Logo Watermark






















Late Agenda

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting

6 February 2018, 5:00pm



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 Road, Lane Cove on Tuesday 6 February 2018 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 6 February 2018









public forum


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






Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Reports


2.       Supplementary Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville







Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Meeting 6 February 2018

Supplementary Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville



Subject:          Supplementary Report - 66 Arabella Street, Longueville    

Record No:    DA17/180-01 - 4811/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Stephens 




66 Arabella Street, Longueville

DA No:


Date Lodged:

23 November 2017

Cost of Work:



Lynette Jia Jun Li


H3 Architects


Reason for Supplementary Report


The applicant provided Council with a late submission (25/01/2017) in response to the objections raised to the development by surrounding neighbours. The late submission included amended plans that proposed to reduce the height of the lift overrun and relocate the garage 2.2m forward towards the front boundary. Due to the lateness of the submission the amended plans labeled Revision A have not been notified. It is generally considered that the proposed amendments would marginally decrease the degree of the impact upon adjoining properties.


The applicant’s response to the objections was received upon the completion of the assessment report, The applicants submission has addressed each objection individually. Each responses has been summarised below with comments provided.


Submission from the applicant received 25 January 2018


Response to issues raised by:


66A Arabella Street - Southern adjoining neighbour.


·    It is proposed that the garage is to be moved 2.2m closer to the street and that the outdoor patio area is to have a transparent pergola roof and glass wall on the southern side to allow light to reach the adjoining properties courtyard.


Comment: The proposal to relocate the garage would reduce the extent of overshadowing to the north face courtyard and to a portion of windows. The reduced prolongation of the garages roof towards the water would also result in a reduced impact to the water when viewed from 45 Arabella Street, although this impact would remain due to the insufficient side setback. The glass curtain wall would be required to be translucent to a minimum of 1.7m above finished floor level in order to maintain privacy to the adjoining property.


·    It has been demonstrated that the adjoining property meets the LCDCP provision for solar access.


Comment: It is agreed that the solar access provision of 3 hours is met, although contention is raised as to reasonableness, as the portion of the development causing the overshadowing is based upon the consideration of the DCP objectives for ancillary development.


·    Whilst the side setback does not comply, the LCDCP allows for a lesser setback for open carports that are less than 3m in height and produce no material amenity impacts. It is considered that the proposal retains sufficient solar access.

Comment: The consideration for a reduced setback should not be afforded in this case as the garage is enclosed along the southern side, has a height of 5.0m above existing ground level and results in overshadowing to the windows of habitable rooms. Whilst it is agreed that a degree of overshadowing is inevitable, the impact created is due to a number of non-compliances specific to the DCP’s ancillary development setback provision.


The contention raised by the insufficient setback proposed is not limited to overshadowing but also to the maintenance of a view corridor along the southern side of the property.


·    The proposed setback is consistent with the established pattern between similarly sited neighbouring developments being 66, 66A and 68 Arabella Street.


Comment: Of the three properties mentioned only the subject site has a garage or carport located along the southern boundary. The garages of 66A Arabella are located centrally on its site with a setback of approximately 2-3m to the southern boundary and appear single storey. The garage of 68 Arabella is located adjacent to an access handle and has no overshadowing impacts. The only similarity is that there is a garage; the context and location are different.


64 Arabella Street - Northern adjoining neighbour


The applicant has provided a response to each concern of the neighbour raised with respect to streetscape, impact of the garage, view loss, overshadowing and privacy.


Comment: Agree with the applicant that the objectors concerns in relation to streetscape of the garage, view loss, overshadowing, and bulk and massing of the garage do not raise contentions, although the concern regarding privacy is valid and has been addressed below.


·    It is acknowledged that the curtain wall of the stairwell may produce potential privacy impacts to the adjoining property. These impacts are considered minimal due to the large setback of the stairwell, being 2.13m and the use, being a stairwell it is considered to produce less activity and therefore impact in comparison to a living area. A condition of consent could be employed by Council to ameliorate the potential impact. It is also noted that the existing landscaping would continue to provide screening. 


Comment: Regardless of the setback or low use of the stairwell, the privacy concern raised is considered valid due to the direct overlooking that would likely occur to a large deck and main bedroom. The landscaping cannot be relied upon to gain visual privacy as it does not provide ongoing certainty. The height of the landscaping is limited such that no benefit would be derived to prevent overlooking from the proposed third storey.


Despite the privacy impact being a result of the proposed building design that incorporates a third storey and significant bulk and scale, if the Panel were to consider approving the application then an appropriate condition of consent should be included that would require fixed screening or translucent glass to be installed to the glass curtain wall of the stairwell.


45 Arabella Street - Western neighbour located opposite


·    The use of the term glimpses is accurate in the context of the view impact assessment accompanying the Development Application.


Comment: It is agreed that the view in question is considered a partial view. The view loss assessment made has taken this into consideration when quantifying the extent of view loss over the whole property.


·    The lift overrun could be reduced by 500mm which would increase the portion of view remaining, although the lift overruns location is not overly visible from 45 Arabella Street.


Comment: Reducing the lift overrun is more likely to reduce the view loss from the public domain in comparison to 45 Arabella Street. Due to the angle the view is gained at, the prolongation of the roof is more problematic for 45 Arabella Street than the height of the lift overrun. The contention remains that the breach of the LEP height standard to accommodate the third storey results in a loss of views from 45 Arabella Street.


·    The proposed garage would have a minor impact on the water glimpses to the right of the subject property when viewed from 45 Arabella Street. Although, the view is largely restricted by landscaping on the objectors property and Council Street Trees.


Comment: The contention relates to the proposed development which would result in a permanent loss of views due to its built form. Part J 2.2.4 of LCDCP provides for the pruning on Council Street Trees in order to preserve views which may be appropriate in this case. The objector has also previously undertaken pruning of trees on private land at their own cost to retain views. 


Summary Supporting Statement


·    It is considered that the proposed sitting of the additional floor space minimises the bulk and scale of the proposal as the building would be located on lower ground in turn minimising the height of the dwelling from the street and 45 Arabella Street.


Comment:  The proposed siting of the additional floor space results in excessive bulk and massing when viewed from the northern neighbour at 64 Arabella Street. Furthermore, the additional bulk and massing of the three storey stairwell results in additional overshadowing to 66A Arabella Street. There is also increased bulk and massing when viewed from the street that would block the highly valued public domain views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The views from 45 Arabella Street are also impacted by the increased height of the dwelling.


·    An alternative proposal could be to re-organise the distribution of floor space by bringing floor space westwards into the large front setback to where the site is flatter but sits at a higher RL. This design would result in a complying height for the development (as there is no dramatic topographical change), however the view impacts to the northern neighbours and streetscape would actually be greater than the current non-complying proposal.


Comment: The additional floor space is minimal and could readily be constructed to the west of the existing dwelling on what is a relatively level area with topography that is consistent with the adjoining property. A single storey or even two storey addition adequately setback from the front and side boundary is likely to be considered reasonable. It is difficult to see how the described alternative could result in a loss of views to the northern neighbour. The bulk and massing is unlikely to be imposing on the northern neighbours as it would be significantly setback from the side boundary, an appropriate height of one or two storeys and located at a similar relative level. The current proposal is considered to be significantly more imposing on the outlook of 64 Arabella Street considering it is located further down the site within the predominant outlook that is gained eastward towards the water at the rear of the properties.


Previous Approval


The existing dwelling house was approved in 1993. It is noted that at the time the applicant gave the following supporting statements:

·    That the dwelling had been shifted to the rear of the lot in order to retain views for 45 Arabella Street; and

·    That the roof profile has been designed to follow the cross fall of the site and keep within the 9.5m overall height limit.


It is also noted that the objector at 45 Arabella Street (same owner) raised concern at the time as to view loss. In their submission they indicated that they had no intention of objecting if the effect on their views was not unreasonable.


Comment: Whilst it is acknowledged that the application to be determined is to be assessed on its merits it is clear that the contentions raised remain unchanged as to those of the original application. The original design of the building responded to the topography of the site particularly in regards to the cross fall and the retention of a portion of the views from 45 Arabella Street. It is considered that view sharing has already occurred and that the proposed development would unjustly result in the further erosions of views.




The applicant’s submission and proposed amendments fail to address the contentions raised in the assessment report. Whilst there is merit in the minor changes proposed the overall impact of the development remains unreasonable given the departures from the development standards and controls applicable to the site that in turn result in unreasonable and detrimental impacts to the amenity of the public domain and surrounding properties.




1.   That the late submission and amended plans that propose to lower the height of the lift overrun by 500mm and reduce the front setback of the garage by 2.2m be considered by the Panel.


2.   That the nine contentions outlined in the recommendation of the assessment report stand with the exception of contention 7 which would be amended so as to read:


Ancillary Development


7. The proposed development should be refused as the garage would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.




a)   Clause 1.10.3 b) and g) provides:


b) Outbuildings shall not exceed one storey up to a maximum of 3.6m in height. The maximum external wall height is 2.4m.


g) Outbuildings are not to be located in view corridors and are not to be used as a dwelling.


b)   The proposed garage is two storeys and has a maximum height of 5.3m 5.0m with an external wall height to the southwestern side of 5.3m 5.0m.

c)   The bulk and massing of the garage would impact the amenity of the adjoining property at 66A Arabella Street as additional overshadowing would fall across habitable windows and a north facing courtyard. 

d)   The bulk and massing of the garage would impact the view corridor along the southwestern side of the subject site.


3.   That the recommendation for refusal of the proposed development stands.







Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division




There are no supporting documents for this report.