Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 6 April 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

6 April 2021,  

 

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   on Tuesday 6 April 2021 commencing at 5pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

Craig - GM

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

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.       2 - 4 Merinda Street, 24 - 26 Mindarie Street Lane Cove North............. 5

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 06 April 2021

2 - 4 Merinda Street, 24 - 26 Mindarie Street Lane Cove North

 

 

Subject:          2 - 4 Merinda Street, 24 - 26 Mindarie Street Lane Cove North     

Record No:    DA21/18-01 - 8100/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Shortt 

 

 

 

Property:

2 - 4 Merinda Street, 24 - 26 Mindarie Street Lane Cove North

DA No:

DA18/2021

Date Lodged:

15 February 2021

Cost of Work:

$15,750,000.00

Owner:

Marian Street Pty Ltd

Applicant:                        

Steve Donnellan

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new residential flat building

Zone

R4 High Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

BCA Classification

Class 2 and 7a

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council policy and eight (8) submissions received by way of objection.   

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The Development Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as the proposed development is subject to SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building development for 50 units (11 x 1 bedroom, 29 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 3 bedroom), and two levels of basement parking for a total of 88 vehicles.

 

The proposal has been assessed with respect to SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. Refer to Attachment (AT-1). The proposed residential flat building generally meets with the design quality principles of SEPP 65 and the design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide.  The proposed development would provide 76% of units with compliant solar access, and 66% of units with compliant natural cross ventilation which is greater than the minimum requirements.

 

The proposal has been assessed against Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP 2009) and is permitted with consent. The proposed Floor Space Ratio meets the maximum permitted (1.8:1).

 

The proposal meets the overall the overall building height standard with the exception of lift overruns, pergola, WC roof, the edge of the SW corner of the roof, and fire stair roof.

 

The maximum building height under LCLEP 2009 is 17.5m. A maximum building height of 20.044m is proposed to the northern lift overrun being a variation of 2.544m (14.6%). The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 written request which is considered in this report.

It is recommended that the Panel approve the request to vary the development standard. The written request is considered well founded and the variation is supported.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan (LCDCP) 2010 with specific reference to the site-specific controls of the Mowbray Road Locality. Refer to Attachment (AT-2). The proposal complies with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 with the exception of building width, the Mowbray Road locality requirement for deep soil and total area of the 5th floor. The departures are addressed in the report and are considered acceptable on merit.

 

New South Wales Rural Fire Service were advised of the proposal and provided concurrence subject to conditions.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and eight (8) submissions were received. The concerns raised relate to height, overshadowing, traffic, privacy, construction noise/impacts, interface between R4 and E4 zones, impacts on common wall/ retaining walls, level of documentation submitted, and tree removal. The submissions are addressed in the report.

 

Overall the proposed development is considered reasonable.  It is recommended the Panel approve the Clause 4.6 written request to vary the building height and the proposed residential flat building subject to draft conditions of consent. Refer to Draft Conditions in Attachment (AT-3).

 

SITE

 

The consolidated development comprises four (4) allotments legally known as Lots 67, 68, 69 and 70 in DP 35865 with a street address known as 2–4 Merinda Street and 24–26 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North as shown in Figure 1 below.

 

The site has an area of 2324.7 sqm. The site has a moderate fall in natural ground level from northern boundary (Mindarie Street) to southern boundary of approximately 4m. The site is relatively flat from western boundary (Merinda Street) to eastern boundary.

 

To the north are sites containing completed and currently-under-construction residential flat buildings. East and west are sites zoned R4 High Density Residential and currently-under-construction and yet to be developed sites. To the south and south-east are lower density dwelling houses zoned E4 Environmental Living. The E4 area provides a lower built form transition buffer between the residential flat buildings and Stringybark Creek Reserve.

 

Directly east of the northern portion of the site are single dwelling houses known as 20 and 22 Mindarie Street and 30 Pinaroo Place. These sites are zoned R4 and proposed to be re-developed for the construction of a new 5-storey residential flat building containing thirty (30) dwellings, basement carparking and stratum subdivision. The application is currently under assessment with Council.

 

Directly east of the southern portion of the site is a dwelling house at 28 Pinaroo Place zoned E4. Directly south of the site is a dwelling house at 6 Merinda Street zoned E4.

 

On the western side of Merinda Street are single dwellings fronting Mindarie Street on land zoned R4 High Density Residential yet to be developed.

 

On the south-western side of Merinda Street is a currently under construction six (6)-storey residential flat building containing 106 apartments, cafe and basement parking for 174 vehicles

Figure 1: Subject Site.

Figure 2: Facing south towards 26 Mindarie Street.

 

Figure 3: Residential Flat building to the north at 41- 45 Mindarie Street

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

In a 2003 development approval was granted for the demolition of the existing brick dwelling and construction of a new two-storey dwelling at 4 Merinda Street. (DA03/234).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a 5 storey residential flat building development for 50 units (11 x 1 bedroom, 29 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 3 bedroom), two levels of basement parking for a total of 88 vehicles. The site context plan is shown below in figure 4.

 

The proposed external finishes of the residential flat building are characterised by a combination of grey pail render masonry and brown face brick for the principal structure, glass roof with metal frames for the vehicle/pedestrian entranceways, glass balustrades for the balconies, and the front fence would be constructed sandstone and white horizontal slot duratec.

 

Vehicular access to the basement parking level is proposed from Merinda Street with no vehicle access proposed from Mindarie Street. The basement levels provide parking for 88 residential spaces (79 for residents and 9 for visitors) including 11 accessible spaces (10 for residents and 1 for visitors). The basement also provides 6 motorbike spaces and 19 bicycle spaces.

 

Waste management proposed within the development comprises a common waste storage area within the basement and on-site waste collection through the provision of suitable vertical clearance within the basement and maneuvering.

 

The primary area of common open space is provided on the roof top which includes BBQ, accessible toilet, shade structures and outdoor furniture. The site is located approximately 80m from Mindarie Park.

 

Nine (9) trees are proposed to be removed. Six (6) existing trees are to be retained.

 

Figure 4: Site context plan.

 

SECTION 4.14 ASSESSMENT

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as the site is mapped as bushfire prone land. The proposal was accompanied by a bushfire report prepared by Australian Bushfire Consulting Services which included an alternative solution to NSW RFS Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. The report was referred to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for review. NSW RFS have accepted the proposal and provided recommended draft conditions of consent (refer draft conditions AT-3). The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to Section 4.14 of the Act.

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The subject site and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes. Given the current residential use of the site it is unlikely that the site would be contaminated.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A BASIX certificate has been submitted. The certificate demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the SEPP and is consistent with the commitments identified in the application documentation.  A standard condition has been included as a draft condition of consent requiring compliance with this BASIX certificate. The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP (BASIX) 2004.

 

State Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The subject site is not mapped as being subject to SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

 

SEPP 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; and

·          The NSW Apartment Design Guide (ADG) guidelines.

 

The proposal meets with the design quality principles and the Apartment Design Guide. Refer to Attachment (AT-1). The proposed development would provide 76% of units with compliant solar access, and 66% of units with compliant natural cross ventilation which exceeds the minimum requirements.

 

The following departures have been identified within the table and addressed as follows:

 

Communal Open Space: Design criteria in part 3D-1 of the ADG requires communal open space to be a minimum area of 25% of the site. The proposal allows for 33% communal open space and numerically would comply.

 

However, given that there is opportunity to expand the communal open space on the roof, it is recommended that the communal open space be increased. The primary useable communal open space on shared roof top courtyard would be approximately 85 sqm in area. A draft condition is recommended to increase the area of the roof top communal area by approximately half to compensate for the limited usability of the ground floor communal open space. The site is also within close proximity to the Mindarie Park and associated facilities.

 

Depth of cross-through apartments: Design criteria 4B-3 of the ADG requires that the overall depth of cross-through apartments does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line. Two ground floor units have a maximum depth of 18.9m. Although not meeting numerical compliance, the proposal is considered acceptable in this instance as these apartments received good solar access and natural ventilation with access to private courtyards at eastern and western ends.

 

Windows in habitable rooms: Design criteria in part 4D-1 of the ADG requires every habitable room to have a window in an external wall.  Bedroom 2 of Units 102, 202 and 302 do not have windows. This was confirmed as an error on the plans. A draft condition has been recommended to include windows to these bedrooms.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Permissibility

 

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under LCLEP 2009. The following land uses are listed as permitted with consent in the zone:

residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

 

The residential flat building meets the respective definitions under LCLEP 2009.   The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to permissibility under LCLEP 2009.

 

Development Standards

 

The proposal has been assessed against the applicable development standards within LCLEP 2009 as detailed in the following table of compliance:

 

Lane Cove LEP 2009

Proposal

Compliance

4.3 Height

17.5m

Roof: maximum 17.639m or 0.8% departure.

Lift overrun: maximum 20.044m or 14.6% departure.

Pergola: maximum 18.112m or 3.5% departure.

Accessible toilet roof: maximum 18.129m or 3.6% departure.

Fire stairs roof: maximum 18.082m or 3.1% departure.

No,

 

2.544m maximum departure is northern lift overrun (14.6%) – however Clause 4.6 that was submitted is supported – refer below.

4.4 FSR

1.80:1 (4184.46m2)

1.799:1 (4,183m2)

Yes

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

 

A maximum building height of 17.5m applies to the site under LCLEP 2009. The proposed building has a maximum building height of 17.639m (139mm or 0.8% variation) to the roof and a maximum building height of 20.044m (2.544m or 14.6% variation) to a lift overrun. The height plane diagrams shown in Figures 5 - 7 below depict the extent of the height variations. 

 

                                                Figure 5: 3D building height control Plane.

Figure 6: Proposed Variation to Building Height in red (East to West – Left to Right)

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009 allows exceptions to development standards.  Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered and agrees with the written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard. This written request must demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 of LCLEP 2009.  These matters are discussed below:

 

Written request provided by the applicant

 

The applicant provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application.  A copy of the request is provided to the Panel.  Under Clause 4.6(3) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

 

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

 

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

Figure 7: Proposed Variation to Building Height in red (South to North – Left to Right)

 

1.         Whether compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:-

 

·          The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical standard (First Method established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 287).

 

Assessment against objectives of the height of buildings standard.

 

·          The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical standard.

 

o   The proposed building presents as predominantly within the maximum height of buildings as it presents to the street and is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

o   The proposal minimises overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impacts for the neighbouring properties, particularly where zones meet due to compliant setbacks.

 

o   The proposal maximises solar access for the public domain where the main breaches to the height control is located centrally at the northern end of the proposed building and the shadows cast from the variation are demonstrated as being within the shadows of the compliant portions of the building.

 

o   The point encroachments are balanced by other parts of the development which are below the height control, particularly at the north-eastern corner, north-western corner and along the western elevation.

 

Compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the subject proposal. The written request clearly demonstrates that the breaches to height are the result of massing decisions that do not result in any additional impact compared to a compliant scheme. Clause 4.6(3)(a) is considered to be satisfied. The shadow diagrams confirm shadows caused from elements breaching the height control would generally fall onto the roof of the proposed building and not onto neighbouring properties.

 

2.         Environmental planning grounds to justifying contravening the development standard.

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 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 circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

 

The applicant has argued that:

 

·          The extent of the breach is considered relatively minor and confined to lift overruns, rooftop terrace pergola and a minor portion (139mm) of the south west corner of the building. The breaching elements do not give rise to any amenity impact with regard to privacy, view loss or overshadowing. The breaching elements are located in the centre of the building which will not be readily discernible from the street. In that regard, the non-compliant elements do not contribute to any perceived unreasonable bulk and scale or visual impact concerns.

 

·          The architectural plans and sections demonstrate that all habitable floors are below the 17.5 metre height standard with the primary areas of non-compliance being the northern lift and stair core extension and shade structure associated with the rooftop communal open space. In this regard we note that clause 3.9(a) -­ Design of Roof Top Areas of LCDCP states that roof top areas including podium area are to be designed for use as recreation facilities where practicable and should be of high standard of finish and design”.

 

The building massing does not result in unacceptable impacts to the properties to the south. The environmental planning grounds provided are considered satisfactory and supported. Clause 4.6(3)(b) is considered to be satisfied.

 

3.         Consistency with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard

 

Development consent cannot be granted to vary a development standard unless a consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. An assessment against the objectives of building height and the R4 High Density Residential zone contained within LCLEP 2009 are provided as follows:

 

An assessment as to the consistency of the proposal when assessed against the objectives of

the standard is as follows:

 

Height of Building Objectives

 

Clause 4.3 (1) provides the following objectives:-

 

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

 

Comment: The applicant has provided shadow diagrams and sun view diagrams from 9.00am through to 3.00pm in midwinter. The diagrams demonstrate the level of overshadowing the proposed development would have on the existing surrounding residential properties.

 

The site at 28 Pinaroo Place would receive solar access between 10.00am to 1.00pm in mid-winter.

 

The northern elevation of 6 Merinda Street would receive sunlight between 2.00pm and 3.00pm. The orientation of the site and fall in topography results in a fully compliant scheme overshadowing the direct southern neighbour during mid-winter.

 

Additional shadows fall onto 26 Pinaroo Place at 3.00pm during mid-winter however no shadows fall between 9.00am and 12 noon.

 

The largest variations to the height controls are limited to the northern end of the building and are centrally located with the roof floor plate. Shadows from these elements would only fall onto the proposed building and not onto neighbouring properties. The minor variation of the southern lift overrun, and the sw edge of the roof by 139mm would not result in any additional overshadowing when compared with a compliant building envelope as demonstrated in the shadow diagrams. 

 

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

 

Comment: The variation to the lift overruns, fire exit roof, pergola and SE corner of building roof uppermost residential level do not result in any privacy and visual impacts to surrounding developments. The roof top terrace is significantly setback from all building perimeters with privacy suitably addressed through planter boxes and balustrade setbacks.

 

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

 

 

Comment:  The proposed development provides a high level of solar access to the public domain.

 

(d)  to relate development to topography

 

Comment: The site has only a moderate slope from north to south. The proposed building responds to the gentle slope of the site. The slight slope does necessitate the need for a significant step-down of part of the upper floor.  The proposal has minimised excavation and the need to accommodate basement parking, while ensuring the bulk of the building (excluding lift overruns/fire exit pergola) is within the 17.5m height control. 

 

R4 High Density Residential Zone Objectives      

 

              The R4 High Density Residential Zone objectives are as follows:

 

·          To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high-density residential environment

 

Comment:  The proposal provides 50 apartments to meet the housing needs of the growing community in accordance with the established strategic planning for the locality. The improved apartment layout and provision of utilities provide adequate amenity for future occupants.

 

·          To provide a variety of housing types within a high-density residential environment.

 

Comment: The proposal provides for a variety of unit types within a high-density residential environment (11 x 1 bedroom, 29 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 3 bedroom).

 

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

 

Comment: Not applicable.

 

·          To provide for a high concentration of housing with good access to transport, services and facilities.

 

Comment: The proposal provides 50 new dwellings with good access to Epping Road,  Mowbray Road and public transport services. The site has good access to a public reserve with café, sporting and child play equipment facilities at Mindarie Park

 

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

                                              

Comment: The proposed building design has regard to the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood and in particular residential land and properties to the south.

The DCP permits non-habitable rooms at ground and 1st floor within 6m of the boundary with lower density zones. The first 4 levels of the proposed building would be setback 9m from property boundaries adjacent to E4 zones.

 

Therefore, the design would not only setback levels 1-4 but also has setback the ground floor an additional 3m from the boundary. The 5th floor would be setback 12m from property boundaries adjacent to the E4 zone. These setbacks allow adequate separation to reduce solar access and overlooking impacts.

 

·          To avoid the isolation of sites resulting from site amalgamation.

 

Comment: The proposal does not result in isolation of any site. The site is the amalgamation of 4 lots.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal provides for landscaped areas well in excess of Apartment Design Guide requirements (33.7% at ground floor where ADG requires 15%) including appropriate streetscape and boundary plantings. The resulting landscape scheme would contribute to local amenity and the broader landscaped character of the residential environment by increasing the overall quantum and quality of landscaping for residential apartment development.

 

In accordance with the above, the development complies with the LEP 2009 objectives for the R4 High Density Residential zone.

 

4.         Concurrence of the Director General.

 

The Local Planning Panel can assume concurrence for exceptions to development standards where the variation to the development standard is greater than 10%.  As the proposal is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination; concurrence is taken to be assumed.

 

5.         Conclusion

 

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards and to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The variations to the height standard of LCLEP 2009 are considered justified and supported in the circumstances of this case.  The development would satisfy the objectives of the control despite the non-compliance with the height control. The proposal results in a better planning outcome. The elements of the building which vary the height controls do not result in additional shadows as compared to a compliant scheme, but would provide access for residents to a high amenity roof top communal open space area. The development satisfies the objectives and the criteria outlined in clause 4.6. As such, the variation is considered well founded, results in a better planning outcome and is in the public interest.

 

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

The proposal has been assessed against Part C – Residential of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 as outlined in the attached tables of compliance (AT-2). The following variations to Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 are proposed and addressed as follows:

 

·          Building width – The DCP calls for maximum building widths of residential flat buildings to be 40m. The DCP can consider greater widths if the proposed building articulation is satisfactory. The proposed maximum width of approximately 47m is supported in this instance as the design has been adequately articulated with multiple breaks in the façade. The building would utilise a variety of building materials and finishes to provide respite to the perceived built form.

 

·          5th storey - The Mowbray Precinct DCP calls for a 5th storey to have a maximum of 50% of the floor area of the storey below and be setback a further 3m from that lower storey building façade line. The proposed 5th floor (Level 4) would be setback an additional 3m (12m total) from the storey below (9m) and complies.

 

The 5th floor would be approximately 74% of the area of the floor below. Although the floor area does not achieve numerical compliance, the proposal complies with the objectives of the control as the 5th floor (level 4) has a reduced floor area and the building bulk is stepped away a further 3m from the boundaries with the E4 zone. The 5th floor is of similar bulk and scale to other residential flat buildings in the area. It may be noted that the proposal complies with FSR control and is therefore of a density allowed under the planning controls.

 

·          Deep Soil Zones - The Mowbray Precinct DCP calls for 40% deep soil however the ADG minimum (7-15%) and general Part C controls (25% soft landscaping and 15% on structure) have been applied consistently to development in the locality. The proposal exceeds both these minimums and a variation is considered satisfactory in this instance.

 

REFERRALS

 

Other sections of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 have been addressed through referrals as outlined in the following table:

 

Referral

DCP

Comment

Accessibility

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

Comments taken on board and included as draft conditions.

Landscaping

 

Part J – Landscaping

No objection subject to draft conditions

Tree Preservation

Part J – Landscaping

No objection subject to draft conditions.

Engineering

 

Part O – Stormwater Management

No objection subject to draft conditions.

 

Waste Management

Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation

No objection subject to draft conditions.

Traffic, Transport and Parking

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

No objection subject to draft conditions.

Building Surveyor

N/A

No objection subject to draft conditions.

Environmental Health

Part B – General Controls (Part B6/B7)

No objection subject to draft conditions.

 

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 will require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with the Standard.

 

 

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

 

 

The impacts of the development have been considered and demonstrated to not adversely impact either the natural and built environments, social and economic or amenity of the locality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and eight (8) submissions were received. The submissions are summarised and addressed within the following table:

 

Concern

Comment

The proposed breach is the 17.5m height control should not be supported.

 

The breach in height is addressed in the report. The breaches in height relate to ancillary roof top structures including lift overruns, pergolas, and fire stairs roofs. The breaches are predominantly located at the northern part of the building and do not result in additional overshadowing as compared to a compliant building. The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that shadows from the non -compliant elements fall on the proposed building and not onto neighbouring properties. The submitted clause 4.6 variation to the height control has been assessed and is supported.

Concerns with overshadowing to 24, 26 and 28 Pinaroo Place

The proposal provides for compliant building separation, and further separation at the upper-storey to improve solar access. The site topography and orientation make maintaining the existing solar access for the southern adjoining property unreasonable. The proposal has sought to maximise solar access when compared to a compliant building envelope and the height breach, overall does not result in a worse outcome for the southern adjoining property. The solar access outcome is considered reasonable in this instance.

 

24 Pinaroo Place - Shadow diagrams confirm shadows do no fall onto 24 Pinaroo Place during mid-winter.

26  Pinaroo Place - Additional shadows fall onto 26 Pinaroo Place at 3.00pm during mid-winter however no shadows fall between 9.00am and 12 noon. The proposal complies.

28  Pinaroo Place - Additional shadows fall onto 28 Pinaroo Place at 3.00pm during mid-winter however no shadows fall between 9.00am and 12 noon. The proposal complies.

Transition from R4 to E4 boundary

 

This issue has been addressed in the report.

The proposed development complies with the setback provisions of the ADG and the Lane Cove DCP. The ADG requires a setback of at least 6m from the boundary for the first 4 storeys and an additional 3m setback at the boundary between a change in zone from apartment buildings to lower density. The proposed development sets the first 4 storeys 9m from boundaries adjoining the E4 zone.

View loss 41-45 Mindarie Street to the south.

 

This site and adjoining sites are zoned R4 high density residential and the controls permit up to 5-storey residential flat building. The southern views from 41-45 Mindarie are not classified as iconic water views. Impacts to southern district views are minimised by separation of Mindarie Street and fall in natural ground level from 41-45 Mindarie to the subject site.

Privacy as a result of the roof top communal open space.

 

The roof terrace level would not result in any privacy and visual impacts to surrounding developments. The roof top terrace is significantly setback from all building perimeters with privacy suitably addressed through planter boxes and balustrade setbacks.

Privacy concerns as a result of east and south facing balconies and windows.  

The setbacks of the building from the south east and southern boundaries adjacent to the E4 zone provide compliant separation distance and comply.  Requiring all windows on these elevations to be constructed with obscure glazing and deletion of all balconies is onerous and unreasonable. 

The traffic impacts of an additional 88+ vehicles in an increasingly congested Mindarie Street precinct. Concerns of traffic safety.

 

The proposal is within the planned density for the site and is a permissible use. The proposed car parking has been provided in accordance with Council controls and the was reviewed by Council’s traffic engineers who determined the road network can accommodate the development of the site for a residential flat building. Draft Conditions include the requirement of an additional traffic management plan to be approved by Council prior to the submission of a construction certificate.

Concerns with construction noise and disturbance.

Draft conditions have been recommended to address amenity impacts during construction including:

·          Submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Work Zone;

·          Limits on construction hours including the use of high noise machinery;

·          Prohibitions on depositing materials on the footpath with a permit;

·          Prohibition of stockpiling any material capable of being moved by water (e.g. sand, soil etc.); and

·          Pedestrian access maintained during construction.

Removal of mature trees

The proposal was reviewed by Council’s tree officer who stated ‘the combined sites contain minimal high value trees…The two highest value trees have been proposed for retention (Trees 4 and 5). The protective measures have been included in the landscape plan provided and detailed in the Arborist report provided. Replacement plantings are of adequate volume, planting size and species.’ 

Draft conditions have been recommended to ensure retained trees are protected through the life of the development.

Removed trees are required to be replaced with native, non-invasive species at a ratio of 1:1. Therefore the proposal would not result in any net loss in trees on site.

Impacts onto common and retaining walls between 4 Merinda and 28 Pinaroo Place

The recommendation includes draft conditions with requirements for geotechnical reports, dilapidation reports, and construction methodology reports. These requirements have been recommended to protect structures on adjoining properties including common walls and retaining walls at 28 Pinaroo Place.

Concerns that insufficient information was submitted.

The proposed setbacks are consistent with the required setbacks adjoining the E4 Zone as per the ADG and the Lane Cove DCP.

 

The proposed materials and finishes are shown on Finishes Plans 01 and 02.

 

There is no requirement for a feasibility study for population growth to be submitted with the DA. Increased population growth was taken into account when the site and surrounding area were rezoned to R4 High Density Residential under the provisions of Lane Cove LEP 2009, and the Mowbray Road Precinct Master Planning Study in 2011, following requirements from the state government to increase residential populations in the local government area.

 

A swept path and vehicle assessment, and a response to the Council’s traffic officer’s PRE-DA comments were submitted with the DA. The documents were reviewed by Council traffic engineers who deemed the proposal acceptable subject to conditions including a construction traffic management plan and demolition traffic management plan and compliance for parking and servicing with the Australian Standards.

 

 

 

(e) Public Interest

 

 

The proposal is in the public interest as it provides for planned residential accommodation with an adequate balance between the amenity of future occupants and that of adjoining properties.

 

SECTION 7.11 ASSESSMENT

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of the Lane Cove Section 94 Contributions Plan (now Section 7.11) which levies new developments to assist in catering for the demand placed on existing Council community facilities and/or infrastructure. The Section 7.11 contribution payable is calculated in accordance with the Plan being the average number of persons per dwelling size as detailed in the following table:

 

 

 

No. bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per dwelling

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

1 Bedrooms 

1.2 persons

$10,942.00 x 1.2 =

$13,130.40.00 per dwelling

11 x $13,130.40

$144,434.40

2 Bedrooms

1.9 persons

$10,942 x 1.9 =

$20,219.80 per dwelling.

*Capped Rate $20,000 per dwelling.

29 x $20,000 =

$580,000

 

3 Bedrooms

2.4 persons

$10,942 x 2.4 = $25,540.80 per dwelling.

*Capped Rate $20,000 per dwelling.

10 x $20,000 =

$200,000

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

$924,434.40

 

The Section 7.11 contribution payable is reduced through any existing credit applied to the existing entitlements as detailed in the following table:

 

No. bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per dwelling

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

2+ Bedrooms

N/A

Capped Rate $20,000.00 per dwelling

4 x $20,000.00

$80,000.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

$80,000.00

 

The Section 7.11 contribution payable is $924,434.40 – $80,000,000 = $844,434.40.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied.

 

The application complies with SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, the Floor Space Ratio under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and complies with Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 either by way of compliance with the prescriptive measures or the objectives.

 

The proposed variation to the building height standard under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 is considered justified and is supported. The written request adequately addresses the matters in Clause 4.6(3) and the proposal meets with both the zone and standard objectives despite the non-compliance with the prescriptive measure of building height contained within Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

On balance the proposed development would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 6 April 2021, exercising the functions of the Council as the 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 as 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 6 April 2021, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, grant consent to Development Application DA18/21 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building on Lots 67, 68, 69 and 70 in DP 35865, known as 2–4 Merinda Street and 24–26 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North, subject to attached draft conditions in AT-3.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

SEPP 65 Assessment Table

14 Pages

 

AT‑2View

DCP Assessment Table

7 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Draft Conditions

29 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

SEPP 65 Assessment Table

 

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


ATTACHMENT 2

DCP Assessment Table

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 3

Draft Conditions

 

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