Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

23 August 2016, 5:00pm

LC_WebBanner


Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel 23 August 2016

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                             Mr Trevor Bly, Chairman, Ms Kara Krason, Planning Expert, Mr David Johnson, Environmental Expert and Ms Mary Rawlings, Community Representative

 

ALSO PRESENT:                  Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager Development Assessment, Ms May Li, Senior Town Planner and Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:   Nil

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

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

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports

 

229/25 Best St, Lane Cove

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting of 23 August 2016 refuses development consent in relation to 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 parking provisions.

 

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 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  an adverse 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 mature 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.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

 

29 Birdwood Avenue, Lane Cove

 

DETERMINATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel at its meeting of 23 August 2016 refuses development consent in relation 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.

 

 

The decision of the panel was unanimous

 

********* END OF MINUTES *********