approved by Council in Development Consent DA34/2014 for the redevelopment of 12-16 Lane Cove Plaza which above 3-storeys has setbacks from the rear boundary of 3.4m setback to balconies and 5.2m to main walls.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The proposed increased has assisted in better achieving DCP setback requirements however there still is a variation to the 6m rear setback for parts of the development above 3 storeys. Also, the proposed deletion of the balconies to the serviced apartments and reduced balconies sizes to the apartments would reduce amenity levels for future users. Overall, it is still considered that the proposed building’s bulk and scale to be excessive on the subject site and when compared to adjoining developments. The proposal as amended still represents as an overdevelopment and refusal is recommended as the proposed design amendments are modest in nature.

 

5.   Residential and commercial/retail parking and services/delivery areas conflict with pedestrian access. Level 2 residential lift opens on to commercial tenancies being a conflict and impacts upon the amenity of residential units.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The car park and loading areas have been revised by McLaren Traffic Engineering. The car stackers and ramps have been replaced with a car lift. The use of the car lifts is commonly accepted by LGA’s throughout the Greater Sydney region. A report prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering relating to the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed car parking and loading facilities accompanies the application. The lifts accessing the car park are to provide separate access to the apartments on Levels 3 and 4 and the serviced apartments on Levels 1 and 2 to the lift which accesses the retail/commercial tenancies.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

Relevant Council staff have assessed the proposal as amended and concerns are still raised with the provision of car parking including the potential adverse land use conflicts that may be involved

 

6.   The proposed development does not provide for adequate landscape area and communal open space a minimum of 25% being 194m2.

 

 

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The landscaped area and communal open space requirement of 25% is contained in the Apartment Design Code (ADG) associated with SEPP 65. As this requirement relates to a % of site requirement as opposed to density/needs generated basis, in residential zones it is a design element aimed at establishing a contextual setting for apartment buildings. It’s application to ‘shop top housing’ in mixed use development in business zones in town centre locations is problematical due to the different site and development characteristics of those zones. Council accepted this when it approved the contemporary developments on 152-154 Longueville Road and 12-14 Lane Cove Plaza in 2011 and 2014 without requiring compliance with the 25% ADG requirement.

 

The proposal includes a total of 7 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bed residential apartments and is to provide a communal open space with an area of 47sqm exclusive of toilet and BBQ facilities at Level 4 enjoying district views to the south. The surrounding area provides a range of recreation and leisure facilities which include a park, swimming centre and gymnasium nearby at Pottery Green and restaurants, cafes and leisure facilities in the Plaza. Council’s consultant architects in assessing the original application in terms of ADG indicated that:

 

·    The communal open space proposed, while not being 25% of the site, was considered acceptable; and

·    The proposal, which provided no deep soil planting, was appropriate given the urban location and was acceptable.

 

In this context, the proposal is to provide appropriate and adequate landscape area and communal open space.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The provision of the common open space areas is insufficient and would unlikely to be used by future residents due to its lack of amenity levels between the areas and the residential units. The justifications provided by the applicant to support such an inadequate or the poor design proposed to the common open space areas are not supported in this instance.

 

7.   The basement car park does not have commercial lift access to the basement parking level which does not provide equitable access to the commercial/retail tenancies.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The lifts accessing the car park provide separate access to the apartments on Levels 3 and 4 and the serviced apartments on Levels 1 and 2 to the lift access provided to the retail/commercial tenancies.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

Concerns are still raised with the design of the development in relation to the relevant potential land use conflicts that may be involved.

 

8.   A separation of the dwellings which front internal courtyards vary from 7.45m to 9.3m between bedroom windows of apartments. This separation is less than 12m which has been addressed by a continuous privacy screen. This addressed by providing a continuous privacy screen which is not considered acceptable as it would adversely impact upon the amenity of the dwellings.

Applicant Comment:

 

The design is of the bedroom windows fronting the internal courtyards have been revised to ensure a satisfactory and appropriate level of visual and aural privacy. The limited period of occupancy and nature of use of bedroom areas is such that there is unlikely to be any significant privacy issues raised that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by the revised fenestration and blinds and/or screens.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The proposed separation of the units is still not supported as the proposed redesign to the bedroom windows to much of a smaller size would further reduce the amenity levels of the future residents whilst only marginally improving the relevant privacy impacts involved. The proposed building separation variation although not the only reason for refusal does indicate to the overdeveloped nature of the proposed development.

 

9.   The bulk and scale of the development which results from the non-compliance with the height standard is not in character or context with the surrounding development.


 

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The revisions made to the building’s Burns Bay Road and Sera Street elevations are ameliorative in terms of the building’s height, bulk, scale and streetscape presentation and would result in a development that, in this area:

 

·    is consistent with contemporary development in the Town Centre and its desired future character;

·    establishes satisfactory and appropriate streetscape elements in both of those streets; and

·    contributes positively to the village character of the Town Centre.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

As discussed above, the proposed bulk and scale of the development as amended remains largely unchanged and this reason for refusal has not been resolved or adequately addressed.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

10. The proposed development should be refused as the proposed parking is unacceptable and does not comply with the requirements of Part C and Part R of LCDCP 2010.

 

Particulars:

 

a)         Insufficient parking spaces have been provided on-site to accommodate the development in accordance with Part R of LCDCP 2010. The proposal requires a total of 26 parking spaces and only 24 parking spaces have been provided. This is a shortfall of 2 parking spaces. Shared parking spaces with loading bays are not supported.

 

b)         The commercial/retail tandem car parking spaces create potential traffic conflicts for the future tenancies as the tandem parking spaces may not be allocated to the same tenancy.

 

c)         The driveway ramp widths and circulation roadway are not in accordance with AS2890.1.  There is insufficient width to provide a two-way driveway ramp between the ground floor and basement car parking levels and a single width ramp has been provided. This is insufficient as the one-way ramp does not provide adequate vehicular access between the ground floor and basement car parking as the width does not allow for any queued vehicles to maneuver around each other creating traffic conflicts within the parking which would create safety impacts, congestion and delays within the car park.

 

d)         The shared parking between the residential and commercial/retail components of the proposed development on the basement car park level creates safety concerns for the residents of the development and users of the retail/commercial parking spaces. The commercial lift does not have access to this basement car park and the retail/commercial patrons would be required to traverse either up the internal stairs or, for equitable access, up the driveway ramp to the ground floor parking level to access the commercial lift. No pedestrian path is provided at 1:14 grade to facilitate equitable access.

 

e)         Having regard to the constrained nature of the site, the alternative parking solutions of tandem parking spaces and mixed commercial/retail and residential car parking provided by the Applicant are not supported.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The car park and loading areas have been designed by McLaren Traffic Engineering. A report prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering relating to the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed car parking and loading facilities is to accompany the application.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

Council’s Traffic Section has assessed the proposal as amended and there remain objections in relation to car parking and traffic safety. Council’s Coordinator – Traffic and Transport made the following comments:

 

1.   Mechanical parking arrangements are not permitted under Part R of Councils DCP. This is due to the high risk of such devices breaking down, which would lead to complete loss of amenity and may result in overspill parking on surrounding streets. Furthermore, a cycle time of 2 minutes (ground floor to basement level and returning to ground level) is not practical for a resident to access their parking space regularly. This may also result in overspill parking on surrounding streets.

 

2.   Adaptable parking space for unit 10 is not in accordance with AS2890.6.

 

3.   There is a short-fall of two (2) accessible parking spaces. There is a requirement for a total of six (6) accessible parking spaces including three (3) for the adaptable unit and one (1) space each for the serviced apartment, office and shops.

There remain objections to the proposed development as amended on traffic grounds in particular in relation to the proposed use of the car lift.

 

 

 

Landscape and Communal Open Space

 

11. The proposed development should be refused as the amount of landscaping and communal open space provided should be increased to a minimum 25% of the site area.

 

Particulars:

 

a)         The proposed development has an insufficient amount of landscaping and communal open space that does not provide the future residents with a high level of amenity.

 

b)         The Level 4 communal open space should be increased by an additional 100m2 to provide a landscaped communal open space area that would have a high amenity value to the future residents which would include facilities such as accessible bathroom, BBQ, power outlets, water and sink connections, tables with seating, overhead shading, podium tree canopy plantings to provide natural shade and landscaping.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

See comments under refusal point 6 above.

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

The proposed landscape and communal open space remain not supported.

 

The Site

 

    12.   The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed.

 

Applicant Comment:

 

The proposed building is to be largely contained within the building envelope and profile of the building approved by Council by virtue of Development Consent DA54/2014. The site is little different to the sites on which the contemporary developments on 12-14 Lane Cove Plaza and 152-154 Longueville Road were approved by Council between 2011 and 2014. In this context, the site is suitable to accommodate a building of a height, bulk, scale and built form of the building proposed in this application. Council’s consultant architects in reviewing the original application indicated that:

 

·    The materiality and form express the different uses of the building and provide appropriate scaling to the rear – complimented by the setback to the upper residential levels.

·    Utilising this space for serviced apartment is possibly better than retail uses with respect to activation and surveillance of the laneway.

·    The development provides an adequate built form response to the site and appropriate mix of commercial and residential uses.

 

The site is clearly suitable for a development of the nature proposed. The revised plans to be considered in the review of the refusal are responsive to the issues raised in the refusal and is suitable for approval for the reasons outlined above.

 

 

Reviewer Comment:

 

There is an over reliance by the applicant with the previous development consent on the subject site to justify the proposed development as amended and it is noted that each application is to be assessed separately on its own merits. Whilst the subject site may be suitable for some form of development, however the height, street presentation, traffic and parking issues require resolution before the proposed development can be recommended for approval.

 

SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

 

(a)  The provisions of

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

State and Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

No amended BASIX certificate has been submitted although it would need to be submitted should have approval been recommended.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

 

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the potential for a site to be contaminated. The subject site has a history of commercial and ancillary residential use and as such, it is unlikely to contain any contamination and further investigation is not warranted in this case.

 

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

 

This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development. This proposal has been assessed against the following matters relevant to SEPP 65 for consideration:

 

·    The 9 SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles (attached (AT4); and

·    The NSW Apartment Design Guide (ADG) guidelines (attached (AT5).

 

Schedule 1 Design Quality Principles

 

A review of the principles has indicated that the proposed development as amended has not addressed principles 1 – Context and Neighbourhood, 2 – Built Form and Scale, 3 – Density, 5 – Landscape and 6 – Amenity and 7 - Safety where the bulk and scale of the development would not fit in within the adjoining properties. The proposed development as amended is still deficient in providing for an appropriate landscaped and amenity outcome for the future residents due to minimal common open space areas and building separation provided for. Also, there are still concerns with the potential conflicts between the residential and commercial uses involved in particular along the proposed design of long pedestrian corridor.

 

ADG Building Separation

 

Part 2F of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requires a minimum 12m building separation between habitable rooms and the proposed separation between the residential apartments are 8m. This was a reason for refusal under the original application and the proposed development as amended still has not achieved compliance. The relevant aims are:

·    ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired future character with appropriate massing and spaces between buildings.

·    assist in providing residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook.

·    provide suitable areas for communal open spaces, deep soil zones and landscaping.

 

Please see the applicant’s justification to the variation under the Section 8.2 Assessment section of this report above.

 

Comment: The Lane Cove Planning Panel in its reasons for refusal recommended full compliance with building separation and still this has not occurred. The applicant provided a minor redesign to change the lines of sights of the proposed bedroom windows to improve privacy however the bedroom windows are very small to receive natural sunlight from the proposed un-useable internal courtyards. It is still considered that this component of the development is inadequate.

 

ADG Communal and Public Open Space

 

Part 3D requires that common open space areas equal to 25% of the site and was a reason for refusal. The proposed development as amended has not provided any further common open space areas and this was a reason for refusal under the original application. The relevant objective is:

 

Objective 3D-1

An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping.

 

Comment: The Lane Cove Planning Panel in its reasons for refusal recommended full compliance with the provision of common open spaces areas and still this has not occurred. The proposed common open space is very small in area and it is unlikely to be used by future residents as it considered to be a very unattractive area with limited facilities and contains no landscaping. It is still considered that this component of the development is inadequate.

 

Lane Cove LEP 2009

 

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

 

Zoning: B2 Local Centre       Site Area: 778.6m²

 

LEP

Proposed

Complies

4.3 Height of Buildings

J:  9.5m

17.4m max (variation of 83%)

No – see Clause 4.6 variation below

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

T1: 2.0:1

Clause 4.4(2A)(b)

Area 2 buildings containing shop top housing FSR – 2.5:1

 2.49:1

Yes

 

Clause 2.2 - Zoning

 

Under Lane Cove LEP 2009, the property is zoned B2 Local Centre, and the proposed development as a ‘shop top housing’ would be permissible with Council’s consent however as discussed earlier in this report, the proposed built form of the development is not considered to be a ‘shop top housing’ development and is therefore not permissible under the LEP. Please see Section 8.2 Assessment section of this report above for further discussion in relation to permissibility issues.

 

Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives

 

The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone. The objectives for the B2 Local Centre zone are as follows:-

 

·    To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

·    To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

·    To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

·    To ensure that this centre functions as a Town Centre in the hierarchy of Inner North Sub-region retailing.

·    To permit development for the purposes of offices, community and other facilities.

·    To encourage urban design maximising attractive public domain and adequate circulation space throughout the Lane Cove town centre for current and future users.

·    To ensure that landscaping is a significant element in public and private development viewed from the public domain.

 

The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the first, fifth and the last zone objectives and as a result would be contrary to the following aim of the LEP:

 

‘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.’

 

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

 

Building height is defined in the LCLEP2009 as meaning the vertical distance between ground level (existing) at any point to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like. Clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009 states that 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. In this instance, the Height of Buildings Map identifies a maximum height of 9.5m for any building on the subject site.

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

 

The proposed development seeks to rely upon and utilise the approved building height plane approved under a previously approved Development Application (DA54/14). The maximum height of the development is 17.4m (variation of 83%).  Refer attachment (AT3).

 

Objectives of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009

 

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

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

The Applicant’s written request to vary the Height development standard, under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 is located within the attachments.

 

The Applicant has provided the following justification for the variation to Height: 

 

In this context, it would be unreasonable to strictly apply the standard to the proposed development, particularly as its height and profile are not dissimilar to the development that can be constructed on this land in accordance with Development Consent DA54/2014.

 

Comment: This approach is not supported as a consent authority is required to assess every application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 separately and not accept any variations approved in a previous application. The request for variation does not indicate how the breach in height control would achieve better outcomes for and from the development by allowing the flexibility in these particular circumstances.

 

Clause 4.6(3)(a) Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

The applicant relies upon a building height approved in different other Development Applications by Lane Cove Council on the subject site and in the locality. The applicant also relies on the topographical characteristics of the site and that the proposed building would not be readily discernible in the context of existing developments in the village or its desired future character. The references to previous consents are not considered to be a sound justification to not comply with the development standard and the development should be more appropriately stepped to be more in line with the topography of the site to ensure better compliance with the relevant ‘shop top housing’ definition.

 

Objectives of the particular standard

 

The objective (d) of Clause 4.3 Height of Building is as follows:

 

 (d)    to relate development to topography.

 

The site has a slope towards Sera Street. The proposed building does not follow the slope of the site. The proposal does not relate to the topography of the site and does not meet the objective of the height standard.  The proposed development provides for limited retail tenancies. The proposal provides for a significant number of serviced apartments in two levels. It is acknowledged that serviced apartments are permissible, however serviced apartments are a form of accommodation and not a retail or business premises. In addition the proposed development provides for two full levels of residential apartments with limited landscaping.

 

It is considered that the provision of a significant extent of residential accommodation would not meet the above indicated zone objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.6(3)(b) Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

The applicant has stated that ‘Any development complying with the building height standard would need to be stepped down the site with multiple levels given the sites steep slope…”.

 

The proposed development could be appropriately redesigned to achieve better compliance with the building height standard and the proposal as amended still relies upon a building height plane approved in a previous application which is not justified. There are no valid environmental planning grounds to breach the Height standard by such a large amount. 

 

Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the relevant objectives of the land zone?

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Building and the relevant zone objectives. 

 

Is the exception well founded?

 

The proposal relies upon a building height plane approved by a previous application. This is not a valid justification. The proposed development would not meet the zone objectives. It is not considered that a better planning outcome has been achieved where the proposed variation to height seeks to fully maximise its full development or yield potential on the subject site. The proposed development is not considered satisfactory, and the request for variation is not considered to be well founded and not supported.

 

Clause 4.4 (2) – Floor space ratio

 

This clause prescribes a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1. The subject site has a site area of 778m². The total FSR would be 2.49:1. The proposed development complies with the LEP FSR standard.

 

Other Provisions

 

LEP

Proposed

5.6 Architectural Roof Features

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

5.10 Heritage Conservation

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

 

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

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land)

 

The Draft Remediation of Land SEPP was subject to public exhibition between 31 January and 13 April 2018. The Draft SEPP maintains the overarching objectives being to promote the remediation of land to reduce the risk of potential harm to human health or the environment. The new draft measures primarily relate to scenarios where more complex remediation/ongoing management is required, and the certification of remediation works undertaken as development not requiring consent.

 

While the Draft does consider introducing planning guidelines for the assessment/preparation of preliminary site investigations, appropriate contamination conditions would be imposed if the subject Development Application were to be approved and would be sufficient for its purpose. The proposal is consistent with the Draft Remediation of Land SEPP.

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Lane Cove DCP 2010;

 

A full assessment of the proposal under DCP 2010 is illustrated in the following compliance table. The Non-compliances identified in the table are assessed below.

 

Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use

 

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

D.1 General Provisions

1.1 Building Form

1.1.1 Building to Street Frontages

a)     For developments within zones B1, B2 and B4 (and see Section 1.1.6 below)-

I.      New buildings are to have street frontages built predominantly to the street alignment

II.     Street setback of maximum 2.0m is permitted for suitable use such as outdoor seating for a cafe.

 

 

 

The proposed building has its Burns Bay Road frontage to the street alignment.

 

Additional setback not proposed

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

NA

1.1.2 Street Frontage Heights

Refer to controls for specific zones and localities:

 

 

B2: No Specific Controls under DCP

Max. Building Height under LEP:9.5m

Number of storeys not specified in the DCP.

 

Sera Street:

Number of storeys not specified in the DCP.

 

 

There are no specific controls for the site in the locality controls. The DCP does not specify number of storeys.

 

The Burns Bay Road frontage presents as 2 storeys with a 3rd storey whereas the   neighbouring sites are 2 storeys in presentation.

 

 

The development from the rear would present as a 5 storey even though the two upper levels have been set back. The adjoining building is 3 storeys.  The proposed development would dominate the streetscape.

NA

 

 

 

No

Neighbouring sites present as 2 storeys

 

 

No

Neighbouring site is 3 storeys

 

1.1.3    Street Frontage Activities

a)Street and lane frontage uses should incorporate one, or a combination of, the following at street level:

I.     Entrances to residential and commercial occupying less than 50% of the street frontage

II.    Retail shop front, cafés or restaurants, if accompanied by an entry from the street

III.   Active office uses, such as reception, if visible from the street

IV.  Civic or community building if accompanied by an entry.

V.    Allow for visual interest on the external face of fire escapes, service doors and equipment hatches.

 

 

 

 

More than half of building’s primary frontage along Burns Bay Road would comprise retail activities with shared pedestrian through link.

Types of retail to be determined.

 

 

Retail use to be determined.

 

 

No civic or community building are proposed

The fire escapes, services doors and equipment hatches are located along the Sera Street frontage and recessed 3.0m

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

NA

 

 

NA

 

 

N/A

 

Yes

 

 

 

b)  Limit opaque or blank walls for ground floor uses to 20% of the street frontage.

No blank or opaque walls proposed along Burns Bay Road frontage.

Yes

c)  Minimise the extent and visual impact of vehicle entrances and other entries not associated with active uses or building entries.

Vehicle driveway located in Sera Street which has no pedestrian access.

Yes

d)  Provide enclosure on corner sites to define the corner.

Not applicable.

N/A

e)  All street frontage windows at ground floor level are to have clear glazing.

Clear glazing has been proposed for the retail component of Burns Bay Road ground floor frontage.

Yes

f)  Security grilles are to be fitted only within the shop itself. Such grilles are to be transparent.

No grilles proposed on plans.

N/A

g)  Provide multiple entrances for large developments including an entrance on each street

Not considered a large development.

N/A

1.1.4  Build Depth & Bulk

a)  For Commercial Developments in all the business zones:

 

I.          The maximum floor plate area of any commercial building is to be 2,000nil² subject to other requirements in this DCP.

II.         Buildings with large floor plates must be expressed as separate building elements of not more than 1,000 m².

III.        The horizontal dimensions of any single building facade must not exceed 50 metres.

IV.        All points on an office floor should be no more than 10m from a source of daylight (eg. window, atria, or light wells). The depth for office floors with openings on one side should be a maximum of 10m. The depth for office floors with openings on two opposite sides should be a maximum of 20m.

V.         Use atria, light wells and courtyards to improve internal building amenity and achieve cross ventilation and/or stack effect ventilation.

 

 

 

Maximum floor plate of approximately 778m²

 

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

The proposed development has a 15m frontage

 

Retail and commercial tenancies on lower ground and ground floor have not been proposed as offices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internal atria have been utilised to provide solar access.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

b) For Mixed Use Developments:

I. The maximum horizontal dimension of the residential component parallel to the street frontage is to be 40m.

 

The proposed development has a 15m frontage to Burns Bay Road.

 

Yes

1.1.5  Building separation

The separation distance between buildings on the same site is not to be less than the setback to buildings in adjoining sites in the same business zonings. Refer to ‘Setbacks’ for different business zonings.

Development contains one building only.

N/A

1.1.6 Setbacks

Front/Street Setbacks are to comply with the following Table:

Zone B2

1-2 storey - nil or 3m maximum on ground floor for suitable use such as outdoor cafe seating.

3 storey – Nil

Nil setback provided to Burns Bay Road frontage.

No outdoor café seating proposed.

Yes

Side setbacks in all Business Zones except special areas are to comply with the following Table:

1 storey: nil

2 storey: nil for commercial use

& 3m for residential use & shop top housing

3+ storey: 6m

Increased to minimum 3m setback however 6m setback not achieved above 2 storeys.

 

No

Rear setback – refer to Lane Way Setbacks.

Lane way setbacks are to comply with the following Table:

1 storey: 3m (to allow colonnades & landscaping)

 

2 storey: Nil (commercial use) &

3m (residential use/shop top housing)

 

3+ storey: 6m

 

Ground floor: 3m

Level 1: 3m

Level 2: 3m

Level 3: 4.365m

Level 4: 4.365m

 

The setbacks have been proposed generally in accordance with the previously determined DA54/14.

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

 

1.1.7 Building Design & Exteriors

a)  Floor to Ceiling height – See Diagrams 4 and 5 and for mixed use development see Part C 3.12 Ceiling Heights:

Refer below comments.

Yes

Part C 3.12 Ceiling Heights

a) In residential flat buildings, including residential apartments in mixed use buildings, the floor to ceiling height shall be:

I. for non-habitable rooms, a preferred minimum of 2.4m, however a minimum of 2.25m will be permitted;

II. for the upper level of a 2 storey apartment, a minimum of 2.4m provided at least 50% of the apartment has a minimum of 2.7m height; and

III. for all single level apartments, a minimum of 2.7m.

Development provides minimum floor to floor heights of 3m with minimum floor to ceiling heights of 2.7m.

 

Commercial ceiling heights of 3m and 4m.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

b)  Materials, colours, finishes, proportion and scale of new development should add interest to façades and the streetscape.

Front and rear facades have been articulated with colours and finishes appropriate for the development with the exception of cladding being proposed (a condition would resolve this issue).

Yes

c)  Avoid large unbroken expanses of blank wall on any facade adjacent to the public domain.

Site is not adjacent to public domain.

N/A

d)  Provide flexible building layouts and floor to ceiling heights which allow variable tenancies or uses on the first floor of a building above the ground floor.

Flexible floor layouts to commercial floors provided with variable building heights.

Yes

e)  The design of roof plant rooms and lift overruns is to be integrated into the overall architecture of the building.

Plant and lift overrun have been located towards the centre or rear of the development. Visual screens would be provided to screen the plant ducting from public via conditions.

Yes

f)  Balconies and terraces should be provided, particularly where buildings overlook public open spaces. They should be avoided where they overlook the private open spaces and severely impact the privacy of the adjoining residential properties

Balconies have been placed at the front and rear of the development with no overlooking to other private open space.

Yes

g)  Gardens on the top of setback areas of buildings are encouraged.

Rooftop terrace not provided. Communal open space at level 4 setback with a planter box at the edge of building.

Yes

1.2 Excavation

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

Topography of the site has a 16% slope from front to rear. Excavation is required for provision of basement carparking.

Acceptable in the circumstances.

b)   Excavation for major development is to be contained within the footprint of the development.

Full site coverage has been proposed – refer to control (c) below.

See below

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

The proposed development provides for reasonably mature landscaping in the two atria.

The stormwater drainage system provides for water retention and onsite water detention system. 

 

Yes, given that reasonably mature landscaping has been provided and basement is required for parking.

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

Stepped design at frontage has been adopted but stepped at the rear frontage of Sera Street however not enough.

Not acceptable especially to the rear

1.3  Design and Location of On-Site parking

a) Parking of vehicles is prohibited in setback areas

Basement car park provided.

Yes

b) All developments must incorporate the required car parking on-site.

Insufficient parking has been provided and is discussed further under Part R –Traffic, Transport and Parking

No – refer Part R below

c) All on-site parking, loading facilities and vehicle access points must be:

I. accessed from a rear lane wherever available

II. fully concealed from view from any public street or arcade

III. accessible from only one opening in the rear lane facade for both on-site parking and loading. Access openings are to be fitted with a garage door or roller shutter.

 

 

Vehicular access via Sera Street.

 

Basement parking provided.

 

On driveway entry provided with roller shutter door.

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

d) For developments with a rear lane façade width less than 12.0m this opening must not be wider than 3.0m

Site width 15.238m

N/A

e) For developments with a rear lane façade width equal to or greater than 12.0m this opening must not be wider than 6.0m.

Site width 15.238m

Proposed: 5.5m

Yes

f) Vehicle entry should be:

I. easily accessible and recognisable to motorists

II. located to minimise traffic hazards and queuing of vehicles on public roads

III. located to minimise the loss of on street car parking, and to minimise the number of access points.

IV. Located away from main pedestrian entries and on secondary frontages.

V. Located having regard to any approved cycling routes.

 

Vehicular access provided on Sera Street which is a rear laneway located away from the main pedestrian thoroughfare.

 

Yes

g) Avoid black holes in the facade for major development by providing security doors to car park entries

Roller shutter door provided to driveway entry at Sera Street.

Yes

h) Return the facade material into the car park entry recess up to the extent visible from the street.

Appropriate façade material used.

Yes

i) Parking and service/delivery areas are to be located underground within building footprint or screened from adjacent residential uses or the public domain by sleeving with active uses.

Parking and service areas within basement car park and adequately screened.

Yes

j) Parking and service/delivery areas are to be located to minimise conflict between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles and to minimise impact on residential amenity.

Residential and commercial/retail parking and services/delivery areas conflict with pedestrian access.

No, conflict impacts upon residential amenity.

k) Extensive areas of blank walls are to be avoided

Articulation provided.

Yes

l) Vehicular access is not permitted along the boundary adjacent to residential zone unless there is no other practical solution.

Not proposed

N/A

m) Residential and non-residential car parking spaces are to be physically separated.

Separation provided between the commercial and residential parking however residential vehicles will need to access commercial car park level.

No – still not supported due to safety risks.

n) For residential flat buildings, generally limit the width of driveways to a maximum of 6.0.

5.5m provided due to round-about and two-way driveway entry.

Supported

o) Integrate ventilation grills or screening devices of carpark openings into the facade design and landscape design.

Appropriate screening devices provided.

Yes

p) Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to residential apartments, where possible.

Direct access to residential component from basement car park and pedestrian walkway which is to be closed off at night.

Yes

q) Basement car parking is to be:

I. adequately ventilated

II. predominantly located within the building footprint

III. located fully below natural ground level. Where slope conditions mean that this is unachievable, the maximum basement projection above natural ground level is to be 1.2m but not to the street front.

Car park has been provided on the ground floor and basement level which is below ground level and located at the ground level at the rear Sera Street laneway.  

Yes

1.4  Number of Car Parking, Motorcycle and Bicycle Spaces

1.4.1 Commercial in all areas other than St. Leonards Centre

a) Except in the case of Shop Top Housing car parking, a cash contribution may be made to Council in lieu of required parking not provided on-site. The car parking contribution rate is listed in the Section 94 Contributions Plan (1999).

Not applicable.

N/A

b) For Lane Cove Village Centre see Section D3 – 3.8

Refer to report below.

No

1.5 Awnings

a)  Continuous street frontage awnings are to be provided for all new developments on main streets or major retail streets in centres except where colonnades are required.

Awning provided along Burns Bay Road frontage.

Yes

b)  Awning design must be coordinated with building facades and be complementary in alignment and depth to the adjoining buildings and its awnings.

Complimentary with surrounding buildings.

Yes

c)  Where a building is sited on a street corner, wrap awnings are to be provided around corners for a minimum 6.0 metres unless there is continuity in active uses and in such case they should be continued.

Not applicable.

N/A

d) Awnings should generally be:

I. Minimum soffit height of 3.3 metres.

II. Low profile, with slim vertical facia or eaves (generally not to exceed 300 mm height)

III. Setback a minimum of 60nilm from the kerb.

IV. Located and designed to ensure no conflict with street trees

 

Min 3.3m

 

 

 

>600m from kerb

 

Does not conflict with street trees

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

e)  Awnings are to allow for street trees or poles via innovative solutions, which may include cut outs.

Not applicable.

N/A

f)   To control sun access/protection, canvas blinds along the street edge may be permitted, subject to design merit and assessment.

Not proposed.

N/A

g)  Under awning recessed lighting is to be provided to facilitate night use and public safety.

Details of lighting not provided but can be conditioned to be required.

Yes

1.6 Reflectivity

a) Visible light reflectivity from building materials used on the facades of new buildings should not exceed 20%.

Lower light reflectivity external finish colours are submitted with the Development Application.

Yes

b) Subject to the extent and nature of glazing and reflective materials used, a Reflectivity Report that analyses potential solar glare from the proposed development on pedestrians, cyclists or motorists may be required.

Not required.

N/A

1.7 External lighting of buildings

a)   Any external lighting of buildings is to be considered with regard to:

I. the integration of external light fixtures with the architecture of the building (for example, highlighting external features of the building)

II. the contribution of the visual effects of external lighting to the character of the building, surrounds and skyline

III. the energy efficiency of the external lighting system

IV. the amenity of residents in the locality.

External lighting details not provided but can be conditioned to comply with requirement.

Yes

b) Floodlights for buildings are prohibited.

Not proposed.

Yes

1.8 Landscaping

a) Locate basement car parking predominately under the building footprint to maximize opportunities for landscaped area.

Basement car park provided and is below the footprint of the building.

Yes

b) Deep soil zones in atria, courtyards and boundary setbacks are encouraged.

Semi mature plants provided in the Atria. 3m rear setbacks proposed which is considered appropriate for the locality

Yes

1.9 Planting on Structures

a) Areas with planting on structures should be irrigated with recycled water and appropriate drainage provided.

To be conditioned in any approval.

Yes

b) Provide sufficient soil depth and area to allow for plant establishment and growth. The recommendations are:

I. Large trees (canopy diameter of up to 16m at maturity)

i. minimum soil volume 150m3

ii. minimum soil depth 1.3m

iii. minimum soil area 10m x 10m area or equivalent

II. Medium trees (8m canopy diameter at maturity)

i. minimum soil volume 35 m3

ii. minimum soil depth 1m

iii. approximate soil area 6m x 6m or equivalent

III. Small trees (4m canopy diameter at maturity)

i. minimum soil volume 9m3

ii. minimum soil depth 800mm

iii. approximate soil area 3.5m x 3.5m or equivalent

IV. Shrubs

i. minimum soil depths 500-600mm

V. Ground cover

i. minimum soil depths 300-450mm

VI. Turf

i. minimum soil depths 100-300mm.

The proposed development does provide minimal deep soil, however given the site and the nature of the proposed development, on structure landscaping is provided which is considered appropriate if all other concerns with the development are addressed.

Acceptable however

landscaping is not the most appropriate in the circumstances.

1.10 Solar Access

These provisions apply to proposed developments and any residential development beyond the site.

a) Commercial and mixed use developments are not to reduce sunlight to dwellings in the adjacent or same zone below a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on a portion of the windows of the habitable rooms between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Solar access to adjacent developments receives minimum 3 hours of sunlight.

Yes

b) Where adjacent dwellings and their open space already receive less than the standard hours of sun, new development should seek to maintain this solar access where practicable.

Not applicable.

N/A

c) Habitable rooms in at least 70 percent of dwellings in high density residential developments, should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 21st June, in total between any portions of those rooms. In dense urban areas a minimum of two hours may be acceptable. A reasonable proportion of both the common and private open space in those sites is also to receive sunlight during that period, according to the circumstances of the sites.

The development is not a high-density development as only 11 apartments are proposed.  Satisfactory solar access achieved.

Yes

d) The number of single-aspect dwellings with a southerly aspect (SW-SE) should be limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the total dwellings within a high density residential development. Developments varying from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how energy efficiency is addressed.

4 south facing apartments have dual aspect and receive north light through the Atria.

One south facing apartment is provided which meets the maximum southerly single aspect requirement.  

 

 

Yes

e) Council may accept a reduction in solar access for the subject site and adjacent development if the topography and lot orientation (as distinct from a preferred design) are such that the standard is considered unreasonable.

Not applicable.

N/A

1.11  Access and Mobility

a) Any new development must comply with Australian Standards AS 1428 Design for Access and Mobility, AS 4299 Adaptable Housing, AS 2890 Parking Facilities and AS 1735 Lifts, Escalators and Moving Walks and with the Part F of this DCP – Access and Mobility.

1 Serviced Apartment and 3 Apartments have been designed as adaptable dwellings and meet the minimum adaptable dwellings provision.

 

Yes

1.12 Toilet Facilities

a) Accessible and well sign-posted toilet facilities complying with AS 1428 shall be provided in all developments containing 10 or more shops or more than 500m² of retail floor space. These facilities shall have the same minimum opening and closing hours specified for arcades.

Toilet facilities have been proposed.

Yes

1.13 Signage

a) All signage shall comply with the Part N of this DCP – Signage and Advertising.

No signage has been proposed for the development.

N/A

Part D.3 Development within Lane cove Village Centre – (B2) Local Centre and Surrounds

3.2 Lanes: Not applicable

3.3 Arcades, Thru Links/Midblock connections: Not Applicable

3.4 Principal Retail Street

a)   The only permissible uses facing a principal retail street at street level shall be:

I.      shopfront retailing of goods and services;

II.     arcades and

III.    entrances to uses located elsewhere in the building and fire exits. The aggregate width of such entrances and exits shall not exceed 1m for lots with a principal retail street frontage of 1nil or less; or 2m for lots with a principal retail street frontage greater than 10m (see BCA for further details).

The uses facing Burns Bay Road are retail and pedestrian entrance to the services apartments and residential apartments.

Yes

b) Longueville Road and Lane Cove Plaza:

I.    A new building façade to a principal retail street in the vicinity of heritage shopfronts should be broken up by vertical elements into units of 4m to 6m width, reflecting the Centre’s traditional small shop street frontages and providing interest to the streetscape at pedestrian level.

II.   A minimum of 80 percent of that portion of the principal retail street facade of a new development up to a height of 2.7m which is allocated to retail use shall be transparent.

 

 

There are no heritage items in the vicinity of the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retail use is transparent as per the requirement of the DCP

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

c)   Ground floor shop fronts may incorporate security grills provided these ensure light falls onto the footpath and that the interior of the shop is visible. Blank roller-shutter doors are not permitted.

No security grills have been proposed.

N/A

d)   Vehicle access points will only be permitted on retail streets where there are no alternatives for access.

Rear vehicular access provided via Sera Street.

Yes

3.5 Facades

a)   Facades are to be articulated at the ground floor and above.

A combination of balconies, planter boxes, fins and solid walls provide adequate articulation.

Yes

e)   Facades where all solid elements are coplanar are not permitted. For the facade of a development facing Longueville Road:

I.   The average setback for facade articulation is to be a maximum of 0.5m either side of the front boundary alignment.

II.   Elements forward of the street alignment are to be restricted to balconies.

III. Where the façade abuts an existing building on an adjoining site, it must be coplanar with the existing façade, unless the existing façade is set back more than 300mm from the street boundary.

Coplanar solid elements not proposed.

N/A

3.6 Heritage: Not applicable

3.7 Shop Top Housing within Lane Cove Village Centre

a) Entrances to residential uses must be provided from both the principal retail street and rear lane onto which the development fronts. For a development incorporating an arcade, residential access may be provided from that arcade.

Rear lane access provided by Sera Street.

Yes

b)   Each dwelling must be provided with private open space directly accessible from its living area, in the form of either a balcony at least 2m deep or a terrace or private courtyard at least 10m² in area.

Private open spaces in the form of balconies have been provided and generally meet the minimum the requirement however it is ADG compliant.

Yes

c)  The provision of rooftop communal open space for the use of all residents is encouraged. Furniture, equipment, structures and the like associated with the provision or use of this space must not extend beyond the height limits nominated in the LEP.

Communal Open Space is provided on the top level of the development with facilities provided.

Yes

d)   If an elevator is provided for residential use, it must not be used for retail loading or waste removal.

Separate lift access provided to residential component of development.

Yes

e) For any dwelling which fronts onto an internal courtyard or void space within a development, the separation distance between any window to a habitable room or the outer edge of any balcony must not be less than:

I.   5m to the opposite wall if it is solid or contains only openings which are non-openable and translucent

II. 12m to any openable and/or transparent opening in the opposite wall or the outer edge of any balcony attached thereto.

A separation of the dwellings which front internal courtyards vary are approximately 8m between bedroom windows of apartments. This separation is less than 12m which has been somewhat addressed by the angled design of the bedroom windows.

No

3.8 Car Parking for Lane Cove Village Centre

a)  Except in the case of Shop Top Housing car parking, a cash contribution may be made to Council in lieu of required parking not provided on-site. The car parking contribution rate is listed in the Section 94 Contributions Plan (1999).

Not applicable to development as shop top housing is excluded from S7.11 contributions.

N/A

b)  Most land within Lane Cove Village Centre is subject to a special parking levy in addition to the normal rates charged by Council. The additional moneys generated in this manner are used to offset the costs of providing and maintaining Council car parks in the Centre area. Therefore, the provision of on-site parking or a contribution for car parking not provided on-site within the area subject to the special parking levy is only required for floor area in excess of that equivalent to a floor space ratio of 1:1.

Not applicable.

N/A

 

Street Frontage Heights and Setbacks

 

D.3 Development within Lane Cove Village Centre – (B2) Local Centre and Surrounds states that the village is defined by retail development of two storeys and that it should be maintained. The relevant objectives are:

 

9.   Maintain the typical two storey built form with a vertical emphasis to facades and parapet to the principal retail streets.

 

As a result, Clause 1.1.2 - Street Frontage Heights states that controls to specific zones and localities are to be referred to. Clause 1.1.6 – Setbacks requires a minimum 3m front setback and a minimum 6m rear setback above 2 storeys. Further, Clause 1.2(d) – Excavation requires uses at ground level to respond to the slope of the land of the street by stepping frontages and entries to follow the slope. The proposed development as amended is still 3 storeys in principle to Burns Bay Road and 5 storeys to Sera Street where there are balcony encroachments into the front 3m from setback area.

 

There encroachments into the rear 6m setback area and the ground commercial level of the development to the rear is approximately 4m above the Sera Street level where that portion of the basement is above ground effectively adding a storey to the development. The relevant DCP objectives are as follows:

 

1.1.2 Street Frontage Heights

1.         To achieve comfortable street environments for pedestrians in terms of daylight, scale, sense of enclosure and wind mitigation as well as a healthy environment for street trees.

2.         To strengthen the urban form through consistent street wall heights.

 

1.1.6 Setbacks

1.         To reduce the impact of scale as well as assist with cross-ventilation, solar access, privacy, views sharing and to reduce adverse wind effects.

 

1.2 Excavation

3.         To ensure development relates to the street level and the topography.

 

Please see the applicant’s justification to the street presentation and setbacks under the Section 8.2 Assessment section of this report above.

 

Comment: The proposed development as amended has only slightly improved upper level setbacks however there remains a variation to setbacks. The development remains as 3-storey to Burns Bay Road and 5-storey to Sera Street. The development as amended would not be consistent with adjoining developments where it is considered that there remains excessive bulk and scale proposed to the building. The development does not relate to the topography of the subject site where the development should be stepped or split into two building to better achieve the relevant DCP objectives.

 

Design and Location of On-Site Parking

 

Clause 1.3(j) – Design and Location of On-Site parking requires parking and service delivery areas are to be located to minimise conflict between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles and to minimise impact on residential amenity. Further, Clause 1.3(m) requires that residential and non-residential car parking spaces are to be physically separated.

 

Comment: The proposed development as amended does separate the residential and commercial car parking spaces however there are still shared access points and potential land use conflicts that may occur.

 

Shop Top Housing within Lane Cove Village Centre

 

Clause 3.7(e) requires a minimum 12m building separation between habitable windows and an 8m internal building separation is proposed. The applicant has attempted to the address this variation by providing angled bedroom windows to address the privacy impacts.

 

Comment: As stated earlier in this report, the proposed separation was a reason for refusal and the proposed variation is still not supported.

Part F - Access and Mobility

 

PART F - ACCESS AND MOBILITY

DCP Controls

Proposal

Complies

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

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

1 Serviced Apartment and 3 Apartments have been designed as adaptable dwellings and meet the minimum adaptable dwellings provision.

 

Yes

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

All the 6 serviced apartments and 11 apartments are visitable.

Yes

3.8 Access to, and within, buildings

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

-    Residential Flat Building 2;

-    Car park Class 7a

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

Access to residential units and commercial spaces would meet the requirements of BCA

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

PART R TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND PARKING

Development Control

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Car Parking Rates

 

 

Shop Top Housing

 

 

Table 1 – Car parking rates

Residential:

1 space per dwelling

·    11 units require 11 spaces

 

1 disabled space per adaptable housing unit: 3 units provided

 

1 onsite removalist truck per 100 residential units

 

Total required 11 spaces

 

 

 

11 spaces provided

 

3 spaces provided.

 

 

Loading bay for van and SRV provided.

 

Total: 11 spaces

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Tourist and visitor accommodation

Serviced Apartments:

1 space per 2 employees:

Required 1 space

 

Customer/Visitor Parking:

1 space per 4 apartments:

6 apartments: 6 / 4 = 1.5

2 spaces required inclusive of

 

1 disabled space per 10 car spaces (min. 1 disabled space): 1 space required

 

Total required 3 spaces

Provided:

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No disabled space provided

Commercial Premises

Office/business premises

1 space per 60m² gross floor area: 180m²/60 = 3 spaces required.

1 disabled space per 20 car spaces (min 1 disabled space)

 

Total required 3 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

3 Commercial spaces provided with no disabled space.

 

 

 

 

 

No disabled space provided

Shop (Retail)

1 space per 40m² gross floor area: 280m² /40 = 7 spaces required

1 disabled space per 20 car spaces (min 1 disabled space): 1 space required:

Total required 7 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

7 Retail spaces provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Total Spaces required: 24

Total provided: 24

No (insufficient disabled spaces provided)

2.7 – Motorcycle parking

1 motorcycle space per 15 car spaces

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

2 provided in basement.

 

Yes

 

 

Section 7.11 - Development Contributions Plan

 

The proposed development is subject to S7.11 contributions in accordance with Council’s S94 Contributions Plan. The development would increase the population living on the site as well as increasing the commercial and retail use. There would be 11 dwellings in the proposed development comprising of 7 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings. There would be 180m² of commercial space, 280m² of retail space and 218m² for the services apartments. The S7.11 is calculated for residential and commercial floor space as follows:

 

Residential

 

The S7.11 plan has specified the average number of people per dwelling, based on the number of bedrooms. The occupancy rates are:

 

·        1.2 persons per 1 bedroom unit in medium density developments.

·        1.9 persons per 2 bedroom unit in medium density.

 

The S7.11 contribution for each dwelling of the proposed multi dwelling housing development is calculated at the current rate of $10,642 per person (2019-2020) as follows:

 

Medium density developments (including attached dual occupancy and duplexes):

 

No. bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per person

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

1 Bedrooms

1.2 persons

$10,642.00 x 1.2 =

$12,770.40 per dwelling

7 x $12,770.40

$89,392.80

2 Bedrooms

1.9 persons

$10,642.00 x 1.9 =

$20,219.80 per dwelling (capped at $20,000)

4 x $20,000.00

$80,000.00

 

 

 

TOTAL:

$169,392.80

*N/B The reforms to Local Development Contributions have a cap of $20,000 per residential lot or per dwelling limitation on local development contributions. Per dwelling contributions is below the cap.

 

The total S7.11 contribution for the residential component of the development is $169,392.80.

 

Commercial/Retail

 

The Section 7.11 Contributions applicable for Retail/Commercial Development – Traffic Management and Streetscape improvements (per m2 of gross floor area) at a rate of $134.00 per m² of GFA (2019/2020 Fees & Charges Schedule) are calculated as follows:

 

·    (Retail 280m² + Commercial 180m² + Service Apartments 218m²) x $134.00 (2019/2020) = $90,852.00

 

S7.11 Credit for Existing Site Floor Space

 

There are 3 existing commercial buildings located on the site. For sites with existing commercial/retail and/or residential floor area a credit is applicable. This credit is calculated at the same rate as the commercial/retail and residential rates. The lodged survey plan does not provide any floor space calculations in order to calculate the credit accurately therefore a measurement of the survey has been taken of the existing buildings to calculate the applicable credit. This calculation has a total floor space area of 431.2m² and the credit is calculated as follows:

 

·    431.2 x 134 = 57,780.80

 

 

 

Total S7.11 Contribution

 

The required S7.11 contribution for the retail/commercial and residential components of the development is calculated at: $169,392.80 + $90,852.00 - $57,780.80 = $202,464.00. Were the application to be supported a condition requiring payment would be included in the draft conditions of consent. Note: There are no existing dwellings associated with the shops for which any contribution credit is required to be provided. 

 

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

 

All relevant issues regarding environmental impacts of the development are discussed elsewhere in this report. The proposed development would still be in excess, of the maximum permissible height control. The excessive height towards Sera Street would dominate the streetscape. The parking provided for is inadequate. The parking arrangement with a car lift is still considered unsatisfactory which would adversely impact upon the amenity of the residents and commercial spaces users. The privacy of units facing atria is compromised and the proposed building separation is still not adequate. The development is considered unsatisfactory in terms of environmental impacts.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, however the height, street presentation, traffic and parking issues have not been adequately resolved before the proposed development can be recommended for approval. A more considered proposal that seeks to deliver LEP and DCP objectives is recommended.

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s notification policy, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application and two submissions have been received. The following issues were raised as follows:

 

1.         There are still questions about the serviced apartments. Are they shop top housing or visitor accommodation. Even though the definition may be irrelevant to the development, the question which has not been covered in the application is who will service these units and where utility facilities to cover this

 

Comment:  Serviced apartments are defined separately and are permissible under the LEP however there are concerns with issues of permissibility with the proposed development as amended. The serviced apartments would be serviced by an employee. 

 

2.         The height is still a concern to Sera Street. Even though precedent is quoted for developments elsewhere in the village this development is still considerably higher than any of those quoted. Admittedly the site fall here is greater than along the east side of Longueville Road and this may be reason enough to accept the height which does have setbacks at the upper levels reducing the apparent height when viewed from side on.

 

Comment: The proposed development as amended does not comply with the 9.5m building height requirement under LCLEP2009. A revised Clause 4.6 variation has been submitted with the application and is not supported.

 

3.         The revised car parking does separate the two uses but the owners of the units and the serviced apartments use the car lift every time they enter and leave the site.

 

Comment: The proposed car lift arrangement is not supported.

 

4.         The small garden courtyard at Level 1 giving light to the commercial space relies entirely on the adjoining site not being developed. There was a submission to the original development that stated that owner of that site is considering development and if this occurs then this courtyard would be entirely enclosed and be of no use to the commercial space.

 

Comment: The proposed scheme is not supported and refusal is recommended.

 

5.         The changes to the bedroom windows facing the central courtyard have satisfied the visual privacy but there are still some concerns regarding the acoustic privacy. Approval of this level of separation should be considered in light of its possible precedent so that it cannot be used for future developments.  

 

Comment: The proposed building separation of the internal facing units are not supported and approval of the proposed development would create an unwanted precedent.

 

6.         Although this development falls basically with the approved DA54/2014 it still falls outside these parameters in several areas and must be carefully examined. The application may be the best that can be achieved on the site whilst still providing the GFA allowable.

 

Comment: The proposed development as amended is considered to represent as an overdevelopment of the subject site which would be inconsistent with the built form of adjoining properties and would be envisaged for developments within the Lane Cove Village locality.

 

(e)  The public interest

 

Having regard to the assessment contained in this report, it is still considered that approval of the development would not in the public interest.

 

REFERRALS

 

Coordinator Assets

 

Council’s Coordinator Assets has assessed the proposal and raised concerns with the proposed above ground OSD tank is not complied with Council’s DCP Part O Section 7.4.3. Therefore, Council does not support the proposed development.

 

Manager Environmental Health

 

Council’s Manager Environmental Health has assessed the proposal and has raised concerns with the design of the waste bin/bulky waste rooms and no contamination report or construction  noise management plan had been submitted.

 

Building Coordinator

 

No objections subject to recommended draft conditions.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Sections 8.2 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered. The proposed development as amended remains in breach of the height control and objective. The amended Clause 4.6 request for variation is not considered to be well founded and not supported. The configuration of the basement car park still creates potential traffic conflicts and safety risks to both the residents and occupants of the retail/commercial tenancies.  Approval of the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest having regard to the above issues identified and the application is recommended for refusal. 

 

 


 




RECOMMENDATION

 

That:- That the Lane Cove Planning Panel refuse the variation to the Building Height standard in Clause 4.3(2) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as the applicant’s written request does not adequately address the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that plan, the proposed development would not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the particular standard, the objectives for development in the zone and there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, in exercising its duties as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refuse the development as amended under the subject 8.2A Review Application to DA14/2018 for the demolition and constructing of shop top housing on land at 38-42 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove for the following reasons:-

 

Permissibility

 

1.         The proposal as amended does not satisfy the definition of shop top housing as contained             in the Dictionary to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 below and is therefore             prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

            Particulars:

 

            (a)        ‘shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail                         premises or business premises’.

 

            (b)        It is evident from the submitted floor plans that the proposed development does not                         satisfy the above definition as there are two levels of commercial or retail tenancies                         which includes serviced apartments on both levels. Much of the development is not                         for the purposes of ‘shop top housing’ as defined above where there would be two                         whole levels above natural ground level containing commercial or retail usages. It is                         considered that the applicant has not submitted any further evidence to sufficiently                         overturn the original decision of the Lane Cove Planning Panel on 20 February 2019                         in relation to permissibility.

 

            (c)        The location of the serviced apartments is raised as there is potential for them to be converted into residential apartments and which would further compromise whether the proposed development constitutes as being a ‘shop top housing development. The proposed development as amended is still not supported and it is recommended that at least one of the commercial/retail levels be deleted or the development be appropriately stepped in line with existing natural ground levels to ensure that there is retail or commercial at grade level along Sera Street.

 

Height

 

2.         The proposed development as amended breaches the height control. The excessive height             towards Sera   Street dominate the streetscape. The proposed development would not be in             the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the Building Height             standard, and the objectives for development in the zone. There are insufficient             environmental planning grounds to justify the variation. The Clause 4.6 request for variation             is not considered to be well founded and not supported.

 

            Particulars:

 

(a)        The proposal would not meet objective d of Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 which states:

                        ‘to relate development to topography’.

(b)        Pursuant to height of buildings map HOB_001 referred to in Clause 4.3(2), the             maximum permissible height for the site is 9.5m.

(c)        The proposed development will have a maximum height of 17.4m which exceeds the 9.5m maximum permitted building height standard by 7.9m. 

(d)        The Applicant’s written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 in relation to the contravention of the development standard in clause 4.3(2) of LCLEP 2009 does not demonstrate (having regard to the matters referred to in clause 4.6(3)):

i.          that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or                         unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

ii.          that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify                           contravening the development standard.

            (e)     The proposed development seeks to rely upon the approved building height plane approved under a previous application to justify variation to the height standard.This approach is not supported. Every request for variation to a development standard are to be assessed under the provisions of the clause and each on its own merits. It is recommended that a major redesign occurs with lodgment of a new Development Application which is more line with the topographical constraints of the subject site.

 

            (f)        The approach is not supported as a consent authority is required to assess every                         application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 separately                         and not accept any variations approved in a previous application. The request for                         variation does not indicate how the breach in height control would achieve better                         outcomes for and from the development by allowing the flexibility in these particular                         circumstances.

 

            (g)        The applicant relies upon a building height approved in different other                                            Development Applications by Lane Cove Council on the subject site and in the                             locality. The applicant also on the topographical characteristics of the site and that                         the proposed building would not be readily discernible in the context of existing                             development in the Town Centre or its desired future character. The references to                         previous consents are not considered to be a sound justification to not comply with                         the development standard and the development should be more appropriately                              stepped to be more in line with the topography of the site to ensure better                                      compliance with the relevant ‘shop top housing’ definition.

 

            (h)        The proposed development could be appropriately redesigned to achieve better                           compliance with the building height standard and the proposal as amended still                            relies upon a building height plane approved in a previous application which is not                         justified. There are no valid environmental planning grounds to breach the Height                         standard by such a large amount. 

 

            (i)         The proposal relies upon a building height plane approved by a previous application.                         This is not a valid justification. The proposed development would not meet the zone                         objectives. It is not considered that a better planning has been achieved where the                         proposed variation to height seeks to fully maximise its full development or yield                           potential on the subject site. The proposed development is not considered                                     satisfactory, and the request for variation is not considered to be well founded and                         not supported.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 Aims and Zone Objectives

 

3.         The proposal as amended does not meet the aims and B2 Local Centre zoning objectives             of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)        The proposed development as amended would not meet the 1.2(2)(b) of the aims of       Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 which requires the following:

 

            ‘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.

 

(b)        The proposed development as amended would not meet the following zone       objective:

           

            ‘To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that             serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

            To permit development for the purposes of offices, community and other facilities.

            To ensure that landscaping is a significant element in public and private                            development viewed from the public domain.”

 

(c)        The application Is unsatisfactory in relation to building height, bulk and scale,             common open space/landscape, building separation and car parking/land use             conflict arrangements.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

4.         The proposed development as amended should be refused due to its excessive bulk and             scale.

 

            Particulars:

 

            (a)        The proposal would not meet relevant Design Quality Principles, Principle 1 –                               Context and Neighbourhood and Principle 2 – Built form and scale of State                                   Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment                         Development:

 

                        Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

                        Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and                         built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when                              combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.

                        Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s                              existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the                         qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and                               neighbourhood.

                        Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established                         areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

 

                        Principle 2: Built form and scale

                        Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired                         future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

                        Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s                           purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and                         the manipulation of building elements.

                        Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of                            streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal                              amenity and outlook.

 

            (b)        The proposed development presents as 3 storeys towards Burns Bay Road where                         as the neighbouring sites are 2 storeys in presentation. The proposed development                         towards the rear would present as five storeys even though the upper levels                                 have been setback further in.  The adjoining building is 3 storeys and the proposed                         development would dominate the streetscape.

 

            (c)        The bulk and scale of the development would not fit in within the adjoining properties.

                         

            (d)        The development would not meet D.3 Development within Lane Cove Village Centre                         states of Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) Part D – Commercial                                 Development and Mixed Use that the village is defined by retail development of two                         storeys and that it should be maintained. The relevant objective is:

 

            9.         Maintain the typical two storey built form with a vertical emphasis to facades             and parapet to the principal retail streets.

 

            (e)        The development would not meet Clause 1.1.2 - Street Frontage Heights states that                         controls of Part of the DCP to specific zones and localities are to be referred to.                            Clause 1.1.6 – Setbacks requires a minimum 3m front setback and a minimum 6m                         rear setback above 2 storeys. Further, Clause 1.2(d) – Excavation requires uses at                         ground level to respond to the slope of the land of the street by stepping frontages                         and entries to follow the slope.

 

            (f)        The development would not meet the following Part D of the DCP objectives as                            follows:

 

                        1.1.2 Street Frontage Heights

                        1.         To achieve comfortable street environments for pedestrians in terms of             daylight, scale, sense of enclosure and wind mitigation as well as a healthy             environment for street trees.

                        2.         To strengthen the urban form through consistent street wall heights.

 

                        1.1.6 Setbacks

                        1.         To reduce the impact of scale as well as assist with cross-ventilation, solar             access, privacy, views sharing and to reduce adverse wind effects.

 

                        1.2 Excavation

                        3.         To ensure development relates to the street level and the topography.

 

            (g)        The proposed development as amended is still 3 storeys in principle to Burns Bay                         Road and 5 storeys to Sera Street where there are balcony encroachments into the                         front 3m from setback area. There encroachments into the rear 6m setback area                         and the ground commercial level of the development to the rear is approximately 4m                         above the Sera Street level where that portion of the basement is above ground                           effectively adding a storey to the development. The proposed development would                         dominate the streetscape.

 

            (h)        The proposed development as amended has only slightly improved upper level                             setbacks however there is still a variation to setbacks. The development still remains                         as 3-storey to Burns Bay Road and 5-storey to Sera Street. The development as                         amended would not be consistent with adjoining developments where it is                                     considered that there still is excessive bulk and scale proposed to the building. The                         development does not relate to the topography of the subject site where the                                  development should be stepped or split into two building to better achieve the                               relevant DCP objectives.

 

            (h)        The bulk and scale of the development which results from the non-compliance with                         the height standard is not in character or context with the surrounding evelopment.

 

Building Separation

 

5.         The proposed development as amended should be refused on the basis that the 8m             building separation between internal residential apartments is insufficient.

 

            Particulars

 

            (a)        The proposed development would not meet relevant Design Quality Principles, Principle 2 – Built form and scale, Principal 3 - Density and Principle 6 - Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of  Residential Apartment Development:

 

                        Principle 2: Built form and scale

                        Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired                         future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

                        Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s                           purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and                         the manipulation of building elements.

                        Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of                            streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal                              amenity and outlook.

 

                        Principle 3: Density

                        Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment,                           resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

                        Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population.                         Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public                         transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

 

                        Principle 6: Amenity

                        Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and                         neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and                         resident well being.

                        Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to                               sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and                         outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age                         groups and degrees of mobility.

 

            (b)        The proposed development as amended is still deficient in providing for an appropriate                         landscaped and amenity outcome for the future residents due to minimal building                             separation provided for.

 

(c)        The proposed development would not meet Part 2F – Building Separation of the             Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and Clause 3.7(e) – Shop Top Housing within the             Lane Cove Village Centre where it requires a minimum 12 building separation             between habitable rooms.

 

(c)        The proposed development would not meet the relevant aims of Part 2F of the       ADG as follows:

 

                        ‘‘ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired future character with                         appropriate massing and spaces between buildings.

            assist in providing residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural             ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook.

            provide suitable areas for communal open spaces, deep soil zones and             landscaping.’

 

            (d)        Full compliance with minimum 12m building separation is recommended. The                               proposed minor redesign to the bedroom windows to change the lines of sights of                         the proposed bedroom only improves visual privacy however the bedroom windows                         are now very small to receive natural sunlight from the proposed un-useable internal                         courtyards.

 

            (e)        An 8m building separation is not considered acceptable as it would adversely impact                         upon the amenity of future residents.

 

Traffic/Parking and Land Use Conflicts

 

6.         The proposed development should be refused as the proposed parking is unacceptable and             does not comply with the requirements of Part C and Part R of LCDCP 2010 and there             potential land use conflicts between the different uses proposed on the subject site.

 

Particulars:

 

            a)         The proposed development would not meet relevant Design Quality Principle 7 -                           Safety of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of                                      Residential Apartment Development:

 

                        Principle 7: Safety

                        Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public                         domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and                         fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public                         and communal areas promote safety.

                        A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through                               clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily                           maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

 

            b)         The proposed development as amended is still deficient in providing for safe parking                         and pedestrian access throughout the building.

 

c)         Mechanical parking arrangements are not permitted under Part R of Councils DCP.             This is due to the high risk of such devices breaking down, which would lead to             complete loss of amenity and may result in overspill parking on surrounding             streets. Furthermore, a cycle time of 2 minutes (ground floor to basement level             and returning to ground level) is not practical for a resident to access their             parking space regularly. This may also result in overspill parking on             surrounding streets.

 

d)         Adaptable paring space for unit 10 is not in accordance with AS2890.6

            e)         There is a short-fall of two (2) accessible parking spaces. There is a requirement for                         a total of six (6) accessible parking spaces including three (3) for the adaptable unit                         and one (1) space each for the serviced apartment, office and shops.

 

f)          There are potential residential and commercial/retail use areas conflict with pedestrian access and car parking provision as there are no defined areas of access being provided for.

 

Landscape and Communal Open Space

 

7.         The proposed development should be refused as the amount of landscaping and communal             open space is inadequate.

 

            Particulars:

 

            a)         The proposed development would not meet relevant Design Quality Principles, Principle 2 – Built form and scale, Principal 3 – Density, Principle 5 - Landscape and Principle 6 - Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development:

 

                        Principle 2: Built form and scale

                        Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired                         future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

                        Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s                           purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and                         the manipulation of building elements.

                        Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of                            streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal                              amenity and outlook.

 

                        Principle 3: Density

                        Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment,                           resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

                        Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population.                         Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public                         transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

 

                        Principle 5: Landscape

                        Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an                               integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good                         amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is                               achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and                                   neighbourhood.

                        Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by                         retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating                         water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values                         and preserving green networks.

                        Good landscape design optimises usability, privacy and opportunities for social                             interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for                              practical establishment and long term management.

 

                        Principle 6: Amenity

                        Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and                         neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and                         resident well being.

                        Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to                               sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and                         outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age                         groups and degrees of mobility.

 

(b)        The proposed development as amended is still deficient in providing for an appropriate landscaped and amenity outcome for the future residents due to minimal common open space areas provided for. The proposed development has an insufficient amount of landscaping and communal open space that does not provide the future residents with a high level of amenity.

 

(c)        The proposed development would not meet Part 3D – Communal and Public Open            Space of the   Apartment Design Guide (ADG) where it requires that a minimum             25% of the subject site be dedicated as common open space.

 

            (d)        The proposed development would not meet the relevant aims of Part 3D of                                   the ADG as follows:

 

                        Objective 3D-1

                        An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential                              amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping.

 

            (e)        The proposed common open space is very small in area and it is unlikely to be used                         by future residents as it considered to be a very unattractive area with limited                                facilities and contains no landscaping. It is considered that this component of the                         development is inadequate.

 

b)         The Level 4 communal open space should be increased to provide a landscaped communal open space area that would have a high amenity value to the future residents which would include facilities such as accessible bathroom, BBQ, power outlets, water and sink connections, tables with seating, overhead shading, podium tree canopy plantings to provide natural shade and landscaping.

 

            c)         The proposed development should provide for adequate landscape and                                        communal open space areas, a minimum of 25%.

 

Overdevelopment

 

8.         The proposed development as amended represents as an overdevelopment of the subject             site.

 

            Particulars

 

            (a)        Pursuant to Section 4.15(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act                           1979, the proposed development as amended would be in excess, of the maximum                         permissible height control. The excessive heights towards Sera Street and Burns             Bay Road would dominate the streetscape.

 

            (b)        The parking provided for is inadequate. The parking arrangement with a car lift is                         considered unsatisfactory which would adversely impact upon the amenity of the                         residents and commercial spaces users.

 

            (c)        The privacy of units facing the atria areas are compromised and the proposed                              building separation is still not adequate.

 

            (d)        The development is considered unsatisfactory in terms of environmental impacts.

 

The Site

 

9.         The site in considered to be unsuitable for the development as proposed.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)        Pursuant to Section 4.15(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act       1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development as amended       in its current built form, having regard to the above matters.

 

            (b)        The height, bulk and scale, building separation, common open space/landscaped                         areas and parking/land use conflicts issues have not been adequately                                           resolved before the proposed development can be recommended for approval.

 

Public Interest

 

10.       The approval of the development as amended would not be in the public interest.

 

            Particulars

 

(a)        Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(d) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and       Assessment Act 1979, the development should not be approved having regard to       concerns raised in the submissions received by Council and the above matters.

 

Engineering

 

11.       The proposed development as amended is not supported in relation to the following             engineering matter:

 

-     The proposed above ground OSD tank is not complied with Council’s DCP Part O section 7.4.3.

 

Health and Environment

 

12.       The proposed development as amended is not support in relation to the following health             and environment matters:

 

-     The bulky waste room to be used to store old furniture and mattresses is approximately 9 square metres in size. Part Q of the DCP requires 20 square metres to be provided.

-     The bulky waste room as shown in the architectural drawings shows internal stairs.

-     Doorways to the waste bin rooms and bulky waste room are to be a minimum of 1700 mm wide.

-     No submission of a contamination report and construction noise management plan.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Site Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Updated Cl. 4.6 Request

11 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Design Quality Principles

5 Pages

 

AT‑5View

ADG Compliance Table

8 Pages

 

AT‑6View

Previous Report to Lane Cove Planning Panel

33 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Notification Plan

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Site Plan

 


ATTACHMENT 3

Updated Cl. 4.6 Request

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 4

Design Quality Principles

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 5

ADG Compliance Table

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Previous Report to Lane Cove Planning Panel

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator