Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

29 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 Wednesday 29 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 29 September 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

2.      31 Fox Street, Lane Cove........................................................... 5

 

3.      14-16 Orion Road, Lane Cove West....................................... 86

 

 

 

 

 


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel   29 September 2021

31 Fox Street, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          31 Fox Street, Lane Cove     

Record No:    DA21/14-01 - 16228/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Andrew Thomas 

 

 

 

Property:

31 Fox Street, Lane Cove.

DA No:

D14/21

Date Lodged:

8.2.21

Cost of Work:

$1,850,000 stated on application form, but $2,445,500 is Architect’s estimate.

Owner:

B. Xu and K. Chen

Applicant:                       

Andrew Vingilis, Corben Architects

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

The subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, a proposed dwelling house, fences, retaining walls and landscaping.

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Is the proposal permissible within the zone

Yes

 

Is the property a heritage item

No

 

Is the property within a conservation area

No

 

Is the property adjacent to bushland

Yes

 

BCA Classification

Class 1a and 10b 

Stop the Clock used

No

Notification

 

 

Neighbours                            29, 33, 35, 50, 52, 54 and 56 Fox Street and 80, 80A, 82, 82A, 82B and 84 River Road West.

Ward Councillors                   Central

Progress Association             None operates

Other                                     Lane Cove Bushland and

                                              Conservation Society 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application is referred to the Planal given the significant concerns raised by the adjoining resident.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·    The site has an area of 1,126m2 and a 15.24m wide frontage to Fox Street. The rear of the site borders land that forms part of an area of bushland known as Tennyson Park.

·    The site contains a dwelling house with an above-ground swimming pool in its rear yard.

·    The application proposes the following:

 

-     the subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots of similar size:

the front lot, of almost 567m2, would include the existing dwelling house; and

the rear lot, of about 559m2, would include a proposed dwelling house;

-     alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house on the proposed front lot;

-     a two storey dwelling house on the proposed rear lot; and

-     both a front fence for the proposed front lot and a common boundary fence between both proposed lots, retaining walls and landscaping.

 

·    Subdivision is permissible with consent under clause 2.6 of the Lane Cove LEP 2009 (the LEP). The proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size map under clause 4.1 (3) of the LEP.

 

·    The alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house would not comply with:

 

-     FSR under the LEP; and

-     rear and side setback and the depth of an elevated terrace under the DCP.

 

This report supports both setbacks. However, this report recommends that with a FSR of 0.503:1 (which equates to a floor space excess of 1.5m2), and potentially 0.593:1, both FSR and the terrace depth comply as a requirement of a deferred commencement consent.

 

·    The proposed dwelling house would not comply with:

 

-     FSR under the LEP; and

-     wall and subfloor height under the DCP.

 

This report recommends that with a FSR of 0.51:1 (which equates to a floor space excess of 5.4m2) that the FSR complies as a requirement of a deferred commencement consent.

 

Although its overall height complies with the LEP standard, the Applicant has proposed  certain height reductions that include lowering:

 

-     its garage and entry by 100mm;

-     its proposed subfloor height of between about 1.15m - 1.7m to between about 1m - 1.35m; and

-     its overall height by 600mm at its higher, southern end.

 

The Applicant’s offer to lower the height of parts of the dwelling house are also recommended to be addressed as a requirement of a deferred commencement consent.

 

·    Four submissions have been received in response to Council’s notification of the proposal: from the owners of each of the three properties that adjoin the subject site and from a Town Planning consultant acting for one of these same owners, and from the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society. In summary, the main concerns and issues raised are: 

 

-     it is contrary to the objectives and minimum lot size for subdivision under the LEP;

-     it is an overdevelopment - the FSR of the proposed rear lot exceeds the LEP standard;

-     it does not comply with the DCP because: 

* both dwelling houses would be three storeys;

* the wall height of the new dwelling house exceeds 7m; and

* the side and rear setback of the rear additions to the existing dwelling house do not comply;

-     it is out of character;

-     it does not consider/address the adjoining bushland reserve;

-     it would result in the removal of trees and a loss of tree canopy, habitat and bushland;

                                                                                                 

-     vehicles using the replacement driveway would have an adverse impact on neighbours and question the width of the driveway;

-     would have substantial impacts on neighbours that include a loss of outlook, overlooking and overshadowing;

-     potential contaminated material within the rear part of the site;

-     stormwater disposal and sewage capacity;

-     the potential for subsidence and impacts due to demolition and construction; and

-     request that:

* the height of the new dwelling house is reduced to one storey;

* the setback on the western side of the additions to the existing dwelling house is increased; and

* the driveway serving both proposed lots is relocated to the western side of the site.

 

·    Council’s officers who have commented on the proposal have either recommended conditions and/or raised matters that can be addressed by conditions.

·    The application was referred to both the Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO) and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. The AHO has confirmed that there are no Aboriginal heritage issues associated with the proposal, whilst the NRAR has confirmed that a Controlled Activity Approval is not required for this development.

 

·    On balance the proposal is reasonable, and the application is recommended for approval. However, this is subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure that:

 

-     the FSR of both dwelling houses complies with the LEP standard;

-     the height of the new dwelling house is lowered;

-     the depth of the proposed rear terrace for the existing dwelling house is reduced;

-     the proposed driveway extends the full width of the 3m wide right-of-carriageway; and

-     additional assessment fees based on the Applicant’s/Architect’s estimate are paid.

 

These deferred matters are addressed under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Part B of this same Recommendation imposes conditions that include those that seek to address the potential adverse impacts of the proposal on all three adjoining properties.

       

SITE

 

Property

Lot 22, DP 12009

Area

1,126m2

Site location

The site is located on the low, north side of Fox Street directly opposite Pengilly Street.

Existing improvements

Existing on the site is a part single and part two storey dwelling house and an above-ground swimming pool in its rear yard.

Shape

An irregular rectangle.                       

Dimensions

The site has a front boundary 15.24m wide, a slightly irregular rear boundary of about 15.6m, an eastern side boundary of almost 75.3m and a western side boundary of about 72.5m.

Adjoining properties

On either side of the site are residential lots. The site’s rear boundary abuts land containing bushland known as Tennyson Park, whilst to the northeast of this land is River Road West.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

There is no previous development history recorded in Council’s computer system for this site.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

Summary

 

In summary the application proposes:

 

·    the subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots, with the proposed rear lot benefiting from a right-of-carriageway (RofC) over the proposed front lot;

·    alterations and additions to the existing partly elevated single storey and part two storey dwelling house that would include the demolition of the attached garage on its east side and a room above it, and both the removal of the existing driveway along this same side and the above-ground swimming pool located within its rear yard;

·    the construction of a two storey dwelling house on the proposed rear lot;

·    removal of the existing front fence, a new fence along the site’s front boundary and a fence separating both proposed lots;

·    retaining walls within the site’s front yard; and

·    landscaping. 

 

Details of these proposed works are addressed under the sub-headings that follow.

 

Subdivision

 

The proposed subdivision would result in two Torrens title lots: -

 

·    a front lot 1 with an area of almost 567m2 that would retain the site’s existing 15.24m wide frontage to Fox Street; this lot would be subject to a RofC 3m wide, 37.2m long and with an area of 111.6m2  and parallel to its eastern side boundary that would benefit the rear lot; and

·    a rear lot 2 with an area of about 559m2 that would have access to Fox Street via this RofC.

 

To enable access to the proposed rear lot, and to enable construction of a dwelling house on this same lot, the attached garage on the eastern side of the site, and a room above it, and the swimming pool in its rear yard would be demolished and the existing driveway along its eastern side replaced.  

 

Existing dwelling house

 

Most of the existing dwelling house on the site would be retained but alterations and additions are proposed mainly to its rear. The proposed works would include the following.

 

(i) Demolition

 

A later rear addition, some internal walls on both levels, the garage and room above on its eastern side and its curved front stairs would be demolished.

 

(ii) Lower level

 

·    The retained part of the dwelling house would have two bedrooms on its east side, with one bedroom having access to an adjoining courtyard, a bathroom, a laundry and a staircase that would connect this level to the level above on its western side and a central cellar;

·    a rear addition that would provide a rumpus room with an adjoining slightly elevated terrace on its west side and stair access to a landscaped rear yard, and an adjoining double garage on its east side accessed from the proposed replacement driveway;

·    the modification of some internal walls and some windows on both sides; and

·    a subfloor addition at its front southeast corner, and an access door on its west façade to an existing subfloor area at its front southwest corner.

 

 (iii) Upper level

 

·    The retained part of the dwelling house would have three bedrooms, one with an ensuite, a separate bathroom and the internal stairs from the level below;

·    a rear addition that would provide an open plan living/dining area adjacent to a kitchen with two skylights above it, and an attached rear terrace across the width of the dwelling house with a flat metal roof and 1.7m high privacy screens along both sides;

·    internal modifications that would create an ensuite off the main bedroom;

·    changes to some existing windows on both sides; and

·    narrower stairs to the existing elevated front terrace.

 

 

 (iv) Materials/finishes

 

·    The main part of the existing terracotta tiled hipped roof would be removed and replaced with a hipped roof with matching tiles and the same 300 pitch that would be 800mm higher than its existing maximum ridge height;

·    cement rendered and painted walls; and

·    timber windows to match existing windows.      

 

Proposed dwelling house

 

(i) Lower/ground floor level

 

This would be split level and would include:

 

·    within its lower portion, an open plan kitchen/dining/living room at the rear with an attached slightly elevated deck across most of its width with a pergola above and stair access to a landscaped rear yard;

·    within its upper portion, a study, laundry, powder room, pantry and a main entry door on its east side that would open into a central hallway with a family room and an adjoining recessed courtyard on its west side; and

·    an attached double garage at the front that would be setback from a proposed driveway on its east side.

 

(ii) Upper level

 

This would also be split level and would include:

 

·    four bedrooms, two with an ensuite and with the main rear bedroom also having a WIR and a recessed balcony, and a separate bathroom. 

 

(iii) Materials/finishes

 

·    Walls at the upper level would be a mix of metal cladding and timber battens/weatherboards, whilst walls at the lower level would be cement rendered and painted;

·    the main skillion metal roof would have a fall of about 50 towards the rear/northern end of the dwelling house;

·    the main entry would have a timber door and a flat metal roof; and

·    windows would be aluminum and the garage would have a painted cement rendered surround and a timber door.

 

Fences  

 

·    Along the front boundary of the proposed front lot, a painted metal picket fence and gate 900mm high above a masonry support base with a maximum height of about 200mm and located between rendered and painted support columns with a maximum height of 1.2m; and

·    a 1.8m high timber paling fence along the common boundary between both proposed lots, with a return of the same height along the east side of the rear yard of the existing dwelling house. Existing side and rear boundary timber paling fences would be retained.

 

Retaining walls

 

·    Retaining walls about 1.5m high beneath, and about 1m high behind, the proposed front fence.

·    Stairs would connect the front fence to a proposed garden path, with low garden edging along the footpath as part of the landscape works.   

 

Landscaping

 

The private open space of both dwelling houses would be landscaped: -

 

·    17 existing trees with a height of between 2m and 14m would be removed;

·    one tree would be relocated, and seven trees retained; and

·    eight trees with a mature height of 3m -12m; a total of 166 shrubs, with a mature height of 1.5m - 3m, and other shrubs with a lower mature height; 27 perennials, with a mature height of 1.5m - 3m, and other perennials with a lower mature height, would be planted.

 

A summary of the landscaping on each proposed lot is addressed below.   

 

(i) Front lot 1

 

·    A Frangipani, about 5m high and close to its front boundary, would be relocated within its front yard;

·    a Turpentine, about 14m high, close to its rear boundary; a King Palm, about 18m -20m high, within its rear northwest corner and a Japanese camellia, about 5m high, within its west side setback, would all be retained; and

·    a Cotoneaster (tree 3), about 5m high, along its front boundary and three Japanese camellias (trees 7,8 and 9) and each 2m high, a Cypress (tree 10) and 10m high and a Fern (tree 11) and 5m high, and all within its front yard, a Eucalypt (tree 17), about 14m high, a Date Palm (tree 18) and a Camphor laurel (tree 19), and both about 8m high, and all located along its eastern boundary, would be removed.  

·    Proposed planting would include Lillypillies, with a mature height of 3m - 5m, along its west side boundary, and a mix of Camellias, with a mature height of 2m - 3m, and Swamp Lillies and Hydrangeas, with both species having a mature height of 1.5m - 3m, along its front boundary, in addition to a number of other shrubs and perennials with a lower mature height, as well as grasses and ground covers, throughout this proposed lot. 

 

(ii) Rear lot 2

 

·    A Crepe myrtle (tree 22), about 5m high, along its west side boundary, and a  Lillypilly (tree 31) and an Acacia (tree 32), and both about 5m high and close to its rear north east corner, and a Melaleuca (tree 34), about 6m - 8m high and close to its rear boundary, would all be retained.

 

·    Two Palm trees (trees 23 and 24 ), both about 6m high, along its west side boundary and a Privet (tree 25), about 8m high, a Pear tree (tree 26), about 10m high and a stand of four Lillypillies (trees 27, 28, 29 and 30), and all about 5m high, along its eastern side boundary, would all be removed.

 

·    The six trees to be planted on this proposed lot are:

-     a Lemon Scented Myrtle, with a mature height of 3m - 6m, within its recessed western courtyard;

-     two Coin Spot Ferns, with a mature height of 5m - 10m, along its common boundary with the proposed front lot 1, and another along its west side boundary; and

-     three Water Gums, with a mature height of 7m -12m , along its rear boundary.

 

·    Proposed planting would also include a number of Lillypillies, with a mature height of 3m - 5m, along both side boundaries and in its rear northwest corner, and Swamp lilies, with a mature height of 1.5m - 3m, along its common boundary with the proposed front lot 1 and its west side boundary, in addition to a number of other shrubs and perennials with a lower mature height, as well as grasses and ground covers throughout this proposed lot.

 

Matter arising

 

The cost of works quoted on the application form was $1,850,000. However, the Applicant/Architect’s estimate of the cost of works provided with the application was $2,445,500. Council’s fees have been based on the lower amount.

 

To ensure that appropriate fees are paid in accordance with the higher amount, an additional fee of $2,409 is required. This issue is addressed under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/COMPLIANCE

 

1. The Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning: R2 Low Density                               Site area: 1,126m²

 

(i)  Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size 

 

Proposed

Standard

Complies

Clause 4.1 (3)

Minimum subdivision lot size

 

Front lot 1: 566.9m2*

Rear lot 2 : 559.1m2

550m2

Yes

 

* Includes a right of carriageway with an area of 111.6m2  

 

(ii) Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house on proposed front lot 1

 

Site area: 566.9m2 – but 455.3m2 excluding the right of carriageway.*

 

 

Proposed

Standard

Complies

Floor Space Ratio (max)*

0.503:1- 0.593:1

0.5:1

No - subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure compliance. 

Height of buildings (max)

Existing: 7.93m

Proposed: 8.74m

9.5m

Yes

 

* Clause 4.5(6A) requires the area of an access handle to be excluded from site area in the calculation of floor space ratio (FSR). Therefore, the proposed FSR is based on the area of this lot excluding the area of the proposed right-of-carriageway parallel to, and along, its eastern side boundary.  

 

(iii) The new dwelling house on proposed rear lot 2

 

Site area: 559.1m2

 

 

Proposed

Standard

Complies

Floor Space Ratio (max)

0.51:1

 

0.5:1

No - subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure compliance.

Height of buildings (max)

Proposed: 8.6m

9.5m

Yes

 

The height of this dwelling house would be reduced by 600mm under a requirement of a deferred commencement consent.

 

2. The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009

 

Proposed Front Lot 1

 

(i) Part C.4 Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Lot width

15.24m

15m

Yes, and existing.

Driveway width (battle-axe carriageway)

2.5m

 

3m battle-axe width.

 

Yes, subject to a deferred commencement consent that would widen the driveway to 3m.

 

Vehicular access

 

 

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.

 

Driveways for battle-axe allotments should be designed to ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the site in a

forward direction.

Yes

 

Site access (battle-axe lots)

 

An access handle (RofC*) with direct access to Fox Street is proposed.

 

Each battle-axe lot must have direct access to a dedicated public road through the provision of an access handle attached to that lot, or via an access corridor shared by such lots.

Yes

 

Future development detail

 

 

Details of the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house that would be on this site have been provided.

Detail of future development potential and impact must be provided with the application for subdivision.

Yes

 

 

 

* RofC = right of carriageway, which is proposed to be 3m wide.

 

(ii) Part C.1 Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies (alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house)

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback

7.7m

Consistent with area, or 7.5m

Yes, and unchanged.

Side setback (min)

 

West : 1.27m (both levels)

 

East: 3.72m

1.2m single storey

1.5m two storeys

 

No, for the upper level, but supported because:

* relevant objectives for Setbacks would be satisfied;

* the proposed rear additions would be in line with the existing side setback; and at 3.5m, the length of the addition would not be significant, and its visual impact would be reduced by an existing tree and proposed landscaping.

Rear setback (min) : both  side boundaries are 37.2m, of which 25% = 9.3m.

7.1m

<1000m²: 8m or 25% whichever is the greater – the latter is the greater at 9.3m.

Outbuildings, garages, …… decks and terraces may be located within the rear setback.

No, but supported because  relevant objectives for Setbacks would be satisfied, whilst the rear façade would be screened by a Turpentine tree 14m high that is required to be retained, and by other proposed landscaping.

Wall height (max)

6.4m

7m

Yes

Ridge height (max)

8.74m

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

About 2.25m (front southwest corner)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For A/C condenser (front southeast corner) about 2m high.

1m

No, but existing and unchanged.

 

This area is subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure FSR complies by prohibiting a proposed access door on its west façade.

 

Not confirmed.

 

This area is also subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure FSR complies by requiring this proposed area to be deleted.

Number of storeys (max)

Part 1 above subfloor and 2

 

2 + basement

Yes

Landscaped area (min)

(Min width/dimension of 1m)

35.6% (including access handle) and 44.4% (excluding access handle)

35%

Yes

Cut and fill (max)

<1m

1m

Yes

Solar access

 

Exceeds 3 hours and would otherwise not affect sunlight to the main recreation areas of adjoining premises apart from a marginal increase in shadow over the front yard of the adjoining property to the east (29 Fox Street) in the afternoon.

3 hours to north-facing habitable windows, and reasonable sunlight to the recreation areas of adjoining premises, between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

Yes

 

Deck/balcony depth (max)

Rear upper level 2 terrace:  3.2m.

3m

Yes - subject to a deferred commencement consent to ensure compliance.

Private open space (min)

Both exceeded.

24m²

4m depth

Yes

 

BASIX Certificate

Supplied

Required

Yes

 

 

 

(iii) Car parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

1

Yes

Driveway width (max)

3.72m (including  cutaways)

3m at the kerb (with 500mm cutaways allowed on each side).

Yes  

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min) RofC*

2.5m 

3m

 

Yes, subject to a deferred commencement consent that would widen the driveway to 3m.

 

*RofC= right of carriageway, which is proposed to be 3m wide.

 

(iv) Fences                                   

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front fence height (max)

 

900mm high metal pickets set above a 200mm high (max.) masonry base and supported by 1.2m high masonry columns.

Solid: 900mm

Part solid and

predominantly

see - through: 1.2m.

Yes

 

Setback from front boundary if > 1.2m

Not an issue

1m

-

Side and rear fence height (max)

1.8m (rear common boundary fence to proposed rear lot 2).

(Existing side fences to be retained).

1.8m

Yes

 

Proposed Rear Lot 2

 

(i) Part C.4 Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses 

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Lot width

15.24m

15m

Yes

Driveway width (RofC*)

2.5m

 

3m battle-axe width

 

Yes, subject to a deferred commencement  consent that would widen the driveway to 3m.

Vehicular access

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.

Driveways for battle-axe

allotments should be

designed to ensure that

vehicles can enter and

leave the site in a

forward direction.

Yes

Site access (battle-axe lots)

 

An access handle (RofC*) with direct access to Fox Street is provided.

Each battle-axe lot must have direct access to a dedicated public road through the provision of an access handle attached to that lot, or via an access corridor shared by such lots.

Yes

Future development detail.

 

A dwelling house on this proposed rear lot has been applied for as part of this application.

Detail of future development potential and impact must be provided with the application for subdivision.

Yes

 

 

* RofC = right of carriageway, which is proposed to be 3m wide.

 

(ii) Part C.1 Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies (the proposed dwelling house)

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback

N/a: a 37.2m long RofC over the proposed front lot 1 would provide access to this lot.

Consistent with area, or 7.5m

Not an issue.

Side setback (min)

 

West:

*garage: 2m *dwelling house: 2m - 5.8m.

 

East: 2m

1.2m single storey

1.5m two storeys

 

Yes

Rear setback (min) : side boundaries are 35.34m and 38.085m, giving an average of 36.7m, of which 25% = 9.2m.

10m - 12.2m

<1000m²: 8m or 25%, whichever is the greater – the latter is the greater at 9.2m.

Yes

 

Wall height (max)

West façade: 8.6m - 7.4m

 

 

 

 

 

East façade:  8.3m - 7m

 

 

 

7m

No, but would be reduced by a maximum of 600mm at its higher southern end under a  deferred commencement consent, and otherwise supported because it would satisfy the relevant objectives for Building Design; overall height complies (and would also be reduced by 600mm) and is partly due to the slope of the site.

Ridge height (max)

8.6m

9.5m

Yes, and would be reduced by a maximum of 600mm at its higher southern end under a  deferred commencement consent.

Subfloor height (max)

1.15m - 1.7m

1m

No, but would be reduced to between about 1m – 1.35m under a  deferred commencement consent, and otherwise supported for the same reasons as Wall height above.

Number of storeys (max)

2, with part of this above a subfloor area.

 

2 + basement

Yes

Landscaped area (min) based on a minimum width/dimension of 1m)

42.5%

35%

Yes

Cut and fill (max)

<1m

1m

Yes

Solar access

 

Exceeds 3 hours, and reasonable sunlight to the main recreation areas of adjoining premises because part of the rear yard of the adjoining property to the west would be affected in the morning, whilst the rear yard of each of the two adjoining properties to the east would be affected in the afternoon.

3 hours to north-facing habitable windows, and reasonable sunlight to the recreation areas of adjoining premises, between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

Yes

 

Deck/balcony depth (max)

Main bedroom balcony: 800mm

3m

Yes

Private open space (min)

Both exceeded.

24m²

4m depth

Yes

 

BASIX Certificate

Supplied

Required

Yes

 

(iii) Car parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

2

1

Yes

Driveway width (max)

3.72m (including cutaways)

3m at the kerb (with 500mm cutaways allowed on each side).

Yes

Driveway width (battle-axe lots) (min)

RofC*

2.5m

3m

Yes, subject to a deferred commencement consent that would widen the driveway to 3m.

 

*RofC = right of carriageway, which is proposed to be 3m wide.

 

(iv) Fences

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Side and rear fence height (max)

1.8m (common boundary fence to proposed front lot 1)

Existing side and rear boundary fences retained.

1.8m

Yes

 

REFERRALS     

 

Development Engineer (DE)  

 

Confirms that:

 

·    whilst the proposal’s concept stormwater plans generally comply with Council’s DCP requirements, some amendments to these plans are required; and

·    each proposed lot requires either an OSD system, or a 10,000 litre rainwater reuse tank. 

 

 

Recommends conditions that:

 

·    set out the amendments required to the submitted stormwater plans;

·    address Council’s requirements for both rainwater tanks;

·    requires the restoration of any areas disturbed within Tennyson Park to enable the proposed stormwater system to be connected into an existing Council trunk line/drainage pipe within this reserve, and any Council assets within Fox Street that are damaged are to be reinstated;

·    require inspections of any adjustment works in this same park and within Fox Street;

·    require roof stormwater to be connected into the required rainwater tanks, and from other areas to be connected into a piped system in accordance with Council’s DCP requirements;

·    require the existing vehicular crossing in Fox Street to be replaced;

·    require the creation of both a drainage easement and a right-of-way through the proposed front lot 1 benefitting the proposed rear lot 2;

·    address the documents required to be submitted to, and endorsed by, Council in relation to the subdivision of the site, including a s.88B Instrument that addresses Council’s stormwater requirements, drainage easements and easements for services and rights of way; and

·    require the necessary certification confirming that both the development’s drainage system has been constructed according to the relevant AS and Council’s DCP requirements, and that the required rainwater tanks have been constructed correctly,

 

as well as others of a general nature.    

 

Comment

 

The conditions recommended by Council’s DE are included under the sub-heading Engineering within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Although the proposed increase in impervious area of the proposed front lot 1 would be about 20m2, an OSD system (or 10,000 litre rainwater tank) is nevertheless required because cl. 7.1.4 Subdivisions under Part O Stormwater Management of the DCP requires an OSD … for any existing dwelling ….on the site where the impervious area of that lot exceeds 35%.    

 

Development Engineer Traffic (DET)                         

 

Requested swept paths for both dwelling houses and has confirmed that these are satisfactory i.e. cars can enter and exit both proposed lots, and the double garage for the dwelling house on each proposed lot, in a forward direction.

 

Confirmed that the annual average daily traffic volume for River Road West is about 21,000 vehicles.

 

Comment

 

Whilst the proposed right of carriageway would be 3m wide as required under the DCP, the driveway within it would be 2.5m wide. Council’s DET requires the driveway width to be increased to 3m. This requirement  is subject to a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.  

 

Based on the annual average daily traffic volume for River Road West, the Applicant was requested to submit an acoustic report to confirm how the design of both dwelling houses would satisfy the acoustic standards under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (and repeated under Part B.7 – Developments near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors of the Lane Cove DCP 2009) . This issue is addressed under the later heading Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) Any environmental planning instrument. 

 

Manager Environmental Health (MEH)

 

Requested a Preliminary Contamination Assessment  to address if the proposed rear lot was  contaminated. Upon review of the geotechnical consultant’s report engaged by the Applicant, confirms that the submitted report addresses this concern. Has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions that require: -

 

·    the implementation of the recommendations of the contamination report;

·    a stabilised access point;

·    the storage and assessment of potentially contaminated soil; and

·    the disposal of contaminated soil. 

   

Comment

 

The conditions recommended by Council’s MEH are included under the sub-heading Health within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Tree Assessment Officer (TAO)

 

Confirms that:

 

·    there would be a major encroachment into the TPZ of a high value, remnant native tree (a Turpentine/tree T20, located in the centre of the existing site) previously disturbed by construction of the existing above-ground swimming pool;

·    the suspended slab and pier construction proposed for some of this development, coupled with careful monitoring, should ensure this same tree is retained; and

·    the remaining trees on the site are of low value, whilst trees adjoining both sides of the site would be subject to tolerable levels of encroachment.       

 

Recommends conditions that require:

 

·    a Project Arborist to oversee/monitor the condition of trees to be retained and protected;

·    the Project Arborist to endorse amendments to the proposed stormwater plans to ensure pipes and pits do not adversely affect retained trees, particularly tree 20;

·    tree 20 to be irrigated and mulched throughout the development and inspected monthly;

·    tree protection measures to be installed and maintained in accordance with the Arborist’s report submitted with the proposal;

·    all tree protection measures, including irrigation plans, to be available to all contractors;

·    the driveway that would be parallel to the eastern side of the proposed front lot to be suspended on piers;

·    those trees not recommended for removal in the Arborist’s report submitted with this application to be retained and protected throughout the development;

·    those trees permitted for removal are replaced at a ratio of 1:1 and are to satisfy Council’s landscaping requirements under the DCP;

·    the Project Arborist is to submit a report upon completion of the development about the health of retained trees and recommendations for their management to ensure their on-going viability; and

·    the Turpentine street tree in front of the site to be protected and subject to a bond,

 

 as well as others of a general nature.

 

 

 

 

Comment

 

The conditions recommended by Council’s TAO are included under the sub-heading Tree protection within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Landscape Architect

 

Confirms that:

 

·    whilst the proposal is not entirely acceptable it can be amended to satisfy Council’s …concerns; and

·    the Application did not include a Landscape Checklist as required under Part J Landscaping of the DCP; as a result, recommends the following matters are addressed in revised plans prior to the issue of a CC:

 

-     Council’s Landscape Checklist;

-     landscape calculations are to be revised to confirm the extent of landscaped area; landscaped area is to exclude stairs, stepping stones and retaining walls;

-     the tree protection measures outlined in the Arborist’s report are to be shown on landscape plans, especially in relation to tree 20;

-     unsuitable replacement planting species are to be replaced with more indigenous species; replacement trees should include a mix of larger and smaller species to replace the site’s existing tree canopy cover - some species would only have a mature height of 12m, whereas some trees that would be removed are 15m high; and

-     the 17 trees proposed to be removed must be replaced at a ratio of 1:1, and the replacement tree must be able to reach the mature dimensions of the tree removed.

 

Comment

 

Issues relating to:

 

·    the Landscape Checklist i.e. to ensure that the location of both existing and proposed/altered services and easements and tree protection measures are shown on revised landscape plans; and

·    replacement plantings,

 

are addressed as conditions under the sub-heading Landscaping within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.    

 

The landscaped area of each proposed lot has been calculated and for each lot exceeds the minimum of 35% of its site area required under Council’s DCP. However, to ensure that any changes to proposed landscaped area due to required works (e.g. relating to stormwater disposal) are addressed, condition 20 under the sub-heading Specific within this same Recommendation requires landscaped area to be confirmed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the dwelling house on each lot.

 

Coordinator Bushland  (CB)       

 

Confirms that:

 

·    whilst the site adjoins Tennyson Park that is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation and which contains bushland and an endangered ecological community of Sheltered and Littoral Forest, the site itself is not within Environmental Protection Land under the LEP (being land with vegetation, topography and distinctive features); 

·    Part H Bushland Protection of the DCP requires a 10m buffer between the site and adjoining bushland – although this buffer area would be encroached by about 13%, this is acceptable so long as no other hard surface structures …. encroach upon this area;

·    he is satisfied with the Arborist’s report submitted with the proposal and its recommendations:

-     has no issues with the trees proposed for removal if they are replaced; and

-     as six of the proposed planting species do not complement the adjoining bushland they should be replaced with plants from Council’s approved species list;

·    the proposal should be referred to the Aboriginal Heritage Office (see the sub-heading that follows);

·    as the site (about its rear half) is within the Riparian Land map under the LEP, and as the proposal is for Integrated development, the proposal should also be referred to the appropriate authority within State government to determine its potential impacts on riparian land (see the second sub-heading that follows);

·    stormwater is proposed to be discharged into Council’s existing trunk drainage system located about 5m from the site’s rear boundary within the adjoining reserve; and

·    whilst the proposal is not entirely acceptable it can be amended to satisfy Council’s… concerns.    

 

Recommends conditions including those that would:

 

·    prohibit access into the site for any purpose from Tennyson Park – and vice versa;

·    require bushland within the adjoining reserve to be kept free of building materials/rubbish;

·    require outside lighting to be baffled to minimise light pollution into bushland and neighbouring properties; and 

·    require native plants to be used as a screen and to provide a buffer to prevent light and noise pollution from entering the bushland,

 

as well as others of a general nature.

 

Comment

 

Although the rear ground floor level deck and its stairs and some paving would encroach into the buffer area of the proposed rear lot 2 by about 17.5%, Part H Bushland Protection of the DCP 2009 permits up to 25% encroachment of the buffer area. The proposed encroachment is therefore acceptable.

 

The conditions recommended by Council’s CB are included under the sub-heading Bushland within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.   

 

Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO)

 

Confirms that:

 

·    no sites are recorded within the area of the development;

·    previous disturbance would reduce the likelihood of surviving unrecorded Aboriginal sites; and

·    there are no Aboriginal heritage issues with the development.  

 

Requires the AHO to be advised if any Aboriginal Cultural Heritage items are uncovered during earthworks so that Heritage NSW and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council can investigate.

 

Comment

 

The requirement of the AHO is addressed by a condition under the sub-heading Bushland that is included within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.   

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (Natural Resources Access Regulator – NRAR)  

 

The NRAR has confirmed that as the site is not within the setback criteria (40m) from a watercourse a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) would not be required. 

 

Comment

 

This response was referred to Council’s Manager Open Space - see the response summarised in the  next sub-heading below).

 

Manager Open Space                                

 

The application was referred following confirmation from the NRAR that a CAA was not required (see the previous sub-heading above) and because a significant proportion of the site is affected by the Riparian Land Map referred to under cl. 6.3 Riparian land of the LEP.

 

Confirms that:

 

·    due to the location of the mapped creek line, he concurs that a controlled activity permit (CAA) is not required; and

·    also, that no special landscape conditions relating to riparian lands are required.

 

ASSESSMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT, 1979 (the Act)

 

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) Any environmental planning instrument

 

1. Lane Cove LEP 2009

 

General

 

In relation to the LEP the proposed subdivision:

·    is permissible with consent under cl. 2.6;

·    satisfies the relevant objectives of the R2 zone (see the relevant sub-heading below);

·    satisfies the minimum subdivision lot size of 550m2 under cl. 4.1 (3) (see the relevant sub-heading below); and

·    does not raise any other issues in relation to the LEP itself.

Zone objectives

The site is in Zone R2 Low Density Residential under the LEP. Of the five objectives within this zone the following three are relevant to this proposal:

 

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

·    To retain, and where appropriate improve, the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area.

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

Comment

In relation to these three objectives the proposal would:

·    provide an additional dwelling house in a low density residential environment;

·    improve residential amenity for the residents of the existing dwelling house whilst generally retaining the residential amenity of neighbouring residential properties; and

·    provide landscaped areas within both proposed lots - that subject to those trees required to be removed being replaced with indigenous species that would achieve the same mature dimensions and replace the site’s existing tree canopy - and provide additional landscaping, and so maintain and enhance landscaping as a major feature of both proposed lots. 

Part 4 Principal development standards

 

(i) Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

 

The objective under subclause (1)(a) is:

 

(a)  to promote consistent subdivision and development patterns in zones. 

 

Subclause (3) imposes a minimum allotment size on the Lot Size Map which in relation to the subject site is 550m2.

 

Comment

 

With a site area of 556.9m2 for the proposed front lot 1, and 559.1m2 for the proposed rear lot 2, both proposed lots comply with this standard.

 

In addition, the proposed subdivision pattern is almost identical to the subdivision of the adjoining residential lot to the east of the site, at 29 Fox Street, that resulted in the lot at 80A River Road West.

 

(ii) Development standards 

 

The two development standards that are relevant to the proposal are:

 

·    Clause 4.3 Height of buildings; and

·    Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio.

 

The dwelling house on each proposed lot complies with the development standard for height under clause 4.3. 

 

In relation to clause 4.4 Floor space ratio, subclause (1) sets out its objectives which are:

 

(a) to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

 

Subclause (2) imposes a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) on its Floor Space Ratio Map; in relation to the subject site, this is 0.5:1 and it is therefore 0.5:1 for both proposed lots.

 

Comment   

 

With a proposed FSR of:

 

·    0.503:1 for the dwelling house on the proposed front lot; and

·    0.51:1 for the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot,

 

both would exceed the maximum permissible FSR of 0.5:1 for a dwelling house on each proposed lot.

 

To ensure the FSR of both dwelling houses complies with the LEP standard, this report recommends that development consent is deferred so that the gross floor area of each dwelling house is reduced. Subject to this requirement, the bulk of both dwelling houses would be compatible with other dwelling houses in the area.

 

Further discussion about the proposed FSR of each dwelling house is addressed under the sub-heading (iii) Clause 4.5 Calculation of floor space ratio and site area that follows. 

 

Since the height of the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, and the height of the proposed dwelling house, would both be less than 9.5m, the scale of both dwelling houses would be compatible with other dwelling houses in the area.        

 

(iii) Clause 4.5 Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

 

Subclause (1) sets out the objectives for the calculation of floor space ratio and site area which are:

            (a) to define floor space ratio,  

(b) to set out rules for the calculation of the site area of development for the purpose of applying permitted floor space ratios, including rules to:

    

(i) prevent the inclusion in the site area of an area that has no significant development being carried out on it, ……

 

Comment

 

All of the area of the existing subject site (1,126m2) is land on which development may be undertaken.

 

a) Subclause (3) Site area

 

This subclause states:

 

  In determining the site area of proposed development for the purpose of applying a floor space ratio, the site area is taken to be:

 

(a)  if the proposed development is to be carried out on only one lot, the area of that lot, ……

 

In addition, this subclause also states that …. subclauses (4) - (7) apply to the calculation of site area for the purposes of applying a floor space ratio to proposed development. 

 

Comment

 

All of the existing subject site is site area under this proposal.

 

Subclauses (4) and (6A) are addressed under separate sub-headings below. 

 

b) Subclause (4) Exclusions from site area

 

This subclause states:

 

             The following land must be excluded from the site area:

 

(a)  land on which the proposed development is prohibited, whether under this Plan or any other law,

 

Comment

 

There is no land within the subject site where development is prohibited.

 

c) Subclause (6A) Battle-axe lots or other lots with access handles 

 

This subclause states:

 

If a lot is a battle-axe lot or other lot with an access handle and is in Zone R2 Low Density   Residential, …………………the area of the access handle is not to be included when calculating the site area. 

 

Comment

 

·    The proposed front lot 1

 

This lot would include a right of carriageway 3m wide, 37.2m long and with an area of 111.6m2. Under this subclause the area of this RofC must be deducted from the site area of this proposed lot for calculating floor space ratio (FSR) as shown below:

 

·    total area of proposed front lot 1: 566.9m2

·    less the area of the RofC within this proposed lot (111.6m2)

·    site area under subclause (6A): 566.9m2 - 111.6m2  = 455.3m2  

 

Consequently, under this subclause the FSR of this lot must be based on the reduced site area of 455.3m2. Based on this reduced site area the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house would result in a FSR of 0.503:1.

 

In addition, the FSR of this same dwelling house also has the potential to be up to 0.593:1 if the area of both sub-floors at its two front corners are included. The Applicant has stated that both areas should be excluded from FSR because neither area would:

 

·    include windows;

·    have a floor – the natural floor would be retained; and

·    meet the height requirements of habitable space under the National Construction Code

 

Both areas would have a height of about, or slightly more than, 2m. Under the definition of gross floor area under the LEP basement storage is excluded. The LEP defines a basement as being predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1metre above ground level (existing).

 

Neither store area qualifies as basement storage under the LEP. Under the LEP an area does not have to be habitable to be included as gross floor area, for example, only car parking that meets a  council’s car parking requirements can be excluded.

 

Whilst the proposal is generally reasonable, the FSR of this dwelling house should:

 

·    be made to comply with the LEP standard; and

·    the potential of both sub-floor areas to further increase FSR addressed.

 

To address this non-compliance with the FSR standard for this proposed lot under the LEP it is recommended that development consent is deferred pending the submission to Council of revised plans that confirm:

 

·    compliance with the maximum FSR permissible on this front lot of 0.5:1, which equates to a gross floor area of 227.65, i.e. 227.7m2; and

·    the proposed access door on the west façade of the existing sub-floor area, and the proposed sub-floor area for an air conditioning condenser, are deleted. 

 

These requirements are addressed under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

·    The proposed rear lot

 

In addition, with a FSR of 0.51:1 the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot 2 would also exceed this same FSR standard. Therefore, under this same Recommendation revised plans are also required to be submitted to Council that confirm compliance with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.5:1 that applies to this rear lot. With a proposed site area of 559.1m2 this equates to a gross floor area of 279.55m2, i.e. 279.6m2.

 

Clause 6.3 Riparian land

 

The objective of this clause is to ensure development does not adversely impact on riparian land.

 

The cause applies to land shown as riparian land on the LEP’s Riparian Land Map.  According to this map, the northern half of the site is shown to be riparian land.

 

In summary, this clause states that development consent must not be granted on land where this clause applies unless Council has considered the impact of the proposed development on the land and any opportunities for rehabilitation of aquatic and riparian vegetation and habitat on that land.

 

Comment

 

The previous heading Referrals addressed the referral of the proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and summarised the reply of its Natural Resources Access Regulator which confirmed that a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) was not required. Council’s Manager Open Space has:

 

·    concurred that a CAA is not required; and

·    stated that as a result, no landscaping conditions relating to riparian land are required.      

 

Consequently, the proposal does not raise any issues in relation to cl. 6.3 of the LEP. 

 

SECTION 7.11 CONTRIBUTION 

 

Council’s 1996 Section 94 Contribution Plan, as amended in 1998, addresses how Council can impose the contribution required - under what was Section 94, and which is now Section 7.11 (s. 7.11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 - when a site is subdivided.

 

A subdivision that creates a vacant lot attracts a person density increase of 3 people. Therefore, under the current s. 7.11 contribution rate of $10,942 per person, the proposed subdivision of the existing site into two Torrens title lots would require an overall contribution of $32,826.

 

However, a cap of $20,000 per dwelling has been imposed under the Reforms of Local Development Contribution. Consequently,  the capped amount may only be applied. Condition 2 (14) under the sub-heading Subdivision within Part B of the Recommendation to this report addresses this issue.   

 

2. SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

 

The subject site and the sites on either side are zoned for residential purposes, whilst land adjoining the rear of the site within Tennyson Park is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation purposes.

 

The submissions received to the proposal from adjoining property owners raise the possibility that contaminated material may be located within the rear part of the site. 

 

In response to Council’s Manager Environmental Health’s (MEH) request for a Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA), the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Site Investigation report to address this issue. This report confirms that the site was inspected in March 2021 and in summary states that:

 

·    the site presents no visible or olfactory indicators of potential contamination;

·    the presence of imported fill material is unlikely;

·    there are no obvious features associated with any underground tanks …or odour that would indicate the potential for contamination;

·    the potential for significant contamination of soil and groundwater within the site to be low;

·    the site is suitable for the proposed development and land use, providing the recommendations within the report are undertaken during the CC stage; in summary, the report’s recommendations are:

 

-     all on-site structures are to be subject to a Hazardous Materials Survey prior to ny demolition or renovation works;

-     any soils requiring excavation, onsite reuse and/or removal must be classified in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s guidelines;

-     the demolition of any structures and excavation activity are to be undertaken in accordance with relevant Australian Standards, SafeWork NSW codes of practice and any other applicable requirements; and

-     an Unexpected Finds Protocol is to be made available for all occupants and/or site workers in the event unanticipated contamination is discovered, including asbestos.

 

Council’s MEH has confirmed that:

 

·    this PSA report has addressed any Council concerns; and

·    he has no objection to the proposal,

 

and has recommended:

 

·    several health-related conditions under the sub-heading Health; and

·    that the recommendations of this PSA report are addressed by a condition (see condition 15 under the sub-heading Specific).

 

Both recommendations are addressed within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

3. SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007  

 

The aim of this Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by, inter alia, identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development.

 

Of the different types of infrastructure, Division 17 of this Policy addresses Roads and traffic including development adjacent to a road corridor. Clause 102 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development, applies to development adjacent to a road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles. As the consent authority Council:

 

·    is to consider if the development - including residential accommodation - is likely to be adversely affected by road noise  or vibration; and

·    must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded -

 

(a)  in any bedroom … 35 dB(A) at any time between 10pm and 7am,

(b)  anywhere else …. (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) – 40 dB(A) at any time.

 

Council’s Development Engineer Traffic has confirmed that River Road West has an annual average daily traffic volume of about 21,000 vehicles; as a result, the Applicant was requested to address the acoustic requirements for each dwelling house. In response, the Applicant submitted an acoustic report which took road noise readings over a six-day period during April 2021. The report confirms that the internal noise criteria of this Policy can be achieved subject to the use of:

 

·    varying thicknesses of laminated glass and an air tight door stacker for both dwelling houses; and

·    internal plasterboard in conjunction with the brick veneer construction, and a plasterboard cavity within the roof/ceiling system, of the proposed dwelling house.

 

Condition 16 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, requires the relevant recommendations of this report to be implemented in the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and in the construction of the proposed dwelling house to ensure that the acoustic requirements of this Policy are achieved.  

  

4. SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas

 

 Aims, objectives, etc.

 

The general aim of this Policy is ….to protect and preserve bushland….

 

Council’s Coordinator Bushland (CB) has:

 

·    no objection to the proposal; and

·    recommended conditions that seek to address its potential impact on bushland within Tennyson Park at the rear of the site.

 

Subject to the inclusion of the conditions recommended by Council’s CB that are included under the sub-heading Bushland within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, the proposal does not raise any other issues in relation to this Policy.

 

 

 

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) Any development control plan

 

There is one development control plan that applies to the assessment of this proposal and this is addressed under the sub-heading that follows.

 

The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the objectives and provisions of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP). The relevant parts of the DCP are addressed under the following sub-headings.

 

1. Part B General Controls

 

The General Objectives of the DCP are, inter alia, to:

 

·    Provide detailed planning provisions supplementing the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

·    Conserve, protect and enhance the environmental and built heritage of Lane Cove.

·    Balance individual and community interests to preserve and, where appropriate, improve the existing character and amenity of the municipality.

 

Comment

 

In relation to the first bullet point above, the relevant detailed planning provisions that supplement the Lane Cove LEP 2009 are addressed under the sub-headings that follow.

 

This report has shown that the proposed development will satisfy the other two general objectives by:

 

·    including conditions under the sub-headings Landscaping and Bushland within Part B of the Recommendation to this report that would require trees proposed for removal to be replaced with indigenous species, by enhancing landscaping on each proposed lot, and by protecting bushland within the reserve adjoining the proposed rear lot, respectively; and

·    ensuring that the impacts on the amenity of all three adjoining properties in relation to overlooking are addressed by conditions under the sub-heading Specific within this same Recommendation.

 

Of the DCP’s General Controls control B.7 is relevant to the proposal. This control is addressed below. 

 

(i) B.7 Development near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors.

 

The objectives under this part are:

 

To ensure an appropriate acoustic amenity can be achieved for development near transport corridors, particularly residential development and other noise sensitive land uses.

 

To provide additional acoustic design or mitigation measures that may be necessary.

 

Comment

 

The DCP’s provisions address clause 102 of the SEEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 previously addressed in this report. The rear boundary of the subject site is setback about 30m from River Road West. 

 

This provision has been addressed under the earlier heading Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) Any environmental planning instrument in this report. Condition 16 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report requires the recommendations of the acoustic report submitted by the Applicant to be addressed in the construction of both the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and the new dwelling house.

 

2. Part C Residential Development

 

Part C of the DCP sets out the objectives and provisions for Residential Development. Parts C.1 and C.4 of the DCP are both relevant to the proposal, and each part is addressed under a separate sub-heading below.

 

(i) C.1 Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies

 

The preceding compliance tables confirm that the rear deck that would form part of the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house would be subject to a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report that would require its depth to be reduced to ensure compliance.

 

These same compliance tables also confirm that otherwise the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, and the proposed dwelling house, would also not comply with four of the other relevant numerical provisions under this part of the DCP. These  four non-compliances are discussed under the separate sub-headings that follow for each dwelling house.

 

Existing dwelling house - alterations and additions: proposed front lot 1

 

(a) Setbacks

 

Clause 1.3 addresses Setbacks.

 

Objectives

 

The relevant objectives for Setbacks are quoted below:

 

·    To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side boundaries.

·    Side and rear setbacks are to provide building separation, sunlight, landscaping, ventilation, public views (if appropriate) for the dwelling and its neighbours.

 

Provisions

 

The proposal would not comply with the provisions for side and rear setbacks. These provisions, each departure and a comment on each departure are addressed below.

 

(i) Side setback

 

The provisions relating to the side setback of a dwelling house are set out under clause 1.3.2 Side setbacks. Side setbacks are to be a minimum of:

 

·    1.2m for a single storey dwelling

·    1.5m for a two storey dwelling

 

With a side setback of 1.27m the proposed alterations and additions along the western side of the existing dwelling house would not comply in relation to its first floor level/level 2.

Comment  

 

This non-compliance is supported because:

 

·    in relation to the objectives stated above:

 

-     whilst there is no existing vegetation corridor within its western side setback, landscaping is proposed within this same setback area; and

-     the existing separation between the dwelling house on the subject site and the dwelling house on the adjoining lot at 33 Fox Street would not change, sunlight would comply with the DCP provision, ventilation would not be an issue for either dwelling house and public views is not an issue; and because:

 

·    the setback of the ground floor additions would comply, whilst the numerical departure of 230mm for the first floor level addition would not be numerically significant;

·    the 3.5m length of the wall of the proposed addition is not a major extension; and

·    the visual impact of the proposed rear addition would be reduced by the first floor level privacy screen, the retention of a Japanese camellia tree with a mature height of 5m and the proposed planting of Lillypillies that would achieve a mature height of 3m - 5m.

 

(ii) Rear setback

 

The provisions relating to the rear setback of a dwelling house are set out under clause 1.3.4  Rear setbacks which state that:

 

A minimum rear setback for dwelling houses of 8m or 25% of the site depth (whichever is greater) is to be provided for sites up to 1,000m2 …... The existing predominant rear setback ……may be taken into account.

 

Clause 1.3.4 d) states that, inter alia, ……garages…. decks and terraces may be located within the rear setback area.

 

With a proposed site area of 566.9m2 and side boundaries of 37.2m the required rear setback is 9.3m. With a rear setback of 7.1m from the site’s common rear boundary with the proposed rear lot, part of the proposed attached garage and adjoining elevated terrace, and part of the terrace above, that would all form part of the proposed rear addition would not comply.

 

Comment

 

This non-compliance is supported because:

 

·    in relation to the objectives for Setbacks previously stated:

 

-     there is no existing vegetation corridor within this proposed site’s rear setback; and

-     the separation of 8.6m between the proposed rear addition and the attached garage of the new dwelling house on the adjoining proposed rear lot would be reasonable, whilst the setback between the closest habitable room within each dwelling house would be about 18.5m; in addition, sunlight would comply with the DCP provision; landscaping is proposed within the rear setback area that would include Lillypillies and Hydrangeas with a mature height of between 3m - 5m and 1.5m - 3m, respectively; ventilation would not be an issue for either dwelling house and public views is not an issue; and because:

 

·    the visual impact of the proposed rear addition would be reduced by the retention of a Turpentine tree about 14m high (tree 20).

New dwelling house: proposed rear lot 2

 

(a) Height

 

Clause 1.7 addresses Building Design. The proposal would not comply with the provisions for wall and subfloor height. 

 

Objectives

 

The relevant three objectives for Building Design are quoted below:

 

1.   Ensure new dwellings ……reinforce the typical bulk and scale of existing dwellings within the street and the area.

2.   Not applicable

3.   Ensure elevations to the street and public domain are well proportioned and designed.

4.   Minimise impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties, loss of views and amenity.

 

Provisions  

 

The provisions relating to the height of a dwelling house are set out under clause 1.7.1 Height.

 

(i) Wall height

 

Clause 1.7.1 a) states that the maximum wall height to the underside of eaves for any floor above ground level (existing) is 7.0m to minimise the bulk and massing.

 

With a maximum wall height of 8.6m on its west façade, and 8.3m on its east façade, the wall height of the proposed dwelling house would not comply. 

 

Comment 

 

This non-compliance is supported because:

 

·    in relation to the objectives stated previously:

 

-     it would reinforce the typical bulk and scale of some of the existing dwelling houses within Fox Street and the area;

-     whilst it would not have an elevation to Fox Street, its rear north elevation to Tennyson Park would be well proportioned and designed because of its width of about 11m at the ground floor level and 8.5m at the first floor level and its maximum rear wall height of 7.4m; and

-     although it would overshadow the adjoining three properties on either side, the level of sunlight each property would receive would comply with the DCP provision; light spillage over these same properties would be reasonable; the treatment of some windows on its east façade would address potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the east, at 80A River Road West, whilst the impact on existing bushland views and overall amenity would be reasonable; and because:

 

·    its overall height complies with the LEP standard;

·    the departure is partly caused by the natural slope of the existing subject site from south to north; and

·    the numerical departure would be reduced by the Applicant’s offer to lower its overall height by 600mm at its higher southern end, and the height of some internal levels, being subject to a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.         

 

(ii) Subfloor level

 

Clause 1.7.1 b) states that the maximum height to the underside of undercroft areas above ground level (existing) is to be 1.0m.

 

With a maximum height of between 1.15m and 1.7m the subfloor height of the proposed dwelling house would not comply.

 

Comment

 

This non-compliance is supported for the same reasons that addressed the wall height non-compliance provided previously.

 

Further, the deferred commencement under Part A of the same Recommendation to this report would require the height of some parts of this dwelling house to be lowered. This would include lowering its proposed subfloor height of between 1.15m - 1.7m down to between 1m - 1.35m; this change would ensure that part of the subfloor height would comply.

 

(ii) C.4 Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses

 

Part C.4 of the DCP sets out the objectives and provisions for Residential Subdivision – Dwelling Houses. These objectives and provisions are addressed below.

 

(a) Objectives

 

The objectives for residential subdivision are to:

 

1.   Protect amenity while permitting the subdivision of lots in environmentally sensitive areas or where significant impacts on neighbours are likely and careful design is required to minimize those impacts.

2.   Allow residential Torrens Title subdivision which retains, and where appropriate, improves existing amenity and streetscape within residential zones.

 

Comment   

 

In relation to these objectives:

 

·    whilst the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area, a main impact of the proposal on all three adjoining properties would be due to potential overlooking from some side windows, an elevated terrace and a set of exterior stairs; however, this issue can be addressed by requiring these same side windows to be treated and for a privacy screen to be installed within the open side of the terrace and along one side of the stairs; and  

·    the existing streetscape within Fox Street would be retained, whilst approval of the landscape plans submitted with this proposal - subject to the changes required by Council’s tree officers, that include replacing some proposed planting species with locally indigenous species and to ensure the tree canopy removed under the development is replaced - would retain the existing amenity of this residential zone.  

 

  

 

(b) Provisions

 

The provisions relevant to the proposed subdivision of the subject site are addressed below.

 

Minimum frontage (allotment width at street)

 

The minimum frontage required for the subdivision of a regular allotment is 18m to ensure that the rear/battle-axe allotment can be accessed by a 3m wide access handle and the front lot has a 15m frontage.

 

Comment

 

Whilst the proposal includes the subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots, neither lot would be a battle-axe allotment. Consequently, the subdivision proposed under this application is treated on its merits.

 

Driveway width

 

The minimum width for a driveway serving a battle-axe allotment is required to be 3m and should be designed to ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the proposed lot/s in a forward direction.

 

Comment

 

Whilst the proposed subdivision would not create a battle-axe allotment, the right-of-carriageway proposed to serve both lots would be 3m wide.

 

Whilst Council’s Development Engineer Traffic has confirmed that vehicles can enter and leave both proposed lots in a forward direction, he requires the proposed 2.5m driveway within the RofC to be widened to 3m. This requirement is addressed under a deferred commencement within Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Direct access

 

A battle-axe lot must have direct access to a dedicated public road through the provision of an access handle attached to that lot, or via an access corridor shared by such lots.

 

Comment

 

Whilst the proposed subdivision would not create a battle-axe allotment, the proposed right-of-carriageway serving both lots would ensure that each lot has direct access to Fox Street. 

 

(iii) Part H - Bushland Protection

 

Part H of the DCP applies to land identified on Council’s map entitled Land Adjoining Bushland. Although the site does not contain bushland, its rear boundary adjoins Tennyson Park which includes bushland.

 

Part H should be used in conjunction with SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas. This Policy was addressed under the previous heading Section 4.15 (1)(i)(a) Any environmental planning instrument.

 

The relevant sections within Part H of the DCP are addressed under separate sub-headings below.

 

 

 

H.1 Objectives

 

The five objectives are either summarised or quoted below:

 

1. To protect bushland from development;

2. To retain and protect, inter alia, bushland areas, plant species and communities and native fauna habitat;

3. To maintain areas of bushland;

4. To acknowledge the importance of bushland; and

5. To encourage innovation and attractive designs which acknowledge the importance of bushland areas through the control of building location, building form, soft and hard landscape elements and engineering controls. 

 

This report will show that these objectives are, or can be, satisfied by conditions.

 

H.5 Development within Areas

 

A development site is divided into the following three areas: a Bushland Area, a Buffer Area and a Building Area. Each of these three areas is addressed below.

 

(a) Bushland Area

 

The objective of this area is to protect bushland, public and private, from the impacts of development.

 

A provision that applies to this area includes one which confirms that it is…. part of the site which contains bushland vegetation and other topographic and natural features.

 

Comment

 

The site does not contain bushland and does not include topographic or natural features. 

 

(b) Buffer Area

 

The objective of this area is to provide a transition area between the building and bushland area so as to reduce the impacts of development upon bushland.

 

 The provisions that apply to this area are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    This is that part of the site which separates bushland from the building area.

·    All work should have minimal to no adverse impact on bushland.

·    Although buildings are not permitted within this area, paved areas, decking, lawn areas and garden beds are permitted.

·    Paving and decking is not to exceed 25% of this area and should be permeable.

·    Excavation must be minimised and not impact upon trees or bushland.

·    Its size will depend on the area of the site, but a minimum depth of 10m is a guide.

·    If a buffer area cannot be accommodated (e.g., due to the size or location of the site), then the applicant must show how the adjacent bushland can be adequately protected.

 

Comment

 

The only buffer area required under this development would be for the proposed rear lot, and this would be located between the proposed dwelling house on this lot and the bushland within Tennyson Park

Council’s Coordinator Bushland (CB) has confirmed that:   

 

·    the proposal’s encroachment into the buffer area is acceptable so long as no other hard surface structures…. encroach upon this area;

·    as six of the proposed planting species do not complement the adjoining bushland they should be replaced with plants from Council’s approved species list - this requirement is addressed by condition 83 under the sub-heading Landscaping within Part B of the Recommendation to this report;

·    the approximate 5m long pipe that would connect the stormwater pipe proposed within the proposed rear lot into Council’s existing trunk drainage system within Tennyson Park is acceptable;

·    access from Tennyson Park into the site, and vice versa, for any purpose is prohibited; and

·    whilst the proposal is not entirely acceptable, it can be amended to satisfy Council’s … concerns.

 

The dwelling house proposed on this rear lot would be setback between about 10m and 12m from its rear boundary and the adjoining bushland within Tennyson Park. As this new dwelling house would be located within this proposed lot’s building area (see the next sub-heading below) it does not raise any issue with the buffer area provision.

 

The only structure proposed within this buffer area would be part of a permeable timber deck (and its stairs) setback between about 7m and 8.5m from its rear boundary, and some paving. The proposed buffer area of this proposed lot would total about 132m2 and would occupy most of it’s rear yard. As shown on the landscape plans submitted with this proposal, the area of this deck, its stairs and proposed paving, would occupy about 17.5% of the buffer area. Consequently, as these features would occupy an area less than the 25% maximum area where such features are allowed, the proposal would comply. 

 

Council’s CB recommends conditions to ensure:

 

·    the adjoining bushland is kept free of building materials/rubbish;

·    outside lighting is baffled to minimise light pollution into the bushland; and

·    native plants are used as a screen and to provide a buffer to prevent light and noise pollution from entering the adjoining bushland.

 

These conditions appear under the sub-heading Bushland under Part B of the Recommendation to this report. 

 

Generally, the comments and conditions recommended by Council’s CB confirm that the objective and provisions above relating to the proposed buffer area on this site would be satisfied. 

 

(c) Building Area 

 

The objective of this area is that it is the only part of the site where buildings are permitted.

 

The provisions that apply to this area are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    Buildings …… are only permitted within this area up to the common boundary with the buffer area.

·    Paving should be minimised.

·    Trees should be retained where reasonably possible and protected during construction. 

 

     

 

Comment

 

As with the buffer area addressed previously, the building area required by this development would only apply to the proposed rear lot. As the proposed dwelling house and about one third of its attached rear ground floor level on this lot would be setback between about 10m and 12m from its rear boundary, both structures would be outside of the buffer area. The remaining area of this same deck, and the paving that is proposed at either end of it, have been addressed under the previous sub-heading Buffer Area.

 

In addition, the paving proposed within the building area is minimal, and one tree that is proposed to be retained within it (tree 22, a Crepe Myrtle with a height of about 5m) would be protected during construction by the conditions recommended to protect all such trees by Council’s Tree Assessment Officer that are included under the sub-heading Tree protection within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.     

 

H.6 Location and Design of Development

 

(a) Location

 

In summary, the provisions for the location and design of development must aim to maximise the retention and protection of …. local indigenous plants, … native fauna habitat and …. natural features.

 

Comment

 

These provisions are not an issue under the proposal.

 

(b) Building Design and Visual impact

 

The provisions for building design and visual impact are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    building design should have regard to the visual impact for users of the adjacent public bushland;

·    all external building materials, finishes and colours should be non-reflective and blend with the natural landscape; and

·    building undercrofts should be screened and finished in dark non-reflective colours to minimise their visual impact along with screen planting using local indigenous species.

 

Comment

 

The subject site is well screened from the start of the open creek within the adjoining bushland reserve known as Tennyson Park. The Finishes Schedule submitted with this application, proposes materials and finishes that would blend with the natural landscape. Condition 39 (63) under the sub-heading General within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, would ensure relevant finishes are non-reflective and, in so doing, would address the second bullet point above. There would be no undercrofts to either of the dwelling house. 

 

(i) Solar access and Views

 

The provisions for solar access and views are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    changes to existing structures and proposed structures shall have regard to the existing level of views of the bushland from adjoining and nearby properties and the impact on those views should be minimised; and

·    proposed buildings and structures are to be designed and orientated so that a reasonable level of sun access is maintained to the adjoining bushland throughout the year …... to ensure that it is not threatened or adversely affected.

 

Comment

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and the new dwelling house would have minimal impact on the existing bushland views from all three adjoining properties.

 

Sun access is not an issue as there is no bushland on the site, whilst bushland within Tennyson Park is located to the north of the site. 

 

H.7 Preparation of a Landscape Plan for Building and Buffer Areas

 

The provisions for the preparation of a landscape plan for these two areas are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    a landscape plan must be submitted with the DA that is in accordance with Council’s policies and landscape guidelines;

·    the plan is to show how trees proposed to be retained would be protected during a development’s  demolition and construction stages;

·    proposed planting should use local indigenous plants and plant species suited to the local bushland;

·    the plan is to include details of local indigenous plants proposed within the buffer area; and

·    all noxious weeds are to be removed, and weeds and other invasive plants are not to be planted.

 

Comment

 

Landscape plans were submitted with the DA. Council’s Landscape Architect (LA) and Council’s Coordinator Bushland (CB) have requested that six of the proposed plant species are replaced with local indigenous species. This requirement is addressed by condition 83 under the sub-heading Landscaping within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Council’s LA has also recommended that relevant parts of the Landscape Checklist required under Part J Landscaping of the DCP in relation to both existing and new/altered services and proposed tree protection methods are shown on revised landscape plans. This requirement is addressed by condition 81 under the same sub-heading.

 

In addition, Council’s CB has also recommended a condition requiring native plants to be used as screening to provide a buffer that would absorb light and noise pollution from the proposed rear lot entering the adjoining bushland within Tennyson Park. This requirement is addressed by condition 90 (150) under the sub-heading Bushland within Part B of this same Recommendation.  

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has also recommended several conditions relating to tree protection, and these requirements are addressed under the sub-heading Tree protection under Part B of this same Recommendation.

 

H.9 Preparation of a Stormwater Plan

 

The provisions for the preparation of this plan are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    it must address Part O Stormwater Management of the DCP;

·    appropriate measures must be taken to restrict the volume and rate of runoff to levels as near as possible to those which occur naturally prior to development; and

·    Council will not permit the construction of a discharge pipe through the bushland except where there is no alternative.

 

Comment

 

A stormwater plan has been submitted for the development.

 

Whilst both dwelling houses propose to install a rainwater reuse tank with a capacity of 5,000 litres, Council’s Development Engineer  has recommended a condition requiring each tank to have a capacity of 10,000 litres (see condition 76 (R2) under the sub-heading Engineering within Part B of the Recommendation to this report).

 

Stormwater from the dwelling house on each lot is proposed to connect into a proposed stormwater pipe located parallel to the eastern boundary of the proposed rear lot and up to its rear boundary adjoining Tennyson Park. From this point the pipe would have a proposed connection about 5m in length to Council’s existing trunk drainage system. Council’s Coordinator Bushland has confirmed that a special exemption for this proposed approach to the disposal of stormwater is acceptable as the benefit here would outweigh the potential damage of water erosion close to riparian land.   

 

H.10 Preparation of a Sediment Control Plan 

 

The provisions for the preparation of this plan are summarised or quoted below:

 

·    All soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage controls must be wholly situated within the buffer and building areas; and

·    this plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, in accordance with …. Part O Stormwater Management of the DCP and submitted with the DA.

 

Comment

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a condition to address this matter (see condition 74 (C2) under the sub-heading Engineering within Part B of the Recommendation to this report).

 

The five objectives that were summarised or quoted at the beginning of this section of this report in relation to Part H of the DCP would be satisfied because:

 

·    whilst there is no bushland on the site itself, several landscape - and engineering- related conditions under Part B of the Recommendation to this report address the importance of, and would seek to protect and maintain, bushland within the adjoining public reserve known as Tennyson Park; and

·    the new dwelling house on the proposed rear lot addresses these objectives and the previously stated provisions because its design includes both the required buffer area, whilst it would be well screened by existing trees within this reserve; in addition, the design includes adequate landscaped area and its engineering aspects include a reasonable drainage system.

 

Consequently, subject to conditions included under Part B of the Recommendation to this report, this development would satisfy the relevant protection objectives and provisions relating to bushland under the DCP.    

 

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) Applicable regulations

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the rear part of the existing dwelling house on the site, its  attached garage and the room above it, its front boundary wall and swimming pool. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 indicates that the standards for demolition and removal of materials should meet with AS 2601-2001.

 

Any consent would require the application of a relevant condition seeking compliance with this Standard. Condition 15 under the sub-heading Specific, and condition 51 (79) under the sub-heading General, within Part B of the Recommendation to this report address this requirement.  

 

Section 4.15(1)(b) The likely impacts  

 

Built environment

 

The proposal would be consistent with:

 

·    the subdivision of the adjoining property to the east of the site, at 29 Fox Street; and, to a lesser extent,

·    the subdivisions further to the east of this same adjoining site, and other subdivisions on the north side of Tennyson Park close to the rear of the subject site.

 

The proposed subdivision would not alter the impact of the existing dwelling house on the streetscape within Fox Street, and it would have a benign impact on the streetscape within River Road West beyond the rear of the site.

 

The main impact of the proposal would be the potential to overlook three adjoining properties from some side windows, a terrace and a set of side steps. To address this potential, conditions are included under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Although the proposal would overshadow these same three properties, the level of sunlight each property would receive would comply with the DCP.

 

Whilst there would be some impact on the outlook of bushland within Tennyson Park from these same properties this would not be significant.

 

The visual impact of the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house on the adjoining property on either side would be similar to the existing situation, whilst a proposed rear addition would generally be screened viewed from the rear by the retention of a 14m high Turpentine tree, and overtime by other proposed plantings in the rear yard of the proposed front lot.

 

Although the proposed replacement driveway along the eastern side of the site would impact the two adjoining properties, an existing garage with a room above close to this same side boundary would be demolished.

 

The most significant visual impact would be that of the two storey dwelling house on the proposed rear lot on all three adjoining properties. However, some of this impact would be reduced by the retention of existing trees and proposed plantings, including trees. In addition, a requirement under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report, would address the Applicant’s offer to reduce the height of this dwelling house.  

 

Subject to:

 

·    the conditions to address potential overlooking of all three adjoining properties; and

·    the reduction in the height of the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot,

 

the impact of the proposal on the built environment would be reasonable.      

 

Natural environment

 

Council’s tree officers have not raised any significant issues with the proposal and have generally recommended conditions to address certain matters, including:

 

·    the replacement of some proposed plantings to ensure new plantings, including some trees, are indigenous to the area;

·    that the site’s tree cover is replaced with trees able to reach the same mature dimensions; and

·    that a significant tree on the site (a mature Turpentine/tree 20) is retained and protected, and that this, and similar matters relating to other trees, is overseen/monitored by a Project Arborist.

 

Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has confirmed that apart from tree 20, the remaining trees on the site are of low value and that neighbour’s trees would be subject to tolerable levels of encroachment.

 

Although the subject site does not contain bushland, conditions recommended by Council’s Coordinator Bushland to ensure bushland adjoining the site within Tennyson Park is protected, are included under the sub-heading Bushland within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.

 

In addition, Council’s Development Engineer (DE) has recommended a condition to ensure that any disturbed area within Tennyson Park  (e.g. due to the proposed stormwater system that would require a new pipe at the rear of the site to be connected into Council’s existing trunk drainage system within this reserve) is restored.

 

Although the proposed landscaped area of each proposed lot on the landscape plans submitted with this application would exceed the minimum of 35% required under Council’s DCP for both sites, condition 20 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report requires landscaped area to be confirmed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Subject to condition 20, and those conditions recommend by Council’s tree officers and Council’s DE,  the proposal’s impact on the natural environment would be reasonable. 

 

Section 4.15(1)(c) The suitability of the site    

 

The Preliminary Site Investigation report undertaken for this site confirmed that the existing dwelling house was built between 1943 and 1955; therefore, the site has been used for residential purposes for about 70 years. The same report also confirmed that the presence of imported fill material on the site was unlikely and concluded that subject to the implementation of its recommendations, the site is suitable for the proposed development and land use.

 

In addition, as the site is not bush fire prone land, nor affected by any natural hazard, it remains suitable for the development proposed under this application.   

 

Section 4.15(1)(d) Any submissions made

 

Four submissions have been received in response to Council’s notification of the proposal and these have been submitted by:

 

·    the owners of the three properties that adjoin the subject site at 29 and 33 Fox Street and 80A River Road West, with the owner of the latter property including a submission from a Town Planning consultant; and

·    the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society.

 

Of these three adjoining properties, the owners of both 29 and 33 Fox Street have made two submissions each, whilst the owners of 80A River Road West have made four submissions, including a submission from their consultant.

 

The issues and concerns raised in these submissions are summarised and discussed under the sub-headings that follow.

 

1. Subdivision                           

 

Contrary to the objective for subdivision under cl. 4.1 of the LEP … to promote consistent subdivision and development patterns in zones; the proposed rear lot and its dwelling house will set a precedence for other sites within Fox Street.  

 

Request confirmation of the legality of creating a rear lot with no land connection to the street; understood that usually a rear lot must be connected by an access handle – the proposed Right of Carriageway (RofC) does not fulfil this requirement. If this is the case, and the “pan handle” needs to be allocated to the rear lot, the area of the proposed front lot would not comply under the LEP.

 

The area of the proposed front Lot 1 appears not to comply with the minimum lot size of 550m2 under cl. 4.1 of the LEP even though the SEE justifies the area of this same lot by stating that this clause does not exclude the area of a battle-axe handle (or other access handle) from minimum lot size. However, cl. 4.5 (Calculation of floor space ratio and site area) defines what site area is for the purpose of calculating FSR which under cl. 4.5 (6A) states that the access handle (or part thereof) should be excluded from the calculation of the lot size for the site.

 

Further, cl. 4.5 (4)(a) of the LEP states land that must be excluded from the site area is land on which the proposed development is prohibited. Even if the proposed front Lot 1 owns the accessway so the proposed rear Lot 2 is not a Battle-axe lot, Lot 1 would still be covered as “other lot with an access handle” and therefore the access handle should not be included in its area making it non-compliant.

 

Excluding the area of the proposed driveway that cannot be developed (13m x 3m) from the area of Lot 1 would mean its area is 528m(567m2 - 39m2) and therefore non-compliant with the minimum lot size.  

 

Clause 1.12 of the Lane Cove DCP 2009 addresses Battlaxe Allotments. Cl. 1.12.3 Access states under subclause a) that :

 

                      In calculating the area of a lot resulting from a battleaxe subdivision, the area of any accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like  is to be included in the site area calculations.

 

Believe that the area of the right-of-carriageway should be included in the area of the proposed rear lot, thereby resulting in the area of the front lot to be less than the minimum lot size of 550m2.

 

In addition, this front lot shares the access from the front boundary to the end of its proposed garage and at that point the rear lot has exclusive use of the driveway. Under the definition of site area, the RoC should be excluded from the calculation of the lot size of Lot 1 as it relates to land to which only relates to Lot 2 (the proposed rear lot).

 

The proposal attempts to go below minimum lot size for the front site but exclusively allocating the RoC into the lot size of Lot 1. Request that Council refuses the application because it fails to comply with clause 4.1 and does not justify this under a clause 4.6 variation.    

 

When the site was For Sale understood it was too small/against the law for two dwellings – wonder why two dwellings have been proposed. 

 

The SEE indicates that the proposed development would be undertaken in three stages:

 

·    Stage 1 – subdivision;

·    Stage 2 – alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house; and

·    Stage 3 – new dwelling house.

 

The Applicant requests that under Stage 1 the subdivision is registered prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the new dwelling house (on the proposed rear lot). However, access to this same lot would be impeded by the existing dwelling house; alterations and additions to this same residence are not proposed until Stage 2. Therefore, request that the registration of the subdivision should not occur until access to the proposed rear lot via the proposed access handle is secured unimpeded i.e. by the completion of the proposed alterations to the existing dwelling house. 

 

Comment

 

The proposed  subdivision satisfies the objective under clause 4.1 of the LEP because:

 

·    each proposed lot would exceed its minimum lot size of 550m2; and

·    the proposed subdivision would be almost identical to the subdivision of 29 Fox Street, being the adjoining lot to the east of the site, into two Torrens title lots that resulted in the additional lot at 80A River Road West.

 

The proposed rear lot would have a legal connection to Fox Street via a RofC over the proposed front lot. This report has addressed relevant clauses of the LEP: -

 

·    cl. 4.1 does not exclude the area of the RofC from the area of the proposed front lot 1; the area of the RofC is required to be included in the area of the proposed front lot, but must be deducted from its site area when calculating FSR under cl. 4.5 (6A); and

·    in relation to cl. 4.5 (4)(a), all of the subject site is land on which development is permissible.

 

The 13m x 3m area of the RofC selected adjoins the proposed garage for the proposed front lot. This area would form part of the RofC and it is therefore part of the site on which development is permitted because the driveway would be ancillary to each dwelling house. 

 

The DCP controls under clause 1.12 are for Battleaxe Allotments; however, this application does not propose a battle-axe subdivision. In addition, the LEP controls override those of the DCP. Further, even though the area of the RofC is proposed within the area of the front lot 1, an assessment of the FSR proposed on this front lot excludes this area as required under clause 4.5 (6A) of the LEP.  

 

Under the LEP the definition of site area states that it …. does not include the area of any land on which development is not permitted to be carried out …. . The area of the RofC is the area of the subject site proposed for a replacement driveway that would serve both proposed lots. Consequently, the proposed driveway is permitted development as it is ancillary to the dwelling house/residential use of the site.

 

A cl. 4.6 variation to the minimum lot size standard under cl. 4.1 is not required under this proposed subdivision. 

In addition to its proposed subdivision potential, the subject site also has the potential for two dwellings because it exceeds the minimum area for:

 

·    both an attached and a detached dual occupancy under the LEP; and

·    a secondary dwelling under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The Applicant has confirmed that the proposal is not a staged development. It would appear that this description has been (incorrectly) used in the SEE to describe the three main parts to the proposal. It is recommended that Council releases the subdivision certificate only upon:

 

·    the demolition of both the garage and room above it and the swimming pool in the rear yard; and

·    the construction of the full extent of the driveway serving both lots.

 

The demolition and driveway construction required to enable the release of the subdivision certificate by Council is addressed by condition 8 (33) under the sub-heading Subdivision within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.     

 

2. Overdevelopment                               

 

FSR has not been calculated according to cl. 4.5 (6A) of the LEP under which the area of an access handle is not to be included when calculating the site area.

 

Excluding the RoW, the area of the proposed front lot would be less and the FSR would be 0.49:1; request Council confirms that the proposal complies with FSR, and if it does not comply, understand the Applicant would need a type of variation

 

The access handle has been included in site area calculations to determine FSR; consequently, the proposed rear Lot  2 would have an FSR of 0.5:1. However, cl. 4.5 (6A) of the LEP states:

 

If a lot is a battle-axe lot or other lot with an access handle and is in Zone R2 Low Density Residential, ………... the area of the access handle is not to be included when calculating the site area. 

 

Excluding the area of the access handle, the rear lot would have an area of about 447m2 and therefore an FSR of 0.62:1. This is a substantial departure from the standard with no clause 4.6 variation request submitted with the application. 

 

In addition, the workspace area within both proposed garages has been excluded from FSR; however, only space within a garage relating to parking is to be excluded from the definition of gross floor area under the LEP and therefore the area of each workshop should be included in FSR.

 

Request Council seeks to have the application withdrawn so that this serious non compliance to the FSR standard can be addressed by a complying FSR for this development.    

 

Comment 

 

In the assessment of this proposal FSR has been calculated in accordance with cl. 4.5 (6A) of the LEP i.e. by excluding the area of the access handle (RofC) from the site area of the proposed front lot 1. As the FSR of the dwelling house on this lot would exceed the LEP standard, this report recommends that any consent is deferred to ensure its FSR complies.

 

The rear lot 2 does not have an access handle and the FSR of the proposed dwelling house on this lot has been calculated according to its proposed site area. However, as its proposed FSR would also exceed this standard, this report also recommends that this is reduced under a deferred commencement consent to ensure it complies with the FSR standard

 

To ensure that the FSR of both dwelling houses comply with this LEP standard the Applicant must address the requirements of the deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

The definition of gross floor area under the LEP excludes …… car parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority. Under its provisions clause 1.9 Car parking of the Lane Cove DCP 2009 states that:

 

(Note: For the purposes of floor area exemption from FSR calculation, a double garage is a maximum of 40m2).

 

A narrow work area/bench is proposed within the proposed garage for the existing dwelling house but not in the garage for the proposed dwelling house. Council’s calculations confirm that:

 

·    as the area of the proposed garage for the existing dwelling house would be about 42.5m2,  only 2.5m2 of this is included in gross floor area; and

·    with an area of 39m2 the garage for the proposed dwelling house is excluded from this calculation. 

 

3. DCP

 

(i) Storeys 

 

Both dwelling houses are in fact 3 storeys. The proposed dwelling house appears to be in fact 3 storeys at one point in the middle of dwelling.

 

Comment

 

The section submitted for each dwelling house confirms that at no point would:

 

·    the existing dwelling house exceed two storeys; and

·    the proposed dwelling house exceed two storeys above a subfloor area.

 

(ii) Height – proposed dwelling house   

 

Its height is unreasonable at 6.5m above the existing pool; in reality it would be 8.47m above natural ground level at the boundary to 33 Fox Street; this impact should be demonstrated by height poles and a montage illustrating its elevations to adjoining properties; once these are in place, request an on-site meeting of residents and planning officers.

 

Based on its side elevations at the rear querry if its roof height would be 8.4m above ground level whilst at the front querry if its roof height would be 7m above ground level. The slope of its front elevation is not 1.4m as shown.  

 

Request that its height is carefully considered by Council by way of a section that shows its height above ground level and NOT above the existing pool deck.

 

The average height of a two storey building is about 7m; at over 9m its height should be considered a three-storey property; its large undercroft adds to its height; is unreasonably big for the lot.

 

Sits unnecessarily high with an unreasonable “subfloor” area;

Should not be split level.

 

Should be set substantially further down into the site; at least its critical part could be set 2m lower and so eliminate its “subfloor area” (next to its proposed garage); its entry and garage do not need to be on the same level; stepping should occur between its garage and the rest of the dwelling to reduce its height to closer to 2 storeys.

 

Two of the objectives of cl. 4.3 Height of buildings under the LEP is to provide reasonable solar access and to ensure that privacy and visual impacts of development on neighbouring properties …… are reasonable; however, the proposed development provide neither.

 

Under cl. 1.7.1 f) of the DCP, a (detached) dual occupancy development requires the dwelling furthest from the street to be single storey. Under this DA, the rear dwelling (has) a very similar layout…this is usually problematic in terms of visual impact and privacy impacts so the height must be kept low.

 

Comment

 

Although its proposed wall height would exceed the 7m maximum provision of the DCP, at 8.6m its overall height complies with the height standard of 9.5m under the LEP. Height has been assessed based on a comparison of the plans submitted, including sections and a footprint of the dwelling house represent on a survey of the site. The proposed wall height is supported. 

 

Diagram No. 5 - Dwelling House Height under cl. 1.7 Building Design of the DCP shows how a two storey dwelling house with a pitched roof above a 1m high undercroft would achieve a height of 9.5m above existing ground level. 

 

A review of the survey shows a fall of about 1.2m across the front southern end of this dwelling house and therefore the fall depicted on the submitted plans is accurate. As the proposed overall height of the dwelling house on this same lot complies, the construction of height poles cannot be justified. Council staff and some Councillors have met with the adjoining property  owners.

 

Provision c) under cl. 1.6 Cut and Fill of the DCP requires dwellings to adopt a split-level approach ……to minimise excavation and fill and to achieve a design response that relates to the sloping topography of the site.  Its split-level design and variable height are generally reasonable due to the slope of the site.

 

It is reasonable to locate its garage as a single storey element within the highest part of the proposed rear lot attached to its south façade. However, the Applicant was asked to review the overall height of the dwelling house at this southern end and has submitted a section (plan DA 22, Revision B, dated 17.6.21) that would reduce its overall height at the front by 600mm and lower other levels, including the subfloor level from between 1.15m - 1.7m to between 1m - 1.35m. These revised levels are required to be subject to a deferred commencement to ensure these reductions are achieved by addressing this revised plan.

 

Due to its proposed height and side setbacks, and the north-south orientation of the subject site, reasonable solar access would be provided to the dwelling house on all three adjoining properties. Its visual impact would be reduced by a mature Turpentine tree proposed to be retained close to the common boundary between the front and rear lots, by trees within adjoining sites and particularly within the front yard of properties in River Road West, and Tennyson Park. In addition, Council’s Landscape Architect’s requirement that trees proposed for removal are replaced at a ratio of 1:1, and that replacement trees achieve the same mature dimensions as the trees removed, are addressed by conditions under the sub-heading Landscaping within Part B of the Recommendation to this report. 

 

From inspection some of the windows and the side steps on its east façade would overlook the adjoining property at 80A River Road West. Condition 19 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of this same Recommendation seeks to address this impact and maintain the privacy of its residents.

 

In a detached dual occupancy development whilst cl. 1.7.1 f) of the DCP does restrict the dwelling furthest from the street …. to be single storey, the Height of Buildings Map under cl. 4.3 (2) of the LEP would override this provision subject to the objectives for Height of buildings under cl. 4.3 (1) being satisfied. 

 

(iii) Wall height – proposed dwelling house 

 

Its wall height is excessive and adds to its unacceptable bulk.

 

Does not comply with the 7m maximum wall height under the DCP; this results in:

 

·    an overly bulky and boxed design …. with little architectural texture to break up the development; and

·    overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

 

Request height poles to show the impact of its bulk and scale on neighbouring properties. 

 

Roof Height is actually Wall Height because the section shows the height of living space. Request its subfloor is excavated to reduce wall height.

 

Comment

 

Although its proposed wall height on both façades would exceed the maximum of 7m under the DCP, its overall height complies with LEP standard. The Applicant’s offer to reduce its overall height, including the height of its subfloor level, is subject to a deferred commencement requirement under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

As its proposed design includes side windows, cement render and metal cladding finishes with some timber inserts and a sloping/skillion-style roof, collectively these would help to reduce its visual appearance. In addition, it would not cause an unreasonable degree of overshadowing of adjoining properties, and the sunlight received by adjoining properties would comply with the DCP provision.

 

As indicated previously there is no justification for requesting height poles. 

 

(iv) Setbacks

 

a) Side - existing dwelling house

 

At 1.27m from the site’s western side boundary does not appear to comply.

 

Comment

 

Although the relevant DCP compliance table confirms that the proposed rear additions would not comply with the minimum side setback of 1.5m for a two storey dwelling house, this non-compliance has been discussed under the previous sub-heading Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) Any development control plan and is supported. 

 

b) Rear - existing dwelling house 

 

At about 7.1m the setback of its external wall from its rear boundary would not comply with the minimum of 9.3m under the DCP. The Applicant’s justification for this departure based on the predominant rear setback and the slope of the site is unjustifiable, particularly as many trees would be removed close to bushland. Request that:

 

·    both rear setbacks comply with the DCP to ensure large areas are available on both lots for the retention of trees and/or suitable replacement tree planting; and

·    replacement trees and vegetation should follow Part J Landscaping of the DCP to be in keeping with the native vegetation within the adjoining reserve.

 

Its setback is probably to make enough space for the proposed dwelling house on the rear lot; ask Council to insist on the full rear setback for the former in order to create better spacing between both properties; this would help to alleviate some of the issues around … the impact on views/outlook (from 80A River Road West).

 

To comply this rear setback would need to be increased 2.2m by reducing the area of the proposed rear lot 2. If this additional setback area (33.5m2) is deducted from the area of the proposed rear lot 2, its area would be reduced from about 559m2 to about 526m2 which would not comply with the minimum lot size.

 

Comment

 

With a proposed rear setback of 7.1m this non-compliance has been discussed under the previous sub-heading Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) Any development control plan and is supported.

 

The proposed landscaped area for both this lot, and the proposed rear lot, comply with the DCP provision.

 

Council’s tree officer’s requirement that proposed replacement plantings comply with the requirements under Part J Landscaping of the DCP and include local indigenous species, is addressed by conditions under the sub-heading Landscaping within Part B of the Recommendation to this report.   

 

By increasing the rear setback of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot by about 2.2m so that it complied would indeed reduce the overall area of the proposed rear lot to below the minimum lot size of 550m2 under cl. 4.1 of the LEP. However, compliance with the rear setback of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot would generally not help to alleviate issues associated with the views/outlook from any adjoining property.   

 

c) General

 

Setback non-compliances should be addressed in any clause 4.6 provided.

 

Comment

 

As the setback provisions are within the DCP cl. 4.6 of the LEP (Exceptions to development  standards) does not apply.

 

4. Character

 

The design of the proposed development is not within the character of the area, has minimal architectural design, has little regard to its bulk and scale or its impact on the area and is not compatible with the surrounding residential development.

 

The relevant Planning Principle arising from Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2005) asks two questions as to whether a proposed development is compatible:

 

·    are its physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? (impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites); and

·    is its appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

In relation to the first question:

 

·    the development exceeds the wall height control, is an overdevelopment and results in non-compliances with minimum lot size and FSR;

·    its physical impactson the surrounding buildings are unacceptable and damaging to the amenity of adjoining residences; and

·    it will result in substantial visual and acoustic privacy impacts and visual impacts due to its bulk and scale.    

 

In relation to the second question:

 

·    the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, has excessive bulk and scale and is out of character with the area; and

·    the design of the whole development is not in harmony with the surrounding buildings and is out of character for the area.

 

The development:

 

·    will result in a substantial impact on the character of the area and will set a precedent for developments located on sites below the minimum lot size; and

·    would have substantial impacts on the locality and sets a precedent for intrusive developments within the zone.

 

Comment

 

The residential character of the area is an eclectic mix of older single storey dwelling houses, some of which are elevated at the front (on the south side of Fox Street), or at the rear (on the north side of this street), and contemporary two storey dwelling houses. 

 

The design of the proposed development is acceptable because:

 

·    it would retain most of the existing dwelling house whilst proposing sympathetic alterations and additions; 

·    generally, the proposed dwelling house is reasonable;

·    both dwelling houses comply with the height standard of the LEP and generally comply with most of Council’s DCP provisions; and

·    the Applicant has proposed certain reductions to the height of the dwelling house on the rear lot, including a reduction of 600mm in its overall height at its highest front part; this offer is addressed under a deferred commencement requirement under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.   

 

The proposed development would:

 

·    retain the site’s current relationship with Fox Street because the main changes to the existing dwelling house are proposed at the rear, whilst the proposed dwelling house would be well setback from the street and its overall height would be 3.3mm below the ridge height of the higher roof proposed for the existing dwelling house;

·    not be intrusive; and

·    not have any substantial impact on the character of the area or the locality.

 

The impacts of the proposed development in relation to overshadowing, acoustic privacy and outlook are generally reasonable, whilst the potential for overlooking from its side façades can be addressed by conditions to ensure certain windows, a rear terrace and a set of side steps, are treated. In addition, the proposed development would not impose constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites. 

 

By contrast, a significant issue requires that the FSR of both dwelling houses complies with the LEP standard. This matter is addressed as a deferred commencement under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

The proposed subdivision would not set a precedent because of the similar subdivision that has resulted in the two adjoining properties to the east.

 

5. Bushland

 

Does not consider/does not seem to address SEPP 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas; this applies because the site adjoins a Council reserve that includes bushland. A consent authority needs to:

 

·    assess the need to protect and preserve the bushland; and

·    that its disturbance …... is essential for a purpose in the public interest and no reasonable alternative is available.

 

Disagree with the Applicant’s SEE which confirms that due to its buffer zone the proposal would not adversely impact on the bushland; the development and the loss of 16 trees blatantly does not support this SEPP and the proposed dwelling house protrudes into the bushland buffer zone by 2m - 3m.    

 

The proposed development abuts a bushland reserve and will be visible from it and River Road West. Request that any new fencing of the lots …should be as unobtrusive as possible and their materials should be sympathetic and of a recessive (darker) colour so that it does not stand out in marked contrast to the bushland viewed from this road and the reserve. 

 

Bushland views (from 80A River Road West) would be blocked; these views were a large part of the reason to buy this property; a loss of these views would seem to be counter to the objective of minimising the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas under the DCP

 

Comment

 

The subject site does not include bushland and generally does not threaten bushland within the adjoining reserve. Council’s Coordinator Bushland is:

 

·    satisfied with the Arborist’s report submitted with the proposal;

·    has no issues with the removal of trees subject to their replacement;

·    supports the proposed stormwater pipe that would connect into Council’s existing trunk drainage system located close to the rear of the site in the adjoining reserve; and

·    accepts the proposed encroachment into the buffer zone subject to no other hard surface structures encroaching into this buffer area.

 

Mature trees within the adjoining bushland reserve and front yards would generally screen development on the subject site from the reserve and River Road West, respectively.

 

Existing side and rear fences on the proposed rear lot are to be retained. Condition 21 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report requires the vehicular access gate within the existing rear timber paling fence to be removed and the fence reinstated. The proposed front fence and the proposed common boundary between both proposed lots would have no impact on bushland.   

 

Although objective b) under cl. B.4 View Sharing of the DCP seeks to minimise the impact of new development on existing public and private views and vistas, the DCP  also states that:

 

             Views that are gained across other privately owned land are not “as of right” .

 

From inspection, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the existing outlook from inside the dwelling house on this adjoining property as this is impaired by existing trees along the common boundary with the subject site, or views from this same site’s rear yard.

 

6. Trees

 

The Arborist’s report states that the accuracy of location and calculations regarding trees cannot be guaranteed; this is evident because numerous mature trees on 29 Fox Street and the subject site are omitted. The life expectancy, landscape significance, retention value, vigour and health of certain trees to be removed have been portrayed inaccurately and requires further investigation from an independent source. Report states only basic tree protection measures are recommended which is extremely worrying and have grave concerns that all the trees on neighbouring properties and the subject site will be affected.

 

Request:

 

·    Council’s Tree Officer views the proposal and develops a tree protection management plan; and

·    that details of how, during construction, this would be policed so that trees are protected and that this is made available.   

 

Proposal would require the removal of 16 trees, including the mature Turpentine in the middle of the site, contrary to the objectives of the LEP, DCP and lots adjacent to bushland; request the input of Council’s tree officers as to whether this tree would survive construction and the long-term impacts on this tree. Council’s Arborist should report on the likely effects caused by the removal of trees and damage to a couple of sizeable trees on the fence line (with 80A River Road West) whose roots will be impacted by the proposed stormwater drainage, and the development generally, on local bushland.  

 

Sets a precedence for sites on the north side of Fox Street, adjacent to bushland; will result in the loss of tree canopy, habitat and quality bushland.

 

Comment

 

The three Council officers that have commented on tree-related matters have confirmed that generally the proposal is acceptable subject to certain issues being addressed. These issues are the subject of conditions appearing under the separate sub-headings Landscaping, Bushland and Tree protection within Part B of the Recommendation to this report. 

 

(i)  Council’s Coordinator Bushland has stated that:

 

·    he is satisfied with the Arborist’s report and its recommendations; and

·    he has no objection to those trees proposed for removal, which are mostly exotic species, natives with low ecological value or dying trees……. so long as they are appropriately and adequately replaced with suitable native species; and

·    (therefore) that the submitted landscape plan needs to be revised to ensure replacement planting addresses the plant list within Part J Landscaping of the DCP.

 

(ii) Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable subject to conditions, including those to ensure the protection and retention of a high value, remnant native Turpentine tree located in the centre of the site (identified as tree 20 in the Arborist’s report), but that the remainder of the trees on the site are of low value whilst trees on adjoining sites would be subject to tolerable levels of encroachment.   

 

(iii) Council’s Landscape Architect has stated that whilst the proposal is not entirely acceptable, it can be amended to satisfy council’s/neighbour’s concerns: these would include conditions requiring amendments to the submitted landscape plans to ensure that replacement tree species address Part J Landscaping of the DCP and that the tree canopy is replaced with trees that would achieve the same mature dimensions. 

 

The subdivision of 29 Fox Street that created 80A River Road West, and the subdivision of other lots towards the east of the subject site, has set a subdivision pattern on the north side of Fox Street. In addition, lots within River Road West have been subdivided on the north side of Tennyson Park.

 

7. Access/garages

 

The proposed driveway is only 2.5m wide and not 3m (because of a landscape strip along its eastern side).   

 

Forward entry and exit from both proposed lots should be proven to comply using a “swept” path diagram. Applicant’s swept path diagram suggests vehicles would hit the side boundary fence; if so, this could be dangerous to adjoining residents.

 

Proposed driveway will be up against fence line; why is there no green/buffer set back? If the existing green buffer zone is retained, it would eliminate the need to remove trees that maintain privacy.

 

Due to the proposed driveway noise and pollution levels will increase and this will have an adverse effect on the health of neighbours. Would be subject to the near constant vehicular and pedestrian traffic accessing the proposed rear lot; whilst its garage entrance area may become its de facto playground. My two rescue dogs ... will undoubtedly react to this constant movement and any dogs will be “set off” during construction; ask Council for its understanding around any noise complaints about my dogs during this period.      

 

SEE suggests the proposed subdivision is not dissimilar to properties to the east of the site; however, the lots at the rear have direct access from River Road.

 

Seek certainty that at no time could there be a claim for access to the proposed rear lot from River Road, and that a condition is applied to any future development approval preventing access to the site from River Road.     

 

Concerned construction traffic could impact traffic using Fox Street, especially its major T- intersection with Hamilton Street, and trucks reversing off the site.

 

Due to the busy dual carriageway that is River Road West, and the speed of vehicles that often approach this area, it would be incredibly dangerous for construction-related traffic to access the site via Tennyson Park and through the (wide) gate along its rear boundary to avoid the congestion that will undoubtedly be created in Fox Street; an example of this has been when landscapers used this reserve to off-load equipment to gain access to the site. Request Council imposes a condition that prohibits construction traffic using this reserve.    

   

Comment

 

Council’s Development Engineer Traffic (DET) has confirmed that:

 

·    the swept paths are satisfactory and therefore vehicles can enter and exit both proposed lots in a forward direction; and

·    a construction traffic management plan is not required for this scale of development in this location. 

 

By contrast, Council’s DET requires the whole of the proposed 2.5m wide driveway within the 3m RofC to be widened to 3m: the proposed driveway is shown 3m wide within its first 9m but then narrows to 2.5m with a 500mm wide landscape strip along its eastern side and a 500mm wide column containing the mail box for the proposed rear lot at the front boundary. This issue is addressed as a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report to ensure all of the access handle/RofC has a  driveway 3m wide.

 

There is no requirement within Council’s access controls for a green/buffer set back. The driveway that is proposed to replace the existing driveway would remove  a garden bed and shrubs within the front part of the proposed front lot and two trees within its rear section. The removal of existing vegetation is not required for the driveway within the proposed rear lot. Apart from trees required to be retained or protected, Council’s Tree Assessment Officer has confirmed that other trees on the site are of low value and that trees on adjoining sites would be subject to tolerable levels of encroachment. In addition, the trees and other vegetation required to be removed for the proposed driveway does not provide privacy to neighbours. 

 

The proposed driveway would create the same issues to neighbours as any other subdivision where an access handle is required. River Road West would be more likely to be both a source of noise and pollution for those properties to the east of the subject site. Any adverse reaction from neighbour’s pets can be addressed by Council’s Rangers if, and when, the need arises, as would be the situation involving construction on any site.

 

The proposed subdivision is similar to the subdivision of the adjoining site to the east of the subject site. The concerns raised about safety because of River Road would not arise because of the proposed access to the rear lot from Fox Street.

 

Although there is no requirement to prevent access from River Road to the proposed rear lot as this is not proposed or an issue under this development,  Council’s Coordinator Bushland has recommended  conditions that would prevent access:

 

·    for any construction-related purpose on the site through the adjoining park/reserve; and

·    into/from the adjoining park/reserve into the site for any other purpose at any time,

 

and these conditions are included under the sub-heading Bushland within Part B of the Recommendation to this report. 

 

In addition, condition 21 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of this same Recommendation requires the vehicular access gate within the site’s  boundary fence to be replaced with timber panels to prevent residents of the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot from accessing the adjoining bushland reserve.      

 

 

 

 

 

8. Impacts

 

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site as it is a small under size site that is not suitable for the proposed subdivision, and this, and the bulk and scale of the dwellings, will result in substantial visual impacts for adjoining properties.

 

The development will not have a positive visual impact on the area; its design is out of character for the locality and will cause a visual scar on the area.  

 

Comment

 

As the proposed FSR of each dwelling house would exceed the LEP standard, the excess is addressed by a deferred commencement consent requiring each FSR to comply.

 

Otherwise, the bulk of both proposed dwelling houses is reasonable and their respective scale is similar to other dwelling houses in the area.

 

The dwelling house on the proposed front lot would have a similar visual impact to the existing residence, particularly viewed from Fox Street, whilst its proposed additions would be consistent with its existing character.

 

Viewed from both sides, the visual impact of the proposed dwelling house would also be reasonable, and from the rear, as it would be well screened by trees within Tennyson Park, it would not be a visual scar. Based on its height, bulk and ability to be screened from nearby trees, the proposed dwelling house would have a reasonable visual impact.    

 

(i) 33 Fox Street

 

a) General

 

Will impact the outlook, shadowing, privacy and sense of enclosure due to the height, bulk and location of the proposed dwelling house and the removal of so many mature trees would be unreasonable.

 

Comment

 

From inspection the outlook towards the trees within Tennyson Park from its attached rear first floor deck would generally be retained. Whilst additional shadow would be cast over this adjoining property by the proposed dwelling house in the morning in winter, this would not be an issue by 12 noon for the rest of the day. Although shadow would be cast by the dwelling house on each proposed lot, this would not be significant and the sunlight provision under the DCP would be satisfied. 

 

Condition 17 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report seeks to address potential overlooking from some of the proposed windows and the partly open rear ground floor terrace on the west façade that would form part of the rear additions to the existing dwelling house.

 

Council’s tree officers do not object to the removal of trees from the site subject to conditions that would ensure these are replaced with appropriate species that achieve the same dimensions at maturity.

 

b) Swimming pool 

 

The swimming pool at 33 Fox Street has not been shown on the submitted survey or architectural plans; as it is close to the common side boundary with the subject site, it would be close to the proposed dwelling house and partially overshadowed by it – request shadow plans of this pool and the rear yard for winter, spring and summer.

 

Does the setback of the proposed dwelling house with the swimming pool at 33 Fox Street comply with the DCP?       

 

Comment

 

Under the DCP the waterline of a proposed swimming pool is to be setback a minimum of 3m from an  existing dwelling house. From inspection the wall of the attached garage of the proposed dwelling house would be setback 3m from this existing swimming pool, whilst the habitable part of the dwelling house itself would be setback about 11.5m from this same pool.

 

Although the submitted shadow plans show that in winter the proposed dwelling house would cast shadow over the pool and both some of the rear façade and rear yard of this neighbour’s property at 9am, by 12 noon, and for the rest of the day, it would not cast any shadow over this adjoining property. The sunlight received over this neighbour’s property, including its dwelling house, complies with the DCP provision.

 

(ii) 29 Fox Street

 

a) Overlooking

 

Increase in the height of the existing dwelling house will have a significant impact on light, and the proposed windows will drastically reduce privacy. Believe that the four proposed upper level windows of the dwelling house on the front lot that would face our property are required to be set back ­– please confirm.  

 

Have grave concerns that the proposed driveway will remove trees, hedges and other vegetation and greatly affect privacy. The removal of trees will also mean street/car headlights will shine into bedrooms.

 

b) Outlook

 

Has an unreasonable impact on our outlook, shadowing, privacy and being overwhelmed due to the height, bulk and location of both dwellings combined with the loss of so many mature trees. Both dwelling houses, but more so the proposed dwelling house on the rear lot, will have a major impact on our bushland outlook.

 

c) Overshadowing

 

Due to the proposed increase in its roof height the dwelling house on the front lot would cast shadow throughout the day causing reduced light levels to habitable rooms; affect solar panels and promote moss and lichen and cause dampness that will result in an adverse affect onhealth. Request a true representative shadow diagram is provided because the submitted plan fails to give a true reflection of shadowing throughout the day

 

d) Other

 

Request height poles are constructed to show the impact of both dwelling houses.     

 

As the proposed dwellings would be close to our boundary possible subsidence could cause cracking within our dwelling house.

 

If approved, concerned about noise and dust pollution throughout the lengthy construction process.

Will have an adverse effect on its value.

 

Comment

 

From inspection, some of the proposed windows on the east façade of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot have the potential to overlook this adjoining dwelling house. Condition 18 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report seeks to address this issue. The setback of its proposed windows is not an issue.

 

Despite the removal of trees and bushes required for the replacement driveway, this should not have a significant adverse effect on this neighbour’s privacy, nor cause car headlights to shine into bedrooms, particularly because this adjoining property would retain the screening along its common side boundary to  the subject site.  

 

Shadow cast by the proposed development over this property would be limited to the afternoon in winter and would generally affect its rear courtyard and the solar panels on the west side of its roof. However, the shadow cast over this dwelling house would result in a marginal increase, whilst the shadow cast overall would comply with the DCP provisions.

 

Whilst there would be a reduction in outlook towards the rear from its attached elevated rear deck and adjoining lounge window, this view is restricted by a tree on its own western side boundary and a hedge along its common rear boundary with the adjoining property to the rear, at 80A River Road West. Council’s tree officers have no objection to the removal of trees from the site.

 

There is no justification to request height poles of this proposed development.  

 

Subsidence of this property because of the proposed development is unlikely. Conditions are  included under the sub-heading General within Part B of the Recommendation to this report to address both the potential adverse effects of excavation on all three adjoining properties, as well as controlling the consequences of demolition- and construction-related works. In addition, condition 71 (D1) under the sub-heading Engineering within the same part of this Recommendation, requires a dilapidation report of adjoining properties if excavation of over 1m is required.  

 

Although no evidence has been submitted to confirm that the proposal would have an adverse effect on property values, this is unlikely.  

 

(iii) 80A River Road West   

 

a) Overshadowing

 

The proposed dwelling house is an unreasonably large/tall building that totally overshadows my property. Trees affecting shadow have been deleted from shadow plans; Council has previously denied my application to remove or even trim (trees in my front yard) to allow more light into my property. Two trees in my front yard block sun to the front of my property at 12 noon in winter. Two trees proposed to be planted in its rear yard will cast shadow over my property in the afternoon. 

 

Unfortunate it and my house are not shown side-by-side and afternoon shadow plans are missing; strongly disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that overshadowing is reasonable. Request adequate, complete and correct shadow diagrams that demonstrate vertical shadow impact.

 

Of the three bedrooms overshadowed two are used for study purposes and have only one window but will not receive any afternoon sun; overshadowing will be detrimental and unreasonable.

 

As the western walls of my dwelling house do not receive sun in the morning afternoon shadow will prevent these walls from drying out properly increasing the likelihood of mold growth in bedrooms.

A family member suffers from chronic asthma and a lung disease; contend that excessive overshadowing and a resultant increase in dampness will create health issues; will create an unreasonable loss of amenity and a potential health hazard for this same family member.    

 

Shadow plans demonstrate that deep shadow would be cast over my property and garden; as the vast majority of my back garden will be overshadowed in the afternoon this will affect my amenity.

 

Shadow cast on the solar panels installed along the west facing roof my dwelling house will render them effectively useless and a have a direct financial impact.

 

Comment  

 

Even though the overall height of the proposed dwelling house complies with the LEP standard, the Applicant has offered to reduce its height in certain locations and this matter is addressed under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report.   

 

Under the DCP provisions, shadow plans are required of buildings but not trees. The Applicant has surveyed this neighbour’s property and prepared shadow plans which have been made available to this property owner. These plans confirm that the proposed dwelling house would only overshadow this site, including its west facing bedrooms and solar panels and its rear yard, in the afternoon; it would have no impact on this neighbour’s property in the morning or at 12 noon.

 

The shadow that would be cast by the proposed development on all adjoining properties would ensure that all three properties received sunlight that would comply with the DCP provision. The additional shadow that would be cast should not aggravate the health-related concerns raised.

 

There is no requirement for the Applicant to submit a relative comparison of the rear façade of the proposed dwelling house with this neighbour’s residence.

 

The proposed two trees proposed to be planted are existing: tree 31 is a Lillypilly, and tree 32 is an Acacia; both trees are shown to be retained.         

 

b) Overlooking

 

Given the height of the proposed dwelling house appears three bedrooms will be overlooked from either its rear deck, side kitchen window or study window; aware that my property is not adequately shown in relation to the proposed dwelling house.

 

Plans also appear to depict the common side boundary fence extending up to our gutters and as such suggests there will be no privacy issues. However, the height of this fence is nowhere near the gutters and all our windows are well above the fence; the proposal’s windows in its upper two levels may have a direct line of sight into our bedrooms.

 

To understand this concern, request appropriate and accurate plans showing sight lines from its proposed windows that overlook our property.

 

The minimal separation provided for the proposed dwelling house is not sufficient in reducing the privacy impacts and windows would face this adjoining property; concerned with the size and orientation of the development and its direct overlooking impact on its bedrooms, study area and private open space.  

           

Although privacy screens are proposed, due to the depth and orientation of the balconyprivacy impacts are not sufficiently mitigated. 

 

The location of the side kitchen and pantry windows shown on the floor are more likely to be higher up on its east façade.          

 

Comment

 

The minimum setback of 2m along both sides of the proposed dwelling house exceeds Council’s minimum provision of 1.5m.

 

From inspection, the existing common side boundary fence along the western side of this adjoining property is 1.8m high on this neighbour’s side and does not extend up to its gutter. To address the concerns raised,  condition 19 under the sub-heading Specific within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, seeks to address potential overlooking of this adjoining property’s western façade, rear courtyard and rear yard by treating some of the windows on both floor levels of the proposed dwelling house with either obscure glass, or a hi-level sill, or an external privacy screen. In addition, the  proposed stairs that would connect its entry forecourt to its east side setback are required to include a privacy screen to prevent overlooking under this same condition.

 

9. Contamination

 

SEPP 55 has not been properly addressed/addressed in a superficial manner; there are anecdotal accounts of large amounts of fill to the rear of properties on the north side of Fox Street; this fill may be contaminated and should be fully assessed.

 

The health and wellbeing of the surrounding residents and the public may be affected due to the known landfill at the rear of the subject site; this contains a large proportion of construction landfillthere is a strong possibility that this fill will be contaminated with asbestos and the like – request this is investigated through an independent report/ independent contractor (managed by Council and paid for by the developer) before any development occurs/to satisfy the community that excavation will not create a health risk; asbestos would be an issue for all residents, but especially so for a family member of 80A River Road West with lung issues. If the landfill contains asbestos there could be a potential law suit.

 

Comment

 

Council’s Manager Environmental Health (MEH) required the Applicant to provide a preliminary contamination assessment for the site. Based on the consultant’s report submitted in response, Council’s MEH has recommended conditions that would address this Policy and these concerns under the sub-heading Health within Part B of the Recommendation to this assessment report. In addition, condition 15 under the sub-heading Specific within the same part of the Recommendation requires the recommendations of the consultant’s report to be addressed.

 

10. Stormwater/sewage  

 

Stormwater is proposed to be discharged via a proposed inter-allotment drainage easement to Council’s trunk drainage system but the impact of this on the adjoining reserve is unclear: the distance to Council’s stormwater trunk drain is not shown and whether excavation in the reserve would be necessary.

 

Sewage disposal has not been addressed; can the existing sewer serve more than one dwelling?  

 

Request that:

 

·    no approval be given until the impacts of the proposed drainage system on the adjoining reserve are detailed and assessed to ensure it complies with Part H (Bushland Protection) and Part O (Stormwater Management) of the DCP and that there would be no adverse effects on the reserve; and

·    the impacts for the sewage system should be addressed.

 

Comment 

 

Council’s Development Engineer (DE) has recommended conditions under the sub-heading Engineering within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, that require the Applicant’s stormwater plans submitted with this application to be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Council’s Coordinator Bushland has confirmed that:

 

·    a pipe about 5m long would be required to connect the proposed stormwater pipe from the rear of the site into Council’s existing trunk stormwater system within the adjoining reserve, and that this benefit ……. would outweigh the potential damage of water erosion close to riparian land; and

·    Council’s DE has also recommended a condition to rectify this area once these works are completed under the same part of this report’s Recommendation.       

 

Condition 3 (24) requires the Applicant to obtain a Subdivider/Developer Compliance Certificate from Sydney Water. This Certificate will confirm if both water and sewerage facilities are available, or are to be provided, or cannot be provided (within a reasonable time frame). The provision of sewerage facilities does not fall under the control of Council. 

 

11. Subsidence/demolition/construction 

 

The use of landfill may explain the subsidence … suffered by 80A River Road West in the past, but not in the 18 years since we purchased the property; however, the previous orchard on the rear of the subject site, and trees currently along the boundary to this same adjoining property, will undoubtedly have had a positive effect on stabilising the soil and thus preventing further subsidence.

 

Concerned therefore by the proposed removal of trees from the site and the damage that will be done to the root systems of remaining trees due to drainage/stormwater-related excavation.

 

Concerned about increased subsidence (for this same property) given the slope of the site, the proposed reduction in natural water absorption (due to a high FSR) and the destabilisation of soil due to tree loss; request that Council obtains a Dilapidation Study, and a contingency budget is established for any work required on the surrounding properties. The development includes extensive earthworks and any demolition or construction would cause vibration impacts on adjoining residences.

 

Request a dilapidation report is provided for adjoining properties …... prior to the commencement of works and a following report …. prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.      

 

Comment

 

This adjoining owner has confirmed that past subsidence is not a current problem; it should not be an issue under this development.

 

Council’s tree officers have no objection to the removal of most trees from the site, and Council’s Coordinator Bushland supports the intention to connect the proposed drainage pipe from the rear of the site into Council’s trunk drainage system within Tennyson Park.

 

Proposed landscaped area for both proposed lots complies with the DCP provision and therefore is adequate to absorb natural run-off.

 

Condition 42 (67) under the sub-heading General within Part B of the Recommendation to this report seeks to address potential dilapidation concerns by requiring an assessment of the condition of adjoining properties before the use of rock pick machinery. In addition, condition 71 (D1) under the sub-heading Engineering within Part B of the Recommendation to this report, requires a dilapidation report of adjoining properties if excavation exceeds 1m before this is commenced and upon completion.  

 

12. Requests/determination

 

If Council approves the proposal, request:

 

·    a reduction in height (of the proposed dwelling house) to one storey;

·    an increase in the setback to the common side boundary with 33 Fox Street; and

·    a condition requiring pre-and post-construction dilapidation reports for both the dwelling house and swimming pool at 33 Fox Street.   

 

Have grave concerns that the proposed driveway could disturb the root system of mature trees on 29 Fox Street and request that the driveway is located along the site’s opposite, western side boundary.   

 

Although accept the right of the owners of the subject site to develop their land, would ask that:

 

·    the size and scale of development is in keeping with the green/bushland nature of the area;

·    it does not reduce amenity and enjoyment of the area; and

·    it doesn’t unreasonably impact our quality of life.

 

Suggest the proposal is:

 

·    too large;

·    has too negative impact on the natural outlook and bushland of the area;  

·    will have unreasonable repercussions on our quality of life, with respect to sunlight, privacy and potential health implications;

·    does not comply with a variety of development standards and controls;

·    is not consistent with the character of the area; and

·    will set a dangerous precedent for the area,

 

and should be refused.  

 

Comment

 

Although the overall height of the proposed dwelling house complies with the LEP standard, the Applicant has offered to reduce this and lower levels within other parts. This is addressed as a matter under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Although the proposed side setback of the rear additions to the existing dwelling house would be less than the minimum under the DCP, the non-compliance is supported for the reasons given earlier under this report, whilst the minimum side setback of the proposed dwelling house exceeds the DCP provision.

 

As indicated under the previous Point 11 Subsidence/demolition/construction:

 

·    condition 42 (67)  requires an assessment of adjoining properties before the use of rock pick machinery; and

·    condition 71(D1) requires a dilapidation report of these same properties before and after the commencement of excavation works greater than 1m.

 

Since a new driveway along the site’s western side boundary would require extensive demolition of the existing dwelling house, the replacement driveway along its eastern side boundary is reasonable.

 

Previous comments have addressed concerns relating to the proposal’s impact on outlook, bushland, sunlight, privacy and health, as well as its compliance with the development standard for both FSR and height under the LEP and the numerical provisions of the DCP.

 

The proposal would not set a precedent for the area because sites to the east and north of the subject site have been subdivided and the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the character they have created.

 

Generally, the proposal is reasonable and subject to:

 

·    the matters that are recommended to be addressed under a deferred commencement consent within Part A of the Recommendation to this report, and

·    conditions that are included under the sub-heading Specific with Part B of this same Recommendation, that seek to address potential overlooking of all three adjoining properties,  and tree- and bushland- related matters by conditions under its sub-headings Landscaping, Bushland and Tree protection,

 

it would not have an adverse impact on the amenity and enjoyment of the area or the quality of life of its residents. 

 

Section 4.15(1)(e) The public interest

 

The proposed development on this site has raised concerns with all three adjoining property owners and the Lane Cove Bushland Society.

 

However, the proposal generally complies with Council’s controls and subject to:

 

·    the proposed FSR of both dwelling houses being required to comply with this LEP standard;

·    the height of the proposed dwelling house being reduced; and

·    all of the proposed replacement driveway being 3m wide,

 

by a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report, and conditions that seek to address potential overlooking of all three adjoining properties and tree-related matters raised by Council’s tree officers, under Part B of this same Recommendation, it would have no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties or bushland. Therefore, approval of the proposal would not be contrary to the public interest.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application proposes:

 

·    the subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots;

·    alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house on the proposed front lot and the demolition of an existing garage and a room above it, a swimming pool and a front fence;

·    a two storey dwelling house on the proposed rear lot;

·    a replacement driveway providing access to both proposed lots, with the rear lot benefiting from a right-of-carriageway over the proposed front lot; and

·    fences, retaining walls and landscaping.

 

The application satisfies the LEP’s minimum lot size whilst the DCP’s minimum lot frontage is not a relevant issue.

 

Both dwelling houses comply with the height standard of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP), and generally, the proposal satisfies the Part C Residential Development Objectives of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP). The relatively few non-compliances under the DCP for the dwelling house on each proposed lot do not raise any significant issues and are supported.

 

However, the FSR for each dwelling house exceeds the FSR standard under the LEP. Each FSR is required to comply and generally, the excess floor space is relatively minor. However, the floor space potential of two sub-floor areas at the front of the existing dwelling house should be addressed by preventing access to one area and deleting the other. 

 

Four submissions have been received: three from adjoining property owners and one from the Lane Cove Bushland Society. Of the concerns raised some can be addressed by conditions. Other  concerns are not so significant that they would warrant either a redesign of the proposal, or its refusal. 

 

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

 

On balance, as the proposed development would be reasonable it is recommended for approval subject to development consent being deferred so that:

 

·    the proposed FSR of both dwelling houses complies with the LEP standard;

·    the Applicant’s offer to reduce the height of the proposed dwelling house on the proposed rear lot is addressed; and

·    the replacement driveway within a proposed right-of-carriageway has a consistent width of 3m.

 

These, and two other relatively minor issues, are subject to a deferred commencement consent under Part A of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Conditions to reduce overlooking of all three adjoining property owners, and the proposal’s general impact on bushland adjoining the rear of the site, are addressed by conditions included under Part B of this same Recommendation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Part A

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Panel grants a deferred development consent to Development Application 14/21 for the subdivision of the site into two Torrens title lots, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, a proposed dwelling house, fences, retaining walls and landscaping on existing Lot 22, DP 12009 and known as 31 Fox Street, Lane Cove, subject to the following:

 

 

1.         The submission of revised plans to confirm that  the FSR of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot 1 does not exceed the maximum permissible FSR of 0.5:1 under clause 4.3 Floor space ratio of the Lane Cove LEP 2009 (the LEP). FSR is to be calculated on a proposed site area of 455.3m2 as required by clause 4.5 (6A) of the LEP and is therefore not to exceed a gross floor area of 227.7m2. To achieve this, the proposed gross floor area is:

 

·        to be reduced by 1.5m2 and the reduction confirmed on revised plans;

·        the proposed access door to the existing subfloor area is to be deleted; and

·        the proposed subfloor area for the A/C condenser is to be deleted.    

 

Reason: To ensure that the FSR of the dwelling house on this lot does not exceed the development standard of the LEP.

 

2.         The submission of revised plans to confirm that the FSR of the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot 2 does not exceed the maximum permissible FSR of 0.5:1 under clause 4.3 Floor space ratio of the Lane Cove LEP 2009 (the LEP). FSR is to be calculated on a proposed site area of 559.1m2 under clause 4.1 of the LEP and is therefore not to exceed a gross floor area of 279.6m2. To achieve this, the proposed gross floor area is to be reduced by 5.4m2 and the reduction confirmed on revised plans.

 

Reason: To ensure that the FSR of the dwelling house on this lot does not exceed the development standard of the LEP.

 

3.         The height and levels of the dwelling house proposed on the rear lot 2 is to be reduced as shown on drawing DA 22, Revision B, dated 17/6/21, by Corben Architects.

 

Reason: To reduce its visual impact from adjoining properties.

 

4.         The useable depth of Terrace 2 at the rear of level 2 of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot 1 is to be reduced to a maximum of 3m.

 

Reason: To reduce its entertainment potential and satisfy the objective under Clause 1.8 Amenity of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (the DCP) and to comply with clause 1.8.2 c) of this DCP.

 

5.         The driveway within the right-of-carriageway serving both proposed lots is to be widened to 3m along its entire length, and the pillar containing the mail box for the proposed rear lot 2 is to be relocated to the opposite side of the driveway as part of the front fence.

 

Reason: To provide a driveway of reasonable width.

 

6.         The payment of additional Development Application fees of $2,049.

 

Reason: The difference between the Applicant’s estimate of the cost of works of

$2,445,500 and the estimate of $1,850,000 stated on the Pre-Lodgment Application Form submitted for this application.   

 

Revised plans that address points 1 - 5, and the payment required by point 6, under Part A above are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until Council has confirmed in writing that all six matters required under Part A above have been provided and are satisfactory.  

 

Part B

 

Subject to all of the six matters under Part A above being satisfied, an Operative Consent and plans be issued subject to the following conditions:

 

Plans

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawings (numbers to be inserted at a later date) that address the requirements of Part A above except as amended by the following conditions.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is in accordance with the determination.

 

Subdivision

 

2.         SECTION 7.11 CONTRIBUTIONS.

           

            (14) THE PAYMENT OF A CONTRIBUTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3) PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN. THIS PAYMENT BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE AND IS TO BE AT THE CURRENT RATE AT TIME OF PAYMENT.  THE AMOUNT IS $20,000 (CAPPED UNDER THE REFORMS OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION). NOTE: PAYMENT MUST BE A BANK CHEQUE -   PERSONAL CHEQUES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

 

THIS CONTRIBUTION IS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION AND ROAD UNDER THE LANE COVE SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTER, LANE COVE COUNCIL, 48 LONGUEVILLE ROAD, LANE COVE.

 

Reason: To provide community services and infrastructure for additional residents.

 

3.         (24) A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the “Your Business” section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the “e-Developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application, a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the release of the plan of subdivision.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

4.         (26) The instruments required by conditions 5, 7,10,11,12 and 13 providing for the prior consent of Lane Cove Council to release, vary or modify.

 

            Reason: To ensure matters affecting Council’s interests are addressed.

 

5.         (27) The submission for Council's approval and endorsement where necessary, of all instruments creating restrictive covenants including drainage easements, rights-of-way and the letter box for the proposed rear lot, prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate.

 

Reason:  To ensure any restriction on both lots is addressed to Council’s satisfaction.

 

6.         (28) Submission of final Subdivision Certificate plans (plus 5 copies) and a Section 88B Instrument (plus 5 copies) prepared by a Registered Surveyor.

 

Reason: To enable the registration of the subdivision with Land Registry Services.

 

7.         (32) The creation of a right-of-carriageway over the common section of the access driveway serving both lots.

 

Reason: To provide legal access to the proposed rear lot 2.

 

8.         (33) The demolition of the existing garage and room above and swimming pool and the construction of the replacement driveway providing access to both proposed lots prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

 

Reason: To ensure access is provided for both lots.

 

9.         (34) Fences adjoining the access strip not exceeding 900 mm in height between the existing dwelling house (building line) and the street frontage.

           

             Reason: To improve both the amenity of the streetscape and pedestrian safety.   

 

10.       (X1) Section 88B Instrument: An Instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, plus two copies, is to be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate. The Section 88B Instrument is to properly reflect the requirements of the conditions of this development consent, the plans that are part of it and Council’s policies.

 

Where Council, inter-allotment drainage lines or services are located within the development, drainage easements and easements for services are to be created in accordance with Council’s minimum widths as set out under Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009.

 

Part 2 of the Section 88B Instrument shall contain a provision that any easements, rights of way or covenants are not to be extinguished or altered without the written consent of Council.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

11.     (X2) Linen Plan of Subdivision: A Linen Plan of Subdivision, plus five copies, is to be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

 

The Linen Plan of Subdivision is to be suitable for endorsement by Council’s General Manager pursuant to Section 327 of the Local Government Act and shall properly reflect the requirements of the conditions of this development consent, the plans that are part of it and Council’s policies.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

12.     (X4) Easement Requirements: The following additional easement is to be created prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate:

 

·        a 1.8m wide drainage easement through proposed Lot 2 in favour of proposed Lot 1 for the proposed 225mm diameter pipe as per Section 12.1 of Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009

 

The creation of this easement is to satisfy Section 12.3.1 under the DCP. Standard wordings are to be obtained from Council.

 

Reason: To ensure stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Australian Standards and Council’s requirements.

 

13.     (X6) Right of Way requirements: The following additional right of way is to be created prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate:

 

·        a 3m wide right of way over proposed Lot 1. Standard wordings are to be obtained from Council.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

 

14.       (29) The Subdivision Certificate will only be released by Council upon satisfactory compliance with the requirements of conditions 1 - 8 and 10 - 13 and subject to the Subdivision Certificate being substantially in accordance with the approved Plan of Subdivision.

 

            Reason: To provide the necessary drainage, services and legal access over both  proposed lots.

 

Specific

 

15.       The implementation of the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Investigation Report, reference E2148 -1, dated 24 March 2021, by Geotechnical Consultants Australia Pty Ltd.

 

            Reason: To ensure any contaminated structures and/or soils are assessed, demolished and removed from the site under relevant controls.   

 

16.       The construction of both dwelling houses is to implement the recommendations of the acoustic report reference SYD2021-1065 - R001B, dated 13 May 2021, by Acouras Consultancy.

 

Reason: To ensure both dwelling houses satisfy the acoustic requirements of

clause 102 (3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

17.       The following windows on the west façade of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot 1 are to be treated in obscure glass up to 1.7m above the respective FFL of the relevant room/landing, or the sill height of this window is to be raised to the same level, or an external fixed privacy screen is to be attached to the window:

 

·        the rumpus room on level 1;

·        bedroom 3 on level 2; and

·        the landing of the internal stairs; and in addition,

 

a privacy screen 1.7m high above the FFL of Terrace 3 at the rear of level 1 of this same dwelling house is to be attached along its western side.

 

PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. 

 

Reason: To reduce potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the west of the site, at 33 Fox Street, and to protect the amenity of its residents.

 

18.       The following windows on the east façade of the dwelling house on the proposed front lot 1 are to be treated in obscure glass up to 1.7m above the respective FFL of the relevant room, or the sill height of this window is to be raised to the same level, or an external fixed privacy screen is to be attached to the window:

 

·        bedrooms 4 and 5 on level 1; and

·        bedroom 1 and its ensuite, and the living room windows, on level 2.

 

PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. 

 

             Reason: To reduce potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the east of the site, at 29 Fox Street, and to protect the amenity of its residents.

 

19.       The following windows on the east façade of the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot 2 are to be treated in obscure glass up to 1.7m above the respective FFL of the relevant room, or the sill height of this window is to be raised to the same level, or an external fixed privacy screen is to be attached to the window:  

 

·        the study on level 1;

·        bedrooms 2 and 3 on level 2; and in addition,

 

            a privacy screen 1.7m high above each riser and the landing of the exterior stairs (stairs 2) on this same façade is to be attached along its eastern side.

 

PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A     CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. 

 

            Reason: To reduce potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the east of the site, at 80A River Road West, and to protect the amenity of its residents.

 

20.       Landscaped area, as defined under the Lane Cove Council DCP 2009 (the DCP), is not to be less than 35% of the area of each proposed lot. This is to be confirmed on plans submitted with a Construction Certificate and in the Certificate of Completion of landscape works. 

 

             Reason: To ensure compliance with the provision under clause 1.5 a) of the DCP so that a reasonable landscaped area is provided for the residents of each lot.  

 

21.       Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the dwelling house on the proposed rear lot 2, the vehicular access gate within the existing rear boundary fence is to be replaced with timber palings to match the existing fence.      

 

            Reason: To prevent access between this lot and Tennyson Park

 

General

 

22.       (1) The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Principal    Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

            Reason: Ensures the detailed construction plans and specifications comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and any relevant Australian Standard.

 

23.       (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

24.       (11) The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water online approval portal “Sydney Water Tap In” , please refer to web site www.sydneywater.com.au. This is to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt with conditions shall be issued by Sydney Water (if determined to be satisfactory) and is to be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

25.       (12) Approval is subject to the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to the proposed work.  It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council or the Principal Certifier (PC) that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6.  Council as the PC will not release the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance or an owner builder permit is submitted.

           

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

26.       (17) An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier before the occupation of the dwelling house on each lot.  

 

            Reason: To ensure all works have been completed in accordance with the development consent conditions, approved plans and the Building Code of Australia.

 

27.       (35) All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours: -

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                    7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                   7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

 

Reason: To ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to the neighbouring properties.

 

28.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

29.       (37) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

30.       (48) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

Reason: To protect the environment and public amenity.

 

31.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign(s) can be viewed from the nearest public place. The sign(s) shall indicate:

 

a)      the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifier;

b)      the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)      a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

 

The sign(s) shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

Reason: To ensure public safety and public information.

 

32.       (50) The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

            Reason: To protect the environment.

 

33.       (56) Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifier, it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process  for both dwelling houses. Forty eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being required: -

 

a) The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete.

b) All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

c) The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid.

d) Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering.

e) Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)  Waterproofing of wet areas

g) Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

h) Completion.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

34.       (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted to the Principal Certifier PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a) retaining walls;

b) footings;

c) reinforced concrete work;

d) structural steelwork; and

e) upper level floor framing.

 

            Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

35.       (58) A Structural Engineer's Certificate being submitted to the Principal Certifier certifying that the existing dwelling house is capable of carrying the additional loads.  Such Certificate being submitted PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure structural adequacy.  

 

36.       (60) A temporary connection to be made to the sewers of Sydney Water (where available) with an approved toilet structure and toilet fixtures being provided on the site BEFORE WORK IS COMMENCED.  Where the Sydney Water sewer is not available a "Chemical Closet" type toilet shall be permitted.

 

            Reason: To address public amenity.

 

37.       (61) All timbers complying with Timber Framing Code AS 1684 - 2010.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

38.       (62) All glazing is to comply with the requirements of AS 1288.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

39.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile and these, and metal wall cladding, both being in a mid to dark colour range with an anti-glare finish.

 

            Reason: To reduce sun reflection and glare to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

40.       (65) Noise from domestic air conditioners is not to be audible in any adjoining dwelling between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am on weekdays or between the hours of 10:00pm and 8:00am on weekends and public holidays. 

 

If the noise emitted from the air conditioning unit results in offensive noise Council may prohibit the use of the unit under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

41.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Regulations and WorkAuthority. Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

42.       (67) 

 

(a)        The use of mechanical rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for damage to adjoining properties.

 

(b)        Notwithstanding the prohibition under condition (a), the Principal Certifier may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

(1)        a Geotechnical Engineer's Report that indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to the adjoining properties;

(2)        the report details the procedure to be followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties;

(3)        with the permission of the adjoining owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING - where approval of the owners/occupiers is refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages (if any) from the developers, and where such permission is still refused, Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval; and

(4)        the Geotechnical Engineer supervises the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid down.

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE   SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To protect adjoining properties.

 

43.       (68) An automatic fire detection and alarm system, designed to ensure the occupants are given adequate warning so they can evacuate the building in an emergency, must be installed in each dwelling house.

 

This requirement is satisfied by: -

 

(a)        Smoke alarms installed in—

            (i)         Class 1a buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.3 of the Building Code of Australia; and

            (ii)        in Class 1b buildings in accordance with 3.7.2.4 and 3.7.2.5 of the Building Code of Australia

(b)        Smoke alarms complying with AS 3786.

(c)        Smoke alarms connected to the consumer mains power where consumer power is supplied to the building.

 

Location – Class 1a buildings (dwellings)

 

Smoke alarms must be installed in a Class 1a building on or near the ceiling in—

 

(a)        any storey containing bedrooms—

            (i)         between each part of the dwelling containing bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling; and

            (ii)        where bedrooms are served by a hallway, in that hallway; and

(b)        any other storey not containing bedrooms.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

44.       (70) Protection of each dwelling house against subterranean termites must be carried out in accordance with AS 3660.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

45.       (72) The demolition works being confined within the boundaries of the site.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the determination and public safety.

 

46.       (73) The site being cleared of all debris and left in a clean and tidy condition at the completion of all works.

 

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

47.       (74) All demolition works being completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of commencement.

 

            Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

48.       (76) All machinery used on the site during demolition shall have a noise emission no greater than 75dB(A) when measured at a radius of 7m from the specified item.

 

            Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

49.       (77) All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days’ work.

 

            Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

50.       (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

            Reason: To comply with Work Health and Safety Regulations and ensure public safety.

 

51.       (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with the Australian Standards.

 

52.       (87) Council’s verge in front of the site to be kept clear and trafficable at all times.

 

Reason: To maintain pedestrian access.  

 

53.       (130)  Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted under this application.

 

Reason: To protect the surrounding environment.

 

54.       (132) It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

            Reason: To ensure all works are carried out lawfully.

 

55.       (141) Long Service Levy Compliance with Section 6.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy). All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To ensure the levy is paid.

 

56.       (142) BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificates submitted with this application. 

 

Reason: To ensure both dwelling houses achieve minimum heating/cooling/energy and water efficiency.

 

57.       (143) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must make written application to Council for the provision of domestic waste services to the proposed rear lot 2. Note: waste and recycling bins are to be presented at the Fox Street kerbside for collection.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

Engineering 

 

58.       (A1) Design and Construction Standards: All engineering plans and work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant development control plans except as amended by other conditions.

 

Reason: To ensure all works are in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

59.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the Applicant requires the use of Council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved.

 

Reason: To ensure public safety and amenity.

 

60.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, any associated works on Council property. This shall include hoarding applications, vehicular crossings, footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the start of any works on Council property.

 

Reason: To ensure public works are carried out in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

61.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the Applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council. Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

Reason: To ensure public safety.

 

62.       (A5) Restoration: Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition always. Restoration of disturbed Council land and assets is the responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of public land will be borne by the applicant.

 

Reason: To maintain Council infrastructure.

 

63.       (A6) Public Utility Relocation: If any public services are to be adjusted, because of the development, the Applicant is to arrange with the relevant public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected services. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the Applicant.

 

Reason: To protect, maintain and provide utility services.

 

64.       (A7) Pedestrian Access Maintained: Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout the course of the construction as per AS 1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control devices for works on roads’.

 

Reason: To ensure pedestrian access is maintained.

 

65.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement unless approved by Council. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be reconstructed or relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. The Applicant must lodge a Stormwater Inspection Application form to Council. All costs associated with the reconstruction or relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the Applicant. The Applicant is not permitted to carry out any works on existing Council and private stormwater pipe lines without Council’s approval.

 

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

 

66.       (A9) Services: Prior to any excavation works, the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the Applicant.

 

Reason: To protect and maintain infrastructure assets.

 

67.       (A10) Boundary Levels: The levels of the street alignment shall be obtained from Council. These levels are to be incorporated into the design of the internal pavements, car parking, landscaping, driveway and stormwater drainage plans and shall be obtained prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Note: the finished floor level of the proposed garage on each lot shall be determined by Council.

 

Reason: To provide consistent street alignment levels.

 

 

           Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Construction Certificate

 

68.       (B1) Council Infrastructure Damage Bond: The Applicant shall lodge with Council a $4,000 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets because of the development. The bond will be released upon the issue of the Occupation Certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred because of the development, the Applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To protect and maintain public infrastructure.

 

69.       (D2) Drainage Plan Amendments: The stormwater drainage plans H - DA - 01 and H - DA-02, Revision A, dated 8.12.20, by itm design pty ltd, are to be amended as detailed below and certified by a qualified practising Hydraulic Engineer. These amended plans are to show full details of the new pipe network required to be amended and are to satisfy Part O Stormwater Management under Council’s DCP 2009 (the DCP) as follows:

 

1.      an OSD system, or a 10,000 litre rainwater tank, for each lot;

2.      the proposed drainage system is to show pipe sizes and invert levels up to the connection point, and is to confirm that the pipe system satisfies Part O of the DCP;

3.      clean out pits are required at all low points of a charged drainage line if a charged pipe system is proposed;

4.      a sediment control fence is to be placed around the construction site and shown on plan;

5.      a silt arrester pit mesh (RH3030) and sump (300mm) - as shown in Section 3.4.1 of the DCP - are required within the site at the start of the discharge pipe to Council’s system;

6.      runoff from the driveway is to be collected by a grated driveway pit and connected to the stormwater system;

7.      the entire roof area is to be connected to each rainwater tank as per Section 7.3;

8.      a minimum height difference of 1.8m is required between the start and end of the charged pipe system as per Section 5.1, and the details of this design level difference is to be shown in the plans;

9.      the existing Council pipe system within Tennyson Park must be accurately located and marked on the stormwater management plan with its pipe size and invert level at the connection point to confirm this connection satisfies Council’s requirements – please note that under Council’s mapping system, there is a 900mm diameter pipe within Tennyson Park - this proposed connection is to satisfy Section 4.3; and

10.    the proposed rainwater reuse system is to have a minimum effective capacity of 10,000 litres and is to be installed in accordance with Section 7.3 of Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and relevant Australian Standards; each tank is to have a 100mm air gap on top and a 100mm sludge zone at the bottom.

 

The amended design is to be certified by a suitably qualified Engineer that it fully complies with AS 3500 and Part O of the DCP, and the amended plans and certification are to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

The Principal Certifier is to be satisfied that the amendments have been made in accordance with these requirements, the amended plans are adequate for the purposes of construction and is to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To ensure the proposed stormwater design meet and satisfies Part O Stormwater Management under the Lane Cove DCP 2009.

 

70.       (D3) Drainage Construction: The stormwater drainage on the site is to be constructed strictly in accordance with the drainage plans as amended by condition 69 (D2) above.

 

Certification of these amended pans by a suitably qualified Engineer is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier stating that the design fully complies with AS 3500 and Part O Stomwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. The plans and certification are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

The Principal Certifier is to be satisfied of the adequacy of the certified plans for the purposes of construction, and is to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To maintain the stormwater management of the property.

 

71.     (D1) Excavation Greater Than 1m: Where there are structures on adjoining properties, including all Council infrastructures, located within 5m of the proposed excavation the Applicant shall:-

 

(a)  seek independent advice from a suitably qualified Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties;

(b)  detail what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining  during construction;

(c)  provide Council with a certificate from the Engineer on the necessity and adequacy of  support for the adjoining properties;

 

the above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to the Principal l Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate; and

 

(d)  provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure.

 

The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer.

 

A second dilapidation report, recording structural conditions of all structures originally assessed, shall be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

All recommendations of the suitably qualified Engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.

   Reason: To protect surrounding properties.

 

72.     (V2) Replacement of Vehicular Crossing: The vehicular crossing servicing the property is to be reconstructed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The driveway is to be designed to stop road runoff entering the property and is to be constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1.2004 “Off Street Car Parking”. The vehicular crossing is to be constructed to the specifications and levels issued by Council. The driveway opening width along the face of the kerb is to be no wider than 3m. The driveway is to be setback a minimum of 300mm from any existing power pole or stormwater pit.

 

The following plans are to be prepared and certified by a suitably qualified Engineer:

 

·      a longitudinal section along the extreme wheel paths of the driveway/access ramp at a scale of 1:20 demonstrating compliance with the scraping provisions of AS 2890.1; this is to include all levels and grades, including those levels stipulated at boundary levels, both existing and proposed, from the centre line of the roadway through to the parking area, and is to clearly demonstrate that the driveway complies with Australian Standard 2890.1-2004 “Off Street Car Parking” , and is to address the following:

 

-       transitional grades in accordance with AS 2890 are to be provided; and

-       if a gradient of more than 25% is proposed, the Engineer must certify that the design is safe and environmentally sustainable; and

-       sections that show the clearance to the underside of any overhead structure demonstrating compliance with the clearance provisions of AS 2890.1.

 

The design is to be certified that it fully complies with AS 2890 Series and Council's standards and specifications. A ‘Construction of Residential Vehicular Footpath Crossing’ application, design and certification are to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

All works associated with the construction of the crossing are to be completed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s standards.

 

73.     (S1) Stormwater Requirement: Stormwater runoff from all impervious areas is to be collected and disposed of using the following mechanism:

 

·      only roof areas are to drain to the reuse system with the overflow draining into the easement pipe system;

·      all other areas are to drain to the easement pipe system as per Section 7.4 of the DCP; and

·      an environmental pollution control pit is to be installed just prior to the connection to the Council system.

 

The design and construction of the drainage system is to fully comply with AS 3500 and Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. The design is to ensure that the development, either during construction or upon completion, does not impede or divert natural surface water so that it does not have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

Reason: To ensure compliance with Council’s requirements.

           

 Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to commencement of construction

 

74.       (C2) Erosion and Sediment Control: The Applicant shall install erosion and sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to address the requirement under provision b), Part H.10 “Preparation of a Sediment Control Plan“ of Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. The devices are to be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Reason: To ensure worksite pollutions are controlled accordingly to protect the environment.

 

75.       (D7) Safety fence along the boundary of the property: Before the commencement of any works, a barrier, or temporary fencing, is to be provided along the full frontage of the property.

 

Reason: To ensure the safety of road and footpath users.

 

76.   (R2) Rainwater Reuse Tanks: The Applicant is to install a rainwater reuse system with a minimum effective capacity of 10,000 litres for each dwelling house. Rainwater tanks are to be installed in accordance with Section 7.3 of Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and relevant Australian Standards. The plumbing requirements are:-

 

§  rainwater draining to the reuse tanks is to drain from the roof surfaces only - no “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank - “on - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system; 

§  mosquito protection and a first flush device are to be fitted to each reuse tank;

§  each tank shall have an effective volume of 10,000 litres, with a 100mm air gap on top and a 100mm sludge zone at the bottom;

§  the overflow from each rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system;

§  each rainwater tank is to be connected to all new toilets, one cold water washing machine tap and one outside tap;  and

§  an hydraulic calculation is required for a charged pipe system draining to each rainwater tank that satisfies Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. 

 

Reason: To ensure the requirements for OSD exclusion comply with Council’s requirements.

 

Engineering conditions to be complied with prior to Occupation Certificate

 

77.     (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  A certificate from a registered and licensed Plumber, or a suitably qualified Engineer, must be obtained for the following matter. The Plumber is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the certificate. The relevant certificate is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

·        Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Part O Stormwater Management of the Lane Cove DCP 2009. 

 

Reason: To ensure stormwater infrastructure is in accordance with Australian Standards and Council’s requirements.

  

78.     (M3) Engineering Certification: A suitably qualified Engineer is to certify that the rainwater tanks have been constructed in accordance with the amended plans and are within acceptable construction tolerances.

 

 

Certification is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: Statutory requirement.

 

79.     (K1) Council Construction Requirements: The Applicant is to construct/reconstruct the  following to Council’s satisfaction:

 

·      restore all disturbed surface in Tennyson Park with turf; and 

·      reinstate all damaged assets in Fox Street.

 

Reason: To address Council’s requirements for site restoration.

 

80.     (K4) Council Inspection Requirements: The following items are to be inspected:

 

·      the proposed stormwater connection to the existing pipe in Tennyson Park; and

·      any adjustment works in Tennyson Park and Fox Street.

 

Each item is to be inspected prior to the pouring of any concrete (formwork) and on completion of the construction. An initial site meeting between Council and the contractor to discuss Council’s construction/set out requirements, is to be undertaken prior to the commencement of any of the above works.

 

An Inspection fee ($205 for one inspection) is to be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To ensure the completed works are satisfactory to Council.

 

Landscaping                                                

 

81.      A Landscape Checklist as required by Part J - Landscaping under the Lane Cove Council DCP 2009 (the DCP) must be completed and signed by the Landscape Architect. The following items are to be completed on the landscape plans:

 

             -    4. The location of existing services e.g. sewer, stormwater, underground cables and easements.

-      8.  The location of new and/or altered services e.g. sewer, stormwater, underground cables.

-      10. Proposed tree protection measures.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

            Reason: To ensure all issues that could potentially affect landscaping are addressed. 

 

82.      All tree protection measures as outlined in the Aboricultural Impact Assessment, dated 17.11.20, by Michael Shaw, especially in relation to tree 20, must be shown on landscape plans. 

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To ensure that all tree protection measures are undertaken during all stages of the development.

 

83.      As the proposed development would be adjacent to bushland and within close proximity of Tennyson Park, some species in the suggested plant list are deemed unsuitable for the area and are to be replaced with more indigenous species. The plants in the following table are to be replaced: 

 

Suggested species

Replacement species

Cyathea cooperi

Must be replaced with Cyathea australis

Acmena ‘Sublime’

To be replaced with Acmena smithii ‘Minor’

Camellia ‘Paradise Bush’

To be chosen from ‘Approved Plant List’ in Part J

Gardenia augusta ‘Florida’

To be chosen from ‘Approved Plant List’ in Part J

Hydrangea macrophylla

To be chosen from ‘Approved Plant List’ in Part J

Crinum pendunculatum

To be chosen from ‘Approved Plant List’ in Part J

 

The proposed replacement trees are to incorporate a mix of larger and smaller species to adequately replace the existing canopy cover of the site. The current proposed replacement species do not exceed a mature height of 12m whereas some of the removed species have reached heights of 15m.

 

17 trees (excluding the Cotoneaster as it is an invasive species) that are proposed to be removed must be replaced at a ratio of 1:1, with the replacement tree having the ability of reaching the mature dimensions of the tree to be removed.

 

            PLANS ARE TO BE AMENDED TO COMPLY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To replace the tree canopy loss from the site as a result of the development, to achieve objective 12 for new development under Part J Landscaping of the DCP and to address the Climate Emergency declared in 2019.  

 

Bushland                                                     

 

84.      (308) Rubbish must be stored in a locked container/cage. Any building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

 

Reason: To avoid illegal dumping in bushland and wildlife access to rubbish and foreign materials and to minimise the likelihood of chemical spills, building waste and foreign materials from entering bushland. 

 

85.      (321) There shall be no access through the adjacent park/reserve to carry out any building works, storage of materials, storage of soil or storage of rubbish during construction.

 

Reason: To ensure compliance with objective 1 of part H.1 Objectives under Part H -  Bushland Protection of the Lane Cove DCP 2009 which sates:

 

1.     To protect both public and private bushland from adjacent development which could result in any adverse change to the condition of bushland through altered moisture conditions, increased nutrient levels, soil movement, invasive or inappropriate plant species and proximity of development. 

 

 

 

86.    There shall be no access through public open space for gaining access (access and egress) to private property.

 

Reason: To ensure general compliance with objective 1 of part H.1 Objectives under Part H - Bushland Protection of the Lane Cove DCP 2009 which seeks to protect public open space from private access and egress use that could have an adverse impact on the condition of public open space through altered conditions, including soil compaction, soil movement and the distribution of weeds. 

 

87.      (332) During construction/landscaping bushland must be kept clean of all building materials and rubbish. Any rubbish that is blown into bushland must be immediately cleaned up.

 

Reason: To avoid any foreign material from entering bushland.

 

88.      (333) In the event that there occurs any accidental or intentional dumping of building material in the bushland area, Council’s Coordinator Bushland must be notified immediately. Any clean-up operation which involves disturbing the vegetation, leaf litter, soil crust, or natural bedrock, must be coordinated through Council’s Coordinator Bushland.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate action is taken in the clean-up of environmentally sensitive areas and that this action is reported to the relevant authority.

 

89.      (335) All outside lighting must be appropriately baffled to minimise light pollution into the bushland area and neighbouring properties.

 

Reason: To maintain the amenity of natural bushland, by minimising artificial light and noise, and the amenity of neighbouring properties in close proximity to neighbouring bushland.

 

90.      (150) Native plants are to be installed and used as screening to provide a buffer to absorb light and noise pollution from entering the bushland. Council’s Backyard Habitat Officer (Backyardhabitat@lanecove.nsw.gov.au or 9911 3654) is to be consulted for appropriate planting for screening.

 

Reason: To minimise the spread of weeds and exotic species entering bushland from neighbouring properties by selecting native plants as a buffer, and to maintain the amenity of natural bushland by minimising the impacts of artificial light and noise through natural screening.

 

91.      (305) All Aboriginal sites and relics in NSW are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. If during demolition, earthworks or construction an Aboriginal site or relic is uncovered, works must cease and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Lands Council and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service must be notified immediately.

 

Reason: To ensure compliance with:

 

·    the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; and

·    sections 4.1.2, subclause 5), and 4.1.3, subclause 22), under Lane Cove Council’s Bushland Plan of Management which seek to:

 

5) To protect and manage the aesthetic, Aboriginal, archaeological, historical, scientific and social values of bushland for past, present and future generations; and

 

 

22) Follow the recommendations of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Report when working around Aboriginal sites, respectively.

 

            Tree protection

 

92.      Lane Cove Council regulates the preservation of trees and vegetation in the Lane Cove local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in non-rural areas) 2017 (the SEPP).

 

Part 2 Section 7(1) of this SEPP states “A person must not clear vegetation in any non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part.” Clearing of vegetation includes “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or b) lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.”

 

The removal of trees or vegetation protected by this SEPP is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000.

 

Reason: To protect the natural environment.

 

93.     A Project Arborist, of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification, is to be appointed prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to oversee/monitor the condition of retained trees during construction and sign-off on tree protection measures. These trees are to be monitored throughout construction and a certificate produced upon completion demonstrating they have been maintained in good condition. All certificates are to be available to the Principal Certifier within five days of site attendance and must be available to Council immediately upon request; failure to produce the latest certificate will be considered a breach of conditions. Final certification is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: To provide monitoring to retained trees to minimise development impact.

 

94.     The proposed stormwater plan for both proposed lots is to be revised under the guidance of the Project Arborist to ensure that the proposed stormwater pipes and pits do not increase the level of impact on any retained trees, particularly tree 20, as identified in the Aboricultural Impact Assessment, dated 17.11.20, by Michael Shaw submitted with this application (and hereinafter referred to as the Arborist’s Report). This revised plan is to be approved by the Project Arborist and submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on retained trees.

 

95.     The Project Arborist is to attend the site to inspect trees and at the following intervals, with each attendance to be followed by a written certification submitted to the Principal Certifier within five days of attendance: -

 

a.    Prior to the commencement of any works to mark approved trees for removal.

b.    Prior to the commencement of works to approve tree protective measures have been installed.

c.    During the demolition of any structures within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of retained trees.

d.    During the installation of structures approved within the TPZ of any retained tree.

e.    Prior to, and during the installation of, services where required within the TPZ of retained trees.

f.     Monthly intervals during the development works.

g.    Upon the completion of the development prior to the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: To provide monitoring to retained trees so as to minimise the impact of the development.

96.     Tree protection measures are to be installed and maintained in accordance with the tree protection plan contained in Appendix 4 of the Arborist’s Report. All tree protection measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of any works on site inclusive of demolition. The Project Arborist is to approve compliance with the required tree protection measures in writing and submit this to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To ensure retained trees are adequately protected during the development.

97.     An irrigation plan is to be implemented as part of the on-going management of retained tree 20 located in the centre of the site during the development process and is to be included in the Site Management Plan. The plan is to be approved by the Project Arborist and submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on retained trees.

 

98.      The Project Arborist, or a qualified Horticulturalist, is to undertake monthly inspections of the irrigation for tree 20 to ensure it is maintained in adequate functional condition. During these inspections, the soil moisture in its TPZ is to be monitored and adjustments made to the rate of watering as required. Its soil moisture should be maintained at no less than 60% of the field capacity of the soil.

 

Reason: To maintain the health of this tree throughout the development.

 

99.      All tree protection measures, inclusive of irrigation plans, are to be included in construction plans and made available to all contractors on the site. These plans are to show the location of site sheds, storage and stockpiles located outside of the TPZ of any retained tree on the site. These plans are to be reviewed and approved in writing by the Project Arborist prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To manage the impacts of the development on retained trees.

 

100.    Tree 20 is to be provided with a 100mm layer of leaf mulch in the southern section of its TPZ. The mulch is to be retained and maintained for the duration of the development.

 

Reason: To maintain the health of this tree throughout the development.

 

101.    Approval is granted for the removal of trees located on the site strictly in accordance with the Arborist’s Report. All other trees are to be retained and protected throughout the development.

 

Reason: These trees would be subject to intolerable levels of impact under the development.

 

102.    Trees removed under this consent must be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1. All plantings/landscaping must comply with Part J Landscaping of the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 and be installed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: To provide replenishment planting for trees removed under this development.

 

103.    The proposed driveway to the east and north east of tree 20 is to be suspended above grade on piers. The space below the drive is to be retained as a void and no fill is to be placed within its TPZ.

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on retained trees.

 

104.    All piers within the TPZ of retained tree 20 are to be manually excavated to an initial depth of 600mm, and all its roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be retained. In the event its roots are in the location of a proposed pier, the pier is to be relocated to ensure its roots are retained. Roots less than 40mm in diameter may only be pruned by the Project Arborist, who is to document the roots pruned and provide written certification identifying compliance with this condition to the Principal Certifier and approved prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on retained trees.

 

105.    No level changes are to take place within the TPZ to the south of tree 20 except for the minor encroachment from the proposed dwelling house.

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on retained trees.

 

106.   All works around tree 20 are to be carried out under the strict supervision of the Project Arborist as outlined in the Arborist’s Report. 

 

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on this tree.

 

107.    Pursuant to Section 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant must, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, provide security in the amount of $10,000 (by way of cash deposit with the Council, or a guarantee satisfactory to the Council) for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused, as a consequence of the doing of anything to which this development consent relates, to the Turpentine street tree within Council’s verge immediately in front of the subject site. This bond may be forfeited in the event of damage to this street tree as a result of the development works as determined by Council’s Tree Management Officer; as a minimum, the cost of replacing this street tree, including labour, will be deducted from the bond. The Applicant is to contact Council to have this street tree inspected following issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

 Reason: To protect the natural environment.

 

108.    The Project Arborist must provide a statement demonstrating that the health and vitality of all retained trees has not been reduced at the completion of this development.  This statement must contain recommendations for the management of these trees to ensure their on-going viability.  A copy of this statement must be submitted to Council and any remediation that is required is to be implemented PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE.

 

Reason: To provide monitoring of these trees so as to minimise the impact of the development.

 

Health

 

109.    (406) Stabilised Access Point

 

A stabilised all weather access point is to be provided prior to the commencement of any works on the site and maintained throughout all activities until the site is stabilised. These requirements shall be in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing (Blue Book).

 

Reason: Environmental protection.

 

110.    (466) Storage of Potentially Contaminated Soils

 

All stockpiles of potentially contaminated soil must be stored in an environmentally acceptable manner in a secure area on the site.

 

Reason: Environmental protection.

 

111.    (467) Assessment of Potentially Contaminated Soils

 

All stockpiles of potentially contaminated soil must be assessed in accordance with relevant NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines, such as the publication titled Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non – Liquid Wastes (EPA, 1999).

 

Reason: Environmental protection.

 

112.    (468) Off-site Disposal of Contaminated Soil

 

All contaminated soil removed from the site must be disposed of at a waste facility that can lawfully receive that waste. Copies of all test results and disposal dockets must be retained for at least three years and be made available to authorised Council officers on request.

 

Reason: Environmental protection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting 29 September 2021

14-16 Orion Road, Lane Cove West

 

 

Subject:          14-16 Orion Road, Lane Cove West    

Record No:    DA21/59-01 - 45578/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Greg Samardzic 

 

 

 

Property:

Lot 1 DP 1095362, Nos. 14-16 Orion Road, Lane Cove West

DA No:

DA 59/2021

Date Lodged:

31 May 2021

Cost of Work:

$23,594,102.00

Owner:

Matthew Lawson and Anthony Lenehan

Applicant:                       

Sophie Litherland

 

Description of the proposal to appear on determination

Construction of a warehouse/self-storage development

Zone

IN2 Light Industrial

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 5, 7a, 7b & 8

Stop the Clock used

On 4 June 2021 additional health and environment information was requested from the applicant. On 18 June 2021 and 1 July 202,1 additional health and environment information submitted to Council.

 

On 1 July 2021 additional landscaping, tree management and traffic information were requested from the applicant. On 6 July 2021 additional traffic information was submitted to Council. On 15 July 2021 additional landscaping, tree and stormwater management information was submitted to Council

 

On 13 August 2021 further additional landscaping, tree and traffic information was requested and additional information was lodged on 20 August 2021.

Notification

Notified in accordance with Council’s policy and no submissions

received                                

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The proposal is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel as a 18.3% breach to the Building Height and a 39% breach to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009 are proposed.

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal is for construction of a new part two and three storey warehouse building development containing 48 warehouse units with 47 mezzanine levels and 51 storage units on the subject development site including the provision of a 108 car parking spaces over two levels.

 

The proposed development is not compliant with the numerical Building Height and FSR development standards of Lane Cove LEP 2009. A maximum building height of 21.3m is proposed, which is a 18.3% variation to the entire permitted building height of 18m under the LEP. The proposed building is below the maximum 18.5m height plane however a relatively minor portion of the development at the northwestern corner of the subject development site would exceed the maximum building height. Further, a maximum FSR of 1.39:1 is proposed on the subject site and the maximum permitted FSR under the SEPP is 1:1 (representing a 39% variation).

 

The applicant has submitted Clause 4.6 written justification and the proposed variations are supported as the proposed development would be compatible with the character of the industrial locality including the built form or massing of other adjoining or surrounding existing industrial buildings. The breach in height is due to the slope of the land and would adjoin much larger industrial developments. Given the context of the site and the nature of the proposed building, the proposed height variation would not have significant adverse impacts onto surrounding properties.

 

The additional floor space created by the proposed development would support the delivery of a modern high-quality warehouse/storage space and provide a significant contribution to employment within the Lane Cove Industrial Precinct. It is noted that a condition is recommended to retain one large tree which would provide for substantial tree canopy along Sirius Road and this would require a redesign of the proposed building potentially reducing approximately 290sqm of floor space. Such a redesign would potentially reduce the proposed FSR to 1.36:1.

 

There are DCP variations to the minimum 10% landscaping to be provided on-built structures for the enjoyment of workers controls and landscaping to be provided around the perimeter of the car parking/driveway area along the western boundary. The proposal achieves the minimum 20% of deep soil landscaping required under the DCP has been achieved and the proposed variations are supported in this instance as the overall landscaping outcome would be satisfactory along the Orion Road frontage. The proposed landscaping along the northern side boundaries are appropriate and all reasonable attempts have been made to retain as many as trees as possible.  The design of the proposed development would not be inconsistent with the design of industrial development within the locality.

 

Further, there are four proposed pylon signs being proposed to identify the estate and tenants which exceeds the maximum signage number and area permitted under Council’s signage DCP. It is considered that the proposed level of signage is reasonable in this instance due to the size and scale of the proposed development involved.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and no submissions were received.

 

The subject Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the proposal as submitted involves for a reasonable built outcome which is consistent with the existing built form in the locality. The proposed development would satisfy the employment needs of the Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct and would continue to maintain relevant amenity objectives to surrounding developments.

 

The Development Application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

 

SITE

 

The subject site is located on the north-western side of Orion Road between Sirius Road and Epping Road within Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct. The site is currently vacant with a site area of 7,922m2. The undeveloped land falls towards the north and northwest with existing vegetation predominantly over the northern and western sections of the site. The subject site contains 240 trees.

 

 

Surrounding development comprises light industrial and warehouse developments.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

 

In the 1980’s, the subject site originally formed part of a larger allotment which was owned by Durham Development P/L. The original allotment contained 45,127.7m2 of land and was known as No. 14 Orion Road, Lane Cove West. The site had no vehicular access to Epping Road.

 

Development Application 391/1985

 

Council at its meeting on 13 May 1985 gave development consent for the erection of an industrial complex containing eight buildings. The approval was subject to conditions, which required dedication of part of the site for the construction of a link road from Orion Road to Epping Road to provide a vehicular access to the Industrial Estate from Epping Road and dedication of part of the land for two public reserves. A total of five industrial allotments were created by the subdivision application which was approved by Council on 17 February 1986. The development application demonstrated the initial “concept” proposed locations of eight buildings. The concept proposal for the five industrial allotments is detailed in the following table:

 

 

 

 

Lot No.

Site Area (m2)

Building No.

 

GFA (m2)

FSR

Office Space (m2)

1

8092

1 & 2

6260

0.77:1

2020

2

7078

3

9470

1.34:1

5030

3

6379

4

6595

1.03:1

1800

4

4277

5 & 8

4694

1.1:1

2320.5

5

12500

6 & 7

17780

1.42:1

9195

6

1297

Reserve

 

 

 

7

274

Reserve

 

 

 

Total

 

 

44799

 

20365.5 (or 45.45% of GFA)

 

Durham Deed

 

Prior to the construction of the link road between Orion Road and Epping Road, a Deed was formulated between Durham Developments P/L and Lane Cove Council, which provided in part that;

 

·    The total GFA for the entire development is not to exceed 45,127.7m2.

·    Total GFA for office space is not to exceed 49% of 45,127.7m2 which is 22,112.5m2.

·    Council shall not refuse consent to any development application to develop part of the land by reason only that such development application contemplates an office component comprising up to or equal to 80% of any one building.

·    The Deed was executed on 7 May 1986.

 

Development After the Durham Deed Was Executed

 

Between 1986 and 1988, buildings were constructed on Lots 1 (Nos. 17-19 Orion Road), 2 (No. 15 Orion Road) and 3 (Nos. 11-13 Orion Road) located on the eastern side of the extended Orion Road.  The total GFA of the developments on these lots is 23,171m2.

 

Lot No.

Site Area

BA GFA (m2)

FSR

Office Space (m2)

% of Office Space

1

(17-19 Orion Rd)

8092

6,493

0.8:1

2,020

31%

2

(15 Orion Rd)

7078

10,267

1.56:1

4,811

47%

3

(11-13 Orion Rd)

6379

6,411

1.05:1

2,024

32%

 

 

23,171

 

8,855

 

 

Ducru P/L (the owner of Nos. 14-16 Orion Road) lodged a development application (DA561/87) for additional floor space for the building on Lot 3 (No. 15 Orion Road) in 1987. The planning report dated 15 June 1987 advised Council that:

 

Should Council approve the application now under consideration, the total floor area approved by Council on building applications and the subject development will exceed the initial approval by 1,599m2 as calculated at this stage. It will be necessary for Council to keep a “progressive total” of the areas of the respective components of the building. To enable Council to compare the floor areas approved in the initial development consent with the total floor areas in each subsequent application considered by Council.

 

Council should not place itself in a situation where, say, at upon approving building No.6, 90% of the total floor area as approved in the initial development is used up. Should this happen the applicant could sell the remaining industrial allotments and the new purchaser would be able to submit Development Applications for the maximum floor space ratio permitted under Council’s Development Control Plan for development in Lane Cove West Industrial area and it would be unlikely that Council would be successful in disapproving such application when presented. 

 

Should this occur, then the final total floor area would be in excess of the total floor area approved by Council in the initial development consent. The initial agreement between Durham Developments (the original owners of the site) and Council provided for a total gross floor area for the project of 44,799m2, however, the applicant was given the flexibility of distributing the floor space over the respective buildings.

 

The principle of the initial agreement would allow a variation of floor space ratios on the separate lots but a problem would arise if a lot having less than its permissible development was sold and the new owner sought to extent the premises. The problem could be regulated by a covenant on each of the remaining allotments within the subdivision where the covenant specifies the total gross floor area of a building which may be erected on that allotment.

 

Council at its meeting of 20 July 1987 approved the consolidation of lots 4 and 5, DP 740703 to create Lot 41, DP 788365 (Nos. 14-20 Orion Road). The consolidation was accompanied by an instrument pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act which limited the maximum GFA permitted on the whole or part of the consolidated lot to a maximum of 21,956.7m2 (45,127.7-23,171 = 21,956.7m2).

 

Development Application 683/1988

 

On 15 August 1988, Council granted development consent for a warehouse/commercial development comprising two separate buildings over Lot 41, DP 788365 (Nos. 14-20 Orion Road). The applicant appealed to the Land and Environment Court in response to a number of conditions of the consent.  The Appeal was subsequently upheld. The development over the northern portion of Nos. 14-20 Orion Road was constructed in 1991 and comprises 10,376m2 of GFA and parking for 380 cars. This part of the site is known as Nos. 18-20 Orion Road. This development consent remains valid because the erection of the existing building on Nos. 18-20 Orion Road activated the consent.

 

Development Application 510/1999

 

The development application for the construction of an eight-storey building with 450 parking spaces at Nos. 14-16 Orion Road was approved by Council on 5 May 2000. The GFA of the proposed development was 11,575m2 and the FSR was 1.46:1.

 

Development Application 413/2004

 

The development application for the construction of the second building on Nos. 14-20 Orion Road was approved by Council on 24 May 2005. The GFA of the approved development was 10,901m2.  The development history had indicated that all previous approved developments on the site did not exceed a floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and complied with the Durham Deed maximum. 

 

Development Application 28/2009

 

The development application for the construction of a five-storey building with basement car parking on 6 July 2009. The approval had included the following details:

 

Site area

7,922m2

Commercial/Office space

15,093m2

Warehouse

671m2

Ancillary

371m2 (included in the commercial space)

Total GFA

15,764m2

FSR

1.99:1

Building Height

5 storey + 3 basement levels

Parking space

423 spaces

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for construction of a new part two and three storey warehouse building development containing 48 warehouse units with 47 mezzanine levels and 51 storage units on the subject development site including the provision of a 108 car parking spaces including three accessible spaces over two levels. Three driveway access points are to be provided off Orion Road and there would be an internal access ramp between the two levels of the proposed development. Five motorcycle and 16 bicycle spaces are proposed. Further, there are four proposed pylon signs being proposed to identify the estate and tenants. It is proposed that the development operates 24hours a day.

 

 

 

 

The dimensions of the four pylon signs are as follows:

 

·    Tenants pylon sign – GF: 1.6m(w) x 3.7m(h).

·    Tenants pylon sign – L1 & 2: 2.2m(w) x 4.1m(h).

·    Estate pylon sign – L2: 2m(w) x 6m(h).

 

The submitted plans has indicated provision of tenant signage to be located on the unit facades above the roller doors with the following dimensions of 3m(w) x 1.2(h).

 

A total of approximately 193 trees are proposed to be removed and a total of 44 replacement trees are proposed to be planted. Substantial landscaping along the Orion Road frontage and along the northern boundary are also proposed.

 

Proposed Landscape Plan

 

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:

 

Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

 

(a)  The provisions of:-

 

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 (Remediation of Land)

 

The provisions of SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land have been considered in the assessment of the subject Development Application. The Development Application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP55 with submission of a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) which has been assessed to be satisfactory. It is recommended that condition be imposed requiring that at completion of the required remediated works, the applicant is to submit a Site Audit Statement prior to the commencement of works. The proposal complies with the provisions of SEPP 55 Remediation of Land.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 64 (Advertising and Signage)

 

SEPP 64- Advertising and Signage applies to the assessment of advertising and signage. The relevant clauses of this Policy, including Schedule 1, are discussed below.

 

Part 1 Preliminary

 

Clause 3 Aims and objectives

 

In summary, the relevant aims of this Policy that are set out under sub - clause (1)(a) are:

 

·    to ensure that signage:

-     is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

-     provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

-     is of a high-quality design and finish, and

·    to regulate signage.

 

The proposed signs are consistent with the above aims and objectives of the SEPP.

 

Clause 4 Definitions

 

Under the standard instrument a business identification sign is defined as:

 

·    business identification sign means a sign:

(a)  that indicates:

(i)  the name of the person or business, and

(ii)  the nature of the business carried on by the person at the premises or place at which the sign is displayed, and

(b)  that may include the address of the premises or place and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business,

but that does not contain any advertising relating to a person who does not carry on business at the premises or place.

 

The proposed business identification signs are permissible in the zone.

 

(ii) Schedule 1 Assessment criteria

 

Comment: The proposed signage complies with all relevant assessment criteria in schedule 1. Each of the eight points under Schedule 1 is discussed below.

 

 

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 signs would be compatible with the existing industrial character of this area.

 

The proposed size and dimensions of the signs are not considered to be large or excessive.

 

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?

As the site is not located in a Special area (heritage, environmentally sensitive etc) this aspect is not relevant.

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 signs are at ground level. The signs would not adversely impact views, the skyline, or other advertisers. The proposal would not impact on views. The proposed signs 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 signs are appropriate for the light industrial uses within the area and on the Orion Road streetscape. The signage would contribute to the visual interest to the streetscape. The signs would not cause visual clutter or dominate the streetscape. The signs would not impact on existing street tree canopies.

 

The signs 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 signs would not add to any clutter.

 

The proposal would not screen unsightliness.

 

The signs are at ground level.

 

 

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 signs would be compatible with the scale and proportion of the building. Each sign is relatively low-key compared to the scale of the building. The signs would be appropriately proportioned to the subject site.

 

The design and orientation of the signs respects important features such as on the subject site, building and surrounding industrial uses.

 

The new modern signage is an ancillary component to be installed at the warehouse/ storage development located along Orion Road.

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 signs could include appropriate logos as an integral part of the proposed signage and the proposed colours/finishes when selected would be sympathetic to the architectural elements of the building. The final signage/logo detail would be appropriately integrated into the proposed signage structures.

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?

Only to be backlit.

 

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 signs would not reduce safety along Orion Road or reduce the safety of pedestrians, cyclists or children. 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.

 

The signage would not obstruct sightlines from public areas.

Yes

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) applies to the subject site however it does not directly adjoin the Lane Cove River waterway. Pursuant to Part 3, Division 2 of the SREP, the following matters are to be taken into consideration as follows:

 

·    Biodiversity, ecology and environment protection;

·    Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways;

·    Maintenance of a working harbour;

·    Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses;

·    Foreshore and waterways scenic quality;

·    Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views; and

·    Boat storage facilities.

 

The proposal would not have any significant adverse effects on the above matters or within the catchment and would not be visible from the harbour.

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LCLEP) 2009

 

Warehouse and self-storage usages are permissible forms of development within the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

 

Development Standards

 

The proposal has been assessed against the applicable development standards within LCLEP 2009 as detailed in the following table of compliance:

 

 

Lane Cove LEP 2009

Proposal

Compliance

4.3 Height

18m

Maximum 21.3m (18.3% variation)

No, see discussion below

4.4 FSR

1:1

Site Area 7,922m²

FSR = 11,028m²

1.39:1or 3,106m² (39% variation)

No, see discussion below

 

 

 

Other Provisions

 

LEP

Proposed

5.6 Architectural Roof Features

The application does not propose or include any architectural roof features that exceed the maximum building height.

5.10 Heritage Conservation

The application is not within a heritage conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage item identified under Schedule 5 of LCLEP 2009.

 

A.        Clause 4.6 Written Request – Building Height

 

A maximum building height of 18m applies to the site under LCLEP 2009. The proposed building has a maximum building height of 21.3m (a variation of 3.3m or 18.3%) at the north-western sections of the building. The relevant height plane and elevation diagram of the proposal are provided below.  

 

Southern Elevation

 

West Elevation

 

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

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 has provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application. A copy of the request provided to the Panel (AT3). 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.

 

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

 

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary to require strict compliance with the development standard for the following reasons:

 

This proposal achieves the objectives of the Building Height standard by:

 

·    The design approach for the site has evolved in a considerate relationship to adjoining developments.

·    The proposal provides for a high-quality built form which is complimentary to the street and to adjoining properties.

·    The proposal provides for appropriate articulation and materials/colours have been selected which are not visually obtrusive rather integrates or transitions with adjoining developments.

·    Solar access has been considered as part of the design and additional overshadowing resulting from the height breach would only be in the morning with shadows with the rest of the day would be confined to Orion Road however this would occur due to the breach.

·    There would be no undue impacts with respect to visual amenity, amenity or privacy.

·    Careful selection of boundary landscaping would also assist in mitigating and screening any adverse visual impacts.

·    The proposal has been designed to maximise sunlight to the public domain by providing a compliant 8m building setback to Orion Road. The proposal would exhibit similar public domain qualities.

·    The topography of the site is on a gradual slope which slopes steeply away to the northwestern corner of the site where the breach occurs. The levels of cut and fill proposed are balanced across the site to respond to the site’s topography.

 

Comment:

 

The proposed variation has little adverse visual impact effect to the scale of surrounding buildings as it only forms part of the proposed building and strict compliance is unreasonable due to the slope of the land. The development presents as an appropriate built form to all elevations and to adjoining developments. The proposed variation would have very little adverse impact on the overall scale of the building when compared to other industrial buildings located within the Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct. The variation is consistent with the objectives of the development standard for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed variation makes very little visible increase to the bulk and scale of the development and allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas to be maintained.

·      The proposal does not contain significant adverse privacy and visual impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Given the slope of the land and minimal impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain, strict compliance with the Height of Buildings development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the subject proposal. The written request demonstrates that the breach to height would not result in the departure from the building height objectives in relation to privacy/visual physical impacts and to ensure that the development relates to the topography of the subject site.

 

The proposed development appropriately identifies the existing character of the locality by providing for satisfactory building setbacks whilst providing for improved amenity levels of the future workers of the subject building.

 

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

 

The requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP is 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 applicant has stated that there are sufficient planning grounds to contrive the Building Height development standard as:

 

·    The proposed development would substantially comply with the maximum height development standard.

·    An appropriate transition has been provided between the proposal and surrounding developments.

·    The proposed built form is consistent with other existing developments.

·    The proposed developments height would ensure the delivery of space and amenity that would support the operations of the future tenants.

 

Comment:

 

The environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard are considered relevant. The applicant has sought to provide for a design which would provide benefits to the future workers of the building whilst minimising any significant impacts externally. The additional height created above the 18m building height standard is due in part to the slope of the land. Reasonable attempts have been made to appropriately design the development to provide for a better planning outcome which is to provide for a high quality modern light industrial development which contribute to employment and a service to the Lane Cove LGA.

 

A clear or detailed analysis has been made in the submitted Clause 4.6 written justification. The overall impact on the locality has been minimised where possible and the proposal would not adversely impact on the adjoining and surrounding premises. The environmental planning grounds provided are considered satisfactory and are supported. Clause 4.6(3)(b) is satisfied.

 

 

3.   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. The applicant has stated that the proposal achieves the relevant objectives of the Building Height standard ensuring that the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the existing industrial character of the locality. An assessment against the objectives of building height and the IN2 Light Industrial 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: The development would allow for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas.

 

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

 

Comment: There would not contain significant adverse privacy and visual impacts onto the adjoining properties.

 

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

 

Comment:  The development would allow for reasonable sunlight for the public domain.

 

(d)  to relate development to topography

 

Comment:  The site has a considerable slope and the proposal has been appropriately designed which appropriately considers the topography whilst providing for a high amenity industrial development.

 

In accordance with the above, the development does comply with the LCLEP 2009 objectives for the height control and is supported.

 

The applicant has stated that the proposed development is consistent with the IN2 zone objectives as the proposed development:

 

·    The proposed development is highly compatible with the current uses surrounding the subject site.

·    The proposal would create positive social and economic outcomes through increased employment opportunities and day to day services to the community.

·    If the proposed heights cannot be achieved, an alternative site would be pursued by the developer forgoing such employment opportunities.

·    The proposal is situated on land designated for light industrial uses and would complement the existing surrounding developments which would be assisted by existing/proposed landscaping around the perimeter of the subject development site.

·    The proposal would utilise an undeveloped industrial site and would provide the minimum 20% landscaped areas required on the site.

·    The proposal is not located within proximity to residential areas and would have no impact on these areas.

 

IN2 Light Industrial Zone Objectives

 

The IN2 Light Industrial Zone objectives are as follows:

 

·   To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

 

Comment: The proposal provides warehousing, self-storage and ancillary office uses to meet the light industrial needs of the Lane Cove LGA. The proposal provides for a high number of units with mezzanines to allow for reasonable amenity for the occupants with well-sized carpark areas.

 

·   To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

 

Comment: The proposal would provide for numerous employment opportunities and a modern industrial building within the Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct.

 

·   To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

 

Comment: The proposed warehouse building would not adversely affect other industrial uses within the locality.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal would not prevent other facilities or services from being carried out.

 

·   To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

 

Comment: The proposed building design provides for units in varying sizes to allow for a potential number of tenants to occupy them, provision of self-storage units to meet the day to day needs to the community and would respond to demand for light industrial floorspace.

 

·   To ensure that landscaping is a significant element in development viewed from the public domain and neighbouring properties.

 

Comment: The proposed landscaping would provide a satisfactory landscaping outcome when viewed from Orion Road and along the side boundaries where possible. The proposed landscaping would be substantial improvement and would the appearance of the development. 

 

·   To recognise the close proximity of this zone to adjoining residential areas and seek to mitigate potential conflict between industrial and residential uses.

 

Comment: The proposal is not adjacent to any residential areas.

 

In accordance with the above, the development does comply with the LCLEP 2009 objectives for the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

4.      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%. The building height variation is more than 10% (18.3%). As the proposal is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for determination; concurrence is taken to be assumed should the Panel be satisfied that notwithstanding the above impacts and non-compliances the proposal is acceptable.

 

5.         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 justified and supported in the circumstances of this case. The development would satisfy the objectives of the control despite the non-compliance with the height control. The development satisfies the objectives and the criteria outlined in Clause 4.6. As such, the variation is well founded, it results in a better planning outcome and would be in the public interest.

 

B.        Clause 4.6 Written Request – FSR

 

A maximum FSR of 1:1 applies to the site under LCLEP 2009. The proposal has a maximum FSR of 1.39:1 (a 39% variation) where a maximum of floorspace of 7,922m² is permitted and a maximum floorspace proposed is 11,028m² (being 3,106m² over).

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

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 has provided a written request seeking a variation to the development standard with the lodged application. A copy of the request is provided to the Panel (AT3). 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.

 

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

 

The Clause 4.6 variation has argued that it is unreasonable or unnecessary for the same reasons provided under the building height development standard to require strict compliance with the development standard however provided the additional following reasons:

 

·    The bulk and scale would not cause an undesirable impact as it would involve appropriate building separation between developments.

·    The proposal would result in an improvement to the subject site and onto the Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct.

 

Comment:

 

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the subject proposal. The written request demonstrates that the breach to FSR is consistent with the LEP FSR objective to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality. Clause 4.6(3)(a) is satisfied in this instance.

 

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

 

The applicant has provided the following additional environmental planning grounds justifications:

 

·    The proposal is similar if not less than the GFA of the immediate surrounding developments.

·    The proposal would make productive and sustainable use of a vacant lot.

·    Reduction in GFA would affect the commercial viability of the development or deliver any measurable benefits.

 

The variation to FSR is in part due to the proposed excavated areas below natural ground levels to create self-storage units and as such would not produce any additional visual, bulk and scale impacts. The use of these areas would provide a beneficial use to the commercial operation and the community by providing better service and offer better amenity without adversely impacting on surrounding buildings or industrial operations. Given the minimal impacts on neighbouring properties, strict compliance with the FSR development standard would seem unreasonable in this instance. 

 

The requirement in Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the LEP to justify that 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 environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard are considered relevant and justify the case. A clear or detailed analysis has been made in the submitted Clause 4.6 written justification. The environmental planning grounds provided are satisfactory. Clause 4.6(3)(b) is satisfied.

 

3.    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 standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. The applicant has stated that the proposal achieves the relevant objective of the FSR development standard ensuring that the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the existing character of the industrial locality. An assessment against the objectives of FSR and the IN2 Light Industrial zone contained within LCLEP 2009 are provided as follows:

 

FSR Objective

 

Clause 4.4(1) provides the following objective:-

 

(a)  to ensure that the bulk and scale of development is compatible with the character of the locality.

 

Comment: The additional 3,106m² floor space created would not contribute to unnecessary bulk and scale to the overall building and in turn would not adversely affect the character of the locality whilst providing a good planning outcome with provision of large and useable warehouse/ self-storage/ mezzanine office space for instance.

 

In accordance with the above, the development complies with the LCLEP 2009 objective for the FSR control and is supported.

 

The applicant has provided the same justifications as to why the proposed development is consistent with the IN2 Light Industrial zone objectives under the the proposed Building Height standard variation and further above in this FSR discussion section of this report.

 

IN2 Light Industrial Zone Objectives

 

See the IN2 Light Industrial zone objectives discussion above under the Building Height Clause 4.6 written request section of this report. It is noted that a condition is recommended to retain one large tree which would provide for substantial tree canopy along Sirius Road and this would require a redesign of the proposed building potentially reducing approximately 290sqm of floor space. Such a redesign would potentially reduce the proposed FSR to 1.36:1.

 

In accordance with the above, the development complies with the LEP 2009 objectives for the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

 

4.      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%. In this instance the variation is less than 10% (39%). Regardless, as the proposal is referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel for determination; concurrence is taken to be assumed should the variation be supported by the Panel.

 

5.         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 FSR standard of LCLEP 2009 is justified and supported in the circumstances of this case.  The development would satisfy the objective of the control despite the non-compliance with the FSR control. The development satisfies the objectives and the criteria outlined in Clause 4.6. As such, the variation is well founded, results in a better planning outcome and would be in the public interest.

 

 

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

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

 

The Draft Remediation of Land SEPP was subject to public exhibition between 31 January and 13 April 2018. The Draft SEPP maintains the overarching objectives being to promote the remediation of land to reduce the risk of potential harm to human health or the environment. The new draft measures primarily relate to scenarios where more complex remediation/ongoing management is required, and the certification of remediation works undertaken as development not requiring consent.

 

A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) has occurred and would be adequate in this instance to address the requirements of the draft SEPP to require the applicant to submit of a Site Audit Report prior to the commencement of works as a condition of consent. The proposal is consistent with the Draft Remediation of Land SEPP.

 

(iii)       Any development control plan

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) 2010

 

The proposal has been assessed with against the relevant provisions of Part E as detailed in the following table:

 

Provision

Control

Proposed

Complies

E.4 Site Layout

Total GFA used for ancillary office not to exceed 49% of development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design to minimise amenity impacts on residential areas in close proximity

 

Internal spaces to be designed to satisfy operational requirements and provide a safe and convenient work environment

 

Floor space to distributed to ensure a building of an appropriate bulk and scale

 

 

 

 

Rights of way encouraged to contribute to a pedestrian network throughout the industrial area

A total of 8,776sqm of warehouse/ light industrial/ self-storage space and 2,252sqm of mezzanine office space are proposed.

 

2,252m²/11,028m² = 20.4%

 

No nearby residential areas

 

 

Units are located on the perimeter of the building for maximised internal user amenity and passive external surveillance

 

The building has been designed to respond to the slope of the site with appropriate justifications provided for variations to building height and FSR.

 

Adequate pedestrian access provided within the development

Yes

 

DCP Control

Proposed

Complies

PART E – Industrial Development

5E Building Setbacks

a)  Setbacks are to comply with the following table:

 

 

 

Boundary

Landscaping Strip

(which will form part of

building setback)

 

Minimum Building

Setback

 

Front

3m

8m

Side and rear – adjoining

industrial zone

Zero*

Zero*

Side and rear – adjoining non

industrial uses

2m

4m

 

* Zero side and rear setbacks may be permitted where deep soil/landscaping provisions are

met elsewhere on the site, BCA fire regulations are met and merit issues are deemed acceptable in relation to adjacent properties.

Building: Min 8m to Orion Rd

 

Landscaping: Predominantly min. 8m Sirius Rd

 

Setbacks compliant to adjoining industrial zone boundaries: Min. 3m to the northern boundary and nil setback to the western boundary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes – satisfactory impacts involved on merit, landscaped outcomes and subject to a condition requiring compliance with the BCA

 

 

 

b) Landscaping strips are to be free from overhangs; hard elements such as paths, ramps, substations; fire hydrant boosters (where possible); signs and advertising structure (including pole signs). Landscaping strips may be used in calculation of landscaped area.

Landscape strips largely free of such elements

Satisfactory landscaping outcomes achieved

c) All front setbacks are to be landscaped to provide a high- quality street presence. Front setback areas must not be used for storage or display of goods or excessive signage, loading/unloading or large areas of car parking.

Front setbacks provide high-quality landscaping

Yes

d) Underground parking is to be situated underneath the building footprint and hard surfaces. The building setback is inclusive of the required landscaping strip as stipulated in the Setback Table.

Adequate underground parking has been provided for underneath the building footprint and hard surfaces.

Yes

e) Corner Sites: New development on sites that have a corner frontage is to provide an 8 metre front setback to the main street/road and a minimum 4 metre setback to the secondary road/street

The development is not located on a corner allotment however is located on a curved corner however a minimum 8m building setback is provided throughout

Yes

E.6 Cut and Fill

a) All development is to relate to the existing topography of the land at the time of the adoption of this DCP.

Cut and fill proposed responds to the topography of the site.

Yes - satisfactory amounts of cut and fill proposed and supported by a civil engineering report which accounts for the cut/fill of the development.

b) Excavation for major development is to be contained within the footprint of the development and hard surfaces.

Cut is predominantly contained within the building footprint.

Yes - satisfactory amounts of cut proposed.

c) For development within Centres, Council may consider full site coverage for underground excavation and podium footprints where it is demonstrated that mature landscaping, landscaped area and rainwater retention is able to be provided as roof terraces on podium structures.

Satisfactory excavation proposed where it would be kept away from existing trees where possible and proposal to have an appropriate drainage/ engineering outcome subject to conditions

Yes

d) Uses at ground level are to respond to the slope of the street by stepping frontages and entries to follow the slope.

Ground uses responds to the slope of the street where possible

Yes – a satisfactory design has been provided

E.7 Building Design and Appearance

New construction is to achieve both functional and visually attractive buildings.

The proposal represents a building of an appropriate bulk and scale within the industrial context of the precinct and external facades are articulated to break up the visual bulk of the building.

Yes

a) Through careful site arrangements new building works should:

I.   Address the street with any non-industrial aspects (i.e. office section) of the development.

II.   Avoid long blank walls of warehouse units facing the street or public domain and long unbroken roof lines. If unavoidable, use of single material and colour should be avoided.

III. Rear boundary walls are to be treated aesthetically.

 

 

IV. Provide regular articulation to the façade or division of massing.

 

 

 

Office faces Orion Road where possible

 

 

Blank walls avoided

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designed to have an appearance which complements other industrial developments

 

Appropriately articulated

Yes

b)  New buildings are to be designed to:

I.   Express the structure of the building through creative architecture and minimise use of reflective glass or large blocks of one material.

II. Visually reinforce entrances, office components and stair wells of units to create rhythm on long facades and a reduction of perceived scale. Strongly express structural bays and bracing.

III. Provide variation of unit design within industrial unit developments.

IV. Introduce solid surfaces, with a mix of materials; incorporate horizontal and vertical modulation including windows in appropriate proportions and configurations.

V.  Address all streets to which it presents.

 

 

Achieved

 

 

 

 

Entrance reinforced

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variation achieved where possible

 

 

Achieved

 

 

 

 

 

Addressed to street

 

Yes

c) Where blank walls on street frontages are unavoidable in new development they are to be treated as sculptural elements minimising bland streetscapes. They are to be finished to a high standard and minimise the potential for graffiti or other vandalism.

There are no blank walls along the street frontage

Yes

d) All rooftop or exposed structures including lift motor rooms, plant rooms, etc., together with air conditioning, ventilation and exhaust systems, are to be integrated with the building design in order to ensure interesting and high-quality appearance.

Appropriately integrated

Yes

e) Corner Sites: New development on corner sites is to address both street frontages in terms of facade treatment, fenestration and articulation of elevations.

The development is not located on a corner allotment however is located on a curved corner however the development addresses the entire Orion Road street frontage

Satisfactory

E.8 Parking and Vehicular Access

a.  Parking is to be integrated into the site planning and must be visually mitigated by minimum 3m landscape strip along the frontage and other high-quality landscaping.

Parking has been integrated into design of the building and no parking within the required 3m landscaped strip.

Yes

bSeparation is to be provided between service areas (i.e. loading and unloading areas) and parking. Service areas to be located and designed to facilitate convenient and safe usage.

Loading bays are provided for each unit and accommodates appropriate vehicles in accordance with the Australian Standards.

Yes

c.  Access/Driveways- Vehicular movements to and from the site should be designed to reduce potential conflict with street traffic and pedestrians.

Potential conflicts reduced where possible with the provision of 3 separate access points

Yes

d.  Driveway width in front of the building line must be minimised.

Appropriate widths provided

Yes

e.   Car parking areas are to be broken up by canopy trees between car parking bays to reduce their visual impact. Car parking areas are not to be exposed to the street and where they adjoin other uses they are to be screened with landscaping to reduce their impact.

There would be no significant adverse visual impact on Orion Road and to adjoining premises with the proposed provision of parking on the subject site

Yes

f.   All vehicles should enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

Appropriate turning bays provided to allow for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

Yes

g.  No tandem parking facilities will be accepted for new developments.

Satisfactory parking arrangements provided for

Yes

h.  Preferably, off-street parking is to be provided behind or at the side of buildings and away from street frontages.

Appropriate carparking has been provided for behind the building and away from the street frontage.

Yes

i.  Visitor car parking is to be located close to the office component of the development.

Appropriately located

Yes

j. Loading docks should be positioned so they do not interfere with visitor and employee parking spaces and to ensure delivery vehicles do not stand on any public road, footway, laneway or service road.

Loading docks separated from private vehicles

Yes

k.  Proposed parking areas, truck docks, driveways, vehicular ramps and turning areas are to be maintained clear of obstruction and used exclusively for purposes of car parking, loading or unloading and vehicular access respectively. Under no circumstances are such areas or any portion thereof to be used for the storage of goods and waste materials. These areas are to be physically line marked and are to be maintained free of obstruction, for the sole use of delivery vehicles.

Achieved

Yes

l.   Motorcycle parking spaces are to have an area of 1.2m x 3m.

Appropriate spaces provided for

Yes

E.9 Landscaping

a) A minimum of 20 % of the site shall be provided as landscaped area.

Minimum 20% landscaped area achieved

 

Yes

b) In addition, a minimum of 10% of the site shall be provided and maintained as landscaped area or planting on structures, with lawns, trees, shrubs, for aesthetic purposes and the enjoyment of workers of the site. The minimum width for inclusion in calculations is 1.0m.

Minimum 1.4%

 

No, however acceptable non-compliance as the landscaping outcome would be satisfactory as the design of the development would not be inconsistent with the design of the existing industrial developments.

c) All car parking areas are to be landscaped so as to break up large expanses of paving and cars. Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter and between aisles and every 10 car spaces plus along pedestrian access routes. Contrasting finishes shall be used to break up large sections of paving and to delineate pedestrian areas, entries or car parks. Porous paving should be utilised wherever possible.

Not provided along the western boundary

 

No, however acceptable non-compliance as the landscaping outcome would be satisfactory as the design of the development would not be inconsistent with other developments within the precinct.

d) Planter beds along the building façade are encouraged.

Landscaping along the façade is appropriate

Satisfactory

e) All unbuilt-upon areas of a site are to be landscaped to soften the impact of buildings and car parking areas.

Achieved along the frontage and the western boundary of the development site

Yes

f) Landscaping in the public domain should promote a cohesive landscape setting. Development is to provide street tree planting to match existing or to Council requirements, grasses, shrubs and accent planting or any combination of these.

Existing street trees are to be remain where possible and to match the proposed landscaping of the development site

Yes

g) Storage areas and other potentially unsightly areas must be effectively screened from adjacent properties.

Achieved

Yes

h) Landscaping within setback areas should be of a similar scale to buildings on the industrial site. All landscaped areas are to be separated from vehicular areas by means of a kerb or other effective physical barriers.

A wide front landscaping setback to Orion Road is achieved and appropriately separated from such elements

Yes

i)   In open parking areas at ground level, 1 shade tree per 10 spaces should be planted within the parking area.

No trees planted within open section of the car parking area

No, however see discussion on variation to landscaping

j)   A continuous landscaped buffer strip shall be provided between the driveway and side boundary. The buffer strip shall be a minimum of 2 metres, increasing to 3 metres where adjoining a residential land use. The buffer strip shall contain a mix of tall screen planting and plants with foliage at the ground level. Driveways central to the site shall be planted with avenue trees.

Not entirely achieved at the western boundary  – see discussion on the side setback variation being proposed

No, see discussion on side setbacks for further detail

k)   Parking and circulation areas are to be delineated by planter beds at the ends of parking bays. Planter beds shall be a minimum width of 1.5 m surrounded by a 150mm concrete kerb and shall contain both trees and shrubs.

See above

No, however see discussion on variation to landscaping

E.10 Fences

a) All fencing along street frontage is required to be permeable metal palisade or picket finished in a suitable colour - dark colours are preferable. Maximum height allowed is 1.2 metres on street frontages.

No new front fencing proposed

N/A

b) Taller fencing should be behind the building line for security. However, security fencing may be considered forward of the building line (behind the front landscape strip) if required for specific industrial uses.

No new fencing proposed

N/A

c) Chain wire is permitted only on the side and rear boundaries adjoining industrial developments, commencing at the front building alignment. All chain wire fencing is required to be black PVC coated.

No new fencing proposed

N/A

d) If the side or rear boundary faces a side or rear boundary of a residential premises, a timber paling/colorbond fence (commencing at the front building alignment) is allowed along with acoustic fencing with planting.

N/A

N/A

e) Masonry retaining walls, if located along a street frontage are restricted to 600mm in height, where possible.

No front facing masonry retaining wall proposed

N/A

f) Solid metal panel fences (sheet metal or similar) of any height are not permitted along the street frontage or in front of the building alignment.

No new fencing is proposed

Yes

Locality 1 – Land off Sirius Road

This Clause applies to Lot 2 DP 884454 (formerly part of Lot 1 DP 546860) Sirius Road, West

Lane Cove – N/A

 

Landscaping

 

DCP Part E.9 - Landscaping (b), (c) & (j) requires a minimum 20% of the site to be landscaped, an additional minimum 10% of on-built landscaping structures for enjoyment of workers to be provided and landscaping to be provided around the perimeter of a carpark area including between every 10 spaces. The DCP also requires a minimum 2m landscaped strip between a driveway and a side boundary.

 

A minimum 20% landscaped area and 1.4% on-built landscaping structures are proposed on the subject site.

 

No landscaping is provided along the western boundary for the proposed carpark and driveway at this section of the site.

 

Further no landscaping is proposed within the open areas of the carparking area.

 

 

NIL DRIVEWAY/CAR PARKING AREA SETBACKS TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AND NO LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE OPEN CAR PARK AREA

 

The relevant DCP objectives are as follows:

 

1.         To improve the environmental amenity of industrial areas.

2.         To screen unsightly land uses and open storage areas and provide buffers between industrial development and other land uses, especially residential.

3.         To provide pedestrian linkages to surrounding streets on larger sites and through other sites to link with existing pedestrian networks.

4.        To provide recreation areas for workers in larger developments.

5.         To retain and provide for significant vegetation, particularly large and medium sized trees.

6.         To conserve significant natural features of the site and contribute to effective management of biodiversity and to provide continuous vegetation corridors.

7.         To encourage the planting of indigenous, native and low water consuming plants and trees.

8.         To assist with on -site stormwater management.

 

The proposed variations are satisfactory in this instance as the landscaping outcome would be satisfactory as the proposed landscaping overall would be of a high quality which would contain large trees and dense shrubbery. The level of landscaping is appropriate and consistent with the industrial character of the locality. The landscaping at the main pedestrian entrance would contain an external breakout/seating area for workers and visitors within the development. This area is the best possible located recreational area to be provided and should it be ever required to be expanded in area this would be possible. Existing trees within the perimeter area of the development would be retained where possible and proposed trellis landscaping on the building would also assist in addressing the relevant landscaping variations.

 

It is considered that the proposed landscaping meets the DCP objectives has been provided and the overall design of the development would not be inconsistent with the design of other industrial development within the precinct.

Part N – Signage and Advertising

 

The subject Development Application has been assessed against the objectives and controls of Council’s signage DCP 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 signs would respect and enhance the immediate local industrial character;

·    the signage appropriately informs users of the business type and location and therefore would better promote the proposed warehouse/self-storage development when constructed; and

·    the level of signage in context to the site would be acceptable due its size and curved orientation along Orion Road. It would be appropriately located and not result in visual clutter or 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.

The proposed signage on the building would not result in clutter and all units are internally facing within the development

Yes

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 proposed warehouse development.

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 signage 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 signage 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 final contents of the signage could 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.

The final contents could comply.

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 signage would be installed in connection to the proposed warehouse/self-storage building. The signage is appropriate in the current setting.

Yes

 

2.2 Character Statements

 

The proposed signage is located within the Lane Cove West Business Park character statement which states the following:

 

2.2.5 Lane Cove West Business Park

 

Lane Cove West Business Park is characterised by low-rise industrial development with warehousing and light manufacturing capabilities. More recently, modern ‘industrial park’ developments have been built, with multiple tenancies and a clean high-tech character. Signage in the Lane Cove West Business Park should be consistent with the evolving business park style and scale of development and should be consistent with the scale of the development to which it relates. Minimal signage is necessary for business parks, as signs serve as directional assistance and convey the location of tenancies for users with direct dealings with the relevant business.

 

It is considered that the proposal would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the character statement as the proposed top hamper signs attached to the units are internally facing and would not present to Orion Road or to the public domain. The proposed signage overall would be suitable to the modern high-quality design nature of the proposed development and would be of a suitable scale to the proposed building involved, the size/orientation and the long street frontage of the subject site.

 

Part N3.5 – Pylon, Plinth and Pole Signage requires the following:

 

Pylon/plinth signs are a useful form of business and building identification in business parks. One pylon/plinth signs per tenancy is permitted in the Lane Cove West Business Park. It is encouraged that the pylon sign reflects the scale of the building to which it relates and therefore the maximum permitted height is 8m.

 

The DCP restricts the width of the pylon sign to a maximum of 1.6m. There are four pylon signs proposed located at each driveway and main pedestrian entrance. Three of the signs exceed the maximum width permitted with proposed widths of 2m for one of them and 2.2m for two. It noted that all signs comply with the maximum 8m height control.

 

The relevant DCP objectives are as follows:

 

1.         To ensure tenancies removed from the street can sufficiently identify the location of their business.

2.         To permit signage that reflects the size of the building to which it relates.

3.         To allow high quality pylon/plinth signage.

4.         To allow uninterrupted pedestrian movement along footpaths.

5.         To enhance and contribute to the amenity of streetscape.

 

The proposed variations are appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·    The spatial separation between the signs would mitigate any potential visual clutter from having four pylon signs.

·    Each pylon sign serves a different purpose with three indicating the tenancies on each different level and the other for building/estate identification purposes.

·    The height and scale of the signs responds to the wide street frontage of the site and to the scale of the proposed building.

·    They would not obstruct pedestrian movement along the footpath.

·    The additional high-quality pylon signs would add visual interest to the Orion Road streetscape.

·    There would be no sensitive receivers involved and would have no significant adverse impacts.

 

The proposed signage for the proposal is satisfactory and would not be contrary to the DCP objectives.

 

Part R – Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

Clause

DCP

Proposed

Complies

Table 1 – Car parking rates

 

Industry

1 per 77m² of light industrial

Requires = 6,835m²/70m² = 98 spaces

 

1 per 300m² of warehouse area

Requires = 1,940m²/300m² = 7 spaces

 

1 per 60m² of ancillary office

Requires = 2,252m²/60m² = 38 spaces

 

1 disabled space per 50 car spaces (min. 1 disabled space

Requires 1 accessible space

Total required = 143 spaces

 

108 spaces are provided including 3 accessible parking space

No – technical variation supported – see report below

 

It is noted that the above technical DCP variation would be based on a worst-case scenario should all the proposed units be taken up for a light industrial purpose where it is more than likely that some units would be used for warehousing or storage purposes as well. The units would contain internal loading areas which would reduce the requirement for car parking. The proposed carparking numbers and arrangements are satisfactory in relation to car parking. It is recognised that self-storage purposes only would generate the need for minimal car parking requirements. The site is located close to bus services to Chatswood providing access to rail services and there is an on-road cycle path along Orion Road. There are bus stops along Epping Road as well.

 

There is also pedestrian refuge at the northeastern part of the site which provides access to the bus stops. The subject site would improve the choice of transport and reduce the dependency on vehicles. Further appropriate provision of motorcycle and bicycle spaces are provided for.

 

(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 have been considered and it is considered that it would not adversely impact the locality. As discussed in greater detail above in this report, the proposed development would provide substantial economic gains whilst not containing significant adverse impacts onto surrounding properties. To be discussed further below in this report, the proposed removal of trees to accommodate the development is appropriate in this instance subject to conditions to include requiring appropriate planting of tree replacements with satisfactory canopy cover.

 

(c)  The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site suitability is acceptable having regard to the nature of the proposed uses involved and with the industrial zoned character of the subject site.

 

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

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and no submissions were received.

 

(e) Public Interest

 

The proposal would be in the public interest based on the reasons provided above in this report.

SECTION 7.11 ASSESSMENT

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Plan, Section 7.11 Contributions are applicable to an industrial development at a rate of $45.42 per m² of GFA and to commercial (office) development at a rate of $139.29 per m² of GFA (2021/2022 Fees & Charges Schedule). In this regard, the following Section 94 Contributions are payable:

 

·    8,776m² (GFA) x $45.42 = $398,605.92.

·    2,252m² (GFA) x $139.29 = $313,681.08.

·    Total: $712,287.00.

 

A relevant Section 7.11 Contributions condition is recommended to be imposed.

 

REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal raises no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. The proposed site is in Stringy Bark Creek sub catchment and not in OSD exemption area. The site is and sloping diagonally away from Street from south-east to north-west by approximately 10.0m fall. This site is not in flood affected area. The driveway cross section provided with this application complies with the DCP. The stormwater concept plan provided with this application generally complies with the DCP, but few amendments are required as detailed below and have been conditioned.

 

By referring above documents and plans, the following engineering requirements are considered for driveway and stormwater issues in this DA assessment and conditioned accordingly.

 

Stormwater plan amendment                : Required

Driveway cross section                         : Required

Inspection by Council’s Engineer          : Required

Footpath adjustment                              : Required

Dilapidation report                                 : Required

Erosion and sediment control               : Required

Damage Bond                                       : Required

Structural design                                   : Required since deep excavation

Retaining wall                                        : Required

CCTV report                                          : Required

Completion certificates                          : Required

 

The upgrade of Council’s infrastructure adjacent the site and the proposed new driveway have been conditioned. The proposed road works and retaining wall have been conditioned in the interest of downstream residents. The proposed bulk earthworks have been conditioned in the interest of all adjoining structures.

 

Building Surveyor

 

Council’s Building Surveyor has assessed the proposal raises no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Landscape Architect

 

Council’s Landscape Architect has visited the site, reviewed the proposal and raise no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. The following documentation have been reviewed:

 

·    Landscape Checklist submitted by Site Image.

·    Landscape Development Application submitted by Site Image (drawing numbers 000, 001, 101, 102, 103, 104, 501, 701, 702, 703, 801 and 901.

·    Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report submitted by Birds Tree Consultancy.

·    Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) submitted by Cumberland Ecology.

 

Under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, all development requiring development consent (under Part 4 of the EP&A Act) that is likely to significantly affect threatened species as set out in the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 must be assessed using the Biodiversity Assessment Method with the results presented in a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR). Development that clears native vegetation above a specified threshold (based on minimum lot size) automatically enters the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) and requires a preparation of a BDAR.

 

By way of background, Nos. 14-16 Orion Road is 0.79 ha in size and with the proposed development requires the removal of 0.52 ha of native vegetation. For lot sizes that are under 1ha any development clearing more than 0.25ha of vegetation triggers the native vegetation clearing threshold as it exceeds the allowable clearing for the minimum lot size of land. Cumberland Ecology has prepared a BDAR for the proposed development which forms part of the documentation submitted for the Development Application.

The documents supplied by Cumberland Ecology have been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Architect and found that due to the area requiring clearing, and the vegetation integrity scores of the native vegetation within the subject land, the biodiversity credit liability of the project has been calculated at 13 ecosystem credits.  Based on the documentation provided, Council has accepted these credits through the Biodiversity Offset and Agreement Management System (BOAMS). These in conjunction with the consent conditions provided, will limit and mitigate the biodiversity impacts of the proposal.

 

It is recommended that the proposed removal of Tree 14 be retained as this one is of the highest and most achievable retention values on site. It is a mature tree of 27m tall with a canopy spread of 16m across and in very good health condition, thus providing some great canopy cover and habitat to the site. Whilst the proposed clearing of vegetation that is deemed acceptable in this instance under the biodiversity offset scheme, a condition is recommended that the retention of Tree 14 occurs as it offers the least amount of impact to the design of the options investigated such as increasing the front setback of the whole development from 8m – 10m or deleting one of the three proposed driveways. It is noted that the applicant has agreed to the proposed condition to retain Tree 14 to be imposed in any consent.

 

The submitted BDAR prepared in accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 has been assessed to be satisfactory as the native vegetation found including the Coastal Sandstone Foreshore Forest are not threatened communities listed under the Act and does not form part of a larger riparian community as the subject site is not mapped on the relevant Biodiversity Map. Approximately 193 trees of the 240 trees are proposed to be removed and a total of 44 replacement trees are proposed to be planted. As a high number of trees are being proposed to be removed, it is recommended that a further condition be imposed to ensure the establishment of more canopy cover to offset the lost tree species onsite in particular within the front setback area.

 

Further, appropriate mitigations are recommended to be imposed to include maintenance and protection of the trees that are to be remain including during the construction phase.

 

Tree Assessment Officer

 

Council’s Tree Assessment has assessed the proposal and raised no objections subject to conditions. The site had been visited and the relevant documentation reviewed where although zoned industrial, there should have been more of an attempt by the applicant to retain mature trees where possible that would immediately contribute to the desired future canopy cover of the site. Tree 14 is one tree where it is classed as a mature, native tree with an approximate 220m2 of canopy cover. This tree has been assessed as having both medium landscape significance and retention value although Council considers this tree of high landscape significance and retention value that could continue to contribute for 40+ more years.

 

In September 2019 it was resolved that Lane Cove Council would join 900 jurisdictions worldwide and 45 Australian Councils in declaring a state of climate emergency that requires immediate action from all levels of Government. This is in tandem with Councils Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (February 2020) ‘priority 10’ Tree Canopy Cover aimed at 40%. One of the most effective ways of meeting this 40% is through new development, retaining large trees within these developments and with suitable replacement trees within building setback areas.

 

Environmental Health

 

Council’s Environmental Health and Environment Manager has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied that the site can be suitable for the proposed light industrial use subject to conditions in particular that the submission of the Site Audit Statement from the EPA Accredited Site Auditor for the Remediation Action Plan (RAP) and Validation Report occur prior to the Occupation Certificate being issued.

Traffic Engineer

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections to the development with respect to traffic and parking arrangements, subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Community

 

Council’s Community Manager has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections to the development with respect to accessibility arrangements, subject to compliance with the submitted access report.

 

NSW Police

 

NSW Police has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections to the development with respect to safety by design arrangements, subject to the imposition of recommended draft conditions.

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

 

The proposal was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for comment as it is a traffic generating development under State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure 2007. The TfNSW has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections to the development with respect to traffic generation arrangements subject to conditions.

 

Rural Fire Service (RFS)

 

RFS has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections to the development with respect to bushfire impacts subject to conditions.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have not been satisfied. The proposed warehouse development is not compliant with the numerical standards within LCLEP 2009. The submitted Clause 4.6 written requests for breaches to Building Height and FSR however are considered satisfactory and well-founded as detailed in this report. The proposed warehouse building is considered compatible with the local industrial character without having significant adverse impacts onto surrounding properties.

 

The proposed development has DCP non-compliances with minimum landscaped areas and relevant signage controls. The subject development would achieve a reasonable landscaped outcome when viewed from the street and from the adjoining development to the north. The development would have a reasonable visual impact to the adjoining development to the west due to the orientation and location of that industrial development. The level of signage proposed is satisfactory as it would provide for visual interest to the Orion Road streetscape, would be adequately able to identify the future tenants and avoids unnecessary clutter.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Council policy and no submissions were received.

 

It is considered that the proposal as submitted involves for a reasonable built outcome which is consistent with the existing built form in the locality. The proposed development would satisfy the employment needs of the Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct and would continue to maintain relevant amenity objectives to surrounding developments.

 

The Development Application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Planning Panel approve the proposed variations to the Building Height and FSR development standards in Clause 4.3(2) & 4.4(2) in Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as the applicant’s written request does adequately address the matters required to be demonstrated. The proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standards, the objectives for development in the zone and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variations.

 

The Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, at its meeting of 29 September 2021, in exercising its duties as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approve the subject Development Application DA59/2021 for the warehouse building development on land at Nos. 14-16 Mars Road Lane Cove West subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.      That the development be strictly in accordance with Drawing Nos. DA001 & 100 Issue 7, DA101 Issue 3, DA102 Issue 7, DA103 Issue 3, DA104 Issue 7 DA105 Issue 3, DA106 Issue 6, DA200 Issue 3, DA201 Issue 7, DA300 Issue 5, DA301 Issue 4 & DA 601 Issue 1 dated 19/05/21 prepared by SBA Architects and Landscape Drawings Nos. 000-001 Issue E, 101-104 Issue D dated 09.07.21, 501 Issue C dated 20.05.21, 601-603 Issue B, 701 Issue C, 702-703 Issue B, 801 Issue C, 802 Issue A, 902 Issue B dated 09.07.21 prepared by Site Image.

 

         except as amended by the following conditions.

 

            In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and the supporting documentation, the approved plans prevail. Note: an inconsistency occurs between an approved plan and supporting documentation or between an approved plan and a condition         when it is not possible to comply with both at the relevant time.

 

         Reason: To ensure all parties are aware of the approved plans and supporting

         documentation that applies to the development.

 

1A        The following updated information is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to        the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

           Tree #14

 

            The revised building design will be set back to the outer edge of the TPZ of Tree #14, with no more than a 10% incursion as per AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development sites  section 3.3 specifically 3.3.2 ‘minor’ encroachments. The revised plans are to be prepared in consultation with the Author of the original Arborist Report then assessed and approved by Council’s Senior Tree Preservation officer is minor and will not impact the trees viability in the short or long term.

 

            Reason: To ensure the retention and ongoing health and vitality of Tree #14

 

1B.       The following updated information is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to         the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

      Amendments to the architectural, landscape and stormwater plans

 

          The Applicant is to submit to Council amended plans which achieve the following outcomes:

 

 

a)   The approved architectural, landscape and stormwater plans are to be amended to demonstrate consistency in terms of the retention of Tree#14 and reflect the Tree Preservation Zone

 

           Reason: To ensure consistency between the approved documentation and for the Protection of Tree # 14

 

1C.      The following updated information is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to        the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

            Amendments to the stormwater plans

 

a)   All revised stormwater and drainage plans are to be assessed and approved by the project Arborist confirming no additional trees are to be removed or subject to major encroachments as a result of the installation of storm water infrastructure. Written approval of drainage plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

             Reason: To minimize the development impact on trees.

 

2.         No external combustible cladding is permitted.

 

3.         The hours of operation on the development are to be 24 hours, 7 days a week. No operations are to be carried out on any public holidays.

 

4.         The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Principal Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

5.         All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

            A Completion Certificate is to be issued by either the Principal Certifier or a qualified accredited Fire Safety Engineer, confirming that all identified Performance Solutions have been completed for the building PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A FINAL OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE.

 

6.         The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water online approval portal “Sydney Water Tap In”, please refer to web site www.sydneywater.com.au. This is to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt with conditions shall be issued by Sydney Water (if determined to be satisfactory) and is to be submitted to the accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

7.         An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifier before the occupation of the building.

 

8.         A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

            Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  Please refer to the “Your Business” section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then follow the “e-Developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

            Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

            The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to occupation of the development/release of the plan of subdivision.

 

9.         All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:-

 

        Monday to Friday (inclusive)   7am to 5.30pm 

                                                         High noise generating activities, including rock breaking and saw cutting be restricted between 8am to 5.00pm with a respite period between 12.00 noon to 1.30pm Monday to Friday

 

        Saturday                                  8am to 12 noon

                                                         with NO high noise generating activities, including excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing, jack hammering or pile driving to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N. 

 

Sunday      No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.

 

A Notice/Sign showing permitted working hours and types of work permitted during those hours, including the applicant’s phone number, project manager or site foreman, shall be displayed at the front of the site.

 

Reason:  To ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to the neighbouring properties

 

10.       Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

11.       The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

12.       No goods or waste being stored externally to any warehouse unit.

 

13.       Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

14.       Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant/developer/owner shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

a)      the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifier;

b)      the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)      a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

 

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

15.       The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

16.       Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifier, it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages during the construction process. Forty eight (48) hours’ notice must be given prior to the inspection being required:-

 

a)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

b)         Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering.

c)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering.

d)         Waterproofing of wet areas.

e)         Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling.

f)          Completion.

 

17.       Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         retaining walls;

b)         footings;

c)         reinforced concrete work;

d)         structural steelwork;

e)         framing.

 

18.       A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

 

a.         The completion of works.

 

Note:   All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

19.       The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations.  Details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

20.       All spillage deposited on the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work.

 

21.       The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

22.       An approved type of hoarding being erected along the street frontage.

 

23.       Compliance with the Waste Management Plan submitted along with the application.

 

24.       It should be understood that this consent in no way relieves the owners or applicant from any obligation to obtain any other approval which may be required under any covenant affecting the land or otherwise nor relieve a person from the legal civil consequences of not complying with any such covenant.

 

25.       Long Service Levy  Compliance with Section 6.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments, the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000 are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%.

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

 

21.       THE PAYMENT OF A CONTRIBUTION OF $712,287.00 TOWARDS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES, DRAINAGE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES. THE  CONTRIBUTION TO BE MADE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND TO BE AT THE CURRENT RATE AT TIME OF PAYMENT. NOTE:  PAYMENT MUST BE IN BANK CHEQUE.  PERSONAL CHEQUES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

 

THE CONTRIBUTION IS BASED ON 8,776SQM (GFA) AT THE CURRENT CONTRIBUTION RATE (2021-2022) OF $45.42 SQM OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL FLOOR SPACE AND ON 2,252SQM (GFA) AT THE CURRENT CONTRIBUTION RATE (2021-2022) OF $139.29 SQM OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE FLOOR SPACE.

 

THIS CONTRIBUTION IS UNDER LANE COVE COUNCIL SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTER, LANE COVE COUNCIL, 48 LONGUEVILLE ROAD, LANE COVE.

 

27.       NSW Police Force Requirements: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following:

·   The site will need to be clearly identified through a business name and street number and be visible from the street. This will enable all emergency services to locate the premises.

·   Appropriate signage is to be erected inside and around the perimeter of the building to warn of security treatments in place e.g. “This site is under 24 video surveillance”.

·   The front windows of the business are to remain free of clutter and promotional material so as not to restrict sightlines into and out of the premises.

·   All staff areas are to be clearly marked as such and physical barriers such as doors and gates are to be erected to prevent unauthorised entry.

·   Staff is to be provided with a secure area in which to store their personal effects whilst working.

·   Lighting in and around the proposed development should comply with Australian Standard AS:1158 and should provide for adequate, uniform illumination. External lighting should be of a ‘white light’ source. Note that high or low pressure sodium ‘orange’ lighting is not compatible with quality surveillance systems. Internal lighting should be controlled from staff only areas, away from public access. If this is not possible, use tamper-resistant switches. Luminaries (light covers) is to be designed to reduce opportunities for malicious damage. Internal after hours security lighting is to provide adequate illumination to allow inspection by security patrols.

·   Lighting needs to be positioned in a way to reduce opportunities for offenders to commit crime i.e. vandalism and graffiti. The lighting will also need to be sufficient to support images obtained from any CCTV footage. Please note that some low or high pressure lighting is not compatible with surveillance systems.

·   Doors is to be of solid construction and should be fitted with quality deadlock sets that comply with the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards – Lock Sets AS:4145.

·   Windows within the businesses is to be of solid construction. These windows is to be fitted with quality window lock sets that comply with the Australian Standards – Lock Sets AS:4145. Glass within doors and windows are to be reinforced to restrict unauthorised access. The glass can be either fitted with a shatter-resistant film or laminated to withstand physical attacks.

·   An electronic surveillance system is to be included to provide for maximum surveillance of all areas of the warehouse including entry/exits and areas where cash is either kept or handled. Cameras is also to cover public footpath areas around the premises. The system should be capable of recording high-quality images of events. The recording equipment should be locked away to reduce the likelihood of tampering. Monitors should be placed in the office area to allow the manager to view all areas under camera surveillance.

·   An intruder alarm system is to be designed and installed to the Australian Standard – Domestic & Commercial Alarm Systems to enhance the physical security of the premises.

·   An emergency control and evacuation plan should be implemented within the building. Management and staff are to be trained in the execution of the plan in emergency situations.

·   All recording made by the CCTV system should be stored for at least 30 days and ensure that the system is accessible by at least one staff member at all times it is in operation, and provide any recordings made by the system to a police officer or inspector within 24 hours of any lawful requirement by a police officer or inspector. The CCTV cameras will need to be placed in suitable locations to enhance the physical security and assist in positively identifying any individual who may be involved in in criminal behaviour.

·   The CCTV footage is also to cove the car parking facilities. Park smarter signage is to be displayed in this area to warn/educate motorists to secure their vehicles and not leave valuable items visible in their cars. The car park will also to have adequate lighting.

·   Wheelchair access (ramp) should at no time be blocked or impede access to anyone with a disability.

·   The landscaping design around the site needs to be free from potential hiding places and provide sightlines throughout the site and into any surrounding areas such as car parks. Trees and shrubs are to be maintained regularly to reduce concealment opportunities and increase visibility. Avoid the use of landscaping materials which could when mature serves as screens or barriers to impede views.

·   Storage cages at the facilities is to remain locked with high quality locks and is to be constructed so that they cannot be forced or cut open and property can be concealed.

 

            Where relevant, the amendments are to be shown on the Construction Certificate drawings prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifier. The security measures specified in this condition are to be installed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate and are to be maintained for the life of the development.

 

28.       NSW Rural Fire Service Requirements: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following:

·   From the start of building works and in perpetuity to ensure ongoing protection from the impact of bush fires, the entire property must be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019. When establishing and maintaining an IPA the following requirements apply:

-     Tree canopy cover is to be less than 15% at maturity.

-     Trees at maturity is not to touch or overhang the building.

-     Lower limbs are to be removed up to a height of 2m above the ground.

-     Tree canopies are to be separated by 2m – 5m.

-     Preference is to be given to smooth barked and evergreen trees.

-     Large discontinuities or gaps in vegetation are to be provided to slow down or break or break the progress of fire towards buildings.

-     Shrubs are not be located under trees.

-     Shrubs are not to form more than 10% ground cover.

-     Clumps of shrubs are to be separated from windows and doors by a distance of at least twice the height of the vegetation.

-     Grass is to be kept mown (as a guide it should be kept to no more than 100mm in height).

-     Leaves and vegetation debris are to be removed.

·   New construction to the north, east and west elevations of the building must comply with Sections 3 and 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2018 Construction of buildings in bush fireprone areas or NASH Standard (1.7.14 updated) National Standard Steel framed construction in bushfire areas - 2014 as appropriate and Section 7.5 of Planning for bush fire protection 2019.

·   New construction to the south elevation must comply with Sections 3 and 7 (BAL 29) Australian Standard AS3959-2018 Construction of buildings in bush fire prone areas or NASH Standard (1.7.14 updated) National Standard Steel framed construction in bushfire areas - 2014 as appropriate and Section 7.5 of Planning for bush fire protection 2019.

 

29.       Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) Requirements: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following:

-     The layout of the proposed car parking area associated with the subject development (including driveways, grades, turn paths, sight distance requirements, aisle widths, aisle lengths and parking bay dimensions) is to be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004 and AS 2890.2-2002 for heavy vehicle usage.

-     The swept path of the longest vehicles entering and exiting the subject site as well as maneuverability through the site is to be in accordance with AUSTROADS. In this regard a plan is to be submitted to Council for approval which shows that the proposed development complies with this requirement.

-     A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

-     The applicant is to consult with TfNSW and bus operators regarding any potential impact to bus transport as a result of the proposed development and comply with their requirements.

 

30.       Accessibility: The development is to be carried out in accordance with the submitted

            Accessibility Assessment Report dated 13 May 2021 prepared by BCA Access.

 

Tree Management Conditions

 

31.     Lane Cove Council regulates the Preservation of Trees and Vegetation in the Lane Cove  local government area in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation  in non-rural areas) 2017. Part 2 Section 7(1) of the SEPP states “A person must not clear  vegetation in any non-rural area of the State to which Part 3 applies without the authority  conferred by a permit granted by the council under that Part.” Clearing of vegetation includes  “a) cut down, fell, uproot, kill, poison, ringbark, burn or otherwise destroy the vegetation, or

a)         lop or otherwise remove a substantial part of the vegetation.” Removal of trees or

b)         vegetation protected by the regulation is an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The maximum penalty that may be imposed in respect to any such offence is $1,100,000.

 

            Reason: To protect the natural environment.

 

32.       Approval is granted for the removal of trees located on the site strictly in accordance with the stamped approved plans.

 

             Reason: Trees will be subject to intolerable levels of development impact

 

33.      Replacement trees are to be strictly in accordance with the stamped approved plans.

 

            Reason: To provide replenishment planting for trees removed through the development         Process.

 

34.    Retained trees are to be protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Specifications         contained within the Arborist report prepared by Birds Tree Consultancy dated 17th May 2021. All tree protection measures are to be included in the construction management plans and be available to all contractors on site. Tree protection is to be installed prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

             Reason: To protect the natural environment and ensure no damage occurs to existing trees to be retained.

 

35.       A Project Arborist of minimal AQF Level 5 qualification is to be appointed prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to oversee/monitor trees condition during construction and sign off on tree protection measures. Trees are to be monitored throughout construction and a certificate produced upon completion demonstrating the trees have been maintained in good condition. All certificates are to be available to the Principal Certifier within five days of site  attendance and must be available to council immediately upon request; failure to produce the latest certificate will be considered a breach of conditions. Final certification is to be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate.

            Reason: To provide monitoring to retained trees to minimise development impact

36.       The Project Arborist is to attend the site prior to the removal of any trees and mark each tree approved for removal with coloured spray paint.

 

             Reason: To ensure no trees to be retained are damaged or removed

 

37.       The project Arborist is to attend site to inspect trees and at the following intervals. Each attendance is to be followed with written certification submitted to the Principal Certifier within five days of attendance.

 

a.  Prior to the commencement of any works to mark approved trees for removal.

b.  Prior to the commencement of works to approve tree protective measures have been installed.

c.  During the demolition of any structures within the TPZ area of retained trees.

d.  During the installation of structures approved within the TPZ area of any retained tree.

e.  Prior to and during the installation of services where required within the TPZ area of retained trees.

f.   Monthly intervals during the development works.

g.  Upon the completion of the development prior to the Occupation Certificate.

 

           Reason: To provide monitoring to retained trees to minimise development impact.

 

 

 

Landscaping Conditions

 

38.      Substation

            As per LCC DCP Part E – 4 h) all front setbacks are to be landscaped to provide a high-quality street presence and the proposed substation is to either be relocated elsewhere onsite or is to have sufficient screen planting to soften its appearance along the street  frontage.

 

            Reason: To ensure a better planning outcome for the site and to comply Councils Part E & J Landscaping.

 

Prior to the Issue of the Construction Certificate

 

39.      Construction site management plan

                        Before the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant must ensure a construction site management plan is prepared before it is provided to and approved by the certifier. The plan must include the following matters:

·           location and materials for protective fencing and hoardings to the perimeter on the site

·           provisions for public safety

·           pedestrian and vehicular site access points and construction activity zones

·           details of construction traffic management, including proposed truck movements to and from the site and estimated frequency of those movements, and measures to preserve pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the site

·           protective measures for on-site