Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

23 August 2016, 5:00pm

 

LC_WebBanner

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove  on Tuesday 23 August 2016 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

 

IHAP Meeting Procedures

 

The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) 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 Independent Hearing & Assessment 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 IHAP 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 IHAP, 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.

 

 

 


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 23 August 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Panel to make a submission.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      INDEPENDENT HEARING AND ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING - 5 JULY 2016

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

2.       229/25 Best St, Lane Cove

          Pages 5 and 6 updated 18 August 2016

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.       29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove  

 

 

 

 

 


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel   23 August 2016

229/25 Best St, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          229/25 Best St, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA16/69-01 - 42214/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      May Li 

 

 

Property:

Lot 229, 25 Best, Lane Cove

DA No:

DA 69/2016

Date Lodged:

9/5/2016

Cost of Work:

$3,997,964.00

Owner:

AMIA Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant:        

Andalos Developments

C/- Ghazi Al Ali Architect

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Construction of a residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings on a vacant block within an existing residential complex in Linley Cove at 25 Best Street, Lane Cove

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

Yes.  The site is located within a bushfire prone land

BCA Classification

Class 2, 7a & 10b

Stop the Clock used

Yes – 63 days

Notification

The development proposal was notified to all residents in 25 Best Street and nearby residents in Lane Cove and Riverview. 

 

All Councillors                        Yes

Progress Association             Lane Cove West Residents Association

 

815 notification letters were sent to nearby residents and interested associations. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings with two basement car park levels for 24 car spaces.

 

The proposed development does not meet the provisions of the DCP relating to amenity, building separation, setback and bushland management requirements. 

 

The building design does not address the site constraints relating to the topography, vegetation and distinctive features of the land.  There are 4 dwellings on Level -01 located below the street level in the complex.  50% (7) dwellings in the proposed building would not receive sufficient sunlight and have poor natural cross ventilation. 

 

The proposed building is located too close to the adjoining buildings in the strata complex and creates adverse privacy and visual impact to its neighbours. 

 

The site contains bushland vegetation.  The construction of the proposed development would result in the removal of significance trees with the proposed building being located within bushland area and would result in an adverse impact to the adjoining reserve zoned E2 - Environmental Conservation.  A large portion (35m in length) of the proposed driveway is proposed adjacent to bushland and would not provide a sufficient landscape buffer between the proposed development and the adjoining bushland. 

 

The design does not meet the provisions of the stormwater management and the waste management of Lane Cove DCP.

 

The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to enable assessment of potential flood risk to the proposal as well as a desk top review, a construction management plan and  waste management.

 

The building design does not meet the fire safety provisions of Building Code of Australia for travel distances for a multi unit development.

 

Overall the proposal would not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and it is not supported.  The application is recommended for refusal for reasons indicated in the report. 

 

The development application is referred to the Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for consideration and determination given the significant concerns raised by the community and significant non-compliances under the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control (DCP).   Site Location Plans and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located within an existing strata subdivision and has a number of physical challenges which need to be considered and resolved as part of any development proposal.  The site constraints include the following:

 

·         The site is sloping with a significant fall from the northern to the southern boundary.

·         The site adjoins Tannery Creek with potential food risk

·         It adjoins bushland to its western boundary and

·         There is an existing residential flat building and multi dwelling housing development in close vicinity.

 

Other site information is included in the following table:

 

Property

Lot No. 229, SP No. 43337

Area

1493m2

Site location

At the southern end of 25 Best Street, Lane Cove

Existing improvements

The site is currently vacant and is the last un-developed lot within the Linley Cove at 25 Best Street, Lane Cove.

 

The subject site is under the Owner of Strata Plan 18756.  The owner’s consent of SP18756 is not required for the submission of the development application because the proposed works are located within the boundary of Lot 229, SP 4337.  Council is able to accept, process and determinate the development application. 

Shape

Irregular

Dimensions

Width: 43.20m. 

Depth: Approximately 32m at the west and 25.26m at the eastern boundary. 

Adjoining properties

East: A row of two storey multi dwelling housing in Linley Cove at 25 Best Street, Lane Cove

West: A public reserve located within E2 – Environmental Conservation zone

North: A residential flat building in Linley Cove at 25 Best Street, Lane Cove

South: A park located within RE1 – Public Recreation zone.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

·         There have been previous development applications for developments including townhouses, home unit developments on the site which have been refused by Council and the Land and Environment Court.  The reasons for refusal include adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents and the potential adverse impacts to the adjoining bushland.

 

·         Lot 229 is zoned R4 – High Density Residential in accordance with Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. A residential flat building development is permissible with consent.

 

·         There are no legal grounds for Council to refuse a well-considered development application for residential use of the subject land particularly when the zoning of the site permits residential flat building or multi dwelling housing development.  Refer to attachment (AT3) for the site development history. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings with two basement car park levels for 24 car spaces on a parcel of land within a strata subdivision developed in the 1980’s.

 

Level

1 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

3 Bedroom

Total Units

-01

0

3

1

4

Ground

3

3

0

6

1

1

1

1

3

2

0

0

1

1

Total

4 (29%)

7 (50%)

3 (21%)

14 (100%)

 

Each level contains the following elements;

 

Basement 02 at RL 2.2 & RL 0.7

 

·         13 car spaces including 2 accessible car spaces

·         2 Motor bike parking spaces

·         7 bike racks

·         A plant room

·         An accessible toilet and

·         A lift.

 

Basement 01 at RL5.2 & RL 3.7

 

·         11 car spaces including 2 accessible car spaces

·         A bulky good waste store room

·         A waste bin room

·         3 storage and

·         A lift.

Level -01

 

·         4 dwellings

·         4 storage and

·         A lift

 

The finished ground level of the dwellings on Level -01 is approximately 2.4m below the street level of the internal road. 

 

Level Ground

 

·         6 dwellings and

·         A lift.

 

Level 01

 

·         3 dwellings

·         Roof top communal open space and

·         A lift.

 

Level 02

 

·         A dwelling with roof top terrace and

·         A lift.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Site area: 1493m2

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The following compliance tables highlight control provisions, proposal and compliance details:

 

LEP 2009

Provision

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

Zone

R4 – High Density Residential zone

Residential Flat Building development

Yes

Maximum permitted FSR

0.8:1

0.8:1

 

Yes

Maximum permitted building height

12m

12m

 

Yes

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

Part B – General Controls

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

B3 – Site Amalgamation & Isolated site

To encourage site consolidation of allotments for development in order to promote the desired urban design outcomes and the efficient use of land and to avoid the creation of isolated sites.

The subject site is a vacant lot within an existing residential strata subdivision complex

 

Yes

The proposed development would not result in an isolated site for a residential flat building development within an existing residential complex

B8 – Safety & security

 

Ground floor dwellings have direct access or entries from the street and at least one habitable room with windows facing the street

The building has two pedestrian entries from the internal road of an existing residential complex

Yes.  Each northern aspect dwelling has at least a bedroom window or a balcony facing the internal road.

 

Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

3.2 Density

Minimum site area 1500m2

Area of site approx 1493m2

 

No.  However, marginally below the minimum lot size requirement for a residential flat building development. 

3.3 Building depth

18m exclusive of any balcony

 

17.1m

Yes

3.4 Building width

40m maximum fronting the street

37.4m fronting the internal road

Yes

 

3.5 Setback

Front

 

 

 

 

Side

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rear

 

Minimum 7.5m

 

 

 

 

6m up to 4 storeys

 

 

 

 

 

 

6m up to 4 storeys

 

 

0.8m to the internal road

 

 

 

1.4m to the eastern boundary

 

 

 

 

 

1.72m

 

 

No.  The proposal would not achieve visual privacy from the internal road in the complex

 

No. There is insufficient landscaping proposed between the proposed development and the multi dwelling housing development to the east. 

 

No.  The proposal would not provide a transition between public and private space.

 

The proposal does not meet the DCP setback objectives for privacy, visual amenity and landscaping. 

3.5.3 Parking Podium Height

 

Height adjoining front boundary

 

 

Height adjoining east boundary

 

Height adjoining western boundary

 

Height adjoining rear boundary

 

 

 

1.2m

 

 

 

1.2m

 

 

 

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

 

 

(minus) 3.4m

 

 

 

3m

 

 

 

(minus) 0.8m

 

4.2m

 

 

 

Yes. However the habitable rooms on this level are well below the road level.

 

No

 

 

 

Yes

 

No

 

The car podium above the existing ground level would create visual impact to the public open space adjacent to the south of the site. 

 

3.6 Building separation within development

12m between habitable rooms /balconies for up to 4 storeys/12m

 

Approximately 8m to a residential flat building to the north

No   The proposed building is too close to a residential flat building at the northern side of the internal road. 

 

3.8 Excavation

Encroachments into setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level.

 

Maximum of 6m encroachment into the eastern setback area.

No.  The design has not addressed the site constraints and would require significant cut and fill for the construction of the proposed development.  The extent of cut and fill proposed fails to consider or restore likely impacts.

3.9 Design of roof top area

Detailed landscape plan required

 

Roof top terrace landscape plan is provided

Yes

3.10 Size & mix of dwellings

Minimum 40m2

 

A mixture of 1, 2, & 3 bedroom dwellings should be provided

 

Minimum 50.25m2

 

4X1 bedroom units (29%)

 

7X2 bedroom units (50%)

 

3x3 bedroom units (21%). 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

3.11 Private open space

Primary balconies - 10m2 with minimum depth 2m

 

 

 

Primary terrace - 16m2 with minimum depth 4m

 

 

3 units with balconies are less than 10m2 between 8.12m2 -8.25m2

 

Private terraces on -01 level is 15.26m2 & fails to meet minimum size requirement

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

The proposal would not provide functional private open spaces to the dwellings with balconies of sizes less than the minimum DCP requirements.

3.12 Ceiling heights

 

Minimum 2.7m

2.7m

Yes

 

3.13 Storage

 

6m3 per 1 bedroom dwelling

4*6 = 24m3

8m3 per 2 bedroom dwelling

7*8=56m3

10m3 per 3 bedroom dwelling

3*10=30m3

Total = 110m3

 

50% of the storage volume within the dwelling

6 storage spaces with sizes between 3.68m3 – 5.09m3 are proposed B01 and -01 levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internal storage areas are proposed within the dwellings.  The internal space of the dwellings would be sufficient to meet the requirements of storage volume.

 

No.  Insufficient storage is proposed

 

14 storage spaces are required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

3.14 Solar access

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of 70% of the units to receive 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 21 June

 

Maximum 10% dwellings with a southerly aspect

50% of dwellings would receive more than 3 hours solar access (7 dwellings)

 

 

 

 

21% of dwellings have a southerly aspect (3 dwellings)

No.  2 dwellings (Unit 06 & 07) relying on skylights for solar accesses are not included.

 

 

 

 

No. The proposal does not meet the objectives for providing reasonable solar access to the habitable rooms and recreational areas of the development.

3.15 Natural ventilation

 

Minimum 60% of the dwellings should have cross ventilation.

 

Minimum 25% of kitchens have access to natural ventilation

 

50% of dwellings would have cross ventilation (7 dwellings)

 

21% of kitchen would access to natural ventilation (3 dwellings)

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

The proposal would not provide adequate cross flow ventilation to assist thermal comfort for its occupants.

3.16 Visual privacy

 

Provide visual privacy between the adjoining properties

Privacy screens are not proposed to all outdoor recreation areas directly facing the townhouse to the east

No.  The proposal does not meet the setback requirement to the east and would have overlooking impact to the adjoining townhouse to the east.

3.17 Communal open space

Minimum 25%

15% proposed

No.  The communal open space is proposed on the terrace on Level 1.  It is located at the southern side of the building and would be shadowed by the building itself which would provide poor amenity to the communal open for the use of its future residents.  

3.18 Landscaped area

25% provided at ground level and up to15% provided on structures (40% required)

31% deep soil landscaped area proposed on the ground level and 10% on the structures

(41% proposed)

Yes

 

Solar access, cross ventilation and kitchen cross ventilation analysis

 

Unit No.

No. of bed

Solar access

C-V

Kitchen C-V

South Aspect

Level -01

 

 

 

 

 

01

2

×

P

P

P

02

2

×

×

×

P

03

2

×

P

P

 

04

3

×

×

×

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground

 

 

 

 

 

05

2

P

P

×

 

06

2

×

×

×

P

07

1

×

×

×

P

08

2

×

P

×

 

09

1

P

×

×

 

10

1

P

×

×

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level 1

 

 

 

 

 

11

2

P

P

×

 

12

1

P

×

×

 

13

3

P

P

×

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level 2

 

 

 

 

 

14

3

P

P

P

 

Total

 

7 (50%)

7 (50%)

3 (21%)

4 (29%)

 

 

Note:

·         Units 06 and 07 on the Ground Level rely on a skylight of each unit for solar access. 

·         50% units would have 3 hours of solar access between 9am – 3pm in mid-winter

·         50% of units would have natural cross ventilation

·         21% of kitchens would have natural cross ventilation   

·         The shadow of the adjoining residential flat building and the multi dwelling housing building to the east have been considered for the solar access of the proposed development.

Part F - Access and Mobility

 

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

Adaptable housing to be provided at the rate of 1 dwelling per 5 dwellings (20%) (Minimum of 3 dwellings are required)

3 adaptable dwellings are proposed. 

Yes

Provide 1 accessible parking space for each adaptable housing unit (minimum of 3 spaces required)

4 disabled car spaces proposed on Basement 01,& 02 levels

Yes

 

 

Part R Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Part R of the DCP specifies parking requirement for the proposed residential flat building development:

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

4 x 1 bedroom units = 4 spaces (4x1)

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings = 10.5 spaces (7x1.5)

3x3 bedroom dwellings = 6 spaces (3x2)

Visitor 1 per 4 dwellings = 3.5 spaces (14/4)

 

Required car parking spaces: 24

 

1 motor cycle space per 15 car spaces.  2 spaces required (24/15)

 

1 bike locker per 4 dwellings. 4 lockers required (14/4)

 

1+1 Bike rail racks per 10 dwellings 2 racks required (1 + 14/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 car spaces are proposed

 

2 motor cycle spaces proposed on Basement 02

 

No bike lockers are proposed in the basement car park

 

2 bike racks proposed for visitors on B02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

The proposal meets the parking provisions of the DCP.

 

REFERRALS

 

Building Surveyor

 

The Senior Building Surveyor has identified the following non-compliances with the provisions of Building Code of Australia:

 

1.    Extended travel distances, more than 20m to an exit from unit 01 and common areas on Level -01.

 

2.    Extended travel distance, more than 20m to an exit from lift lobby on Ground floor level.

 

3.    Extended travel distances, more than 6m from units 12 and 13 to an exit.

 

The applicant is to either amend the plans to comply with the deemed to satisfy provisions or state that they would obtain an alternate solution for the non compliances with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The applicant has not provided any response to the concerns raised by the Senior Building Surveyor relating to the BCA issues.

 

Development Engineer

 

The development engineer has advised that the proposed development has flood affectation from Tannery Creek along the southern boundary.  The applicant needs to prepare a flood study in accordance with Part O – Stormwater Management of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.  The flood study is required in order to adequately determine this application.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The application cannot be supported as the applicant has not provided adequate information for proper assessment regarding stormwater management of the proposed development.

 

Environmental Services

 

The Environmental Health Manager requires further information for the assessment and the required information is as follows:

 

1.    Desk top review – contamination assessment

2.    Construction noise management plan

3.    Waste management details are to show – sweep paths of waste truck, floor to ceiling height of basement collection point, clear of obstructions. Plans are to clearly show the location of waste bins (MGB’s – 240 L) and 300mm separation between each bin. Calculation of number of MGB’s is to include the requirement for Red (general waste) , Yellow(mixed containers), Blue (paper) and a Green (green waste) lidded bins. In addition the communal bulky good storage area (35 square metres) is to be clearly shown with the designated width of the doorway as per part Q of the DCP.

4.    Architectural drawings are to show - waste management details are to be shown and shall include the location of the chute, carousel and compactor – dimensions are to be clearly shown, including locations of where waste will be collected by the waste vehicle, location of bollards if any and any other obstructions.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

This information was required by the submission of the development application by the DA check list and the applicant has not provided the required information when the application was lodged with Council. 

 


 

Bushland Management

 

The Bushland Management Project Officer has advised that the proposed development would have a 35m long driveway in the north western section of the block. The proposal is not supported as this application does not address the objective of the DCP Part H 5.1(a) – (e) for bushland area which is as follows.

 

a)         This is the part of the site which contains bushland vegetation and other topographic and natural features.

 

b)         It is an extension of the areas of bushland zoned or reserved for public open space purposes and should exhibit the same characteristics as that for the land zoned "E2 Environmental Conservation" under the Lane Cove LEP.

 

c)         It may be land which is currently degraded but forms a continuous link with bushland on neighbouring properties.

 

d)         If land within the bushland area is identified as ‘Environmental Protection’ on the Environmental Protection Map, then any development on that land must comply with Clause 6.4 of the LEP.  Notwithstanding this, development adjacent to bushland must also comply with this DCP.

 

e)         No development or alteration that leads to degradation will be permitted within the area irrespective of whether it is public or private bushland.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed driveway is located too close to the adjoining bushland.  There is an insufficient buffer proposed between the bushland and the proposed development.  The site currently provides pedestrian access to Hartman Hill Reserve for all the residents in Linley Cove.  The proposed development does not facilitate continued pedestrian access to Hartman Hill Reserve for the residents of Linley Cove.

 

Landscape Architect

 

The landscape architect has provided the following advice:

 

I would recommend that the application be refused as it requires the removal of five tall native canopy trees:

Tree #1 Eucalyptus saligna (25x12)

Tree #6 Eucalyptus haemastoma (18x10)

Tree #9 Eucalyptus saligna (25x18)

Tree #10 Eucalyptus saligna (25x18)

Tree #11 Eucalyptus saligna (25x18)

These trees are much taller (average 23.6m) than the proposed replacement species (average 9.75m tall)

The opinion of Councils Arborist must be sought to assess the significance of these trees.

The habitat value of these tall indigenous canopy trees, is magnified by their proximity to the creek and reserve.

The tree numbering on the Arborist report and landscape plan are not consistent, and must be amended so that they are. The tree identification is also inconsistent. The arborist report does not comment on many of the existing trees on site & neighbouring land, which may be impacted on by the proposed construction.

The building sits within 0.5m of the TOE of Tannery creek and requires a much greater setback in order to establish a buffer as a visual screen from the reserve and creek.

 

Officer’s comment:

The landscape architect has advised that the landscape plan is an inconsistent with the arborist report.  The proposal is not supported as it would require removal of significant trees and create adverse impacts to the adjoining reserve in E2 – Environmental Conservation zone. 

 

Traffic Management

Council’s traffic engineer has considered the proposal and raised the following concerns:

·         Parking and servicing

The proposed car park design does not comply with AS 2890.1.  The minimum width for the two way ramp is not adequate.  The minimum width should be a minimum of 5.5m.

·         Waste Servicing

It is a requirement that the waste collection vehicle must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and waste collection must be on site and not off-street.

·         Construction Traffic Management Plan

The Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Lane Cove Council for approval before issuing the construction certificate.

Officer’s comment:

The proposal is not supported as the proposed driveway does not meet the relevant standard.  The proposed waste collection does not meet the provisions of Part Q of the DCP which states all waste collection must be carried out on site. No construction traffic management plan has been submitted for assessment. 

The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would be carried out without causing adverse traffic impacts to its adjoining neighbours. 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer did not support the removal of a mature Sydney blue gum tree for the construction of the proposed driveway and states that the tree is in good health and is linked to the native vegetation in the adjacent bushland area up-hill to the allotment. 

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

The proposal is permissible and complies with the development standards for building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR).  However, the design does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 which is as follows: 

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed building design would create unacceptable over looking and visual impacts on the existing residential developments within the complex.  The communal open space located on the roof top terrace would create over looking to the private open space of the adjoining dwelling to the east.  This would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the existing residents.  Strong objections have been raised by residents in the complex. The development proposal fails to address fundamental site issues including, risk, traffic, amenity and appropriateness of the site.

 

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

(i)         accords with urban consolidation principles, and

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

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed building would not meet the setback provisions of the DCP.  The footprint of the proposed building is located too close to the existing adjacent residential dwellings.  The building design is not compatible with the existing environmental character and is not sympathetic or harmonious with the adjacent residential developments.

 

(e)        in relation to the management of open space, public and privately-owned bushland, riparian and foreshore land:

(i)         to protect and, where possible, restore all bushland areas, including all rare and threatened species and communities, and

(ii)        to protect and, where possible, restore all riparian land along, and the inter-tidal zones and foreshores of, the Lane Cove River and Sydney Harbour and their tributary creeks, and

(i)         to make more foreshore land available for public access, and

(ii)        to link existing open space areas for public enjoyment,

 

Comment:

 

Part of the land of the subject site is identified as bushland.  The proposed driveway is located within the bushland area which would lead to degradation within the area.

 

The site is vacant and forms part of the landscaping of Linley Cove development.  Residents in the complex can access Hartman Hill Reserve through the site.  There is no link proposed to the existing reserve for public benefit.

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not meet the aims of Lane Cove LEP 2009 with regard to improving the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

 

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development.  The design principles of the Apartment Design Guide were taken into consideration during the assessment process. 

 

The proposal would not provide an adequate amenity to its future residents in regard to solar access, nature cross ventilation, and landscaping.

 

It would create adverse impact to the residential developments in close proximity to the subject site and such fails to address the context of the surrounding developments.

 

It is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims of SEPP 65.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The subject site and adjoining sites are zoned for residential purposes.  Given the site was previously used for industrial purposes, a desk top review – contamination assessment is required. 

 

The applicant has not provided a contamination assessment report for review.  If the panel were to approve this application, it would be recommended that a condition requiring a desk top review – contamination assessment be carried and submitted to Council for approval out prior to the commencement of any building works on the site. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Section 94 Contribution

 

The proposed development would allow for additional people to be able to live on the site and S94 contribution will be required for the services that would be provided for the additional population living in Lane Cove.

 

The S94 contribution is calculated on the bases of the dwelling mix of the proposed development in the following manner:

 

Dwelling

Average Occupancy Rate

Contribution Per Person

(2016-2017)

Contribution Per Dwelling

Number of Dwellings

Contribution

1 Bedroom

1.2

$10,000.00

$12,000.00

4

$48,000.00

2 Bedroom

1.9

$10,000.00

$19,000.00

7

$133,000.00

3 Bedroom

2.4

$10,000.00

$20,000 (Cap)

3

$60,000.00

Total

 

 

 

14

$241,000.00

 

The required S94 Contribution is therefore $241,000.00 if consent is granted for the development. 

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with.  Each of the departure is discussed below.

 

 

Provisions

Proposed

Comment

Council support

Lot size for a residential flat building development 1500m2

1493m2

This is a minor variation to the DCP requirement.  However, partial of the land is identified as bushland and no building structures should be located on the bushland area. 

Not supported as the site has limited building area for the construction of a residential flat building having regard to the significant site constraints. 

Front setback 7.5m

0.8m

The proposed building is located too close to the internal road and there is no sufficient separation between the proposed residential flat building and the existing residential flat building to the north. 

No.  The existing residential flat building would create overshadowing impact to the proposed development which would impact upon its amenity.

 

Side setback 6m

1.4m to the east boundary

The proposed building would be located too close to the adjoining townhouses to the east.

No.  The dwellings on the lower levels of the proposed building would be shadowed by the existing adjoining development. 

Minimum private open space of 10m2 and courtyard of 16m2

3 balconies with a size less than 10m2

There are insufficient private open spaces proposed for 3 dwellings

No.  The amenities of the proposed dwellings are unacceptable.

 

Min 70% of dwellings with min 3 hours of solar access between 9am -3pm in mid winter

50% of the dwellings would have 3 hours of solar access between 9am – 3pm in mid winter

50% of the dwellings in the development would not receive sufficient solar access.

No.  The proposed development would not provide satisfactory amenity to its residents.  

 

The development as proposed fails to adequately analyze and consider site constrains that include potential for flooding, internal traffic management, relationship with adjoining structures, and adverse impacts to adjoining lands including reserve and park land. 

 

The development as proposed fails to adequately consider and provide for appropriate internal amenity for future residents.  The failure of the Apartment Design Guide of SEPP 65 and the DCP provisions combine to reflect a potentially poor design outcome. 

 

The non-compliances with the provisions of the DCP were raised with the applicant during the assessment process. 

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

 

The development proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  The initial notification was carried out between 12 May 2016 and 26 May 2016.  The proposal was further notified to an extended residential area between 30 May 2016 and 13 June 2016. 

 

36 submissions and 76 standard signed letter submissions were received. The submissions raised concerns relating to the building design, construction traffic management and impact on the amenity of the existing residents and nearby reserve. 

 

The concerns raised by the submissions are summarized and discussed below:

 

·         Council should review their decision in accepting development application 69/2016 without the consent of the Owners Corporation SP18756.

 

Comment:

 

In regard to the owner consent of SP 18756 for the lodgment of the development, Council sought legal advice which indicated that mere usage of the right of way for lawful purposes does not require the consent of the owner thereof.  Given that the proposed development would be limited to within Lot 229, there is no requirement for owners consent from SP 18756 for the lodgment of the development application. 

 

·         The proposed development is not keeping with the surrounding building and bushland environment.

 

Comment:

 

The proposed building design is different to the surrounding buildings which were constructed in 1980’s.  Given the site is not within a conservation area, the proposed building design is not required to be similar with the design character of the existing buildings. 

 

·         The proposed development would result in the removal of significant trees on the site.

 

Comment:

 

The proposal would involve removal of significant trees including native trees for the construction of the residential flat building.  The trees are of significance to the landscaping setting of the existing development complex.  Removal of the trees would have an adverse impact to the natural environment and the amenity of the residential complex.

 

·         The land size of the development does not meet the minimum site area for residential flat building development under Lane Cove DCP.

 

Comment:

 

It is agreed that the proposal does not meet the provision of the DCP in relation to minimum lot size.  However, the site area is only marginally below the minimum and considered acceptable for the purposes of consideration. 

 

·         Concerns are raised in relation to the proposed excavation for the basement levels and the impact on the stability of Hartman Hill.

 

Comment:

 

The proposed development would require significant excavation for the construction of the basement car park.  The Geotechnical and Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report submitted with the development application states that excavation up to a maximum depth of 9.3m in the northern part of the basement footprint would be required.  The proposed excavation would extend within close proximity to the northern and eastern boundaries and over 12m from the western boundary adjacent to Hartman Hill.

 

The report states that the existing rock formation is capable of withstanding the proposed loads to be imposed. The standard shoring works and retaining walls would ensure the stability of the excavations and fill embankments.

 

The applicant would need to comply with the recommendations indicated in the Geotechnical report if development consent is granted. 

 

·         The proposed development would have potential damage to roads and landscaping within the complex during construction due to the high volume of large vehicles.

 

Comment:

 

This concern could be addressed by a condition of consent requiring dilapidation reports on nearby properties of the development site to be submitted prior and after the completion of the development to ensure the developer would take responsibility for the damage of the nearby properties. 

 

·         The bridge at the entrance to 25 Best Street is of wooden construction and will not be able to withstand the impact of large vehicles turning into the complex.  Any damage to the bridge will result in the only vehicular access to the property being closed off. 

 

Comment:

 

The bridge is part of a private road within the complex.  The applicant may need to obtain approval from the body corporate of SP 18756 and submit a construction management plan indicating the appropriate use of construction vehicles prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate by a condition of consent if consent is granted. 

 

·         The unloading and storing of materials cannot be carried out on or from the private road as this would cause significant disruption to the residents and other functions within the complex.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant would be required to address this concern within the construction management plan if development consent was to be granted, including satisfactory arrangement with the adjoining land owners of which it is part of.

 

·         The units in the current development have been contributing to a sinking fund for the life of the strata.  The proposed development would burden the body corporate the financial liability the maintenance of a lift system.  These are expensive to maintain and operate.

 

Comment:

 

This is a matter for the body corporate, strata management and the private owners within in the strata plan. 

 

·         Parking in the new development is deficient.

 

Comment:

 

The proposal meets the numerical car parking provisions of the DCP although concern is expressed with the proposed road. 

 

·         The proposed development extends from Basement 2, RL 2.20 to a maximum height of 21.00.  The overall height of the property is 18.8m which is greater than that permissible under Council’s LEP 2009.

 

Comment:

 

In accordance with the LEP, the height of building is the vertical distance from the ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building.  The assessment indicates that the proposal meets the 12m building height standard for the site.

 

·         The proposed development exceeds the original building envelope previously approved DA 56/2014 for the construction of 4 townhouses.

 

Comment:

 

The previous development consent DA56/2014 for the construction of a multi dwelling housing comprising 4 dwellings is not relevant to the current development application for the construction of a residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings.

 

All submissions have been taken into consideration during the assessment process. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The subject site is a remnant lot from the original development in the 1980’s.  The site previously formed part of Linley Cove development and the owners of the land lodged development applications for variety of residential developments on the site.  Clearly, the site has development potential and has rights to build.  The context of this remnant site is connected to that of the adjoining residential flat complex it adjoins and is part of.  The site is physically constrained to the point where a careful design that considers those constraints and seeks to fit the existing landscape is called for.  A previous consent remains current for this site which is reasonable given the difficult and constrained nature of the site. 

 

The current proposed development fails to comply with the provisions of the DCP relating to the stormwater management, amenity, building separation, setback, bushland and waste management requirements. The building design does not adequately address the site constraints.  Dwellings are located below the street level in the complex.  Many dwellings in the proposed building would not receive sufficient sunlight and have poor natural cross ventilation. 

 

The proposed building is located too close to the adjoining buildings in the complex and creates adverse visual impact to its neighbours. 

 

The applicant has not submitted sufficient information relating to the flood risk, desk top review, construction management plan, and the waste management design details for a proper assessment.

 

The building design does not meet the provisions of Building Code of Australia for safe travel distances.

 

The construction of the proposed development would result in the removal of significance trees and the proposed building is located within bushland area and would create adverse impact to the adjoining reserve zoned E2 - Environmental Conservation.

 

The driveway and car park designs fail to meet AS 2890.1 and AS2890.6.

 

The proposal does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

The application is not supported and recommended for refusal for reasons indicated in the report. 

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Council refuses development consent Development Application DA 69/2016 for the construction of a residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings with basement car park for 24 cars for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars

 

1.1       The proposed development does not meet the aims stated in Clause 1.2 (b) of the LEP 2009 as it would not preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land and the expectations of the community.

 

1.2       The proposed development does not meet the aims stated in Clause 1.2 (c) of the LEP 2009 as it would not provide a housing mix and density that would be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

1.3       The proposed development does not meet the aims of Clause 1.2(e) of the LEP 2009 because it would not protect, restore the bushland area of the site, including all rare and threatened species and communities, and would not be able to link existing open space areas for public enjoyment in relation to the management of open space, public and privately-owned bushland.

 

2.         The proposed design fails to meet the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010.

 

Particulars

 

2.1       The proposed design does not meet the minimum 7.5m front setback provision of the DCP.

 

2.2       It does not meet the minimum 6m side and rear setback provisions of the DCP.

 

2.3       It fails to meet the building separation provisions.

 

2.4       It does not meet the minimum size requirements relating to the balconies and courtyards.

 

2.5       It would not provide sufficient storages for the proposed dwellings.

 

2.6       It would not meet the bi-cycle parking provisions.

 

3.         The proposed design has not addressed the site constrains and would not provide a satisfactory level of amenity to its future residents.

 

Particulars

 

3.1       50% of dwellings within the development would not receive sufficient sunlight in winter.

 

3.2       There are 50% of the dwellings would not have natural cross ventilation.

 

3.3       Too many dwellings are single south aspects.

 

3.4       The landscaping garden area is not accessible by people with a disability.

 

3.5       The proposed building would be overshadowed by the nearby buildings.

 

3.6       The shadows of the adjoining buildings to the north and east are not shown on the shadow diagrams submitted with the development application. 

 

4.         The proposed development would create adverse impacts to the nearby dwellings in the complex.

 

 

Particulars

 

4.1       The proposed building is located too close to the residential flat and multi dwelling housing buildings in the vicinity.

 

4.2       It would create visual impact to the neighbours.

 

4.3       The balconies on the upper level dwellings on the north elevation would create over looking impact to the dwellings in a residential flat building located to the north of the site.

 

4.4       The proposed development would change the landscaping setting of the existing residential complex.

 

5.         The proposed development would create adverse impact to the adjoining reserve located within E2- Environmental Conservation.

 

Particulars

 

5.1       The proposed building and the driveway are located within private bushland and is located too close to the Hartman Hill Reserve located within environmental conservation area.

 

5.2       The proposed development is likely to impact the stability of Hartman Hill and may cause landslip. 

 

5.3       The proposed development would not create a link between the Linley Cove development and Hartman Hill reserve. 

 

6.         The proposed landscaping concept design is not acceptable.

 

Particulars

 

6.1       The application requires the removal of 5 nature native trees and they are much taller than the proposed replacement species.

 

6.2       The habitat value of these tall native trees is magnified by their proximity to the creek and reserve.

 

6.3       The tree numbering on the Arborist report and landscape plan and the tree identification is not consistent.

 

6.4       The building is sited within 0.5m of the Toe of Bank / Water Edge of Tannery Creek and would not have sufficient setback for tree planting to establish a buffer and visual screen from the reserve and the creek.

 

7.         The proposed development does not meet the stormwater management provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

Particulars

 

7.1       The site has flood affectation from Tannery Creek along the southern boundary. The applicant has not provided a flood study in accordance with Part O of the DCP.

 

8.         The proposed development does not meet with the provisions of Building Code of Australia.

Particulars

8.1       The extended travel distance is more than 20m to an exit from Unit 01 and common areas on Level -01.

 

8.2       The extended travel distance is more than 20m to an exit from lift lobby on Ground Level.

 

8.3       The extended travel distance is more than 6m from Units 12 and 13 to an exit.

 

9.         There is insufficient information submitted for environmental health assessment of the proposed development.  The following information is required:

Particulars

 

9.1       Desk top review – contamination assessment.

 

9.2       Construction noise management plan.

 

9.3       Waste management details are to show – sweep paths of waste truck, floor to ceiling height of basement collection point, clear of obstructions. Plans are to clearly show the location of waste bins (MGB’s – 240 L) and 300mm separation between each bin. Calculation of number of MGB’s is to include the requirement for Red (general waste), Yellow (mixed containers), Blue (paper) and a Green (green waste) lidded bins. In addition the communal bulky good storage area (35 square metres) is to be clearly shown with the designated width of the doorway as per part Q of the DCP.

 

9.4       Waste management details are to be shown on the plans and should include the location of the chute, carousel and compactor – dimensions are to be clearly shown, including locations of where waste will be collected by the waste collection vehicle, location of bollards if any and any other obstructions.

 

10.       The design of the driveway and car park does not meet the relevant standards.

 

Particulars

 

10.1     The proposed car park design does not comply with AS 2890.1. The minimum width for the two – way ramp is not adequate. The minimum width should be 5.5m.

 

10.2     It is a requirement that the waste collection vehicle must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and waste collection must be on site and not off-street.

 

10.3     The Construction Traffic Management Plan is required for the assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plans

5 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Development History-25 Best St

8 Pages

 

 

                     


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 23 August 2016

29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA16/54-01 - 44567/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      May Li 

 

 

Property:                       29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                          DA 54/2016

 

Date Lodged:                21 April 2016

 

Cost of Work:               $2,991,265.00

 

Owner:                          G Burton

 

Applicant:                      Valero Holdings Pty Ltd

 

                                                                                                                      

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Redevelopment of the site for the construction of a residential flat building comprising 17 dwellings with basement car park for 31 cars

 

ZONE

R4 – High Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 2 & 7a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours:

10-16 Epping Road, 9-17, 4-22 Birdwood Avenue, 23-27 Finlayson Street and 1 Cox’s Lane, Lane Cove.

 

All Councillors, progress Association and other Interest Groups. 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The development application is referred to Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for consideration and determination given the proposed development significantly exceeds the Floor Space Ratio standard of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP) and has significant non-compliances under the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control (DCP).  The bulk and scale of the proposed building is out of character with the existing and emerging built form.

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal involves redevelopment of the site for a residential flat building development comprising 17 dwellings with basement car park for 31 cars. 

 

The site has an area of 598m2 which is well below the minimum required site area of 1500m2 for a residential flat building development in accordance with Lane Cove DCP.  The site is also affected by a stormwater easement towards the southern boundary. 

 

The design of the proposed development does not meet the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard of Lane Cove LEP 2009 and has significant non-compliances under the provisions of Lane Cove DCP relating to amenity, setbacks, landscaping, car parking, stormwater management and waste management.

 

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) apply to the proposed development. The aims of the SEPP 65 are to improve design qualities of residential apartment developments in New South Wales.  The SEPP 65 assessment reveals that the proposed development fails to meet 8 out the 9 design principles of SEPP 65 and the proposed development would not meet the aims of SEPP65 for a good design quality residential flat building. 

 

The proposal would result in an over development of the site and create unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of the adjoining residential flat building at 27 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove.  The proposal does not meet the aims of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons indicated in the report.  Site Plan and Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located at the intersection on Birdwood Avenue and Cox’s Lane within Lane Cove.  An existing two storey building on the site is currently used for squash courts.  The footprint of the existing building occupies approximately 65% of the site area.

 

Surrounding development comprises dwelling houses and residential flat building developments.

 

A part 2 storey and part 3 storey residential flat building is located at 10 Epping Road and 27 Birdwood Avenue adjoining the subject site to the east and the north. 

 

A multi dwelling housing development is located to the west of Cox’s Lane, Lane Cove.

 

The area within the vicinity of the site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential.

 

All dwelling houses along the southern side of Birdwood Avenue are earmarked for demolition.  A development (DA 125/2015) has been granted consent on 25 February 2016 for a residential flat building complex at 2-22 Birdwood Avenue and 11-15 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks partial demolition of the existing squash court building and construction of a 6 storey residential flat building comprising 17 dwellings with basement car park for 31 cars.

 

The distribution of the proposed dwellings is summarised in the following table:


 

 

Number of dwellings

Percentage

1 Bedroom

6

35%

2 Bedroom

9

53%

3 Bedroom

2

12%

Total

17

100%

 

The application states the proposal would retain the northern wall and part of the western, southern and eastern walls of the existing squash courts building.  Given the proposal involves excavation of the site for the construction of three levels of basement car park with nil setbacks to the east, north and the western boundaries of the site, it is considered that the retention of the existing external building walls without proper footings is not feasible.  The proposal is likely to necessitate the demolition of all existing structures on the site for the construction of a new residential flat building.  The proposed development should be considered as a total demolition and construction and not have regard to the existing structure.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

It is noted that the current use of the site as squash courts is not a permissible use within R4 – High Density Residential zone.  However, the proposed residential flat building is a permissible use within R4 – High Density Residential zone in accordance with Lane Cove LEP 2009.  The existing use right provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are not applicable to the proposed development which is permissible within the zone of the site. 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R4 – High Density Residential

 

Site Area:       598m²

 

LEP 2009

Provision

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

Zone

R4 – High Density Residential zone

Residential Flat Building development

Yes

Max permitted FSR

1.7:1

2.17:1

(1.88:1 stated in the application)

 

No

Clause 4.6 objection was lodged with the DA and is not supported as the exception to the development standard would not achieve any better planning outcome and would adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

Max permitted building height

18m

17.4m

 

Yes

 

It is noted that developments permitted with consent in R 4 – High Density Residential zone include not only multi unit residential dwellings but also; bed and breakfast accommodation; boarding houses; child care centres; community facilities; exhibition homes; group homes; home businesses; home industries; hotel or motel accommodation; multi dwelling housing; neighbourhood shops; places of public worship; residential flat buildings; respite day care centres; roads; Shop top housing; and signage in accordance with Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan

 

Part B – General Controls

 

The DCP provides guidance to achieve acceptable amenity internal and external to a development site.

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

B3 – Site Amalgamation & Isolated site

To encourage site consolidation of allotments for development in order to promote the desired urban design outcomes and the efficient use of land and to avoid the creation of isolated sites.

 

 

The site is an isolated site with an area of 598.1m2

The site has two street frontages on Birdwood Avenue and Cox’s’ Lane.

 

A Residential flat building is located to the east and to the north of the site. 

 

No. The site area is well below the minimum lot size of 1500m2 for a residential flat building development.

 

It is noted that the site adjoins a residential flat building to its north and east.  There are no site amalgamation opportunities.

 

The site does not meet the minimum site area for a residential flat building development.  However, there are no minimum lot size requirements for other permitted developments within R4 zone except for multi dwelling housing and residential flat building developments.

 

B8 – Safety & security

 

Ground floor dwellings have direct access or entries from the street and at least one habitable room with windows facing the street

The proposed ground level would be used for a car park. The building has pedestrian access from Birdwood Avenue.  Most windows facing Birdwood Avenue are living room windows

Yes.  However, the safety and security would be compromised given there is no dwellings are located on the Ground level.

 


 

Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposed

Complies/ Comment

3.2 Density

Minimum site area 1500m2

Area of site approx 598.1m2

 

No.  The development does not provide adequate setbacks for landscaping and would have adverse impacts on the streetscape. 

3.3 Building depth

18m exclusive of any balcony

 

12.0m

Yes

3.4 Building width

40m maximum fronting the street

30m fronting Cox’s Lane

Yes

 

3.5 Setback

Front

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side

 

 

 

Rear

 

Minimum 7.5m to Birdwood Avenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6m up to 4 storeys to Cox’s’ Lane and 27 Birdwood Lane

 

 

9m for 5-8 storeys to 10 Epping Road

 

 

 

 

3.8m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nil to the eastern & western boundaries

 

 

1.0m to the northern boundary

 

No.  The proposed development with insufficient front setback would not provide a sufficient landscaping transition between public and private space.

 

 

No. 

 

 

 

No. The proposed development has limited landscaping between the adjoining residential developments.  It would not provide adequate visual and acoustic privacy for the existing and new residents. 

3.5.3 Parking Podium Height

 

Height adjoining front boundary

 

Height adjoining east boundary

 

Height adjoining west boundary

 

Height adjoining rear boundary

 

 

 

 

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

 

 

2.8m

 

2.8m

 

2.5m

 

1.8m

 

 

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

The proposal car park podium above the ground would not provide a desired spatial transition between public and private space.

 

 

3.6 Building separation within development

9m between non-habitable rooms and blank wall to any other window, well or balcony for 5-8 storeys up to 25m

 

There is only one building proposed on the site.

N/A

3.8 Excavation

Encroachments into setback zone of up to 2m may be permitted for underground parking structures no more than 1.2m above ground level.

 

Basement to the front boundary: 10.4m

 

Stairs & lift tower to the eastern boundary: Nil.

Basement to the rear boundary: Nil

 

Basement to the western boundary: Nil

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

No

 

 

No

 

The proposed development would not meet the objectives of the DCP and would not minimize the impact of excavation on surrounding properties, and would not achieve reasonable landscaping within developments.

 

3.9 Design of roof top area

Detailed landscape plan required

 

Planters are proposed for the roof top terrace proposed on L5

 

Yes.  Planters are proposed on the roof top communal space. 

3.10 Size & mix of dwellings

Minimum 40m2

 

A minimum of 10%of mixture of 1, 2, & 3 bedroom dwellings should be provided.

Minimum 52m2 (Unit 03, 07, & 11).

 

The proposal comprises 6X1 bedroom dwellings (35%)

 

9X2 bedroom dwellings (53%)

 

2x3 bedroom dwellings (12%).

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

3.11 Private open space

Primary balconies - 10m2 with minimum depth 2m

 

Primary terrace - 16m2 with minimum depth 4m

 

Minimum sizes of balconies are 9m2 (6 units, 35%)

 

N/A

No

The objective to provide adequate outdoor open space has not been met.

 

 

N/A

3.12 Ceiling heights

 

Minimum 2.7m

2.7m

Yes

 

3.13 Storage

 

6m3 per 1 bedroom dwelling

6 x 1 bedroom dwelling require 36m3 (6x6)

 

8m3 per 2 bedroom dwelling

9x2 bedroom dwellings require 72m3 (9x8).

10m3 per 3 bedroom dwelling

2x 3 bedroom dwellings require 20m3 (2x10).

Total = 128m3

 

50% of the storage volume within the dwelling

 

24 storage spaces are proposed within the car park levels to meet 50% of the storage requirement.

Internal storage areas are proposed within the dwellings.  The internal space of the dwellings would be sufficient to meet the requirements of storage volume.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

3.14 Solar access

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of 70% of the units to receive 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 21 June

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum 10% dwellings with a southerly aspect

 

65% of dwellings would receive more than 3 hours solar access (11 dwellings)

 

The proposed building would reduce the solar access to the dwellings in the adjoining at 27 Birdwood Avenue.

 

No dwellings have a southerly aspect

 

No

The proposal would not meet the objectives to provide reasonable amenity to habitable rooms and recreational areas of new and existing developments. 

 

 

Yes

 

3.15 Natural ventilation

 

Minimum 60% of the dwellings should have cross ventilation.

 

 

Minimum 25% of kitchens have access to natural ventilation

 

100% of dwellings would have cross ventilation (all 17 dwellings)

 

31% of kitchen would access to natural ventilation (14 dwellings)

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.16 Visual privacy

 

Provide visual privacy between the adjoining properties

Balconies either directly face Cox’s’ Lane or face to the driveway of the flat building to the north.  However, the walkways face the windows on the west elevation of the adjoining building.

 

No.  The proposal would not meet the objectives which require providing reasonable levels of visual privacy between the proposed development and the adjoining residential flat building.

 

3.17 Communal open space

Minimum 25%

15% proposed on L.05

No.  The main communal open space on the roof terrace would not provide passive and active recreational opportunities to its future residents. 

 

3.18 Landscaped area

25% provided at ground level and up to15% provided on structures (40% required)

13%% deep soil landscaped area proposed on the ground level

 

9% on the structure

 

Total landscaping proposed 22%

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

No

 

The proposal would not meet the landscaping objectives which require provision of significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees and providing continuous vegetation corridors and it would not conserve and create a building in a landscaped setting.

 

3.19 Planting on structures

For large trees: 10mx10mx1.3m

 

For medium trees: 6mx6mx1m

 

For small trees: 3.5mx3.5mx0.8m

 

For shrubs: min soil depths 0.5m- 0.6m

 

For ground cover: min soil depths 0.3m – 0.4m

 

For turf: 0.1m- 0.3m

Planters with widths vary between 1.2m -1.5m and a depth of 1m are proposed on the roof top communal open space

No. The space of the planters is only suitable for growing shrubs. 

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

 

Provisions

Requirement

Proposed

Compliance

Adaptable housing

Minimum 20%

4 (17x20%) adaptable dwellings required

4 adaptable dwellings are proposed

Yes.  However, only 3 adaptable dwellings are shown on plans. 

Car parking

1 accessible car space per adaptable dwelling

4 accessible car spaces required

4 accessible car spaces proposed

Yes

 

Part R Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Provisions

Requirement

Proposed

Compliance

number of car parking, motorcycle and bicycle spaces

 

6 x 1 bedroom dwellings = 6 spaces (6x1)

 

9 x 2 bedroom dwellings = 13.5 spaces (9x1.5)

 

2x3 bedroom dwellings = 4 spaces (2x2)

 

Visitor 1 per 4 dwellings = 4.25 spaces (17/4)

 

Required car parking spaces: 28

 

 

1 motor cycle space per 15 car spaces.

2 spaces required (28/1 5)

 

1 bike locker per 10 dwellings

2 bike lockers required (17/10)

 

1 Bike rail per 12 dwellings

1 rails required (17/12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 car spaces are proposed

 

 

 

1 Motor cycle spaces proposed on B01

 

 

 

No bike lockers are proposed in the basement car park

 

 

7 bike rails proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.  However, the design of the car parking spaces fails to meet AS2890.1

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The proposed site is a flood controlled lot and is burden by an existing Council stormwater pipe line in accordance with Council’s affectation map shown below.

Council is unlikely to consent to any structures to be built over a Council piped drainage system or easement. Council is unlikely to consider encasing of the drainage pipe in concrete.

 

A flood study needs to be prepared in order to support the application and to address the existing site constraint in relation to overland flow and flooding.

 

The development engineer does not support the proposed development on the bases of the non compliances with Part O – Stormwater Management of Lane Cove DCP.

 

Manager Environmental Health Services

 

The Manager Environmental Health has indicated that the applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate that the proposal would meet the provisions of Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation of the DCP and raises the following concerns:

 

Waste Management:

 

·         Insufficient room for the bin storage and a 20m2 bulky goods room in accordance with the DCP – see Part Q.

 

·         Statement of Environmental Effects has not addressed waste management and how recycling materials would be transferred from each of the floors of the building to the basement and how these MGBs will be presented for collection.

 

·         Sweep paths are to be provided for an SRV Waste Truck and demonstrate that an SRV can enter and exit the premises in a forward direction. In addition 2.6m clearance free of aerial obstructions within the truck path in the basement is to be clearly shown (ideally greater than 2.7m floor to ceiling height can be provided to overcome any variations in slab height) to allow for the SRV Waste Truck for collection.

 

Contaminated Land

 

·         A Preliminary contamination report – desk top review is to be submitted in accordance with the provisions of SEPP55 (to be determined prior to DA )

 

Environmental Management – Construction Phase

 

·         A Construction Noise Management Plan is to be submitted (to be determined prior to DA )

 

Traffic Management

 

Council’s traffic engineer has assessed the proposal and raised the following concerns:

 

1.    The proposed car park design does not meet the minimum width of parking spaces required by AS 2890.1.  If there are any obstructions such as column or wall, 300mm needs to be added to the width of the space.  Additional widening is also required if there is a wall at the side of the last car space.

2.    Accessible car spaces in the car park are not adequately line-marked in accordance with AS2890.6 - 2009.

3.    The waste collection vehicle would require entering the site in a forward direction and reversing out. It is a DCP requirement that the waste collection vehicle must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.  The design of the car park does not meet the DCP provision. 

Officer’s comment:

 

The development as proposed fails to comply with a number of Australian Standards as well as Council’s waste requirements.

 

Landscape Architect

 

Council’s Landscape architect has reviewed the proposed development and has advised that the Landscape plan is unclear and has insufficient detail relating to native indigenous plants, and canopy trees. The SEE indicates planting on slab along the Cox’s Lane frontage but not shown on the landscape plan.

 

There is no opportunity for deep soil planting to enable tall narrow shrubs or trees to break up the building bulk along the western boundary. There is insufficient street verge planting available to plant a replacement for the street tree (Jacaranda) proposed to be removed. The proposed exotic canopy trees to be planted in the deep soil areas are too small when compared with the scale and bulk of the tall proposed building.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

Given the small site area landscaping opportunities are limited and would compromise the ability to provide any useable communal open space or screening of this small site.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

No objections were raised relating to the removal of street trees.

 

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

 

The proposed residential flat building development is permissible within the zoning of the site.  However, the design does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the non-complies to the aims are discussed below:

 

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed development is located on an isolated site and fails to meet a number of fundamental prescriptive measures.

 

It is important that the proposed development be guided by the objectives of the LEP. The proposed development does not adequately achieve the objectives the DCP and the principles of SEPP 65. The proposed walkways on L2 to L5 directly face to the windows of the adjoining residential flat building and this design would create over looking impacts to the adjoining dwellings. 

 

The communal open space proposed on the roof top terrace would potentially over look living areas of the adjoining dwellings to the east.  This would adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents.  8 submissions were received from the residents of the adjoining buildings at 10 Epping Road and 27 Birdwood Avenue.

 

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

(i)         accords with urban consolidation principles, and

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

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

 

Comment:

 

The proposed building would not meet the amenity or setback provisions of the DCP.  The footprint of the proposed building is located too close to the existing adjacent residential dwellings.  The building design is not compatible with the existing and emerging character of the locality and is not sympathetic or harmonious to the adjacent residential developments.

 

The proposed development does not meet the aims of (b) and (c) in Clause 1.2 – Aims of Plan of Lane Cove LEP 2009.

 

Clause 4.4- Floor Space Ratio

 

The maximum permitted FSR for the site is 1.7:1 allowing for a potential Gross Floor Area of 1016.77m2.

 

The application states that the proposed development has a GFA of 1124m2, equating to an FSR of 1.88:1. However, the assessment of the plans submitted by the applicant reveal that the proposed GFA is approximately 1298.6m2, representing an FSR of 2.17:1.  Given the site is isolated and constrained by an easement and adjoining developments, any proposal on this site must have regard to such and take care to achieve the design objectives of the LEP. 

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards

 

The applicant has lodged an objection to the FSR standard of the LEP.  The request for the exception to the FSR standard is discussed below.

 

Clause 4.6 of the LEP requires a written request from the applicant for a variation to a development standard. An exception to the development standard may be considered if the request demonstrates:

 

·         that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary; and

·         there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

 

The applicant has lodged a written statement for the exception of the FSR standard of the LEP (AT3). The statement states the non-compliances with the setback provisions of the Lane Cove DCP results in the development exceeding the FSR standard of the LEP.  The compliances with the setback provisions of the DCP would render the site undevelopable.  The proposed development would have the following setbacks:

 

·         Nil setback to Cox’s Lane (west);

·         Nil to 1.4m setback to the rear boundary (north)

·         Nil setback to the east

·         3.7m to 5.3m setback to the front (South on Birdwood Avenue).

 

The site is illustrated below in Figure 1.

 

COXS LANE

 
Text Box: EPPING ROAD

BIRDWOOD AVENUE

 

Existing Building Structure

 
 

 

Figure 1: 29 Birdwood Avenue

 

The applicant states that the proposed non-compliances with the setbacks provisions of the DCP would result in the FSR exceeding the development standard of the LEP, however, it would achieve a better planning outcome for the site.

 

The applicant states that the building design would provide an important corner statement when viewed from Birdwood Avenue and Cox’s Lane that reinforces the built form outcomes.  At the same time, the proposed development would meet the building height standard of the LEP and provide a relatively narrow (12 metre wide) depth at the upper levels of the building, thereby minimising the visual bulk.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

As figure 1 demonstrates the site cannot be considered to make an important corner statement, neither is it a gateway site nor a zone interface.  Council’s DCP does not identify a need in this particular area along Epping Road for a corner statement.  The site is located in a laneway behind an existing block of units with no direct frontage to a major road (Epping Road) or a zone interface. The site is an isolated site in which the design, FSR and location of the site is informed by both internal and external site impacts and outcomes.  The proposal is an over development given the limited site area and impacts on the street and adjoining land uses.

 

The applicant states that a zero setback is proposed to Cox’s Lane to “provide a highly articulated facade that will significantly improve on the existing presentation of the building to the street and improve the extent of casual surveillance of the public domain”.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The statement does not justify that if the proposed building meets the setback requirement to Cox’s Lane, the GFA would be smaller and would achieve the same outcome that the applicant is seeking.

 

This argument does not adequately address or justify why compliance with the current standards is ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’.  It fails to demonstrate how the applicant’s proposed increase in FSR with reduced setbacks would result in a better planning outcome.

 

Given that the planning intent of the LEP, DCP and SEPP 65 provisions is to ensure that the scale is consistent and appropriate to the context envisaged by zoning, height and FSR, the clause 4.6 variation statement fails to demonstrate a better planning outcome.  It is hard to see how having a zero setback to Cox’s Lane would result in a better planning outcome than a compliant setback.

 

One of the reasons for the FSR increase is as a result of having a zero setback to Cox’s Lane.  If a greater setback is proposed, the development would not only achieve the same planning outcome that the applicant seeks but also reduce the FSR.  Therefore, the clause 4.6 variation and accompanying plans do not demonstrate how the proposed development would result in a better planning outcome.

 

As such, the proposed development with non-compliance with the FSR standard and zero setback to Cox’s Lane are not justified.

 

The request for the exception to the FSR standard and reduced setbacks cannot be supported.

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

SEPP 65 specifies requirements in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for visual privacy, solar and daylight access, common circulation and spaces, apartment size and layout, ceiling heights, private open space and balconies, natural ventilation, storage.

 

Council’s SEPP 65 expert has assessed the proposed design in accordance with the Apartment Design Guide and advised that the proposed design fails to meet the objectives of the principles of good design. 

 

The proposed reduced setbacks to Cox’s’ Lane and Birdwood Avenue would be out of context and not in accordance with the desired future neighbourhood character. Reduced setbacks and excess FSR creates a built form and scale which is in excess and dominant and not in accordance with of the desired future character.

 

The proposed development would provide a blank wall towards the northern side and not take advantage of the northern aspect solar access. The core is separated from the dwellings with an open corridor which would expose the residents to all weather conditions. Cross ventilation of unit 02, 03 and 04 (and the repeated units at the upper levels) is reliant upon openings within the open corridor which is not considered adequate or effective. Given the reduced setbacks the proposed development provides for very little opportunity for deep soil planting. The amenity of the apartments with respect to solar access and cross ventilation and internal amenity could be improved by a modest development proposal and better design. The ground floor which is at the same level of the road, has car parking and no apartment windows which would not provide for any passive surveillance along the two roads. The building form is dictated by the existing and retained blank walls and provides limited scope of building articulation and modulation.  

 

Refer to the SEPP 65 assessment report in the attachment (AT3).

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

 

Section 94 Contribution

 

In accordance with Lane Cove Section 94 Plan, contribution would be required for the services to be provided for the additional population if development consent is granted. 

 

The S94 contribution is calculated based on the dwelling mix of the proposed development in the following manner:

 

Dwelling

Average Occupancy Rate

Contribution Per Person

(2016-2017)

Contribution Per Dwelling

Number of Dwellings

Contribution

1 Bedroom

1.2

$10,000.00

$12,000.00

6

$72,000.00

2 Bedroom

1.9

$10,000.00

$19,000.00

9

$171,000.00

3 Bedroom

2.4

$10,000.00

$20,000 (Cap)

2

$40,000.00

Total

 

 

 

17

$283,000.00

 

The required S94 Contribution for the additional population living on the site is therefore $283,000.00 if consent is granted for the development. 

 

A credit for the GFA of the existing squash court building would be given in the calculation of the S94 contribution.

 

However the credit has not been calculated at this stage given that the development proposal is not supported.

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with.  Each of the departure has been discussed in the compliance table in the previous sections of the report. 

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

 

The development proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy between 27 April 2016 and 11 May 2016.  8 submissions were received in response to the notification of the development proposal.  All submissions raised objections to the proposed development.  Concerns raised in the submissions are discussed below.

 

·         The development exceeds the FSR standard and should be reduced to comply with Council requirements. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed FSR is 2.17:1 and exceeds the LEP development standard.  The applicant’s written request for the exception to the development standard is considered not well founded and is not supported.  An FSR that takes account of careful site analysis and minimizes impacts should be considered. 

 

·         The development would cause additional traffic movements in the area and impact the already congested roads during and after construction.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

It is agreed that the proposed development would increase on site parking demands and traffic movements to the site.  The building proposal fails to meet the traffic management provisions of the DCP with regard to on site traffic management. 

 

·         The excavation for the construction of the basement car park is very close to the adjoining residential flat building at 10 Epping Road and 27 Birdwood Avenue. 

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed building contains 3 underground levels of car parking.  The basement car park has nil setbacks to its eastern boundary adjoining a residential flat building on 27 Birdwood Avenue.  A standard condition requiring dilapidation reports of adjoining buildings in its close proximity of the proposed excavation would need to be included in the development consent if the development proceeds.

 

·         The proposed development would create over looking and over shadowing impacts to the adjoining residential flat building.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed development would reduce the solar access to the windows on the west elevation of the residential flat building at 27 Birdwood Avenue. 

 

The walkways on each level of the proposed 5 storey building would have over looking impacts to the dwelling windows of 27 Birdwood Avenue.  The building separation between the proposed building and the residential flat building on 27 Birdwood Avenue is less than 12m which is insufficient to comply with the building separation provisions of ADG and Lane Cove DCP. No attempt has been made to resolve the non compliance.

 

·         The development of this size and nature is not appropriate for a site of this size and location and will adversely impact on the neighbours, the amenity of the area and traffic congestion.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

It is agreed that the bulk and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate to the building character of the surrounding building environment. 

 

All submissions have been taken into consideration during the assessment process.  The submissions raise valid objections to the proposed development and are supported. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C have been taken into consideration during the assessment process. 

 

The proposed development fails to comply with the FSR standard of Lane Cove LEP.  A request for the variation to the FSR standard has been considered and is not supported.

 

The proposed development does not meet the provisions of the DCP relating to the amenity, building separation, landscaping, setbacks, car parking, stormwater management and waste management requirements. 

 

The proposed building is located too close to an existing residential flat building on the adjoining properties and would create adverse visual amenity and overshadowing impacts to its neighbours.

 

Adequate information has not been submitted particularly in relation to a desk top review, construction management plan, landscaping, stormwater and the waste management design details for a proper assessment. Council is unlikely to consent to any structure being built over a Council piped drainage system or easement. Council is unlikely to consider encasing of the drainage pipe in concrete.

 

The building design does not meet the provisions of Building Code of Australia in regard to the sanitary facility for employees located on level B.01 fails to meet provisions in accordance with Table F2.4 (a) of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1-2009.

 

The driveway and car park designs fail to meet AS 2890.1 and AS2890.6.

 

The site is small, isolated and constrained.  A careful and comprehensive site analysis may find that a development proposal could be supported that considers the physical constraints while seeking to achieve the objectives of the LEP, DCP and ADG albeit at a modest scale and FSR. 

 

The current proposal represents an over development of an isolated site that would result in a poor planning outcome for the future residents of the site and the adjoining land uses.  The overall design of the proposed development does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the application in its format is not supported. 

 

The application is recommended for refusal.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA 54/2016 for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a residential flat building comprising 17 dwellings with basement car park for 31 cars on Lot B, DP 413172 and known as 29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development does not meet the aims of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

Particulars

 

 

1.1       The proposed development does not meet the aims stated in Clause 1.2 (b) of the LEP 2009 as it would not preserve or improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land and the expectations of the community.

 

1.2       The proposed development does not meet the aims stated in Clause 1.2 (c) of the LEP 2009 as it would not provide a housing mix and density that would be compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and does not have a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

2.         The proposed design fails to meet the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010.

 

Particulars

 

2.1       The site area of 598m2 is less than the minimum required lot size of 1500m2 for a residential flat building development.

 

2.2       The proposed design does not meet the minimum 7.5m front setback provision of the DCP.

 

2.3       It does not meet the minimum 6m side and rear setback provisions of the DCP.

 

2.4       It fails to meet the building separation provisions.

 

2.5       The excavation is too close to the site boundaries. 

 

2.6       It does not meet the minimum size requirements relating to the balconies and courtyards.

 

2.7       The dwellings would not receive sufficient solar access.

 

2.8       It fails to meet the landscaping provisions.

 

2.9       It fails to meet the communal open space provisions.

 

2.10          It fails to meet the stormwater management requirements.

 

2.11          It fails to meet the waste management requirements.

 

2.12     It would not meet the motor bike parking provisions and fails to meet the design standard AS2890.1 and AS2890.6.

 

3.         The proposed design has not addressed the site constraints and would not provide a satisfactory level of amenity to its future residents.

 

Particulars

 

3.1       There are only 65% of dwellings in the development that would receive sufficient sunlight in winter.

 

3.2       There are insufficient weather protection provisions and amenity outcome for the proposed open walkways.

 

3.3       The proposed building would create an unacceptable shadowing impact to an adjoining residential building.

 

4.         The proposed development does not meet the objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

Particulars

 

4.1       The proposal does not meet the principle of context and neighbourhood character.

 

4.2       The proposal does not meet the built form and scale principle.

 

4.3       The proposal does not meet the density principle.

 

4.4       The proposal does not meet the sustainability principle.

 

4.5       The proposal does not meet the landscape principle.

 

4.6       The proposal does not meet the amenity principle.

 

4.7       The proposal does not meet the safety principle.

 

4.8       The proposal does not meet the aesthetics principle.

 

5.         The proposed landscaping concept design is not acceptable.

 

Particulars

 

5.1       There is insufficient deep soil zone for trees to be planted along the western boundary along the western boundary to break the building bulk.

 

5.2       The proposed exotic canopy trees to be planted in the deep soil areas are too small when compared with the scale and bulk of the tall proposed building.

 

5.3       The Landscape plan has insufficient detail, native indigenous plants, and canopy trees. The plan is unclear, for example, a dashed symbol is used for the proposed tree to be planted in the NE corner and the same dashed symbol is used for the street tree proposed for removal. The SEE discusses planting on slab along the Cox lane frontage yet this is not shown on the landscape plan.

 

6.         The proposed development does not meet the stormwater management provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan.

 

Particulars

 

6.1       Council will not approve any structures over a council piped drainage system or easement.

 

6.2       A flood study has not been prepared in order to support the application and to address the existing site constraints regarding overland flow and nuisance flooding.

 

7.         There is insufficient information submitted for environmental health assessment of the proposed development.  The following information is required:

Particulars

7.1       Desk top review – contamination assessment in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land.

 

7.2       Construction noise management plan.

 

7.3       Waste management details are to show – sweep paths of waste truck, floor to ceiling height of basement collection point, clear of obstructions. Plans are to clearly show the location of waste bins (MGB’s – 240 L) and 300mm separation between each bin. Calculation of number of MGB’s is to include the requirement for Red (general waste), Yellow (mixed containers), Blue (paper) and a Green (green waste) lidded bins. In addition the communal bulky good storage area (20 square metres) is to be clearly shown with the designated width of the doorway as per part Q of the DCP.

 

7.4       Architectural drawings are to show - waste management details are to be shown and shall include the location of the chute, carousel and compactor – dimensions are to be clearly shown, including locations of where waste will be collected by the waste vehicle, location of bollards if any and any other obstructions.

 

7.5       Engineering details to demonstrate the retention of the existing walls which would be above the proposed basement car park. 

 

8.         The design of the driveway and car park does not meet the relevant standards.

Particulars

 

8.1       The proposed car park design does not comply with AS 2890.1-2009.

 

8.2       The accessible car spaces in the car park are not adequately line marked in accordance with AS2890.6-2009.

 

8.3       Waste collection vehicles must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and waste collection must be on site.

 

8.4       The Construction Traffic Management Plan is required for the assessment.

 

8.5       Land acquisition will be required to facilitate an additional southbound lane in Cox’s Lane. The building should be set back 6m from the boundary of Cox’s Lane.

 

9.         Approval of development consent would not serve the public interests.

Particulars

9.1       The proposed building with nil setbacks to the western boundary would adversely impact adjoining land uses and Cox’s Lane generally.

 

9.2       Nearby residents of the adjoining site raised valid objections to the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Clause 4.6 Exception letter

8 Pages