Logo Watermark






















Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

16 September 2021  


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 16 September 2021





PRESENT:                             Hon David Lloyd QC, Chairman, Mr David Johnson, Environmental Expert, Ms Lindsey Dey, Planning Expert and Ms Jane Blackmore, Community Representative


ALSO PRESENT:                  Mr Mark Brisby, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Mr Henry Burnett, Senior Town Planner, Mr Greg Samardzic, Senior Town Planner and Ms Angela Panich, Panel Secretary





The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being live streamed.


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports


151 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove




That pursuant to section 4.16 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 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 saving 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.


3.         The sign shall be lowered by 650mm.


            Reason:  To minimize the impact on surrounding residents.


Panel Reasons


The Panel supports the findings contained in the Assessment Report and endorses the reasons for the approval contained in that Report subject to an additional condition.




The decision of the Panel was unanimous



1 Gatacre and 5 Allison Avenue




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.




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.




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 or meet the objectives of building height and is not consistent with the objectives of the R4 Zone.

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 been 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.




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.  Plans do not have dimensions for a proper assessment.

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.  The layout and interior design of the units do not satisfy the BCA requirements. 

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.




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).

































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.




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.




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.  Details of the mechanical ventilation system are not provided.

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.




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.




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.




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.




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. 




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. 




a)   Clause 3.5.2(a) and (b) of Lane Cove Development 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.  This has an unacceptable impact in terms of privacy to neighbouring properties.

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.




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.   Details of planter boxes are unclear.

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.  The proposed development on the roof top has an unknown impact on the adjoining properties.


14.       Solar Access


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




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 and The Apartment Design Guide.




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.  The proposed removal of all 13 on-site trees is  an unacceptable loss of local tree canopy.

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.




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.




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.





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.




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.


NOTE: That any proposed redesign should take into consideration the following:


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.


Panel Reasons


The Panel supports the findings contained in the Assessment Report and endorses the reasons for the refusal contained in that Report.




The decision of the Panel was unanimous



The meeting closed at 3.40pm




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