Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

16 September 2021,  

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Panel Members,

 

Notice is given of the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting, to be held by Zoom on Thursday 16 September 2021 commencing at 3pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

Craig - GM

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting Procedures

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) meeting is chaired by The Hon David Lloyd QC. The meetings and other procedures of the Panel will be undertaken in accordance with the Lane Cove Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Charter and any guidelines issued by the General Manager.

The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless the Panel resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

Members of the public may address the Panel for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons wishing to address the Panel must register prior to the meeting by contacting Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611. Speakers must address the Chair and speakers and Panel Members will not enter into general debate or ask questions during this forum. Where there are a large number of objectors with a common interest, the Panel may, in its absolute discretion, hear a representative of those persons.

Following the conclusion of the public forum the Panel will convene in closed session to conduct deliberations and make decisions. The Panel will announce each decision separately after deliberations on that item have concluded. Furthermore the Panel may close part of a meeting to the public in order to protect commercial information of a confidential nature.

Minutes of LCLPP meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Friday following the meeting. If you have any enquiries or wish to obtain information in relation to LCLPP, please contact Council’s Office Manager – Environmental Services on 9911 3611.

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are Webcast. Webcasting allows the community to view proceedings from a computer without the need to attend the meeting. The webcast will include vision and audio of members of the public that speak during the Public Forum. Please ensure while speaking to the Panel that you are respectful to other people and use appropriate language. Lane Cove Council accepts no liability for any defamatory or offensive remarks made during the course of these meetings.

The audio from these meetings is also recorded for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of the minutes and the recordings are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 16 September 2021

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.

 

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

1.      151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove.............................................. 5

 

2.      1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue.......................................... 41

 

 

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 16 September 2021

151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove     

Record No:    DA21/66-01 - 50977/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Greg Samardzic 

 

 

 

Property:

151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

DA No:

DA 66/2021

Date Lodged:

7 June 2021

Cost of Work:

$16,115.00

Owner:

Lane Cove Council

Applicant:                       

Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Electronic LED pylon sign to replace the existing static pylon sign at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club

Zone

RE1 Public Recreation

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 10b

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council’s policy and eight separate

Submissions received          

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The proposal is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as the proposed pylon sign is located on Council owned land.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal is for the formalised use of a maximum 4.5m high electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED) pylon sign to replace an existing pylon sign at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club. The proposed pylon sign is generally compliant with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 64 – Advertising and Signage, Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009 and with the controls of Lane Cove Development Control Plan (LCDCP) Part N – Signage and Advertising. The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and eight separate submissions were received raising concerns with the adverse impact that the LED component of the sign would have on the surrounding residential amenity.

 

The proposal as submitted would involve for a reasonable signage outcome which is consistent with the existing use of the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreational Club subject to relevant signage control measures being in place to minimise any potential adverse impacts onto surrounding residents. Such controls would include that illumination levels are to comply with DCP luminance requirements and that the LED sign only operates between 7am – 6pm and 7am – 7pm during daylight saving times. The subject Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The proposed development would satisfy the operational needs of the club and would continue to maintain relevant amenity objectives to surrounding developments. The Development Application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent to ensure the sign operates in a manner that minimise any significant adverse impacts onto surrounding residential properties.

 

SITE

 

Property

Lot and DP Nos. associated with the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Clubs as follows:

Lot 1 DP 908798 – where the proposed sign is located

Lot 2 DP 504184

Lot 1B DP 413234

Lot 3 DP 515130

Lot 10B DP 413990

Lot 4 DP 378219

Lot 1 DP 501866

Lot 4 DP 349836

Lot X DP 381440

Area

Lot 1 DP 908798 – where the sign is located - 5877.05m2

Site location

The subject site is located on the north western side of Burns Bay Road and has a rear frontage with Centennial Avenue – proposed site is located along the Burns Bay Road frontage

Existing improvements

A two storey brick building used as a bowling and recreational club with bowling greens at the rear with associated car parking

Shape

Lot 1 DP 908798 – where the sign is located - rectangular  

Dimensions

Lot 1 DP 908798 – where the sign is located - Width – 55.35m                                      Depth – 146.43m

Adjoining/ surrounding properties

Predominantly residential flat building developments including a mix of residential and commercial developments

 

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

No previous approvals are relevant to the subject Development Application. The proposed sign has already been erected back in August 2020 and the LED component of the sign has been switched off subject to determination of the subject application. The justification as to why the sign was erected in place of the existing pylon sign which had been in place for years is that it was for replacement purposes to modernise the sign with clearer club messaging details in the context of Burns Bay Road and to obtain the relevant Federal Government funding grant. The subject Development Application was lodged due to complaints received from surrounding residents.

 

To enable a full and proper assessment of the subject application, Council requested the applicant to switch back on the LED sign. The LED sign was switched back in early August 2021.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the formalised use of a maximum 4.5m high electronic LED pylon sign to replace an existing pylon sign at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club. The previous and the new signs are shown below as follows:

 

 

The pylon sign is located at the southwestern corner of the subject site between the entry driveway and the club building along the Burns Bay Road frontage.

 

 

 

 

The dimensions of the LED sign component are 2.4m(w) x 1m(h) (visual display area = 2.4m²) located in between two static head boards one below and one above the LED sign with dimensions of 2.4m(w) x 0.140m(h) & 2.4m(w) x 0.8m(h) respectively. The static head boards contain the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club business identification sign/logo including the wording ‘Lane Cove Bowlo: the place to be’ and other club details. The LED panel would contain clearer and changing or updating club messaging details

 

 

The pylon sign is encased with concrete footings. It is proposed that the LED be switched off at sunset or at the latest at 7pm and the applicant advised this would be switched off earlier than the previous sign which was lit between 6pm – 9pm. The applicant stated that low intensity alpha numeric/lettering against a black backdrop would be used with no use of pictures or logos and that the Club would not use flickering or constant changing messages.

 

SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

 

The following assessment is provided against the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

 

(a)  The provisions of:-

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument (EPI):

 

Permissibility

 

The applicant has sought consent for a pylon sign with a LED panel to an existing bowling and recreational club within a RE1 Public Recreation zone on the subject site. Signage is a permissible land use within the RE1 zone under LCLEP 2009. Signage is defined as:

 

signage means any sign, notice device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:

(a)  an advertising structure,

(b)  a building identification sign,

(c)  a business identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities.

 

The proposal is permissible form of development within the subject zoning of the subject site. However, Clause 10 of SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage prohibits the display of an advertisement other than a business identification sign on land under an EPI in certain land use zones or descriptions such as recreation zones RE1 and RE2 (except for sponsorship advertising at sporting facilities). It is noted that the LED could contain some community or other general messages. Such advertising of community events or general messages and the like could be construed as general advertisements. The proposed size and dimensions of the panel is not considered to be a large advertising panel that are typically covered by the provisions of SEPP 64.

 

The new panel is an ancillary component to be installed on the pylon sign structure which would adequately identify the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club on a busy thoroughfare being Burns Bay Road which contains medium to high volumes of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular traffic. The proposal contains a certain orientation which addresses the operational requirements of the Club and would not significantly adversely impact upon any public recreational and residential areas but rather predominantly towards pedestrians or vehicular traffic. The proposed pylon sign proposes to replace the existing static pylon sign which had been erected and used for years on a continuous basis.

 

The proposed signage is substantially in the same location, orientation and would be similar scale to the sign being replaced. The proposed replacement of the previous sign would be satisfactory even with the addition of the LED panel as the illumination of the sign would be operated in a manner if appropriately controlled or managed without significant adverse impacts at the surrounding residential locations. The proposed replacement would not result in an over-intensification of use when compared to the previous sign. The cumulative impacts resulting from the replacement works are reasonable in this instance and can be appropriately dealt with conditions of consent to assist in any consent granted. 

 

SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

 

The relevant requirements of SEPP 64 are as follows:

 

Clause 3 1(a) Assessment

 

(1)  This Policy aims:

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

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

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

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

 

The proposed sign provides for a rationalised signage scheme for the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club which are in proportion to the scale of the structures and are in keeping with the existing character of the localities.

 

Schedule 1 Assessment:

 

 

Assessment

Compliance

Character of the area

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to replace the existing pylon sign at the existing location. The new LED panel is an ancillary component to be installed on the pylon sign structure on a busy thoroughfare that experiences medium to high volumes of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular traffic.

 

The proposal would remain compatible with the character of the immediate area.

 

The proposed size and dimensions of the pylon sign structure and panel are not considered to be large that would be typically covered by the provisions of SEPP 64 such as large billboards.

 

The proposal would not change the advertising theme of the area.

Yes

Special Areas

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

Given the minor scale of the pylon sign structure and panel to be attached, it would not adversely impact on special areas such as the heritage, environmental conservation, public recreational, foreshore and residential areas of Lane Cove LGA.

Yes

 

Assessment

Compliance

Views and vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposal would not impact on views. The proposed pylon sign structure and associated panel are restricted in size to mitigate visual impact.

 

No impact.

 

 

 

Respected.

 

Yes

Streetscape, setting or landscape

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

 

 

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

 

 

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

The pylon sign structure and panel are of a small scale attached to the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club and would not have adverse impacts on the streetscape setting.

 

The pylon sign and panel would contribute positively to the streetscape and setting providing business identification and associated messages consistent with other similar uses within the Lane Cove LGA.

 

The pylon sign and panel would not add to any clutter.

 

 

The proposal would not screen unsightliness.

 

The pylon sign and panel are attached to the ground level and would not protrude above buildings or tree canopies.

 

No.

Yes

 

Assessment

Compliance

Site and building

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

The pylon sign and panel would be appropriately proportioned to the subject site.

 

The design and orientation of the pylon sign and panel attached to the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club respects important features such as on the relevant public recreational and surrounding residential uses.

 

The new modern signage is an ancillary component to be installed at the club located on a busy thoroughfare.

Yes

Associated Devices and Logos

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

The proposed signage and LED panel would be appropriately integrated into the proposed pylon sign.

 

Servicing and changing of messages would be safely conducted only by staff.

Yes

 

Assessment

Compliance

 Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

 

 

 

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

No adverse glare would occur as levels of illumination would be controlled both at day and night times.

 

Illumination levels would not generate unacceptable glare to pedestrian and motorists.

 

The LED panel would be directed away from any nearby residence where possible where it is attempted to be more directed at on-coming traffic and pedestrians.

 

Intensity would be adjusted depending on environmental variables and seasons.

 

A curfew is proposed by the applicant and it is recommended that a condition be imposed to require that the LED panel only operates between 7am – 6pm and 7am – 7pm during day light savings time. The panel subject to appropriate conditions would not pose significant adverse impacts to surrounding residences. The luminance would adjust to light/weather conditions. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the proper management of the panel would be required to comply with the luminance rules within Cl. 3.9 Illuminated Signage - Table 1 of Council’s Signage & Advertising DCP and that the maximum night-time luminance of signage would be at one-quarter levels of day-time levels.

Yes

Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

 

 

 

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

 

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

The proposal is located on the subject site and is set back well away from the kerb to enhance safety.

 

The proposal would promote safety for pedestrians by being seen due to illumination.

 

Illumination promotes safety and would not obstruct sightlines from public areas.

Yes

 

The relevant SEPP 64 – Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines which outline best practice for advertising in transport corridors has been considered. The guidelines contain land use compatibility and design assessment criteria for advertising within transport corridors. It is considered that the proposal would comply with its relevant criteria. Further, the application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to make an assessment against SEPP 64 and raised no objections to the subject Development Application are raised. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

Given the history of the subject site being used a bowling and recreation club, it would be unlikely that the locations would be contaminated and would require remediation in this instance.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Aims/Objectives and Zone Objectives

 

The relevant aims/objectives of the LEP are as follows:

 

1.2   Aims of Plan

(1)  This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Lane Cove in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2)  The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(a)  to establish, as the first land use priority, Lane Cove’s sustainability in environmental, social and economic terms, based on ecologically sustainable development, inter-generational equity, the application of the precautionary principle and the relationship of each property in Lane Cove with its locality,

(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,

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

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

(g)  in relation to community facilities, to provide for the range and types of accessible community facilities that meet the needs of the current and future residents and other users,

 

The proposal is to be located on land zoned as RE1 Public Recreation zone and the relevant zone objectives are:

 

•  To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

•  To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

 

The proposal is linked to the existing Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club and it would not be inconsistent with the above aims and objectives. The LED panel would provide for club messages on services available to the community that would meet the day to day needs of residents within the LGA and the operation of the club itself. The proposed replacement of an existing pylon sign to a part illuminated sign at the same location is satisfactory and would not contain significant adverse impacts onto surrounding residential developments. Imposition of relevant conditions would assist in reducing any potential visual impacts.

 

The proposed sign at this location would be orientated mainly along the orientation of Burns Bay Road and would not directly face any one residential development where possible. The proposed LED panel is of a relatively small scale and would satisfy the requirements of the aims/objectives of LCLEP 2019 and RE1 zone objectives.

 

(ii)        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

 

The proposal would not be inconsistent with any draft Environment Planning Instrument (EPI).

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Comprehensive LCDCP 2010

 

Part N – Signage

 

The proposal has been assessed with against the relevant provisions of Part N as detailed below:

 

Aims and objectives

 

(i) Aims

 

In summary the provisions of the DCP seek to ensure the character of buildings and streetscapes are consistent with Council’s desired future outcomes, whilst its purpose is to encourage well designed and located signs which contribute positively to the diversity and viability of businesses in Lane Cove.

 

The relevant DCP objectives are:

 

a) To permit signage and advertising which is consistent with the desired future character of Lane Cove;

b) To permit signage and advertising which is consistent with the streetscapes of each precinct in Lane Cove;

c) To ensure that signage and advertising is consistent with the provisions of this DCP;

d) To encourage signage and advertising which is complementary to the use and architecture of buildings in Lane Cove;

e) To ensure that the amenity of residential development is not adversely affected by signage and advertising in Lane Cove;

f) To ensure all signage includes wording, symbols and logos of a suitable nature;

g) To promote well designed and located signage which contributes to the diversity and viability of businesses and activities within Lane Cove;

h) To ensure that all signage and advertising achieves a high level of design quality and does not detract from the visual quality of the public domain of Lane Cove.

 

The proposed signage satisfies these aims and objectives because:

 

·    the design and size of the sign would respect and enhance the immediate local character;

·    the signage appropriately informs users of the business type, location and therefore better promotes the existing Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club operation; and

·    the level of signage in context to the site would be acceptable. It would be appropriately located and not result in visual clutter or involve any significant adverse amenity impacts.

 

2.1.3 Location and Design of Signage and Advertising

 

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

N. 2.1.3 Location and Design of Signage and Advertising

a)   ensure the façade of a building is not cluttered with signage and that the portion of any building above an awning is generally free.

 N/A

N/A

b)   that signage is well designed, complementary to the architecture on which the signage is to be erected, in terms of materials, finishes, colours and ensure that architectural features of a building are not altered or obscured.

The proposal has been designed to be integrated into the existing Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club.

Yes

c)   consideration of existing signage on a building, land and streetscape to ensure that the new signage does not result in visual clutter or overcrowding of signage.

The proposal would not add to visual clutter and its impact on other existing signage, buildings, the subject site and on the streetscape has been considered.

Yes

d)   consideration of the viewing angles of signage, visibility from the street level and nearby buildings.

The proposal would be sited to ensure safe visibility of the content of the signage to promote and protect motorist safety.

Yes

e)   that proposed signage does not unduly obstruct viewing angles to existing approved signage.

Achieved

Yes

f)    signage which is supported from, hung from or placed on other signs will not be supported.

N/A

N/A

g)   All proposal must detail the contents of the signage and advertisements in English, regardless of other content/languages used.

The contents of the LED panel would comply.

Yes

h)   where a logo is sought as part of a sign or advertisement in addition to the written component (as part of the contents), it will be necessary to demonstrate the need for the logo.

No logos are proposed on the LED component of the sign. The Club’s logo on the static portion of the sign is appropriate.

Yes

i)    whether proposed signage is appropriate in relation to the desired future character of the precinct in which it is proposed to be located, see Section 2.2 ‘Character Statements’

The proposal would be installed in connection to the existing Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club operation and located in an area where there is a high flow of pedestrian and motorist movement. The proposal is appropriate in the current setting.

Yes

 

2.2 Character Statements

 

The proposed signage is not located within a specific character statement locality however it is in proximity to the Burns Bay Road character statement which states the following:

 

2.2.3 Neighbourhood centres (Blaxlands Corner, Yorks Corner, Greenwich Village, Lane Cove West, Burns Bay Road and Mowbray Road corner of Willandra Street)

 

The neighbourhood centres in the Lane Cove LGA, including Blaxlands Corner, Yorks Corner, Greenwich, Lane Cove West, Burns Bay Road, and Mowbray Road corner of Willandra Street, are characteristic of retail development predominantly of one to two storeys, generally with awnings. These areas are of a smaller scale ‘village’ character than the Lane Cove Village Town Centre as is demonstrated by the scale of the buildings. Advertising and signage in the neighbourhood centres should be sympathetic to the nearby residential uses and not adversely impact amenity through size or illumination. Signage should be concentrated mainly at ground floor level, with minimal signage above awning level.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the character statement as follows:

 

·    the signage would be integrated with the design and nature of the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club which is of an appropriate size/scale in context to the subject site as a whole; and

·    the signage appropriately informs users of the club whilst containing reasonable impacts to nearby residential users by controlling the use and level of luminance to the proposed LED panel.

 

2.3 Unauthorised Signage

 

The Development Application seeks consent to formalise use of the unauthorised pylon with a LED sign which has already been erected. It is not recommended to serve an order for this sign to be removed as approval is recommended subject to appropriate conditions being imposed to minimise any significant off-site impacts that it may have on surrounding developments.

 

2.4 Prohibited Signage

 

The Development Application does not propose any prohibited signage as defined in the DCP or as discussed in detail above in the permissibility section of this report. This section of the DCP states the following:

 

Where signage or an advertisement is proposed on a building or land which is not zoned business or industrial under the Lane Cove Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP), it will be necessary to demonstrate consistency with the aims, objectives, merit requirements and general signage controls of this DCP.

 

The aims/objectives of the DCP have already been discussed above in this report. The proposed sign would maintain the existing character of the locality and its overall design would promote the DCP objective of this section of the DCP in promoting an appropriate, high-quality and relevant signage for the Lane Cove Bowling Club. The relevant merit assessment and general signage controls are discussed further below in this report.

 

2.9 Merit Assessment

 

A merit assessment has occurred where on merit the proposal is appropriate in this instance as it would not add to unnecessary visual clutter and would not significantly adversely affect the residents/users of Lane Cove. The proposal would be suitable which considers the relevant characteristics and built form of the subject site. The applicant has demonstrated that the operational needs of this type of signage being proposed. The proposal is satisfactory on merit grounds as the scale of the signage is relatively minor and is appropriately located on the subject site without significantly adversely affecting surrounding developments subject to conditions. 

 

N.3 General Signage Controls

 

It is noted that one pylon sign is permitted per property street frontage and the proposal is compliant with this general control.

 

N.3.5 Pylon, Plinth and Pole Signage

 

PART N – SIGNAGE

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

 

N. 3.5 Pylon, Plinth and Pole Signage

Pylon, plinth and pole signage is to be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and must be structurally sound and able to withstand wind.

 

The maximum size of a pylon sign in the village centres/ neighbourhood centres is 2m H x 0.8m W x 0.1m D Refer to figure 3.13

The proposed structure has already been built and it is recommended that a condition be imposed that a Building Certificate Application be sought which demonstrates compliance with relevant Australian Standards.

 

The control does not strictly apply as it is only vicinity of a neighbourhood centre and there are no public recreation signage controls applicable. On merit, the proposed dimensions of the proposal are satisfactory due to the nature of the use and operational requirements of the Club involved.

Yes

PART N – SIGNAGE

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

N. 3.9.1 Illuminated Signage

a)   Advertisements must comply with the luminance rules shown in table 1.

b)   The maximum night-time luminance of signage must be one-quarter of the prescribed values.

c)   For night time use, the sign (whether internally illuminated or lit from its exterior) must no cast a shadow on areas that were previously lit and that have a special lighting requirement, for e.g. pedestrian crossings.

d)   Light sources for illuminated signs must focus solely on the sign and be shielded so that glare does not extend beyond the sign and have no light source visible to passing motorist with a light output greater than of a 65W incandescent bulb.

e)   The level of reflectance of an advertisement and its content is not to exceed the ‘minimum coefficients of luminous intensity per unit area for class 2A material’ as set out in AS/NZS 1906.1:1993 Flashing illuminated advertisements will not be approved.

 

Council may limit the hours of operation to no later than 10pm.

It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the panels would be illuminated with luminance levels appropriate for the location under Table 1 and surrounding land uses to allow for the proposed LED panel illumination including that the maximum night-time luminance of signage would be at one-quarter levels of day-time levels. It is recommended that LED panel only operates between 7am – 6pm and 7am – 7pm during daylight savings time.

Yes

PART N – SIGNAGE

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

 

N. 3.10 Signage in Residential Zones

Signage is to respect the residential nature of the area and is to be of a scale which does not detract from the streetscape or the property on which the sign is located.

 

Illuminated signage is not permitted in residential areas.

The controls do not strictly apply as it adjoins a residential area. On merit, the proposed illuminated panel is of an appropriate scale which would not significantly detract from the existing residential localities within the LGA.

Satisfactory - the proposal is to replace the previous sign with the addition of a new LEP panel. The level of illumination can be managed (with compliance with the DCP luminance rules and night-time illumination to be at one quarter levels to day-time levels) to ensure any adverse impacts are minimised to include an appropriate imposed curfew.

 

 

(iiia) Any planning agreement that has been entered into or any draft planning agreement that has been offered to enter into

 

There are no known VPA’s that have been entered or proposed by the applicant or owners of the land.

 

(iv) The regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph)

 

The relevant matters of the regulation have been addressed.

 

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

 

The impacts of the development are considered satisfactory as assessed in this report subject to recommended draft conditions of consent.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The subject site is suitable for the proposal as detailed above in this report.

 

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

 

The proposal was advertised for 16 days in accordance with Council policy and four submissions were received from:

 

·    Nos. Units 1-3/138 Burns Bay Road;

·    Three residents from Nos. 140-142 Burns Bay Road; and

·    No. Unit 9/153 Burns Bay Road and Strata Plan Body Corporate Committee of Nos. 153-155 Burns Bay Road signed by two residents.

 

The submissions raise concerns with the adverse impact that the LED component of the sign would have on the surrounding residential amenity. Specifically, the concerns raised are:

 

·    When the sign is illuminated it shines very brightly into the bedroom of No. Unit 9/153 Burns Bay Road affecting the health and sleep of the residents.

·    It is requested that LED panel not be switched back on as a flashing neon sign is not appropriate in a residential area.

·    When the illegal sign had been in operation night and day between 4 and 19 August 2021, residents contacted Council for the sign to be switched off due to its adverse impacts on residents.

·    There are bedrooms, a central internal corridor from No. 138 Burns Bay Road, front facing units from Nos. 140-142 Burns Bay Road and south and east facing windows at Nos. 153-155 Burns Bay Road which directly face the sign which the sign is visible day or night.

·    It was observed that the messages changed frequently, constantly flickered and the illumination intensity appeared to change due to different colours being used.

·    The assertion that the normal light output in lumens is less than a 65W incandescent light bulb seems implausible.

·    The new sign is larger than the replaced signage.

·    It is suggested that the panel be switched back on for a period to allow for a proper assessment to occur and would see the proposed sign scale or type of sign proposed is not compatible with the residential character of the area.

·    The colorful sign content would cheapen and downgrade the environment which would affect property prices. Illumination of signage is not permitted in residential areas and little consideration has been given to viewing angles or visibility to surrounding residences.

·    The illumination does not protect the safety of pedestrians and motorists where they would be distracted by constant changing of messages on a relatively small LED panel.

·    This is dangerous as there are pedestrians that cross Burns Bay Road and do not always use the pedestrian island.

·    There are classes held at the club and would not want to see a situation where a distracted driver would crash into the club.

 

Comment:

 

The proposed signage structure as submitted although slightly larger than the sign replaced within the same location/orientation would involve for a reasonable signage outcome which is consistent with the existing use of the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreational Club operation subject to relevant signage control measures being in place to minimise any potential significant adverse impacts onto surrounding residents, pedestrians and drivers. This would be achieved to ensure that illumination levels comply with the DCP luminance requirements and that the sign only operates between 7am – 6pm and 7am – 7pm during daylight savings hours. To enable a full and proper assessment of the subject application, Council requested the applicant to switch back on the LED sign.

 

The LED sign was switched back in early August 2021 and both the applicant and the residents were offered to provide either videos or photographs to assist Council for assessment during the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown period. The applicant was also requested to address the concerns raised in the submission and the applicant responded by stating that the proposed LED would be switched off at sunset or at the latest at 7pm. The applicant stated that low intensity alpha numeric/lettering against a black backdrop would be used with no use of pictures or logos and that the Club would not use flickering or constant changing messages. When the LED sign was switched back on, four further submissions were received from:

 

·    No. 1/138 Burns Bay Road;

·    No. 2/138 Burns Bay Road;

·    No. 3/138 Burns Bay Road; and

·    Four residents from Nos. 140-142 Burns Bay Road.

 

The additional submission predominantly raised the same concerns with the exception that the nature of the LED sign had changed when it was last in operation back in August 2020 and that the applicant has only made the necessary adjustment to secure planning approval however did note that the messages were being changed between every 10-12 seconds. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure messages are changed only every minute to reduce the potential distractions involved and the applicant has agreed to increase the amount of time involved in the changing of messages.

 

The applicant had provided a video and photographs to further justify their proposal, however there was only photographs provided by a concerned resident at Nos. 2 & 3/138 Burns Bay Road and one of the units at Nos. 153-155 Burns Bay Road respectively as follows:

 

 

 

 

As only two photographs had been provided by affected residents, Council’s Compliance Officer attended the relevant properties and provided site inspection photographs as follows:

 

Objector Inspections: 12 & 13 August 2021

 

Objector #1:

1/138 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

12 August 2021 - 10:00 AM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took five (5) photos from within the apartment and the courtyard.

Refer to Figure(s); 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

 

Objector #2:

2/138 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

12 August 2021 - 10:15 AM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took seven (7) photos from within the apartment.

Refer to Figure(s); 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

 

Objector #3:

3/138 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

12 August 2021 - 10:30 AM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took four (4) photos from within the apartment.

Refer to Figure(s); 13, 14, 15, and 16.

 

Objector #4:

9/153 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

12 August 2021 - 11:00 AM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took four (4) photos from within the apartment.

Refer to Figure(s); 17, 18, 19, and 20.

 

Objector #5:

6/140 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

13 August 2021 - 10:00 AM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took four (4) photos from within the apartment and the balcony.

Refer to Figure(s); 21, 22, 23, and 24.

 

Objector #6:

2/140 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066

13 August 2021 – 6:00 PM

 

Council Officer attended the Premises and took three (3) photos from outside the apartment.

Refer to Figure(s); 25, 26, and 27

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One resident at No. 14/153 Burns Bay Road was unable to be present to allow for a site inspection to be conducted however the numerous photographs taken from numerous angles from other properties clearly indicate the impacts that the proposal would have on the surrounding locality. There were some objections who had their property inspected during the day who requested that a site inspection be completed at night as well. This is not considered to be necessary as the applicant has proposed that the LED component of the sign would be switched off by 6pm in winter months and at 7pm during summer months.

 

Council’s Compliance Officer has assessed the proposal and has raised no objections subject to submission of a Building Certificate Application to be lodged should any approval be granted. The officer stated that the proposed signage would not cause significant adverse impacts onto the immediate locality and that no further action is to be taken including that no demolition orders be issued of the unauthorised structure.

 

The revised nature on the operation of the proposed signage involved such as reduced hours of operation of the LED component of the sign; the use of the low intensity numeric/lettering against a black backdrop with no pictures; and no use of flickering or constant changing messages only on a minute by minute would all result in a satisfactory planning outcome. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions to ensure that the above measures are in place for the continued use of the proposed sign.

 

(e) Public Interest

 

The proposal would be in the public interest as the new signage would assist in the operation of the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club by providing a modern sign with improved form of messaging details being forwarded to the community. It is considered that continued use of the proposed sign ought to occur subject to the recommended conditions in relation to illumination levels and times of usage being enforced or adhered to all times by the applicant. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been satisfied. The Development Application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage, Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and Lane Cove Development Control Plan and is satisfactory. Having regard to the proposed need for an upgraded signage to occur at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club, the proposed signage would be reasonable and therefore is recommended for approval subject to conditions to minimise any significant adverse impacts onto surrounding residents.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at it’s meeting of 16 September 2021, exercising the functions of the Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application 66/2021 for the formalised use of a maximum 4.5m high electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED) pylon sign to replace an existing pylon sign at the Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club within the Lane Cove Local Government Area at No. 151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove subject to the following conditions of consent:

 

1.         Management of Pylon Sign with LED Panel

            The approved pylon sign and LED panel are to comply with the following requirements:

 

·    No third-party advertisements are permitted.

·    The electronic panel is to have a minimum dwell time of 1 minute per message.

·    The electronic panel must be controlled to ensure a maximum transition time of 0.1 seconds between messages. No transitional effects such as fly-ins or fade-outs are permitted and in the event of image failure, the default image must be a black screen.

·    Each individual message must not involve any animation, flashing, flickering, movement or different bright colours.

·    The electronic panel must incorporate an electronically controlled light adjustment sensor to monitor ambient light and manage and adjust screen brightness to appropriately reflect the local conditions.

·    The LED panel component is to operate between 7am – 6pm and 7am – 7pm during day light hours.

·    The level of illumination of the panel is to comply with Clause 3.9 Illuminated Signage - Table 1 of Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part N – Signage and Advertising. The maximum night-time luminance of the panels is to be one-quarter of the prescribed levels of Table 1.

·    The screen brightness outputs are to be designed to be in accordance to satisfy Australian Standard AS4282:1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

 

                 Reason: To preserve and maintain the existing surrounding residential amenity.

 

2.         All unauthorised works to date must be approved with a Building Information Certificate Application prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for any new works.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 16 September 2021

1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue

 

 

Subject:          1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue    

Record No:    DA21/65-01 - 47506/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Henry Burnett 

 

 

Table 1 – Report Details

DA Number

Council Reference: DA65/2021

Portal Reference: PAN-98121

 

Proposed Development

Demolition of Existing Structures, Lot Consolidation and Construction of a Part 5 / Part 6 Storey Residential Flat Building with 60 Apartments and Two Levels of Basement Parking with 113 parking spaces

 

Street Address

1 Gatacre Avenue and 5 Allison Avenue, LANE COVE

Applicant/Owner

Applicant: Gatacre LC Pty Ltd

Owner: I and L Hackney (1 Gatacre Ave), P Morse (5 Allison Ave)

 

Date of DA Lodgement

3 June 2021

Public Notification Period

First Notification Period: 9 June 2021 to 25 June 2021

Second Notification Period: 16 August 2021 to 1 September 2021

 

Submissions Received

First Notification Period: Eighty-One (81)

Second Notification Period: Seventy-Eight (78)

Total Submissions (Unique): One Hundred and Six (106)

 

Recommendation

Refusal

Local Planning Panel Referral Criteria (Schedule 1 of Planning Direction)

·      Contentious Development: More than 10 unique submissions have been received by way of objection; and

 

·      Departure from Development Standards: Development that contravenes a development standard imposed by an environmental planning instrument by more than 10%.

 

List of all relevant s4.15(1)(a) matters

 

·      relevant environmental planning instruments

 

-     SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development;

-     SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land;

-     SEPP (Building Sustainability Index) 2004;

-     SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; and

-     Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

·      proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under the Act and that has been notified to the consent authority

 

-     Draft Environment SEPP; and

-     Draft Design and Place SEPP.

 

·      relevant development control plan

 

-     Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010

 

·      relevant planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

 

-     Nil

 

·      relevant regulations e.g. Regs 92, 93, 94, 94A, 288

 

-     Nil

 

·      coastal zone management plan

 

-     Nil

 

·      other relevant plans

 

-     Lane Cove Section 7.11 Contributions Plan

 

List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration

 

Annexure

Document

Prepared By

1

SEPP 65 Assessment

Lane Cove Council

2

LCDCP 2010 Assessment

Lane Cove Council

3

Summary of Submissions

Lane Cove Council

4

Architectural Plans (Amended)

Rothelowman

4A

Architectural Plans (Original)

Rothelowman

5

Design Verification Statement (Amended)

Rothelowman

5A

Response to Design Review Panel Recommendations

Rothelowman

Planning Ingenuity

6

Landscape Plans (Amended)

Ground Ink

7

SEE (Amended)

Planning Ingenuity

8

Clause 4.6 Written Request (Amended)

Planning Ingenuity

9

Detailed Site Investigation

Martens

9A

Preliminary Site Investigation

Martens

10

Operational Waste Management Plan (Amended)

Elephants Foot

11

Traffic Impact Assessment (Amended)

Greenview Consulting

12

Construction Noise Management Plan

JHA

13

Acoustic Report

JHA

14

BCA Report

MBC

15

Arboricultural Report (Amended)

Blues Brothers

16

Geotechnical Report

Martens

17

Quantity Surveyors Report

WT

18

Access Report (Amended)

Ergon Consulting

19

Stormwater Management Plan (Amended)

Greenview Consulting

20

Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Amended)

Greenview Consulting

21

BASIX Certificate (Amended)

Greenview Consulting

22

Notification Extent Map

Lane Cove Council

23

Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan

Elephants Foot

24

NSW Police Response

NSW Police

25

Transport for NSW Response

Transport for NSW

26

Survey Plan

Metwest

27

NSROC DRP Minutes

NSROC Design Review Panel

Clause 4.6 requests

·      Maximum Height of Buildings

Summary of key submissions

·      Building Height

·      Building Setbacks

·      Building Separation

·      Landscaping

·      Traffic Access and Congestion

·      Neighbourhood Character

·      Overshadowing

·      Visual Privacy

·      Zone Transition

Report prepared by

Henry Burnett

Report date

7 September 2021

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?

 

Yes

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of the existing multi-storey motel building and dwelling house and construction of a part 5 and part 6 storey residential flat building development comprising 60 apartments (12 x 1 bedroom, 22 x 2 bedroom, 22 x 3 bedroom, and 4 x 4 bedroom), and two levels of basement parking for 113 vehicles, on land known as 1 Gatacre Avenue and 5 Allison Avenue, Lane Cove.

 

The Development Application is made pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential and residential flat buildings are permitted with consent in the zone. The proposal includes a variation to the maximum building height development standard of 15m, where 17.4m is proposed being a variation of 2.4m or 16%. A Clause 4.6 written request accompanies the Development Application. The written request is not considered to establish suitable environmental planning grounds to vary the development standard or demonstrate compliance with the height of building objectives.

 

The Development Application is subject to SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The proposal was referred to the Northern Sydney Region of Council’s (NSROC) Design Review Panel for advice. The Panel did not support the proposal on a number of grounds as outlined in this assessment report. While amendments have been made to the proposal by the applicant the majority of the Panel’s concerns remain. The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory with respect to all of the design quality principles of SEPP 65 and a number of design criteria/guidance in the associated Apartment Design Guide. Of significant concern is the non-compliance with the building separation requirements which result in poor internal amenity to the proposed north facing apartments and insufficient separation to the existing dwelling houses to the south in the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

The Development Application is subject to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land. The subject site adjoins a service station which is a potential source of contaminates. The submitted Detailed Site Investigation does not provide enough site sampling in accordance with the Guidelines to enable the consent authority to be satisfied or determine the land is suitable for the proposed use.

 

The Development Application is subject to Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010. The principal section is ‘Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings’. The proposal includes variations to the predominant building setback, side setbacks, basement setbacks and solar access. The merits of the variations are considered in detail in the assessment report and are not supported. The other sections of the DCP have been assessed by Council’s relevant technical officers with further substantial issues raised with the proposal including tree retention, deep soil/landscaping, waste management, stormwater management and construction environmental management.

 

The Development Application was reviewed by Council’s Building Surveyor who raised concern with the lift core design of the eastern sector of the proposed residential flat building including direct lift access into apartments, and more concerningly, apartments with direct openings into fire stairs, some requiring traversing the balcony to do so. While principally Construction Certificate matters, these departures do result in safety and amenity concerns for this sector of the proposed building.

 

The Development Application was notified on two occasions with a total of 106 unique submissions received by way of objection. The primary issues raised in the objections relate to the proposed building height, building setbacks, building separation, landscaping, traffic access and congestion, neighbourhood character, overshadowing, visual privacy and unsatisfactory zone transition. The submissions are summarised and addressed in the report. The Development Application is recommended for refusal including the reasons raised in the submissions.

 

The Development Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for determination under the referral criteria as more than 10 submissions by way of objection were received and a variation to a development standard of more than 10% is proposed. Development Application 65/2021 is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel with a recommendation for refusal.

 

2.         REFERRAL TO LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) is a panel of appropriately qualified people independent of Council charged with determining a range of development applications on behalf of Council. The subject Development Application is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel in accordance with the following criteria in Schedule 1 of the Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Planning Direction dated 30 June 2020:

 

i.    Contentious Development: More than 10 unique submissions* have been received by way of objection; and

ii.   Departure from Development Standards: Development that contravenes a development standard imposed by an environmental planning instrument by more than 10%.

 

*A unique submission means a submission which is in substance unique, distinctive and unlike any other submission. It does not mean a petition or any submission that contains the same or substantially the same text. Separate unique submissions may be made in relation to the same issue. One individual, or one household, could potentially submit multiple unique submissions.

 

3.         SITE

 

3.1       Subject Site

 

The site of the proposed development is known as 1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue, Lane Cove. A Survey Plan was submitted with the Development Application (Annexure 26). The key site characteristics are summarised in Table 3 below.

 

Table 3 – Site Characteristics of 1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue

Site Characteristic

Subject Site

Title Particulars

Lot A DP 415448

Lot 45 DP 11416

Lot 46 DP 11416

Site Area

2,965.8m2

Site Frontage

Gatacre Avenue: 38.25m

Allison Avenue: 27.43m

Site Depth

Depth: 92.11m

Topography

5m – Gatacre to Allison Avenue (West to East)

6m – Gatacre Avenue (North to South)

4m – Allison Avenue (North to South)

Zoning

R4 High Density Residential

Existing Structures

The site contains an existing three storey building.

Existing Use

The site is currently used as a motel and single dwelling house.

Vehicular Access

Vehicular access is currently from Gatacre and Allison Avenue.

 

The subject site is situated south-west of Pacific Highway and is in close proximity to major roads including the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Gore Hill Freeway (Figure 1). The site borders and sits above a low-density residential area to the south-west. A different development typology including commercial and higher density residential development characterises sites adjacent to Pacific Highway. The topography of the locality includes a significant cross-fall from the high point on Pacific Highway with an average gradient of 13% down both Allison and Gatacre Avenues (Figure 2). The subject site in the context of the wider locality is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

 

The subject site is comprised of three allotments. Two allotments comprise the existing ‘Comfort Inn’ motel development being Lot A DP 415448 and Lot 46 DP 11416 with a street address of 1 Gatacre Avenue, Lane Cove. The motel frontage to Gatacre Avenue is shown in Figure 5. The motel also has a frontage to Allison Avenue as shown in Figure 6.  The third allotment comprises an existing dwelling house being Lot 45 DP11416 with a street address of 5 Allison Avenue, Lane Cove. The existing dwelling house is also shown in Figure 6.  The existing motel contains two open car parking areas one of which is shown in Figure 7.

 

 

Figure 1: Site Context

 

Figure 2: Site Context Topography (2m Contour)

 

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph

 

Figure 4: 3D Aerial Perspective

 

 

Figure 5: Subject Site from Gatacre Avenue

 

Figure 6: Subject Site from Allison Avenue

 

 

Figure 7: Subject Site – Internal Open Carpark

 

3.2       Adjoining Properties

 

3.2.1    South-West - Detached Dwelling Houses

 

Adjoining the south-western boundary are located single dwelling houses at No. 2 Gatacre avenue (Figure 8) and No. 7 Allison Avenue (Figure 9). Existing retaining walls result in the dwelling houses being benched below (particularly on Gatacre Avenue) the subject site.

 

Figure 8: No. 2 Gatacre Avenue, Lane Cove (Right)

 

Figure 9: No. 7 Allison Avenue, Lane Cove

 

3.2.2    North-East – Commercial Development

 

Adjoining the north-eastern boundary are located a service station (Figure 10) and retail building (Figure 11) which front the Pacific Highway.

 

Figure 10: Service Station

 

Figure 11: Retail Building

 

3.2.3    South-East

 

The site is adjoined by Allison Avenue to the south-east. Opposite on Allison Avenue are detached (Figure 12) and semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

Figure 12: Detached and Semi-Detached Dwelling Houses (4 Allison Avenue Shown)

 

 

3.2.4    North-West

 

The site is adjoined by Gatacre Avenue to the north-west. Opposite on Gatacre Avenue are located detached dwelling houses and a two storey boarding house (Figure 13).

 

Figure 13: Detached Dwelling Houses and Two Storey Boarding House

 

.3         Local Planning Provisions

 

In order to understand the site and adjoining development in the context of the existing local planning provisions, the existing zoning, building height and FSR maps of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP 2009) are included as Figure 14, 15 and 16 below.

 

Figure 14: Zoning Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Red: R4 High Density Residential, Pink: R2 Low Density Residential)

 

Figure 15: Max. Building Height Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Pink: 25m, Light Brown: 15m, Green: 9.5m, Yellow: 12m)

 

 

Figure 16: Max. FSR Map (Source: LCLEP 2009 and EPlanning Spatial Viewer)

(Pink: 2.4:1, Blue: 0.5:1, Light Brown: 1.2:1)

 

3.4       Strategic Planning History

 

In 2011, Council lodged a precinct-wide Planning Proposal (including 1 Gatacre Avenue) to increase the height control from 12 to 18-25 metres while reducing the FSR from 4.1:1 to 2:1. The intent of this downzoning was to bring it in to line with FSRs applying to the nearby Lane Cove Town Centre with the increased height to incentivise redevelopment. The Department advised that they had concerns about the viability of these controls but allowed it to proceed to public exhibition (via a Gateway Determination) in March 2012. Following public exhibition and consideration, it was approved by Council for finalisation.

 

In February 2014, the Department of Planning advised that, following analysis of the Urban Feasibility Model, the reduction in FSR was not supported and was increased. This position was not supported by Council due to the presence of the Lane Cove tunnel directly under the sites and the sloping topography down from Pacific Highway. In April 2014, the Department wrote to Council and advised that it was finalising all lots in Amendment 8 with a uniform FSR of 2.4:1 and the height control of 15 metres (only for land bounded by the Pacific Highway, Gatacre Avenue and Allison Avenue). Council’s position has always been that an FSR of 2:1 and a height control of 18 metres is more appropriate.

 

Notwithstanding, the LCLEP 2009 controls are finalised, and the subject Development Application is assessed in relation to these controls without any consideration of the history of these controls. The Stategic Planning history is report here for the information on how the development standards can to be in force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.         ASSESSMENT HISTORY

 

4.1       Timeline

 

A timeline of the assessment of the Development Application is provided in Table 4.

 

Table 4 – Assessment History

Date

Description

3 June 2021

Development Application lodged.

17 June 2021

Development Application is put before the NSROC Design Review Panel. The minutes are provided at Annexure 27.

6 July 2021

Letter sent by Council requesting additional information in relation to:

- NSROC Design Review Panel Recommendations;

- Building Height

- Building, Basement and Driveway Setbacks

- Transition to the R2 Zone

- Subterranean Apartments

- SEPP 65

- SEPP 55 and other Environmental Health Matters

- Waste Management

- Landscaping

- Accessibility

- Building Surveying

- Traffic and Parking

- Submissions Received

20 July 2021

Video conference held with Council staff and applicant to discuss request for additional information.

13 August 2021

Additional information provided by the applicant.

 

 

4.2       Amended Development Application

 

The Development Application was amended on one occasion. A summary of the amendments in relation to key development characteristics is provided in Table 5.

 

Table 5 – Summary of Amendments

Characteristic

Original

Amended

Total Apartments

61 Apartments

60 Apartments

Apartment Mix

13 x 1 bedroom

20 x 2 bedroom

18 x 3 bedroom

9 x 4 bedroom

1 x 5 bedroom

12 x 1 bedroom

22 x 2 bedroom

22 x 3 bedroom

4 x 4 bedroom

 

Parking

121 parking spaces

113 parking spaces

Building Height (Max)

18.85m

17.4m

Storeys

Part 4 and Part 6 Storeys

Part 5 and Part 6 Storeys

Floor Space Ratio

2.24:1 (6633m2)

2.21:1 (6546.6m2)

Deep Soil (Any Dimension)

449.2m2 (15.14%)

556.6m2 (18.76%)

Front Building Setback

Gatacre: 3m-7.5m

Allison: 3m-7.5m

Gatacre: 3m-6m

Allison: 3m-7.5m

 


 

The amended architectural plans (Annexure 4) and the original architectural plans (Annexure 4A) are provided with the report for the purpose of comparison. The key design amendments made are summarised in the following list:

 

·    Redistribution of Building Massing: Reducing sixth storey extent by relocating Gross Floor Area to above the previously four storey section (Figure 17);

·    Reducing Basement Extent: Reducing basement extent in line with required parking;

·    Increasing Building Separation: Decreasing the extent of non-compliant building encroachments within the R2 zone transition zone to the south;

·    Relocation of Communal Open Space: Relocation from fifth to sixth storey.

Figure 17: South Elevation – Original (Top) and Amended (Bottom)

 

5.         PROPOSAL (AS AMENDED)

 

5.1       Overview

 

The Development Application is for the demolition of the existing multi-storey motel building and dwelling house and construction of a part 5 and part 6 storey residential flat building development pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 comprising 60 apartments (12 x 1 bedroom, 22 x 2 bedroom, 22 x 3 bedroom, and 4 x 4 bedroom), and two levels of basement parking for 113 vehicles. The proposed architectural plans are provided as Annexure 4 to this report. A street perspective from Gatacre Avenue is provided in Figure 18 noting Figure 17 is a more accurate representation of the number of storeys proposed.

 

Figure 18: Perspective of Proposal from Gatacre Avenue

 

A summary of the key components of the proposal is provided in Table 6 as follows:

 

Table 6 – Development Summary

Component

Proposed

Site Area

2,965.8m2

Storeys

5/6 storeys (2 basement levels)

Total Units

60 units

Unit Mix

12 x 1 bedroom

22 x 2 bedroom

22 x 3 bedroom

4 x 4 bedroom

Parking

Total: 113 spaces

Vehicular Access

Allison Avenue

Proposed FSR

2.21:1 (LEP: 2.4:1)

Proposed Building Height

17.4m (LEP: 15m)

Building Length/Width

Allison Avenue: 15m

Gatacre Avenue: 25m

Allison to Gatacre Avenue: 89m

Proposed Deep Soil (Min. 6m Dim.)

7.02%

Proposed Landscape Area (Deep Soil (Any Dimension)/On-structure)

18.7%/23.8% (DCP:25%/15%)

 

A level by level description of the proposal is provided in Table 7 as follows:

 

Table 7 – Proposed Development By Level

Level

Description

Basement Level 2

-     Total of 66 residential car parking spaces (inc. 8 accessible);

-     3 motorbike spaces;

-     Double lift well (west) and two single lift wells (east);

-     Fire Stairs; and

-     Residential storage zones.

 

Basement Level 1

-     Total of 47 car parking spaces (inc. 12 visitor spaces, 1 accessible visitor space, 1 car wash bay, 29 residential spaces and 4 accessible residential spaces)

-     5 motorbike spaces;

-     Bicycle parking;

-     Double lift well (west) and two single lift wells (east);

-     Services and waste service and bulky waste room (east);

-     Central waste and loading zone;

-     Waste chute room (east)

 

Ground

-     13 x Residential Units comprising:

-     2 x 1 bedroom units

-     6 x 2 bedroom unit

-     5 x 3 bedroom units

-     Vehicle entrance from Allison Avenue.

-     Northern pedestrian path from Allison Avenue.

-     Fire services cupboard to Allison Avenue.

-     Southern pedestrian path from Gatacre Avenue.

-     Three lobby areas.

-     Unit UG11 and UG09 access from lift only (no lobby).

-     Unit UG01, UG02, UG06 and UGO7 two storey units.

-     Waste chute room to western lobby only.

-     Three fire stairs.

Level 1

-     9 x Residential Units comprising:

-     1 x 1 bedroom units

-     3 x 2 bedroom units

-     4 x 3 bedroom units

-     1 x 4 bedroom unit

-     One lobby area only (west).

-     Unit U106, U107, U108 and U109 access from lift only (no lobby).

-     Waste chute room to western lobby only.

-     Three fire stairs.

Level 2

-     12 x Residential Units comprising:

-     3 x 1 bedroom units

-     4 x 2 bedroom units

-     4 x 3 bedroom units

-     1 x 4 bedroom unit

-     One lobby area only (west).

-     Unit U209, U210, U211 and U212 access from lift only (no lobby).

-     Waste chute room to western lobby only.

-     Three fire stairs.

Level 3

-     12 x Residential Units comprising:

-     3 x 1 bedroom units

-     4 x 2 bedroom units

-     4 x 3 bedroom units

-     1 x 4 bedroom unit

-     One lobby area only (west).

-     Unit U309, U310, U311 and U312 access from lift only (no lobby).

-     Waste chute room to western lobby only.

-     Three fire stairs.

Level 4

-     12 x Residential Units comprising:

-     3 x 1 bedroom units

-     4 x 2 bedroom units

-     4 x 3 bedroom units

-     1 x 4 bedroom unit

-     One lobby area only (west).

-     Unit 404 is a two storey unit (up to Level 5).

-     Unit U409, U410, U411 and U412 access from lift only (no lobby).

-     Waste chute room to western lobby only.

Three fire stairs.

Level 5

-     2 x Residential Units comprising:

-     1 x 2 bedroom unit

-     1 x 3 bedroom unit

-     Three lobby areas and lift cores.

-     Rooftop communal open space including swimming pool, pergola structures and a range of passive recreation areas.

-     Three fire stairs.

Roof Level

-     Lift-overun, lobby and fire stairs;

-     No roof-top plant;

-     Communal open space including swimming pool.

 

 

5.2       Landscaping

 

The proposed landscaping is shown on the submitted landscape drawings (Annexure 6). The landscaping site plan overlaid with tree removal plan is shown in Figure 19 below. The proposed landscaping includes the following:

 

-     Removal of all thirteen (13) site trees;

-     Shrub planting to the northern boundary;

-     Negligible planting forward of the building to Gatacre and Allison Avenue; and

-     Tree and shrub planting to the south as allowed for by the principal deep soil area;

 

Figure 19: Proposed Landscaping Plan (showing Ground Level and Tree Removal)

 

5.3       Site Access (Vehicular and Pedestrian)

 

Site access (vehicular) is proposed via a two-way driveway from Allison Avenue. The existing vehicular entrance from Gatacre Avenue would be removed. Two pedestrian access points are proposed from Allison Avenue along the northern boundary and from Gatacre Avenue along the southern boundary. The building does not provide a clear entrance/lobby visible from the public domain.

 

5.4       Materiality

 

The proposed materiality is shown in Figure 20 and includes a combination of pigmented and textured concrete, a brick ‘base’, and bronze/copper aluminium window frames, balustrading and privacy screens.

Figure 20: Materiality

 

 

5.5       Private Open Space

 

Private open space to the ground level units is a series of terrace areas. Private open space to Level 1 residential accommodation (and above) is in the form of private balconies.

 

5.6       Communal Open Space and Communal Facilities

 

The proposed communal open space is comprised of 608.7m2 at the ground floor and 596.1m2 on the rooftop. The principal usable communal open space is the rooftop area as shown in Figure 21 below. The rooftop communal open space is embellished by a swimming pool and a range of outdoor, passive recreation and landscaped areas. The ground level communal open space is largely for the purpose of thoroughfare.

Figure 21: Proposed Communal Open Space Area (Rooftop)

 

5.7       Waste Management

 

The waste management is proposed on-site. Waste is proposed to be collected via a loading zone and bin storage area within Basement Level 1. In relation to the day to day resident waste disposal, the proposal provides for two forms of waste collection. The western part of the residential waste collection is via a chute and carousel system. The eastern part of the building is required to take waste down the elevators to a waste room. An Operational Waste Management Plan (as amended) is included as Annexure 10 to this report.

 

5.8       Stormwater Management

 

The proposal seeks to provide for an On-site Detention System within Basement Level 1 within the Allison Avenue frontage. The proposal was accompanied by a Stormwater Management Plan provided as Annexure 19 to this report.

 

5.9       Mechanical Plant

 

The proposal does not detail the location of mechanical plant (air-conditioning etc). There does not appear to be an allowance for mechanical plant within the services area of Basement Level 1.

 


 

6.         SECTION 4.15 ASSESSMENT

 

The following assessment is provided against the relevant provisions of Section 4.15 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979:

 

 

6.1       Any environmental planning instrument:

 

 

6.1.1    SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

 

6.1.1.1 Assessment

 

i.          Clause 104 - Traffic Generating Development

 

The proposal was referred to Transport for NSW under Clause 104 of the SEPP as the proposed development is within 90m of Lane Cove Tunnel and Pacific Highway and has a car park greater than 50 vehicles. The Transport NSW response is provided as Annexure 25 to this report. Transport for NSW raised no objections subject to conditions to protect the Lane Cove Tunnel and that certain matters are considered by Council as part of the Development Application. The non-generic matter for consideration by Council is as follows:

 

It is noted the proposed development will result in additional traffic at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Allison Avenue. TfNSW has concerns that left turning vehicles from Pacific Highway onto Allison Avenue would be obstructed by other vehicles queuing on Allison Avenue. This would also affect through traffic on Pacific Highway. TfNSW requests that ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on Allison Avenue (both sides) should be extended past the proposed driveway to provide for uninterrupted traffic flow on Allison Avenue and Pacific Highway.

 

The need to address queuing is acknowledged and the ‘no-stopping’ provisions could form a condition of any determination (i.e. approval of the traffic committee prior to Construction Certificate). The proposal would be capable of compliance with Clause 104 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

ii.         Clause 102 – Impacts of Road Noise or Vibration on Non-Road Development

 

The proposal was accompanied by an acoustic report provided as Annexure 13 to this report. The recommendations of the report are generally well-founded however the following comment requires further consideration:

 

A natural ventilation assessment has been conducted in accordance with the requirements shown in Section 4 and has determined that a number of apartments exposed to noise from the Pacific Highway may require alternate means of ventilation. This is to be addressed further prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

The report does not specify the number or location of units. However, the requirement for mechanical ventilation for a number of units has the potential to impact on the natural ventilation assessment under SEPP 65. The suitability of providing units that wholly rely on mechanical ventilation has not been established. The proposal has not established compliance with Clause 102 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

 


 

6.1.2    SEPP (BASIX) 2004

 

The proposal was accompanied by a BASIX Certificate which is provided as Annexure 21 to this report. The proposal would be capable of compliance with SEPP (BASIX) 2004.

 

6.1.3    SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

A Detailed Site Investigation accompanies the application and is provided as Annexure 9 to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of SEPP No. 55 by Council’s Manager Environmental Health with the assessment summarised in Table 9 below:

 

Table 9 – SEPP No. 55 Clause 7 Compliance Table

Provision

Compliance

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless -

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated

 

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed, and

 

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

Unsatisfactory - The proposal was accompanied by a Detailed Site Investigation (Annexure 9) to assist Council in determining compliance with Clause 7(1) of SEPP No. 55.

 

The previous/existing use of the site was for a motel (constructed 1950-1970) and dwelling house (constructed prior to 1930). The surrounding land use of note is the service station to the north-east of the site on Pacific Highway (upslope of the site).  

 

Remediating the land from service station contamination is unknown from the Detailed Site Investigation due to a lack of site sampling.

 

(2) Before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

 

Complies – A Preliminary Investigation Report previously submitted and was found in the opinion of Council to warrant a Detailed Site Investigation prior to determining the application.

(3) The applicant for development consent must carry out the investigation required by subclause (2) and must provide a report on it to the consent authority. The consent authority may require the applicant to carry out, and provide a report on, a detailed investigation (as referred to in the contaminated land planning guidelines) if it considers that the findings of the preliminary investigation warrant such an investigation.

 

Unsatisfactory – The Detailed Site Investigation makes the following recommendations and conclusions:

 

Overall, site soil and groundwater were all below adopted SAC. Minor detections in hydrocarbons were considered to be localised in shallow fill layers and unlikely attributable to the adjacent service station. The site is therefore suitable for the proposed residential development.

 

As part of site demolition works, MA recommend that a qualified environmental consultant is present to make inspections beneath existing site buildings and collect additional soil samples to form part of the formal waste classification works which will be required for proposed excavation works and ensure that no additional contaminated material is present.

 

If any unexpected finds (such as PACM, odours or soil staining) are encountered following site demolition or at any time during future site works, the unexpected finds protocol is to be followed..and the unexpected find is to be investigated by a qualified environmental consultant to determine requirements for additional investigation and/or remedial action.

 

Where any soil material is to be removed from site, a formal waste classification assessment shall be required in accordance with the NSW EPA Waste Classification Guidelines (2014).

 

Council’s Environmental Health Manager has reviewed the DSI. The sampling protocols don't comply with the sampling requirements for consultants reporting on contaminated sites i.e. the number required as a ratio based on the size of the land - minimum of 28 sampling locations, where only 8 sampling locations have been undertaken to date.

 

The consultant has justified this by stating that the area will be excavated and therefore any contamination present will be removed.

 

Additional sampling is capable of being undertaken (light weight structures only are in the zone adjacent to the service station) given the proposed remaining soil adjacent to the service station, the potential for seepage and this being a high risk interface.

 

(4)  The land concerned is—

(a)  land that is within an investigation area,

(b)  land on which development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines is being, or is known to have been, carried out,

(c)  to the extent to which it is proposed to carry out development on it for residential, educational, recreational or child care purposes, or for the purposes of a hospital—land—

(i)  in relation to which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge) as to whether development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines has been carried out, and

(ii)  on which it would have been lawful to carry out such development during any period in respect of which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge).

 

Subject to Clause 7(4)(c) - The site is not within an investigation area or listed in Table 1 to the guidelines. The key consideration raised in the PSI and DSI is the service station. To this extent, given the lack of certainty around seepage, the site is considered to be subject to Clause 7(4)(c) of SEPP No. 55, and as such Clause 7(2) applies as addressed above.

 

Having regard to the information above, further information is required to establish site suitability under SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land. It cannot be determined on the information submitted that the site would be suitable for the intended use.

 

6.1.4    SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

The proposal was accompanied by a Design Verification Statement satisfying Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

Clause 28(2) of SEPP 65 states that in determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration) –

 

(a)        the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel (see Section 6.1.4.1), and

(b)        the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles (see Section 6.1.4.2), and

(c)        the Apartment Design Guide (see Section 6.1.4.3).

 

The comments of the Design Review Panel, the design quality principle and the Apartment Design Guide are considered in turn as follows:

 

6.1.4.1 Design Review Panel

 

The Development Application was referred to the Northern Sydney Regional of Council’s Design Review Panel on 17 June 2021. The minutes of the meeting are provided as Annexure 27 to this report. The minutes were incorporated and provided as part of Council’s Request for Further Information on 6 July 2021. The concluding comments of the Panel are as follows:

 

In determining the outcome of the Design Review the issues of concern include:

 

·    Subterranean apartments

·    Vertical 6 storey facades

·    Visual/acoustic privacy between the proposal and boarding house

·    Exceedance of built form height controls

·    Questionable solar access provision

·    Problematic entry sequence and inadequate lobbies to the northern sector

·    Question extent of basement into deep soil zones impacted by the need for retaining walls against lower adjacent existing residential development to the south

·    Concerns re lifts with direct access into living area spaces

·    Intrusion into ADG/DCP southern setback requirement of 9m

·    Setback alignments to Gatacre and Allison Avenues

·    Visual impact given ridgetop location

·    Fire stair access from eastern apartments

·    Compressed entry sequence to eastern apartments

·    Tight lobbies to eastern apartment entry points

·    Indirect access to upper-level communal area from eastern apartment complex

·    Significance of R2/R4 land use transition

·    Measures to limit potential overlooking from apartment complex to lower existing residential development to the south (potentially via planters)

·    Questionable ground floor communal open space essentially overridden by pedestrian access requirements

 

Accordingly, the Panel’s direction to the Applicant is as follows: The Panel does not support the Development Application in its current form. The Panel recommends that the Development Application be further developed and refined to address the above issues and recommendations and returned to the Panel.

 

The NSROC Design Review Panel was of the view that the proposal fails each of the 9 design quality principles contained within SEPP 65. The applicant’s response to the recommendations of the NSROC DRP (see Annexure 5A) do not satisfy concerns raised in relation to each principle. While the Panel has recommended the Development Application be subject to a further DRP meeting, the changes proposed by the applicant are such that the overriding number of concerns would still remain. The design review panel comments are referred to in a discussion on the design quality principles and Apartment Design Guide that follows.

 

6.1.4.2 Design Quality Principles

 

The design quality of the development has been assessed in relation to the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65. The principles are quoted and then addressed in turn.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 1: CONTEXT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER

 

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood. Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

 

 

Comment: The context of the site differs from the northern interface to the southern interface. To the south the context is a treed low-density residential environment characterised by large landscaped rear setback areas following the gully. To the north is an approved (but not constructed boarding house) and service station. The NSROC Design Review Panel comments relate to the proportions of the building not responding to the neighbourhood character to the south and the lack of visual impact assessment from the southern viewpoint. The proportion, a 90+m continuous five storey southern elevation, provides no visual relief or a break in built-form that is currently experienced in the landscaped setting in between buildings on Gatacre and Allison Avenue. This is exacerbated by the built form and scale concerns with the development. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 1 – Context and Neighbourhood Character.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 2: BUILT FORM AND SCALE

 

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

 

Comment: The NSROC Design Review Panel was not satisfied with the proposed building dimensions in all directions (height, front setbacks, northern and southern setbacks). While the proposal has been amended to reduce the extent of height non-compliance there remains a significant concern with the built form and scale. The proximity to the northern boundary unsatisfactorily reduces amenity to the north-facing units, the southern transition zone non-compliance reduces the amenity/outlook of adjoining dwelling houses and the non-compliant front setback is not in keeping with the character of the streetscape. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 2 – Built Form and Scale.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 3: DENSITY

 

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context. Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

 

 

Comment: The proposal does not exceed the maximum FSR prescribed under LCLEP 2009. However, Principle 3 requires a consideration of the amenity afforded to that density. In this instance, the proposal relies on substantial excavation resulting in the building being 1-1.5 storeys below street level on Gatacre Avenue creating subterranean units. The comments of the Design Review Panel are concurred with being that “Subterranean units are not supported due to the restrictive sense of enclosure, limited sky exposure, and poor solar and environmental amenity.” The applicant has amended the plans to provide two storey units for the subterranean section. The subterranean unit is shown in Figure 22 below. Notwithstanding the amendment, the setback (3m) and adjoining development (existing commercial building, or the approved boarding house) provides little opportunity for the feeling of enclosure and poor sky exposure to be properly mitigated. The proposed development is not considered to Satisfy Principle 3 – Density.

Figure 22: Subterranean Units – Proportion Below Street Level Shown Red

 

 

PRINCIPLE 4: SUSTAINABILITY

 

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

 

 

Comment: The principal concern relates to the basement extent and the highly limited areas provided for groundwater recharge and vegetation. Otherwise, the proposed provides for the required BASIX Certificate and the associated sustainability measures. However, due to the excessive hardstand the proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 4 – Sustainability.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 5: LANDSCAPE

 

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

 

 

Comment: The landscape architect on the Design Review Panel believed inadequate landscaped setback zones were provided to all boundaries (each having a significant purpose to be carried out) and that Tree 13 on Gatacre Avenue should be retained. As will be discussed later in this report, Council’s Landscape Architect is of the same view. The proposal contains tokenistic landscaping that will not assist either the building or the site landscaping sit within the streetscape or neighbourhood. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 5 – Landscape.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 6: AMENITY

 

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being. Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

 

Comment: The following concerns of the Design Review Panel remain in relation to amenity:

 

-     The subterranean units are not supported as previously discussed;

-     The open driveway to Allison Avenue will result in poor amenity outcomes for units and No. 7 Allison Avenue. A suitable transition and streetscape landscaping zone and building-integrated driveway should be provided;

-     Poor outlook of the north facing bedrooms in the eastern wing (service station);

-     No dimensions on plans to properly assess room dimensions and depths;

-     Concerns about the token small ‘living rooms’ to secure compliance with solar access; and

-     The need for perimeter planting on balcony edges facing south.

The amenity impacts of subterranean units, driveway location, the outlook of the northern façade of the eastern part of the building (Adjacent to the service station), the token solar access (discussed in detail in the Apartment Design Guide assessment in this report), and the overall lack of dimensions and data on amenity are considered unresolved in the amended design. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 6 – Amenity.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 7: SAFETY

 

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety. A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

 

 

Comment: The proposal lacks direct lobby access from the street and provides direct lift access into the eastern apartments. The northern accessway from Allison Avenue is narrow and lacks passive surveillance compromising safety for the units along this northern accessway. The direct access from the lift into the apartments in the eastern part of the proposed building is considered problematic from a safety standpoint. Further, concern is raised in relation to the fire egress from those same apartments. The proposed ingress and egress to these apartments is shown in Figure 23 below. The design is maximising unit floor area but compromising safety and this is not considered supportable. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 7 – Safety.

 

            Figure 23: Entry and Egress to Eastern Apartments

 

 

PRINCIPLE 8: HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

 

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix. Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

 

 

Comment: The proposed apartment mix is considered satisfactory. However the design limits social interaction in the eastern sector of the building through the lack of communal lobby areas. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 8 – Housing Diversity and Social Interaction.

 

 

PRINCIPLE 9: AESTHETICS

 

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. The visual appearance of a well designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

 

 

Comment: The proposed materiality is satisfactory. However, the Design Review Panel provides the following comments in relation to aesthetics which are considered unresolved in the amended design:

 

The extensive use of 6 storey vertical facades, blade walls, reliance on high level windows and privacy screens together with the intrusion into setback zones required under the ADG have compromised the aesthetics of the project. The adoption of 6 storey vertical walls on a ridgetop location, rather than a building that addresses the requisite ADG scaling setback at 4 storey is further compromised by the limited setback sensitivity to the R4/R2 zonal boundary. The resultant ‘defensive’ expression to address limited setbacks is not compatible with the residential character of the areas south of Pacific Highway.

 

The non-compliant building separation under the ADG is detailed below. The Design Review Panel comments around the aesthetics being adversely impacted by the measures the design needs to take because of the non-compliances are agreed with. Good design would be better achieved through a reduction in the defensive mechanisms employed. This could only be achieved through providing greater building separation. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy Principle 9 – Aesthetics.

 

6.1.4.3 Apartment Design Guide

 

The Council SEPP 65 assessment against the Apartment Design Guide is provided as Annexure 1 to this report.

 

6.1.4.3.1 Variations

 

i.          Building Separation

 

Part 3F of the Apartment Design Guide stipulates minimum building separation requirements. The objective of Part 3F is that adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between sites to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy. The relevant controls are shown in Table 10 below.

 

Table 10 – Relevant ADG Provisions

Control

Storey

Design Criteria

 

Design Guidance

 

 

The applicant is seeking a variation to the low-density zone transition building separation requirements (to the south) and the habitable room building separation requirements (to the north).

The variations to building separation are detailed numerically in Table 11. The building separation zones are shown in yellow (north) and red (south) in the annotated floor plans in Figure 22 to 26 below (noting the purple zone is for the purpose of a later discussion on front setbacks).

 

Table 11 – Proposed ADG Building Separation Variations

Aspect

Storey

Requirement

Proposed

Departure

Compliance

North

1-4

6m

3m

3m

No

North

5-6

9m

3m

6m

No

South

1-4

9m

6m

3m

No

South

5-6

12m

9m

3m

No

 

To the north the proposed building separation is a minimum 3m for 6 storeys where the ADG would require 6m (1-4 storeys) and 9m (5-6 storeys). The encroachments are characterised by blank walls, living rooms, balconies and bedrooms as can be seen in the Figure 24 to 28 ‘yellow zones’. A discussion of this variation is provided below.

 

To the south the proposed building separation is a minimum 6m (1-4 storeys) and 9m (5-6 storeys) where the ADG stipulates a minimum of 9m (1-4 storeys) and 12m (5-6 storeys) where a site transitions with a low-density zone. The site is adjoined by an R2 Low Density Residential zone to the south. The encroachments in the building separation zone are characterised by living rooms, balconies and bedrooms as can be seen in the Figure 24 to 28 ‘red zones’. A discussion of this variation is provided below.

 

 

Figure 24: Ground Floor (Storey 1) - Building Separation and Setback Zones

(Yellow: 6m ADG, Red: 9m ADG/DCP zone transition, purple: 7.5m front setback)

 

Figure 25:  Level 1 (Storey 2) - Building Separation and Setback Zones

(Yellow: 6m ADG, Red: 9m ADG/DCP zone transition, purple: 7.5m front setback)

 

Figure 26:  Level 2 and 3 (Storey 3 and 4) - Building Separation and Setback Zones

(Yellow: 6m ADG, Red: 9m ADG/DCP zone transition, purple: 7.5m front setback)

 

Figure 27:  Level 4 (Storey 5) - Building Separation and Setback Zones

(Yellow: 9m ADG, Red: 12m ADG zone transition, Purple: 7.5m front setback)

 

Figure 28:  Level 5 (Storey 6) - Building Separation and Setback Zones

(Yellow: 9m ADG, Red: 12m ADG zone transition, Purple: 7.5m front setback)

 

The NSROC Design Review Panel has provided the following comments in relation to these two variations:

 

·    South: The zone interface along the southwestern side boundary requires a sensitive built form response to minimise adverse impact and respond to the lower scale down slope neighbourhood character. Encroachments in the DCP/ADG setback zones along the southwestern site edges are not supported.

 

·    North: An approved 6 storey boarding house development on the adjoining lot (approved not constructed) abuts the western part of the northern boundary with a series of boarding house windows and balconies facing the subject site setback 3m from the shared boundary… The proposed development on the subject site provides for a 3m setback for habitable rooms and balconies part screened by blade walls, high windows and narrow building insets along the majority of the 91.2m boundary for the full 6 storeys…The proximity of built form to the shared northern boundary and the unit layouts result in compromised amenity outcomes to the north facing units, despite efforts to reorientate habitable rooms and balconies. Acoustic and visual privacy issues are some of the undesirable outcomes stemming from the lack of sufficient setback. Poor outcomes also include insufficient landscape opportunities and canyon-like proportions when viewed from the street or from within the complex.

 

The applicant has sought to justify the variation on the following grounds (summarised from page 26 to 33 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (Annexure 7):

 

·    South: The ground level encroachments to 6m are screened by dense landscaping, the Level 1-3 encroachments include balconies that are appropriately screened, the Level 4 encroachments include habitable rooms and balconies but the DCP only requires 9m. Level 5 includes encroachments by the communal open space but these are appropriately screened.

·    North: The ground level is subterranean and therefore there are no visual privacy concerns, at Level 1-3 there are blank walls or the openings within 6m are orientated away from the northern boundary and/or provided with high-sill windows, meeting the privacy objectives and non-habitable separation requirements of the ADG. At Level 4-5, the non-habitable setback is not met but the design response is superior to the boarding house and the habitable rooms interfacing with that boundary are lower-trafficked rooms and suitably treated with privacy measures.

 

The following assessment is made in relation to building separation considering both the comments of the NSROC Design Review Panel, submissions received and applicant’s justification:

 

·    South: The ADG provides clear guidance on the need to sensitively consider the visual privacy impacts when a development is situated on a zone transition. In this instance the proposal is situated north and upslope of an established low-density residential zone. The topography of the transition (Figure 2) results in the dwelling houses south of the subject site being between half and a full storey lower than the ground floor of the proposed development. This only increases the sensitivity and need for a reasonable building separation. The views of the NSROC Design Review Panel in addition to Council staff preliminary views were put to the applicant with an opportunity to make amendments to satisfy the concerns. In response the applicant, in the view of the assessor, made negligible changes between the original and amended plans in relation to building separation with encroachments still insisted upon. Measures to reduce overlooking from encroaching elements does not satisfactorily compensate for the visual privacy that could be achieved through greater and compliant building separation distance. The section drawings are marked up in Figure 29 and Figure 30 with the required ADG transition separation shown. They show the encroaching balconies on Level 1-3 (Storey 2-4) in Figure 29 and the encroaching habitable rooms on Level 4 (storey 5) and communal open space on Level 5 (Storey 6) in Figure 30. The most severe of the impacts would result from allowing a 9m setback at Level 4 and 5 (storey 5-6) where the ADG would require 12m. The encroachment occurs for the full 90+m southern elevation without any relief or inset (refer to Figure 27). It is considered critical that a step from 9m (storey 1-4) to 12m should occur at this level to provide visual privacy that comes from building separation.

 

Figure 29: ADG Building Separation Line (South) – Mark up of Section B/2

 

Figure 30: ADG Building Separation (South) – Mark Up of Section C/3

 

·    North: To the north the NSROC Design Review Panel was particularly concerned with the canyoning effect caused by the 3m building separation to the north. They were also of the view that a boarding house, not subject to the provisions of SEPP 65, could not be used as the basis to justify reduced building separation for a development that is subject to SEPP 65. In this regard it is considered that 6 storey blank walls at a 3m building separation for the 90+m elevation are not a suitable design treatment. The habitable rooms while angled away from the northern boundary, are still within 6m of the northern boundary. Any further visual privacy treatment would adversely impact the amenity of north-facing units. Providing a 6m building separation along the northern elevation would enable improved visual privacy outcomes for the proposed apartments, reduced proximity to a service station and boarding house, greater opportunities for landscaping, greater opportunities to have a more open and usable northern elevation and a less monolithic building structure resulting from the blank walls.

 

It is recommended that the proposed variations to the northern and southern building separation provisions of the Apartment Design Guide be refused due to their unreasonable visual privacy impacts to the single detached dwelling houses to the south, and for future occupants of the proposed development facing north.

 

ii.         Solar Access

 

Part 4A(1) of the ADG requires that living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in Sydney Metropolitan Area. The submitted design verification statement and architectural plans nominate that 42 (70%) of apartments comply with the direct sunlight provision. However, the proposal relies on secondary living rooms/private open space areas to achieve compliance. Concern is raised these rooms are being labelled for the purpose of compliance only and would in reality not function in the manner described. And if they were to be labelled otherwise (bedroom etc.) they would not be capable of being utilised in the solar access calculation. Examples of units of concern are shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32 below.

 

Figure 31: Secondary Living Rooms and Balconies to Unit 107 and 108 (Boxed Red)

 

Figure 32: Secondary Living Rooms and Balconies to Unit 103 (Boxed Red)

 

It is noted the NSROC Design Review Panel made the following comment in relation to this matter:

 

The Panel has residual concerns about the token nature of small northern ‘living’ rooms separated from the principal living areas and balconies to secure compliance with solar access provisions.

 

Part 4A(3) of the ADG requires that a maximum of 15% of apartments can receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm mid-winter. The submitted design verification statement or architectural plans do not provide an assessment against this measure, despite a request being made, and accordingly compliance cannot be determined.

 

 

iii.        Natural Ventilation

 

Part 4B-3(1) of the ADG requires that a minimum of 60% of apartments are naturally cross-ventilated. The design verification statement and architectural plans nominate 75% of apartments being naturally cross-ventilated. The submitted acoustic report (Annexure 13) nominates that a number of units are impacted by road noise (Pacific Highway) and would require mechanical ventilation. The number of units impacted is not clarified in the submitted documentation and as such the units capable of achieving natural ventilation (in reality) cannot be determined.

 

iv.        Apartment Size and Layout

 

Part 4D-1(1) of the ADG requires that minimum apartment sizes are achieved. Taking at face value the bedroom count given for each apartment, Unit UG13 is the only non-compliant unit being a 3 bed + 2 bathroom unit with an area of 94.3m2. The variation is 0.7m2 and would be capable of support.

However, in reality the proposed apartment layouts include a number of rooms that would be capable to be used as additional bedrooms. For example, if the secondary ‘living rooms’ in Figure 31 were to be counted as bedrooms, those units would go from 2 bedroom to 3 bedrooms and would be undersized.

Based on the information provided and the apartment layouts it is considered that the proposal does not comply with Part 4D-1(1) of the ADG.

v.         Storage

 

Part 4G of the ADG specifies a minimum storage area per apartment with at least 50% to be located within the apartment. The provided storage schedule plan (Annexure 4) provides an incomplete unit list and does not allocate basement storage zones. Compliance with Part 4G cannot be determined with the information provided.

 

vi.        Common Circulation and Spaces

 

Part 4F of the ADG provides design guidance that daylight and natural ventilation should be provide to all common circulation spaces that are above ground. The proposal includes eight apartments off a common lobby in the western part of the building. This lobby area is not provided with daylight or natural ventilation as shown in Figure 33 below. It is considered that at least one slot should be provided to the Gatacre Avenue frontage to provide additional amenity for the proposed development.

 

Figure 33: Western Lobby Space with No Daylight or Natural Ventilation

 

 

6.1.5    Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

6.1.5.1 Assessment

 

i.          Permissibility

 

A residential flat building is permissible with consent in the R4 High Density Residential zone pursuant to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

ii.         Provisions/Standards

 

Table 12 – Compliance with LCLEP 2009

 

Clause

Provision/Standard

Proposed

Compliance

4.3 – Building Height

15m

17.4m (2.4m, 16% variation)

No, see Section 6.1.5.2 below.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

2.4:1

2.21:1

Yes

4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 written request submitted.

Clause 4.6 written request submitted.

N/A

5.10 - Heritage

Not a heritage item or within vicinity of one.

 

Not applicable.

Yes

6.1A - Earthworks

Consideration of impact of earthworks.

 

The matters are satisfied.

Yes

 

The applicant has provided ‘height blanket’ diagrams to seek to demonstrate the proposed height breach locations as shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35. The SEE describes the variations as being principally the lift overruns at 17.4m (east) and 16.7m (west) with other variations for a portion of the roof above Level 4, planter boxes, and awnings. The height breaches have been reviewed and are considered to be accurate numerically but inaccurate in terms of detail shown (‘see-through’ roofs etc.) which has the effect of minimising the perceived bulk and scale of the building.

 

Figure 34: Proposed Height Blanket

Figure 35: Proposed Height Blanket 2

 

6.1.5.2 Clause 4.6 Written Request

 

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

 

 

 

 

Written request provided by the applicant

 

The applicant provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged (and amended) application.  The written request is for a 17.4m maximum building height where the development standard prescribes a maximum of 15m. A copy is provided to the Panel as Annexure 8 to this report. 

 

Under Clause 4.6(3) the applicant is required to demonstrate:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Clause 4.6 written request states that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:

 

·    In Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 established that a means to demonstrate unreasonable or unnecessary includes that ‘the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard’.

 

·    Clause 4.6(3)(A) is satisfied because the development is consistent with the standard and zone objectives, there are no additional significant adverse impacts arising from the proposed non-compliance, and important planning goals are achieved by the approval of the variation.

 

Comment: It is assumed that compliance with the objectives of the building height standard is relied upon primarily to satisfy Clause 4.6(3)(A) as the other parts of the justification, ‘no additional significant adverse impacts’ or ‘important planning goals’, are not referenced or detailed in this section of the Clause 4.6 request. For reasons outlined below, the proposed building height is not considered to comply with the objectives of the building height standard.

 

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

 

The decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 demonstrates that the requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation, requires identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and not simply grounds that apply to any similar development on the site or in the vicinity.

 

The Clause 4.6 written request states the following environmental planning grounds (summarised – refer to Annexure 8 for detail):

 

·    The height breach is greatest for the lift overrun on Allison Avenue (17.4m) and Gatacre Avenue (16.7m);

·    Topography is the principal reason for the variation which is not anticipated by Clause 4.3;

·    The lift overruns are located centrally, subordinate to the compliant building mass, limiting any concerning and adverse visual or amenity impact.

·    The materiality and design of the non-compliant elements will ensure they are not visually obtrusive or jarring from the public domain.

·    The lift overrun to Gatacre Avenue is 900mm lower than the adjoining approved boarding house resulting in a building that will ‘nestle’ comfortably in the R4 zone.

·    The lift overrun (and building) to Allison will also not be visually obtrusive due to the boarding house and any future redevelopment of the service station.

·    The southern boundary setbacks have been designed to provide an appropriate transition of built form the upper-most level setbacks.

·    The lifts provide an accessible path of travel to the communal open spaces.

·    Deletion of the lifts would require deletion of the communal open space or inequitable communal open space areas.

·    The elevations of the building fronting Gatacre and Allison Avenue will have the most bearing on character of the development in the locality.

·    There are similar developments in the locality making it not out of character.

·    The proposal complies with the maximum permitted FSR which has the objective of controlling bulk and scale.

·    There are social benefits of providing a high quality communal open space.

·    There is an absence of any amenity impacts from the breach:

Additional overshadowing would be insignificant.

No visual privacy implications;

No view loss

·    The proposal meets the objectives of the standard and zone.

·    The proposal complies with Section 1.3 of the Act.

 

Comment:

 

The Clause 4.6 argues that changes in topography are not anticipated by Clause 4.3 however objective (d) of the clause is specifically “to relate development to topography”. The proposed development seeks to over-excavate (subterranean units) and then breach the height standard. Clause 4.3 does anticipate changes to topography and the proposed development does not relate to topography.

 

The Clause 4.6 further argues that the proposed building height breaches will ‘nestle’ into the context of the adjoining northern approved boarding house (not yet constructed). However, the subject site steps down from the properties on the Pacific Highway and there should be a defined step between the buildings on Pacific Highway and on the subject site. It should also be noted that the boarding house approved on the northern adjoining site complied with the maximum building height control. The non-compliant building elements are not conducive to a clearly stepped building.

 

The Clause 4.6 then argues that the visual impact will be negligible due to  the location of the lift-overruns central to the building and a compliant Gatacre Avenue and Allison Avenue facade. Contrary to this view, it is considered that there is also a significant visual catchment from the residential properties to the south down Gatacre Avenue, Allison Avenue and beyond. There is no visual impact assessment to determine the impact of the non-compliant elements from the downslope visual catchment of the site. Given the proposal seeks a building length of 90+m from east to west, the impact of any additional height must be closely considered. It is agreed from the street standing direct on the Allison and Gatacre Avenue frontage the non-compliance will be largely undiscernible. What makes the subject request different is the significant visual catchment to which the variation will be viewed from the south. The proposed southern elevation is again replicated for the purpose of demonstrating the scale of the elevation in Figure 36.

Figure 36: Southern Elevation

 

The Clause 4.6 argues compliant height would prevent rooftop communal open space and/or accessible communal open space through the deletion of the lift overruns. The lack of usable communal open space on the ground level is largely the result of non-compliant building separation and setbacks. Higher quality ground-level communal open space could be achieved through more considered horizontal building massing. Environmental planning grounds justifying a height breach on the basis of poor provision of ground-level communal open space from non-compliances elsewhere in the design (setbacks etc.) is not considered well-founded.

 

The environmental planning grounds in relation to amenity and in particular overshadowing are insufficiently detailed. The request states ‘insignificant’ additional overshadowing but does not go to quantify what this is. The request highlights 2 Gatacre Avenue, 7 Allison Avenue and 17 Haldane Crescent and then makes assumptions about dwelling layouts without enough analysis. The ‘unavoidable’ overshadowing to the south is not reason to just allow additional overshadowing, but is a site constraint that should be the basis of significant caution in relation to any height variation.

 

The environmental planning grounds put forward in the Clause 4.6 written request are not considered to satisfy Clause 4.6(3)(b) of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.

 

iii.     Consistent with the zone objectives and objectives of the development standard.

 

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

 

Height of Building Objectives

 

Clause 4.3 (1) provides the following objectives:-

 

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

 

Comment: Concern is raised in relation to the shadow diagrams and how they have factored in topography. It appears the 9am and 3pm shadows have the same length despite them being across different topographies (i.e. 9am shadow follows a steeper topography). Reference can be made to Figure 2 of this report and the referenced 9am and 3pm shadow of equal length in Figure 37. Accordingly, the shadow impact is unclear. The solar access impacts are also exacerbated by the height of the building being located in non-compliant locations. For example, the transition separations or building front setbacks are not complied with, which exacerbate the extent and time of shadow/solar access. It cannot be determined that compliance with this objective is achieved.

 

Figure 37: 9am and 3pm Shadow Comparison

 

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

 

Comment: As discussed above the visual impact to the wider R2 Low Density Residential zone is not established and compliance with this objective as it relates to the height variation is not established.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed height variation would not unduly impact public domain sunlight.

 

(d)  to relate development to topography

 

Comment:  As discussed above the proposed development does not relate to topography with subterranean units up to 1.5 storeys below street level and a building that exceeds the height limit. A stepped four storey building would be more appropriate for the site as shown in Figure 38 below.

 

Figure 38: Illustrative Stepping to Relate to Topography

 

R4 High Density Residential Zone Objectives

 

The R4 High Density Residential Zone objectives are as follows:

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal provides housing within a high density residential environment.

 

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

 

Comment: A variety of housing types are provided.

 

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

 

Comment: Not applicable.

 

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

 

Comment: The site is appropriately zoned R4 High Density Residential.

 

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

 

Comment: The amenity of residences are impacted by the proposed height, and its location. The visual impact, the overshadowing, the visual privacy impacts from the development are significant concerns and the design could not, in the view of the assessor, be determined to be respectful.

 

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

 

Comment: Compliance with this objective is not impacted by the proposed height variation.

 

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

 

Comment: Landscaping is not a major element of the proposed development. The proposal removes all site trees. Then due to design decisions with non-compliant front, side and basement setbacks, the ability to enhance landscaping is severely impacted. Compliance with this objective has not been achieved. Removing lift shaft access to the roof, and providing more ground level communal open space upon deep soil with canopy planting would be a better planning outcome. 

 

In accordance with the above, the development does not comply with the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 objectives for the Height of Buildings standard or the R4 High Density Residential zone.

 

iv.        Concurrence of the Director General.

 

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

 

v.         Conclusion

 

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards and to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. The variation to the height standard of LCLEP 2009 is not well-justified in this instance.  There are insufficient environmental planning grounds and the objectives of the standard are not met. The development does not satisfy the objectives and the criteria outlined in clause 4.6. As such, the variation is not considered satisfactory or in the public interest.

 

 

6.2        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP, Planning Proposal)

 

 

6.2.1    Design and Place SEPP

 

The Housing Diversity SEPP seeks to consolidate a number of existing environmental planning instruments including SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The Housing Diversity SEPP Explanation of Intended Effect was notified between February and April 2021. A subsequent report outlining what changes will pursued in response to notification of the EIE was published in July 2021. The changes foreshadowed to the Apartment Design Guide include a focus on sustainability, green infrastructure (including tree canopy), quality and amenity. It is likely that the proposed development would be inconsistent with the focus areas of the Design and Place SEPP for reasons given in this report.

 

6.2.2    Draft Environment SEPP

 

The Draft Environment SEPP seeks to consolidate a number of existing environmental planning instruments including SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land. The Draft SEPP was subject to public exhibition between 31 January and 13 April 2018. The new draft measures primarily relate to scenarios where more complex remediation/ongoing management is required, and where the certification of remediation works is undertaken as development not requiring consent. While the Draft does consider introducing planning guidelines for the assessment/preparation of site investigations, the shortcomings of the DSI are made with respect to the existing instrument. The proposal is not any further inconsistent with the Draft Environment SEPP.

 

 

6.3       Any development control plan

 

 

6.3.1    Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings

 

The Development Application is subject to the provisions of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings. An assessment against the provisions of Part C3 is provided in Annexure 2 to this report. The variations are addressed in Section 6.3.1.1 below.

 

6.3.1.1 Variations

 

A.        Setbacks

 

The proposal includes variations to basement, front and side setbacks as stipulated in Part C3. The setback provisions have a common set of objectives as follows:

 

1       To establish the desired spatial proportions of the street and define the street edge and provide a transition between public and private space.

2       To assist in achieving visual privacy to dwellings from the street.

3       To allow for street landscape character.

 

i.          Basement Setbacks

 

Clause 3.5.3(A)(l) prescribes a maximum 2m encroachment into the front and side building setbacks for basement parking levels. In effect this requires a minimum 5.5m basement front setback to the Allison and Gatacre Avenue frontages, a 7m basement setback adjoining the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, and a 4m basement setback to the northern side boundary. The required setbacks have been annotated on the Basement Level 1 plan to demonstrate the extent of encroachment proposed.

 

Figure 39: Basement Setback Encroachments

The applicant’s submitted justification within the Statement of Environmental Effects relates to site constraints, the provision of significant deep soil zones, the cost of excavation impacting feasibility and the size of the proposed basement not being uncommon elsewhere.  

 

The justification is not considered well-founded. The objectives of the DCP relate in part to allowing for street landscape character. The proposed Gatacre Avenue frontage provides a proportion of the frontage for quality landscaping where Allison Avenue provides no deep soil zone capable of providing the street landscape character. Further, the basement encroachment into the northern/southern setback severely limits landscaping to assist the visual privacy to/from the site and in establishing the desire spatial proportions contrary to the objectives of the setback provisions.

 

ii.         Front Setback

 

Clause 3.5.1(a) prescribes that the prevailing street setback be applied (or 7.5m). The applicant was requested to provide front setback analysis to determine the predominant front setback in accordance with Diagram No. 1 of LCDCP 2010 Part C – Residential which is replicated at Figure 40 below. The applicant was advised by Council staff that the utilisation of the corner Pacific Highway blocks secondary frontage setbacks to determine the predominant street setback was not the intent of the DCP.

 

Figure 40: Predominant Street Setback Diagram (Source: LCDCP 2010)

 

The submitted analysis concludes the predominant setback to Gatacre Avenue is 6m and to Allison Avenue the predominant setback is 5.2m. The applicant then seeks to vary the predominant setback they have established. For the purpose of this report, the applicant’s predominant setback is reviewed, and the applicant’s justification for any variation assessed.

 

Predominant Setback

 

Table 13 – Predominant Setback Review

Gatacre Avenue Frontage

Allison Avenue Frontage

Property

Building Setback

Property

Building Setback

382 Pacific Highway

3.0m

374 Pacific Highway

4.8m

2 Gatacre

10.5m

7 Allison

6.0m

4 Gatacre

11.0m

9 Allison

6.0m

6 Gatacre

8.5m

11 Allison

6.0m

8 Gatacre

7.0m

13 Allison

6.0m

10 Gatacre

7.5m

15 Allison

6.0m

12 Gatacre

8.0m

17 Allison

6.0m

14 Gatacre

7.0m

19 Allison

6.0m

16 Gatacre

7.0m

21 Allison

6.0m

18 Gatacre

7.0m

23 Allison

6.0m

20 Gatacre

7.0m

25 Allison

6.0m

 

 

27 Allison

6.0m

 

 

29 Allison

6.0m

 

 

31 Allison

6.0m

Predominant

7.5m

Predominant

6.0m

 

The applicant’s assessment of the Allison Avenue or Gatacre Avenue predominant setback is not considered well-founded and unreasonably incorporates articulation elements or ancillary structures. The Gatacre Avenue predominant setback would be more accurately characterised as 7.5m and the Allison Avenue predominant setback more accurately characterised as 6.0m.

 

Front Setback Variation

 

The predominant setback (Actual) is compared with the front setback (proposed) in Table 14 below.

 

Table 14 – Front Setback Variations

Frontage

Applicant Predominant Setback

Actual Predominant Setback

Proposed Front Setback

Compliance

Gatacre Avenue

6.0m

7.5m

3.0m-6.0m

No

Allison Avenue

5.2m

6.0m

3.0m-4.8m

No

 

The applicant’s justification within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects is founded on the stepping of the building setbacks between the northern commercial/higher density properties to the north and the southern lower density residential properties to the south. The justification is considered to have little merit for the following reasons:

 

-     Inaccurate Predominant Setback: The proposal relies on an incorrect establishment of the predominant setback to both Gatacre and Allison Avenue and accordingly does not step back for enough to appropriately interface/align with the southern adjoining properties;

 

-     Predominant not Average Setback: In any event the DCP requires the establishment of the predominant setback not a utilisation of the average of the two adjoining properties and this is considered even more the case where secondary setbacks are utilised along a street frontage;

 

-     Insufficient Front Landscaping Opportunities: The variation to front setback does not allow for the proposal to contribute to the landscape streetscape character of the locality (objective of the setback provisions) which would be capable of being achieved if the predominant setback were provided;

 

-     Desired Spatial Proportions of the Street: The proposed front setback would result in a built-form domineering the street. Further the non-compliance stretches the east-west extent of the building significantly further impacting the desired spatial portions of the street given the visibility of the proposed development on the ridge.

 

iii.        Side Setbacks

 

The proposal seeks to vary the side setback controls which would require a minimum 6m to the north and 9m to the south. The ADG assessment is considered to give suitable reasons for why reduced building separation should not be supported. A description is therefore not repeated here. However, there is a difference between building separation and building setbacks. Specifically, Clause 5.3 of LCDCP 2010 relate to spatial proportions between buildings. The proposed spatial proportions to the north and southern boundaries are not satisfactory and should not be supported.

 

B.        Design of Rooftop Areas

 

Clause 3.9 requires the consideration of rooftop design. The submitted Development Application includes two concerns relating to this design:

 

-     Swimming Pool Design: The design of the rooftop area appears to include an error in relation the swimming pool water level matching the roof level with no allowance for water depth beneath the swimming pool; and

-     Mechanical Plant Equipment Detail: Insufficient information has been provided about the mechanical plant equipment location and its potential impact on rooftop design.

 

D.        Solar Access (Adjoining Properties)

 

The solar access impact to adjoining properties requires further information. Insufficient detailed analysis has been provided to accompany the Development Application in relation to 2 Gatacre Avenue, 7 Allison Avenue, 9 Allison Avenue and 17 Haldane Crescent in particular. Added to this is the concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted shadow diagrams as outlined in the Clause 4.6 assessment. To extrapolate on this further Figure 41 details an excerpt from the ADG in relation to calculating the 9am shadow length. For a building of 15m the shadow length would be 2.9 x 15m, which is 43.5m. This is the length of the shadow if the terrain was flat. This is approximately what is shown on the submitted diagrams. However, as the site slopes away, this topography exacerbates the shadow. For example, if No. 2 Gatacre was 2m+ lower than the subject site, the shadow would extend by 2.9 x 2m. In essence, it is unclear how the shadow diagrams accurately account for the topography.

Figure 41: Solar Access

6.3.1    Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – Other Sections

 

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

 

Table 15 - Referrals

Referral

DCP

Comment

Landscaping

 

Part J – Landscaping

Unsatisfactory - The proposed landscaping scheme was amended during the course of the application and is provided as Annexure 6 to this report. The amended landscape scheme has been reviewed in relation to Part J of the DCP and the proposal is not supported on the following grounds:

 

i. Deep Soil – Part J Section 1.6 requires a minimum 40% landscaped area comprising 25% deep soil and 15% on-structure landscaping. The proposal provides only 18.7% deep soil (any dimension) with only 7% meeting the minimum dimension (6m) of the ADG.

 

The current proposal includes only seemingly small pockets of deep soil and these pockets are not comprising of indigenous canopy trees that are large enough at maturity to create adequate canopy cover.

 

ii. Tree Retention – Part J Section 1.4 – 3 requires that development should retain existing trees where reasonably possible and should not require unnecessary tree removal. The lack of deep soil proposed has hindered the ability to retain any of the existing 13 trees onsite. Trees within the Gatacre Avenue frontage in particular could be retained.

 

iii. Planting Species -  Part J Section 1.4 – 1 requires that for medium/high density residential development all substantial trees and that part of the landscaping scheme visible from the public domain shall comprise of indigenous plants. The current proposal heavily comprises of exotic plants, many species of which are not supported by Council as they are either invasive or environmental weed species. For example,

 

·    Acer ‘Autumn Blaze’

·    Magnolia ‘Teddy Bear’

·    Olea ‘Mission’

·    Monstera deliciosa

·    Raphiolepsis ‘Apple Blossom’

·    Raphiolepsis ‘ Cosmic White’

 

Further the proposal lacks indigenous canopy trees which should be selected from Council’s approved plant list, Appendix 1 Part J Landscaping.

 

iv. Lack of Information – The submitted landscape document package does not comply with Council’s Landscape Checklist in relation to Point 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.

 

The proposal does not comply with LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping.

 

Tree Preservation

 

Part J – Landscaping

Unsatisfactory – The basement and building setback to Gatacre Avenue does not allow for the retention of site trees identified by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

Development Engineer

 

Part O – Stormwater Management

Unsatisfactory - The proposal seeks to provide an OSD system to Allison Avenue as detailed on the submitted Stormwater Management Plan (Annexure 19). Council’s Development Engineer considers the proposal in its current form would not comply with Part O as it proposes kerb discharge to Allison Avenue. The proposal would be required to connect into the existing Council pipe system (shown in blue) on Haldane Crescent as shown in the below diagram. The red dot is the location of the proposed OSD system and the red dashed line is the required pipe extension.

 

 

The proposal does not comply with LCDCP 2010 Part O – Stormwater Management.

 

Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

Satisfactory - Council’s Traffic, Transport and Parking Officer has reviewed the amended Traffic Impact Assessment (Annexure 11).

 

The original proposal included additional car parking spaces surplus to the requirements of Part R and no car wash bay as required by Part R. The proposal was amended to delete surplus car parking spaces and to provide the required parking.

 

The amended parking assessment is provided as follows:

 

Table of Compliance – LCDCP 2010 Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

Provision

Proposal

Car Parking

 

0.5 x studio

1 x 1 bedroom

1.5 x 2 bedroom

2 x 3 bedroom

 

1 disabled space for each adaptable unit

 

 

1 onsite removalist truck space.

 

1 car wash bay

 

1 visitor space x 4 units

 

1 disabled visitor space x 50 units.

 

 

 

97 spaces required and provided.

 

 

 

12 accessible spaces required and provided.

 

 

Provided.

 

 

Provided.

 

15 required and provided.

 

1 required and provided.

 

Bicycle Parking

 

1 per 4 dwellings

1 rack + 1 rack per 10 dwellings

 

 

 

24 required a proposed.

Motorcycle Parking

 

1 space per 15 car spaces.

Area 1.2m x 3m

 

 

8 required and 9 proposed.

 

It is also noted that Council’s Traffic Section reviewed the proposed driveway on Allison Avenue and raised no objections from a traffic perspective. Notwithstanding, the driveway on Allison Avenue is not considered satisfactory for other reasons including noise and visual privacy and streetscape impacts.

 

The proposed development would be capable of complying with Part R of LCDCP 2010.

 

Waste Management

 

Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation

 

Unsatisfactory - The proposed waste management plan (operational) was amended during the course of the application and is provided as Annexure 10 to this report. The amended plan has been reviewed in relation to Part Q of the DCP and the proposal is not supported on the following grounds:

 

i. Chute System – Part Q Section 4.3 states that residential flat buildings containing four or more storeys must be provided with a garbage chute system for the transportation of general waste from each storey to the main waste storage/collection rooms. In addition, Section 4.3 requires that a dedicated service room on each floor must be designed to include a garbage chute and 2 x 240L recycling bins for the storage of recyclable materials. The proposed western part of the development (Gatacre Avenue) is provided with a compliant chute system. However, the units to the eastern part of the development (Allison Avenue) are not provided with a chute system. The proposed waste management solution to the eastern sector is not supported as it is does nto meet the overriding objectives of the clause being a not appropriate system, an unintuitive system and resulting in longer handling times and potential increase in health risks associated with the use of lifts with bagged not binned rubbish.

 

The proposal does not comply with LCDCP 2010 Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation.

 

Building Surveyor

 

N/A

Unsatisfactory - Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the proposal and the submitted BCA Report (Annexure 14).

 

Council’s Building Surveyor raises significant concern with two specific elements of the proposal:

 

i. Residential Sole Occupancy Units Open Directly to Fire Isolated Staircase – As can be seen in Figure 23 a number of apartments are proposed to open directly to a fire isolated staircase (either via an internal room, or balcony). The proposal does not comply with D1.7 of the National Construction Code (BCA) 2019.

 

ii. Bounding Construction to Residential Floor Levels – The lift shaft does not comply with the requirements of C3.11 of the NCC (BCA) 2019. This is also resultant from the lack of a lobby being provided to the eastern sector of the building.

 

Ultimately, the applicant can seek a Performance Solution at the Construction Certificate stage if the application is approved. However, the NCC departures are considered to add to the reasons why the ingress and egress proposed in the eastern sector of the building are unsatisfactory and should not be supported.

 

The provision of a common circulation area for the accessing of all sole occupancy units and fire stairs would improve the proposals compliance with the deemed to satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code (BCA) 2019.

 

Environmental Health

 

Part B – General Controls (Part B6/B7)

Unsatisfactory – Council’s Environmental Health Manager has reviewed a number of documents:

·    Amended Sediment Erosion Control Plan – Greenview Consulting (Annexure 20)

·    Detailed Site Investigation - Martens & Associates Pty Ltd, Ref: P2008014JR04V01, Date: 01 June 2021 (Annexure 9)

·    Preliminary Site Investigation - Martens & Associates Pty Ltd. Ref: P2008014JR03V01, Date: 04 May 2021 (Annexure 9A)

·    Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan – JHA, Ref: 210171, Date: 12 August 2021 (Annexure 12)

·    Acoustic Report – JHA, Ref: 210171, Date: 06 May 2021 (Annexure 13).

·    Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (Revision B)  – Elephants Foot Recycling Solutions, Date: 07 May 2021 (Annexure 23).  

 

The comments pertaining to SEPP No. 55 are contained in Section 6.1.3 of this report.

 

Of the above documents, a revised environmental management plan – addressing dust and excavation water management and disposal (construction phase) is required to be submitted. The plan submitted references an incorrect standard and does not provide specific details as to how excavation water will be treated and controlled before disposal into the stormwater system.

 

NSW Police

CPTED

 

Complies - NSW Police have provided generic referral comments provided as Annexure 24 to this report.

 

Accessibility

 

Part F – Access and Mobility

Unsatisfactory – The access report was amended during the assessment of the application and is provided as Annexure 18. The principal provision of Part F is the provision of 80% visitable and 20% apartments. The proposal complies with this provision. However, the proposal is considered unsatisfactory in relation to the following provisions:

 

i. Extended Travel Distance from Street – The extended travel distances from the public domain to the lobbies from Gatacre and Allison Avenue represent unnecessary barriers to access (Despite an accessible path of travel) contrary to Section 3.3 of Part F.

 

ii. No accessible visitor parking adjacent to western lift core – The proposed design does not provide dignified access from the accessible visitor parking to the western part of the building. The proposed accessible visitor parking is situated next to the eastern (Allison Avenue) sector and no accessible parking space is located in close proximity to the western lift core which service the majority of units.

 

The proposal does not comply with LCDCP 2010 Part F – Access and Mobility.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The impacts on both the natural and built environments of the locality have been considered and addressed in the report and are unsatisfactory.

 

 

 

 

 

6.5       The suitability of the site for the development

 

 

The proposed development does not respond appropriately to the site constraints and therefore the site is not suitable for the development.

 

 

6.6       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Lane Cove Council’s Notification Policy.

 

i.          Notification Extent

 

The Development Application was notified to the extent shown in the Public Notification Map included as Annexure 22 to this report.

 

ii.         Notification Periods

 

The notification periods for each of the plan revisions, and the number of submissions received, are summarised in the following table:

Table 12 – Public Notification

 

Plan Revision

Lodgement Date

 

Notification Period

Submissions Received

Original

3 June 2021

9 June 2021 – 24 June 2021

81

Amended

13 August 2021

16 August 2021 – 1 September 2021

78 (53 repeat, 25 new)

 

Total Unique Objections

106


iii.        Summary of Submissions

 

The 106 submissions received are summarised and addressed in Annexure 3 to this report.

 

 

(e) Public Interest

 

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it provides for an overdevelopment of the site that departs from the envisaged future development of this transitionary site which should respond to, and be informed by a more sensitive building transition, an enhanced landscaped character, and reduced height.

 

7.         Contributions

 

7.1       Section 7.11 Contributions

 

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

 

No. bedrooms

Average occupancy

Amount of contribution per dwelling

No. of Dwellings

Total contribution

1 Bedrooms 

1.2 persons

$11,044.52 x 1.2 =

$13,253.42 per dwelling

12 x $13,253.42

$159,041.09

2 Bedrooms

1.9 persons

$11,044.52 x 1.9 =

$20,984.59 per dwelling

Capped Rate $20,000.00 per dwelling

22 x $20,000.00

$440,000.00

3+ Bedrooms

2.4 persons

$11,044.52 x 2.4 = $26,506.85

Capped Rate $20,000.00 per dwelling

26 x $20,000.00

$520,000.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

$ 1,119,041.09

 

A credit would be applicable for the existing dwelling house at No. 5 Allison Avenue of $20,000.00.

 

The Section 7.11 contribution payable would be $ 1,099,041.09.

 

7.2       Special Infrastructure Contributions

 

The proposal is not subject to a Special Infrastructure Contribution Levy.

 

8.         Conclusion

 

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

 

The site is a constrained site by way of site dimensions, topography, and its location on a point of zone transition. The constraints, if not appropriately responded to, could impact the quality of the proposed residential apartment development as well as the locality in which the proposed development is to be placed. In this instance, the site constraints are not appropriately responded to by the proposed development.

 

The NSROC Design Review Panel originally determined that the proposal not be supported due to SEPP 65 design quality principles not being met. Despite this, and other requests, being made to the applicant, no significant changes were made to the design. Significant departures to SEPP 65, SEPP 55, LCLEP 2009 and LCDCP 2010 remain, and are representative of a proposed over-development of the site that does not respond to the site constraints.

 

The Development Application is reported to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel with a recommendation for refusal for the reasons outlined below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse a variation to the height of building prescribed by Clause 4.3 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as it is not satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would not be in the public interest as it is inconsistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 16 September 2021, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, refuse Development Application DA65/2021 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building development at 1 Gatacre Avenue and 5 Allison Avenue, Lane Cove (Lot A DP 415448, Lot 45 DP 11416 and Lot 46 DP 11416) for the following reasons:

 

1.         Contamination

 

            The submitted documentation does not adequately assess the site and whether it would be, or is capable after remediation, of being used for the proposed use under SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land.

 

            Particulars

 

a)   SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land applies to the proposed development;

b)   A Detailed Site Investigation is warranted by Clause 7(3) of SEPP 55 given the proximity of an adjoining service station.

c)   The submitted Detailed Site Investigation includes a non-compliant number of samples adjoining the service station despite opportunity with the current site layout to undertake further sampling.

d)   The consent authority cannot be satisfied the proposal satisfies Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 and accordingly consent cannot be granted.

 

2.         Building Height

 

The proposed building height variation and the submitted Clause 4.6 written request does not establish sufficient environmental planning grounds or that the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Clause 4.3 of LCLEP 2009 prescribes a maximum height of building of 15m.

b)    The proposed development includes a maximum height of 17.4m being a variation of 2.4m or 16%.

c)    The submitted Clause 4.6 written request has been reviewed and is not considered to satisfy the provisions of that clause.

d)    The development does not relate to topography and should have a clearer delineated stepping from the 15m height limit of the northern Pacific Highway blocks.

e)    The visual impact from the height breaches across the 90+m southern façade has not ben detailed and there is potential for adverse impact given significant downslope visual catchment.

f)     Height breaches to facilitate accessible and rooftop communal open space are mostly resultant from unacceptable horizontal building massing.

g)    The overshadowing/solar access implications on the southern adjoining properties are unclear from the submitted documentation.

 

3.         Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

The nine design quality principles of SEPP 65 have not been met as established by the NSROC Design Review Panel and confirmed in the assessment report.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 28(2)(b) of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development requires consideration of the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles.

b)   Clause 28(2)(a) of SEPP 65 requires consideration of the advice of any design review panel being the NSROC Design Review Panel in this instance.

c)   The proposed development fails to meet all nine (9) design quality principles of SEPP 65 as established by the design review panel and confirmed in the assessment report.

d)   Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character – The proportions of the building including an unbroken 5 storey 90+m southern elevation interfacing an R2 zone.

e)   Principle 2: Built Form and Scale – The proposed building dimensions (height, front setbacks, northern and southern setbacks) are unsatisfactory.

f)    Principle 3: Density – The amenity afforded to the density proposed is not appropriate to the site and its context including the provision of subterranean apartments.

g)   Principle 4: Sustainability – The proposal severely limits groundwater recharge and vegetation opportunities through the building and basement extent.

h)   Principle 5: Landscape – No site tree retention, limited ground level landscaping and limited integration with the landscaped streetscape character.

i)    Principle 6: Amenity – Significant amenity issues are present in the design including subterranean units, an open driveway to Allison Avenue with little landscape buffer, poor outlook of north facing bedrooms over the service station and token small living rooms to ‘achieve’ compliance.

j)    Principle 7: Safety – Direct lobby access from the street, the northern access path from Allison Avenue is narrow and lack passive surveillance and the direct apartment entry from the lift core for the eastern sector is not considered safe.

k)   Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction – The proposal lacks social interaction within the eastern sector through the non-provision of lobby areas above ground level.

l)    Principle 9: Aesthetics – The defensive expression required due to the non-compliant building separation results in an out of character aesthetic.

 

4.         Building Separation

 

The proposed building separation is unsatisfactory to the northern boundary, resulting in poor internal amenity for the proposed apartment, and the southern boundary, resulting in an unsatisfactory transition to the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Part 3F of the Apartment Design Guide stipulates minimum building separation requirements.

b)    Part 3F also recommends the provision of an additional 3m building separation where the site is on a zone transition.

c)    The proposed non-compliances with the building separation requirements are outlined in the following table (factoring in additional separation required to the south).

 

Aspect

Storey

Requirement

Proposed

Departure

Compliance

North

1-4

6m

3m

3m

No

North

5-6

9m

3m

6m

No

South

1-4

9m

6m

3m

No

South

5-6

12m

9m

3m

No

 

d)    The additional building separation to the south is particularly warranted in this instance given the site orientation and topography. 

e)    The proposed visual privacy measures on encroaching building elements to the south (Storey 1-4) are not an adequate alternative to the visual privacy afforded by compliant physical building separation distance.

f)     The departure at Level 4 (Storey 5) is of particular concern resulting in a five storey wall of 90+m length facing the R2 zone.

g)    A maximum 4 storey wall of 9m, stepping back to 12m at any storey above, should be the minimum design parameters employed at the zone transition to the south.  

h)    To the north, the lack of building separation creates a canyoning effect and would adversely impact the amenity of the proposed apartments.

 

5.         Solar Access

 

The solar access assessment relies on secondary living rooms and balcony spaces to achieve minimum compliance which is considered contrary to the objectives of the ADG.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part 4A(1) of the ADG requires that living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in Sydney Metropolitan Area.

b)   The proposal relies on secondary living rooms and balcony areas for a number of apartments to achieve compliance.

c)   The objective of Part 4A to optimise the number of apartments receiving sunlights to habitable rooms, primary windows (emphasis added) and private open space is not achieved.

 

6.         Natural Ventilation

 

The natural ventilation provided to the building and the implications of required mechanical ventilation (due to road noise) has not been detailed/demonstrated.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Clause 102 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 requires consideration of the impact of road noise from Pacific Highway.

b)    Part 4B-3(1) of the ADG requires that a minimum of 60% of apartments are naturally cross-ventilated.

c)    The submitted acoustic report details a number of north-facing units would be required to be mechanically ventilated to satisfy Clause 102.

d)    The impact on the natural ventilation requirements of Clause 4B-3(1) has not been established.

 

 

7.         Common Circulation

 

The common circulation provided to the western sector is not provided with satisfactory amenity with no daylight and natural ventilation to this area.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Part 4F of the ADG provides design guidance that daylight and natural ventilation should be provide to all common circulation spaces that are above ground.

b)    The western sector includes eight apartments of a common circulation lobby.

c)    No daylight or natural ventilation is provide to the common circulation lobby contrary to the objective to achieve good amenity to these spaces.

 

8.         Apartment Size and Unit Mix

 

The submitted storage schedule is incomplete and it has not been demonstrated suitable internal/external storage is provided to each unit.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Part 4D-1(1) of the ADG requires that minimum apartment sizes are achieved.

b)    A number of units include secondary living spaces that could be used for the purpose of an additional bedroom.

c)    The incorporation of these secondary living spaces as bedrooms would result in non-compliance with the minimum apartment sizes and impact compliance in relation to storage, balcony size, parking provision and Section 7.11 contributions.

 

9.         Storage

 

The submitted storage schedule is incomplete and it has not been demonstrated suitable internal/external storage is provided to each unit.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part 4G of the ADG specifies a minimum storage area per apartment with at least 50% to be located within the apartment.

b)   The submitted documentation within the architectural drawings is incomplete and does not demonstrate compliance with the standard.

 

10.       Basement Setbacks

 

The basement setback encroachments result in a development that does not provide for the street landscape character or landscaping to assist in the desired spatial proportions between buildings.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 3.5.3(A)(i) of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings prescribes a maximum 2m encroachment into the front and side building setback zones for basement levels.

b)   The proposed basement encroaches up to 6m within the building setback zones.

c)   The front landscaping opportunities to Gatacre and Allison Avenues are severely impacted by the basement setback contrary to objective three “to allow for street landscape character”.

d)   Landscaping to assist in defining spatial proportions between buildings to the north and south are also adversely impacted by the proposed basement setback contrary to objective one “to establish the desire spatial proportions of the street”.

 

11.       Front Setbacks

 

The proposed front setback does not conform to the predominant front setback within Allison Avenue and Gatacre Avenue and would result in a building that is not in alignment and overbearing within its context. 

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 3.5.1(a) of Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 Part C3 – Residential Flat Building stipulates that the prevailing/predominant street setback is to be applied (or 7.5m where there is none).

b)   The applicant’s predominant setback of 6m to Gatacre Avenue and 5.2m to Allision Avenue is not considered accurate.

c)   A predominant setback of 7.5m to Gatacre Avenue and 6.0m to Allison Avenue is considered more accurate.

d)   The proposed variation to the predominant setback with a minimum of 3.0m to both Gatacre and Allison Avenue is considered unsatisfactory as it does not meet with the objectives of the clause in relation to defining the street edge and allowing for front landscaping.

 

12.       Side Setbacks

 

The proposed side setbacks do not provide the spatial proportions envisaged by Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010. 

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 3.5.2(a) and (b) of Lane Cove Devleopment CONtrol Plan Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings stipulates a minimum 9m side setback to the southern boundary and 6m side setback to the northern boundary.

b)   The proposal seeks to provide a 6m side setback to the southern side boundary and 3m side setback to the northern boundary.

c)   The resultant spatial proportions of the building as they relate to the side boundaries are not satisfactory contrary to the objectives of the DCP.

 

13.       Design Rooftop Areas

 

The submitted design of rooftop areas is considered unsatisfactory as it does not detail rooftop mechanical plant and the swimming pool design conflicts with the apartment level below.

 

Particulars

 

a)    Clause 3.9 of Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings requires the consideration of rooftop design.

b)    The swimming pool water level is incompatible with the apartment below.

c)    An amended plan raising the proposed water level submitted by the applicant was not accepted as it was not able to be notified prior to determination, was not able to be assessed in relation to building height and visual privacy compliance, and is not accessible.

d)    Concern is raised the proposed design does not adequately define the rooftop mechanical plant required which may impact upon the design of the rooftop area and other compliance matters such as height of building.

 

14.       Solar Access

 

The submitted solar access diagrams lack detail on the impact on adjoining properties and the shadow diagrams do not appear to take into account the topography of the locality.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 3.14 of Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part C3 – Residential Flat Buildings has the objective of providing reasonable solar access to habitable rooms and recreational areas of new and existing developments.

b)   The submitted solar access diagrams do not provide detailed analysis of the impacts of the existing development to the south.

c)   The submitted solar access diagrams do not appear to take into account the topography of the locality.

d)   An accurate assessment of solar access cannot be made with the information submitted.

 

15.       Landscaping 

 

The proposed landscaping does not comply with a number of controls and objectives of Lane Cove Development Control Plan Part J - Landscaping.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Section 1.6 of Part J requires a minimum 40% landscaped area comprising a minimum 25% deep soil and an allowance for 15% on-structure landscaping.

b)   The proposal provides for 18.7% deep soil being a departure of 7.3%.

c)   The proposal provides insufficient deep soil to provide the landscaping envisaged by the DCP with only small pockets of significant deep soil which minimises the potential for creating suitable indigenous tree canopy.

d)   Section 1.4-3 of Part J stipulates tree retention should occur where reasonably possible and unnecessary tree removal should not occur.

e)   The proposal removes all 13 on-site trees. Trees within the Gatacre Avenue frontage of the site are reasonably capable of retention.

f)    The proposed species selection does not meet with Section 1.4-1.

g)   The proposed landscape documentation package does not satisfy the minimum documentation requirements specified in Council’s DA Landscape Checklist (Point 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15).

 

16.       Stormwater Management 

 

The proposed Stormwater Management Plan discharges to the kerb rather than connecting to Council’s pipe system.

 

Particulars

 

a)   The Allison Avenue OSD system is required to connect into the pipe system on Haldane Crescent. Kerb discharge to Allison Avenue is not supported.

 

17.       Waste Management

 

The proposed method of waste management to the eastern sector of the proposed residential flat building development does not satisfy Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – Part Q – Waste Management and Minimisation.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Section 4.3 of Part Q states that a garbage chute system must be provided with a dedicated service room on each storey.

b)   The eastern sector of the building are not provided with a chute system or service rooms.

c)   The system is not appropriate, intuitive and would result in longer waste handling times and health risks associated with the use of residential lifts to transport unbinned rubbish.

 

18.       Environmental Health 

 

The environmental management plan does not address how excavation water will be treated or controlled.

 

Particulars

 

a)   A key part of construction management is the environmental management mechanisms which are not addressed in the submitted environmental management plan.

b)   The submitted plan references an incorrect standard and does not provide specific details as to how excavation water will be treated and controlled before disposal into the stormwater system.

 

19.       Accessibility

 

The proposal is unsatisfactory in relation to the accessibility requirements in relation to travel distances to a lobby and visitor parking allocation.

 

Particulars

 

a)   The extended travel distances to the lobby areas from Gatacre and Allison Avenue do not provide for a direct or easily legible accessible point of entry to the buildings from the public domain.

b)   The majority of units are located in the western sector of the building yet no accessible visitor parking space is situated in reasonable proximity to these units.

 

20.       Environmental Impacts

 

The impacts on both the natural and built environments of the locality are unsatisfactory.

 

21.       Site Suitability

 

The proposed development does not respond appropriately to the site constraints and therefore the site is not suitable for the development.

 

22.       Public Interest

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it provides for an overdevelopment of the site that departs from the envisaged future development of this transitionary site which should respond to, and be informed by a more sensitive building transition, an enhanced landscaped character, and reduced height.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Annexure 1 - SEPP 65 Assessment

 

Available Electronically

AT‑2 View

Annexure 2 - LCDCP 2010 Assessment

 

Available Electronically

AT‑3 View

Annexure 3 - Summary of Submissions

 

Available Electronically

AT‑4 View

Annexure 4 - Architectural Plans (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

Annexure 4A - Architectural Plans (Original)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑6 View

Annexure 5 - Design Verification Statement (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑7 View

Annexure 5A - Response to Design Review Panel Recommendations

 

Available Electronically

AT‑8 View

Annexure 6 - Landscape Plan (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑9 View

Annexure 7 - Statement of Environmental Effects (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑10 View

Annexure 8 - Clause 4.6 Written Request (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑11 View

Annexure 9 - Detailed Site Investigation

 

Available Electronically

AT‑12 View

Annexure 9A - Preliminary Site Investigation - DA65/2021

 

Available Electronically

AT‑13 View

Annexure 10 - Operational Waste Management Plan (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑14 View

Annexure 11 - Traffic Impact Assessment (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑15 View

Annexure 12 - Construction Noise Management Plan

 

Available Electronically

AT‑16 View

Annexure 13 - Acoustic Report

 

Available Electronically

AT‑17 View

Annexure 14 - BCA Report

 

Available Electronically

AT‑18 View

Annexure 15 - Arborist Report (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑19 View

Annexure 16 - Geotechnical Report

 

Available Electronically

AT‑20 View

Annexure 17 - Quantity Surveyors Report

 

Available Electronically

AT‑21 View

Annexure 18 - Access Report (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑22 View

Annexure 19 - Stormwater Management Plan (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑23 View

Annexure 20 - Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑24 View

Annexure 21 - BASIX Certificate (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑25 View

Annexure 22 - Notification Extent Map

 

Available Electronically

AT‑26 View

Annexure 23 - Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (Amended)

 

Available Electronically

AT‑27 View

Annexure 24 - NSW Police Response

 

Available Electronically

AT‑28 View

Annexure 25 - Transport for NSW Response

 

Available Electronically

AT‑29 View

Annexure 26 - Survey Plan

 

Available Electronically

AT‑30 View

Annexure 27 - NSROC Design Review Panel Minutes

 

Available Electronically