Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

21 October 2021

.

LC_WebBanner


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 21 October 2021

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                                         Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Eugene Sarich, Planning Expert, Mr Michael Mason, Planning Expert and Ms Mary Rawlings, Community Representative

 

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

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:    Nil.

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

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

 

LAne Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

88 River Road, GreenwiCH

 

DETERMINATION

 

That the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel refuse a variation to the floor space ratio prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, as it is not satisfied that the applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 of that Plan, and the proposed development would not be in the public interest as it is inconsistent with the objectives of that particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 21 October 2021, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, refuse Development Application DA85/2021 for the construction of a dual occupancy (attached) and strata subdivision at 88 River Road, Greenwich (Lot 2 in DP1236208)  for the following reasons:

 

1.         Minimum Lot Size for Dual Occupancy Development

 

The proposed lot size does not meet the minimum lot size for dual occupancy (attached) development.

 

The development is prohibited development since the proposed lot size does not meet the minimum lot size for dual occupancy and subdivision is not permitted.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 4.1 of LCLEP 2009 prescribes a minimum lot size of 750m2 for dual occupancy (attached) development.

b)   The site area is 667.2m2.

c)   Delete

d)   Delete

 

2.         Subdivision of Dual Occupancy Development

 

The proposed subdivision onto separate strata lots does not overcome the restrictions on the subdivision of dual occupancy development.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 4.1A of LCLEP 2009 does not permit the subdivision of dual occupancy development if each dwelling would be on a separate lot.

b)   The proposed subdivision is considered to be subject to this provision.

c)   Clause 4.1A is excluded from Clause 4.6 and accordingly a variation to the development standard cannot be granted consent.

d)   The nature of the strata subdivision is unknown as no draft plan of subdivision accompanied the Development Application.

 

3.         Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the standard and the Clause 4.6 written request is unsatisfactory.

 

Particulars

 

e)   Clause 4.4 of LCLEP applies a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 to the land.

f)    The proposed floor space ratio is 0.576:1 being a variation of 15.34%.

g)   The calculation should likely include additional areas within the basement level.

h)   The Clause 4.6 written request is considered unsatisfactory as it does not demonstrate the matters to be established under Clause 4.6(3).

i)    The floor space ratio variation is not in the public interest as it does not comply with the objectives of the standard or zone.

j)   The development does not provide a better planning outcome from an otherwise complying development contrary to Clause 4.6(1)(b).

 

4.         Wall Height

 

The wall height is unsatisfactory as it would exacerbate the height of the flat roofed building within the streetscape.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.7.1(a) of LCDCP 2010 stipulates a maximum wall height of 7.0m where a wall height of 9.2m is proposed.

b)   The wall height is resultant from a protruding basement parking level in the south-western corner of the building fronting River Road.

c)   The proposed wall height does not meet the objective of the control relating to providing a typical bulk and scale.

d)   The proposed wall height does not meet the objective of the control relating to minimising impacts on adjoining properties through the visual impact of the wall.

 

5.         Earthworks / Cut and Fill

 

The extent of cut is not reasonably necessary to construct a two storey dwelling house.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.6(d) of LCDCP 2010 limits excavation to 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling house with this extent of excavation.

b)   The proposal includes up to 2.5-3.0m of excavation.

c)   The excavation is excessive and resultant from placing a dual occupancy (Attached) development on a lot not sized for such, and large excavated areas that could be limited.

d)   The application is not accompanied by sufficient information to assess the proposed retaining wall designs through top and bottom of wall heights and level information on a Site Plan.

e)   The fill along the western boundary unnecessarily changes the land form and impacts the heritage item and should be incorporated within a drop edge beam and the ground floor terrace pulled back.

 

6.         Heritage Item Impact

 

The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the heritage item located at No. 90 River Road, Greenwich.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 5.10(5) of LCLEP 2009 requires consideration of the impact on heritage items within the vicinity of development.

b)   The proposed trees on the subject site contribute to the setting of the heritage item.

c)   The proposal would remove a number of brush box trees along the eastern boundary which would substantially detract from the setting of the heritage item.

 

7.         Side Setback

 

The south-western corner of the development requires a setback of 1500mm to account for the protruding basement parking level in this part of the site.

 

8.         Tree Preservation

 

The seven brush box trees should be further considered for retention in line with the applicant’s arborist and Council’s Tree Preservation Officer assessment.

 

9.         Sustainability (BASIX)

 

SEPP (BASIX) 2004 has not been satisfied as the measures required to be indicated on the Development Application plans are not shown.

 

10.       Stormwater Management

 

The stormwater management plan does not include individual on-site detention systems or incorporate the required rainwater tanks under SEPP (BASIX) 2004.

 

11.       Public Interest

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it provides for an overdevelopment of the site that departs from the envisaged low-density residential character of the locality, the envisaged density through the placement of a dual occupancy development on an undersized lot and through the loss of tree canopy.

 

12.       Site Suitability

 

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

 

 

Panel Reasons

 

The Panel supports the findings in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for refusal contained in that report.

 

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

60 Cliff Road, Northwood

 

DETERMINATION

 

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

 

That pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 21 October 2021, exercising the functions of Council as the consent authority, refuse Development Application DA110/2021 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dwelling house at 60 Cliff Road, Northwood (Lot 19 in DP 4424)  for the following reasons:

 

1.         Permissibility

 

The proposal would be capable of being used as two domiciles and therefore does not comply with the definition of a dwelling house.

 

Particulars

 

a)   The Development Application was made for a single dwelling house pursuant to LCLEP 2009.

b)   Dwelling houses are permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

c)   The upper and lower modules are readily capable of being used as separate domiciles accordingly the proposed development does not meet the definition of a single dwelling house.

 

2.         Building Height

 

The proposed building height does not meet the objectives of the standard or zone under LCLEP 2009.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 4.3 of LCLEP applies a maximum height of building of 9.5m to the land.

b)   The proposed maximum height of building is 12.9m.

c)   The Clause 4.6 written request is considered unsatisfactory as it does not demonstrate the matters to be established under Clause 4.6(3).

d)   The height variation is not in the public interest as it does not comply with the objectives of the standard or zone.

 

 

3.         Wall Height

 

The wall height is not consistent with the typical bulk and scale and adversely impacts an adjoining property.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.7.1(a) of LCDCP 2010 stipulates a maximum wall height of 7.0m where a wall height of 12.3m or 12.9m inclusive of a 600mm parapet is proposed, being a variation of 5.9m or 84.2%.

b)   The wall height is resultant from a 5m undercroft, excessively large open-sided parking area and only a single usable residential level.

c)   The proposed wall height does not meet the objective of the control relating to providing a typical bulk and scale. The proposed wall height is not a typical bulk and scale for low-density residential development.

d)   The proposed wall height does not meet the objective of the control relating to minimising impacts on adjoining properties through the visual impact of the wall.

 

4.         Elevational Storeys

 

The elevational storeys when viewed from the south-east are excessive and out of character with surrounding single dwelling houses.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.7.1(e) of LCDCP 2010 stipulates a maximum number of 3 storeys in appearance (in elevation) where the proposal provides up to 5 storeys in appearance (in elevation) from the foreshore/waterways.

b)   The number of storeys is increased through the 4.5m-5.0m drop-off on the edge of both the parking pad and swimming pool and large retaining wall or undercroft areas.

c)   The elevational levels could be reduced through deleting large open-sided areas that are integrated into the built-form (pool area and surrounds, and parking area) that create additional residential levels and contribute to the exceedance in storeys. 

d)   The impact of elevational storeys could be reduced by minimising the difference between finished floor levels and ground level (existing) and responding more closely to the topography of the site.

e)   An elevational storey rise of 3 is achievable through the incorporation of (c) and (d) above.

 

5.         Earthworks / Cut and Fill

 

The extent of cut is not reasonably necessary to construct a two storey dwelling house.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.6(d) of LCDCP 2010 limits excavation to 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling house with this extent of excavation.

b)   The proposal includes up to 4m of excavation.

c)   The 4m of excavation is for a large storage and lobby area adjacent to the over-sized parking pad (compared to LCDCP 2010 parking requirements).

d)   The excavation is not reasonably necessary and a design could provide vertical access and storage that did not require the extent of excavation proposed.

 

6.         Undercroft Height

 

The proposed undercroft areas are excessive in height and are the result of a design that does not adequately respond to the topography of the site.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.7.1(b) of LCDCP 2010 stipulates a maximum undercroft height of 1.0m where a 5.0m undercroft is proposed.

b)   The undercroft areas are unsightly or excessively contribute to the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling house.

c)   The undercroft areas not supported are resultant from a development that does not follow closely enough the existing topography in relation to the setbacks of the various modules and in the setting of finished floor levels.

 

7.         Rooftop Terraces

 

Two terraces are most appropriately characterised as rooftop terraces which are prohibited and not supported.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.8.2(b) of LCDCP 2010 prohibits roof terraces and decks above the upper storey. 

b)   The characterisation of the two terraces by the applicant as not being roof terraces is not supported.

c)   In addition to the unacceptability of the proposed roof terraces as designated, the adjoining landscaping areas could be readily converted for use as part of the roof terraces, and this potential conflict should be avoided.

 

8.         Deck Depth

 

Two raised decks would result in unacceptable overlooking of adjoining properties and are not sufficiently limited in scale.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.8.2(c) of LCDCP 2010 limits balconies greater than 1m above ground level (Existing) to 3m in depth.

b)   The proposal includes two balconies (in addition to the rooftop terraces) that exceed the maximum 3m depth.

c)   The decks include the significant raised pool deck and surrounds, and a side facing deck above the proposed driveway.

d)   Both decks provide unacceptable viewing platforms that reduce the amenity of adjoining properties due to loss of visual privacy contrary to objective 2 and 3 of Part C1.8.2.

e)   The open-sided parking ‘deck’ would result in unacceptable visual, light spill and acoustic impacts to adjoining properties.

 

9.         Foreshore Setback Line (DCP)

 

The proposal does not adequately define the escarpment line and there are likely unacceptable or encroaching built-form in this zone.

 

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part B5.1.3-4 of LCDCP 2010 requires dwelling houses to be setback 2m from the top of an escarpment and swimming pools are required to be situated close to ground level (Existing) where forward of the escarpment setback line.

b)   The proposal includes topography characteristic of an escarpment and no detail on the escarpment line has been provided on the submitted plans.

c)   A review of the sectional details show the dwelling house potentially encroaching the 2m setback zone and the swimming pool being excessively above ground level (Existing) contrary to the provision.

d)   It cannot be determined the proposal has demonstrated compliance with Part B5.1.3-4 of LCDCP 2010.

 

10.       Heritage Item Impact

 

The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the heritage item located at No. 62 Cliff Road, Northwood.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 5.10(5) of LCLEP 2009 requires consideration of the impact on heritage items within the vicinity of development;

b)   The proposal is within the vicinity of a number of heritage items particularly at No. 62 Cliff Road.

c)   The visual impact from the excessive height, limited setbacks, building length, insufficient landscaping and overall lack of curtilage to No. 62 Cliff Road would adversely impact the heritage item.

d)   No view/outlook impact assessment from the principal heritage item (the dwelling house) is provided for No. 62 Cliff Road.

 

11.       Aboriginal Heritage

 

The applicant has not provided any aboriginal heritage assessment despite known potential sites within proximity to the subject site.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 5.10(8) of LCLEP 2009 requires consideration of Aboriginal heritage impacts.

b)   The site contains known potential sites within a 100m buffer zone.

c)   Given the works in the escarpment area (swimming pool and stormwater) and rock outcrops in and around the proposed development an assessment is considered necessary.

d)   No assessment has been provided by the applicant.

 

12.       View Sharing and View Impacts

 

Insufficient information has been provided to assess view sharing and view impacts resulting from the proposed development.

 

Particulars

 

a)   There is no view analysis from the waterway directly to the south of the site.

b)   No height poles have been erected by the applicant to assess and more accurately measure impact.

c)   A significant number of submissions were received raising concern with the detail or lack of detail provided within the submitted view sharing analysis including inappropriate photograph usage, incomplete and incorrect room identification and a lack of consultation.

 

13.       Front Setback

 

The articulation element for the front portico should be pulled back to be in keeping with the envisaged articulation for dwelling houses forward of the front building line.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.3(d) of LCDCP 2010 allows for 500mm of articulation forward of the building line.

b)   The two storey front portico is setback 6.5m in lieu of 7.0m and should/could be readily reduced in scale to be keeping with the envisaged articulation extent for dwelling house development.

 

14.       Landscaping

 

Insufficient information is provided to determine compliance with LCDCP 2010 – Part J – Landscaping. The proposal was not accompanied by a landscape plan as required for development within a foreshore area pursuant to LCDCP 2010 Part J – Landscaping.

 

15.       Tree Preservation

 

Insufficient information is provided within the arborist report to assess the impact of the proposal on site and adjoining site vegetation and trees.

 

16.       Sustainability (BASIX)

 

SEPP (BASIX) 2004 has not been satisfied as the submitted Basix Certificate is not valid and the measures required to be indicated on the Development Application plans are not shown.

 

17.       Contamination

 

Insufficient information is provided to determine compliance with SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land. A Preliminary Site Investigation may be required to examine potential fill to the rear of the subject site prior to its development for residential purposes.

 

18.       Front Fence

 

The front fence is excessive in height and should be reduced in scale and stepped to provide landscaping opportunities

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.4 of LCDCP 2010 stipulates a maximum height of 900mm solid fencing on a zero setback line within the front setback area.

b)   The proposal includes a front fence up to 2.4m in height adjacent to No. 62 Cliff Road.

c)   A stepped design should be provided to limit the height to 1.8m along this boundary acknowledging the reduced front setback of No. 62 Cliff Road.

d)   The front fence should be stepped back 1m where over 1.2m in height to allow for landscaping forward of larger masonry elements.

 

19.       Swimming Pool

 

The swimming pool is excessive in height and should be reduced to be closer to ground level (Existing).

 

Particulars

 

a)   Part C1.10.1 provides controls relating to limiting the height of swimming pools on sloping sights to no more than 1.8m above ground level (Existing).

b)   The proposed swimming pool is between 4.5m-7.5m above ground level (Existing) and is not setback at a ratio of 1:1 from the adjoining property.

c)   No justification is submitted by the applicant for the significant departures.

d)   The swimming pool is highly visible and detract from the foreshore and waterways area and is not supported at the height proposed.

 

20.       Foreshore Building Line (LEP)

 

The proposed development encroaches the foreshore area and does not suitably address the impacts from the encroachment.

 

Particulars

 

a)   Clause 6.2(2)(c) allows for the construction of swimming pools within the foreshore area subject to an assessment against Clause 6.2(3).

b)   The pool structure appearance would be incompatible from the waterway given its height (Clause 6.2(3)(b)).

c)   No flora or fauna assessment is provided for the area proposed to be impacted (Clause 6.2(3)(c).

d)   In lieu of a detailed assessment of the impacts, the stormwater absorption pit should be located outside of the foreshore area to minimise infrastructure within this zone.

 

21.       Coastal Management

 

Insufficient information is provided to determine compliance with SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 in relation to works within proximity to mapped Coastal Wetlands.

 

22.       Sydney Harbour Catchment

 

Insufficient information is provided to determine compliance with SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) in relation to ecological impacts (associated with mapped Wetlands) and impact on views from the waterways (given no view impact analysis is provided from the waterway itself).

 

23.       Elevational Detail

 

The proposal is not accompanied by sufficient elevation detail for assessment.

 

24.       Stormwater Management

 

The stormwater management plan does not provide for adequate charged line disposal of stormwater and the ecological impacts of the absorption pit have not been determined.

 

25.       Public Interest

 

The proposal is not in the public interest as it provides for an overdevelopment of the site that departs from the envisaged low-density residential character of the locality, the heritage context of surrounding sites or its prominence when viewed from the foreshore and adjacent waterways.

 

26.       Site Suitability

 

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

 

Panel reasons

 

The Panel supports the findings in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for refusal contained in that report.

 

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

The meeting closed at 4.10pm

 

 

 

 

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