AGENDA OF Development and Health 5 April 1995

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________

SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE'S REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON JANUARY

57A-61 Millett Street, Hurstville (650/94) (Hv Ward)

1A Hill Street, Hurstville (420/87) (Hv Ward)

35-37 (Part) Hampden Street, Beverly Hills (609/94) (Pns Ward)

(Part) 37A-39 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills (656/94) (Pns Ward)

459-461 Forest Road, Penshurst (502/94) (Pns Ward)

1-3 Phillip Street, Riverwood (14/95) (Pk Ward)

13-15 Erskine Street, Riverwood (15/95) (Pk Ward)

34 Peace Avenue & 18-20 Isaac Street, Peakhurst (653/94) (Pk Ward)

71 Trafalgar Street, Peakhurst (24/95) (Pk Ward)

4 Woodcliff Parade, Lugarno (628/94) (Pk Ward)

63-67 Johnstone Street, Peakhurst (569/94) (Pk Ward)

59 Elwin Street, Peakhurst (610/94) (Pk Ward)

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.01 57A-61 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE (650/94) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: United Developments Pty. Ltd.

Proposal

: MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area B

Owners

: United Developments Pty. Ltd.

Existing Development

: Single storey, weatherboard cottages

Cost of Development

: $560,000

Precis of Report

1. 4x3 bedroom townhouses and 2x3 and 2x2 bedroom villa homes.

2. The land falls to the rear and will be required to connect into existing drainage easement.

3. Proposal complies with the RDCP.

4. Two (2) submissions received.

5. Recommendation - "deferred commencement" - consent.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The surrounding area is mixture of villa homes, weatherboard cottages and new two-storey brick homes. The site falls away from Millett Street towards rear allotments having their access off Bassett Street.

History

The previous development pplication was withdrawn due to problems associated with granting an easement for No. 57A Millett Street. The new applicant has negotiated with the Body Corporate of No. 70 Bassett Street and are hopeful of an easement.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential and the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994.

Proposed Development

The site will accommodate eight (8) townhouses and villa homes. The townhouses are to front Millett Street adjacent to both the north-western and south-eastern boundaries. The villas are situated behind the townhouses and are set back off each side and rear boundary by a minimum of 3.0m. The proposed driveway is central and gives access to the rear villas and two of the townhouses. Townhouses 1 and 8 adjacent to the side boundaries have separate vehicular access directly off Millett Street.

Visitor parking has been placed at the end of the internal driveway for maximum usage. The applicant has reduced the amount of hard-stand areas by utilising driveways fronting garages for the second car space, which reduces runoff and increases landscaping.

As the site slopes towards the rear, the applicant has approached the Body Corporate of No.70 Bassett Street for the purposes of a drainage easement. The easement is registered and is in favour of Nos. 59 and 61 Millett Street, however, not for No.57A. The applicant is currently negotiating with the Body Corporate to include 57A in the Sec. 88B instrument. At the time of writing this report the issue was being finalised.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	2317m²	-	-
Development Area B
Building Height	8.9m/6m	9.5m	Yes
Private Open Space	60m²/50m²	60m²/50m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	1159m²	1158.5m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	7.0m 675mm-4.6m/ 3.0m	4.5m -	Yes Yes
Residential Parking	15	13	2
Visitor Parking	2	2	Yes

Comment:

The proposal complies with Council's requirements and provides large useable private courtyards. The two villas adjacent to the rear boundary are set back by 3.0m with the ground floor 500mm and 800mm above natural ground level. A terrace area is proposed off each rear villa, approx. 350mm and 650mm above natural ground level requiring a retaining wall along part of the rear boundary. To ensure privacy to the rear adjoining residences, a condition of consent will require the terraces to be reduced in width to 2.0m and that each courtyard be at natural ground level, allowing for a minor amount of filling and retaining to level this area and augment drainage. Furthermore, any consent will require the applicant to provide a 600mm high lattice screen attached above the 1.8m high dividing fence to improve privacy. This will also be included for dwellings 3 and 4 which face the side boundaries.

All drainage is envisaged to be connected to the existing drainage easement through No.70 Bassett Street. To ensure this provision and to assist the applicant in dealing with deadlines, any approval will be a "deferred commencement" under the provisions of Section 91AA of the EP & A Act, 1979.

Manager, Building Services (North)

The application was referred to the Manager, Building Services for comment. No objection is raised subject to appropriate conditions to be attached to any consent.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection is raised subject to all stormwater to drain to the existing drainage easement through No.70 Bassett Street.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Two (2) submissions were registered, and their concerns are outlined below:

One submission was received from the Body Corporate at No.70 Bassett Street, indicating that the amended plans are an improvement regarding setbacks and that the proposed rear boundary have a lattice trellis for privacy.

Comment:

This will be a condition of consent.

The second letter objects to the proposal and indicates a number of details that were not included with the development application.

"a. the location and height of adjacent buildings;

b. the location and height of major trees on the site;

c. the location of proposed drainage lines and outlets;

d. proposed construction of a retaining wall on the west boundary;

e. proposed method of stormwater drainage;

f. proposed finished levels of the land in relation to buildings; and

g. proposed location of sewer lines"

Comment:

The submitted survey indicated RLs for the adjacent building in Millett Street, not for those in Bassett Street as they are some considerable distance away from the rear boundary. The villas on No.70 Bassett Street are setback 3.0 metres. The plans do indicate trees to be retained and removed, together with existing and finished ground levels. All stormwater will drain to the easement and pits placed around the site to collect surface water and direct it to the easement. Detailed hydraulic plans will accompany the building application. No major sewer lines exist, any existing domestic lines will be of no use to the new dwellings. Construction of retaining walls are generally of brick and will be reduced in height, a condition will reflect their requirements.

The second objector further raises issues of -

i) Drainage

Comment:

As the report outlines all stormwater will be directed to the existing easement in No.70 Bassett Street, including No.57A Millett Street. This is currently under negotiation.

ii) Overviewing of their property in No.66 Bassett Street

Comment:

The applicant has agreed to reduce the terrace area attached to each rear villa and maintain the majority of their courtyards as natural ground level. Some filling may occur to improve drainage. Furthermore, a 600mm high lattice screen will be placed above any 1.8 metre high fence. Any retaining wall constructed will be of an approved method and be the subject of a building application, and will augment drainage flow to the easement instead of the adjoining properties in Bassett Street.

iii) The reduction of tree cover and established vegetation and to the resultant erosion of existing privacy and amenity.

Comment:

The landscaping concept has been discussed with the applicant and a detailed plan will be submitted with the building application to be approved subject to appropriate location of new species.

iv) "The application does not give an indication of the height of proposed development in relation to the existing surrounding development."

Comment:

As mentioned earlier in the report, the survey indicated RLs of adjoining dwellings in Millett Street, not for Bassett Street, as these dwellings (except for villas at No.70) are some considerable distance from the rear boundary. Notwithstanding, the proposed rear dwellings are single storey villas, with the natural slope of the land falling towards Bassett Street giving a majority of existing properties in Millett Street almost a clear view over rear yards in Bassett Street.

v) "Overdevelopment of the site will result in a reduction of natural ground cover .... eight dwellings overlooking our backyard into windows of our home"

Comment:

This is to be expected in multiple dwelling applications, however, assessment is given to the design and location of proposed dwellings in association with existing vegetation, which will enhance any landscaping concept for the site. Only the two rear villas have visual access to the rear properties, in which case certain measures have been conditioned to reduce overviewing.

Summary

The proposal complies with the requirements of Council's Code, with all drainage to be directed to the existing easement through No.70 Bassett Street. To ensure that this will be the case and the easement being registered to include No.57A Millett Street, a "deferred commencement" consent is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 57A-61 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE (650/94) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.01 Recommendation 57A-61 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE (650/94) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

The registration from the Land Titles Office of NSW of No.57A, 59 and 61 Millett Street, Hurstville within the existing Section 88B instrument pertaining to the existing 1.0 metre wide drainage easement through No.70 Bassett Street, Hurstville (DP 638611). This matter is to be resolved within three (3) months from the date of the "deferred commencement" consent, prior to the formal consent being able to operate subject to the following conditions:

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.02 1A HILL STREET, HURSTVILLE (420/87) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: P.J. Wood & Associates (Solicitors)

Proposal

: HOTEL LICENCE

Zoning

: Zone No.3b - Business, City Centre

Existing Development

: Hill Street Restaurant

Precis of Report:

1. Consideration of Hotel licence.

2. Currently has a restaurant licence.

3. Police raise no objection.

4. Recommendation - consent

The operators of the Hill Street Restaurant are seeking a Hotel Licence from the Liquor Administration Board for their premises.

Currently, the establishment serves alcohol with meals until 11.00 pm each trading day and thereafter serves alcohol without meals pursuant to its licensing DA conditions until 2.00 am. The granting of a Hotel Licence will, naturally enable the premises to serve alcohol without meals at all times. The restaurant will be retained within the hotel premises and will remain open until 2.00 am as is presently being done with consent.

Proposed Development

Currently, as for most of Council's hotel premises, Hill Street is operating under a twelve month limited consent for its trading hours to 2.00 am. This is to be reassessed prior to the 9th August 1995.

The Division has had no complaints regarding this establishment and considers these premises, as do the Police, as a well managed business. To support this view, a copy of a report from the Hurstville Police report is reproduced below:

Issue

: Request by Michael Buckley of Hurstville Council for a report on the removal of the dormant "Seabreeze" Hoteliers License from King Georges Road, Blakehurst to 1A Hill Street, Hurstville

Background

: Recently I received a request from Mr. Buckley to supply a police report on the suitability of "Hill Street" restaurant to obtaining a Hoteliers License. He stated he would like the report prior to the Wednesday 29th March Council Meeting.

Current Position

: "Hill Street" Restaurant is at the present time the subject of an On-License (Restaurant) with an authority under section 32(3) of the Liquor Act to trade from 11pm to 2am without meals.

Comment

: If the Hotelier's License is successfully transferred to 1A Hill Street I would recommend the following conditions apply.

* That any future applications for extension of trading hours do not permit the premises to trade past 2am.

* If application is made by the premises to trade past the normal hotel trading hours of 12mn Monday to Saturday and 10pm on Sunday. Two security personnel patrol outside the hotel to assist in the dispersal of patrons at closing without disturbing the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

* That the Licensee of the hotel sign a Local Industry Code of Conduct statement of intention dealing with such things as prohibiting dollar drink nights and responsible serving practices. (All Licensees in the Hurstville Patrol will be requested to sign the above mentioned document)."

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1A HILL STREET, HURSTVILLE (420/87) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.02 Recommendation 1A HILL STREET, HURSTVILLE (420/87) (HV WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.03 35-37 (PART) HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (609/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

Applicant

: S.L. Saade

Proposal

: ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL

FLAT BUILDING AND

BASEMENT CAR PARK

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area D

Owners

: Ms. V. Ralph, K & D Lui

Existing Development

: Two dwellings

Cost of Development

: $1,295,000

Precis of Report

1. 15 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom units.

2. Stormwater drainage to Hampden Street.

3. One (1) objection lodged.

4. Approval recommended.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site currently accommodates a single storey brick and tile cottage with garages and part of a cement sheet clad/tile cottage and garages.

The land has a fall of one metre from south to north across the site towards Hampden Street.

Only one significant tree is located on the site, being a Jacaranda tree eight (8) metres high, located fronting Hampden Lane. The applicant has indicated that this proposal will retain the Jacaranda tree.

The surrounding locality is a mixture of housing styles and materials, basically of a single storey scale. The street will undergo a change of character as other development commences.

The adjoining properties 37A-39 are the subject of a report to this Council Meeting for unit development.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the proposed development is a permissible use within the zoning with Council consent.

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Development Control Plan.

Proposed Development

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing cottages and the erection of a three-storey, above carparking, residential flat building containing 15 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units and is similar to the proposal on the adjoining lands, Nos. 37A-39

The basement carparking shall provide for nineteen (19) resident carparking spaces and five (5) visitor carparking spaces. Each unit will have a minimum balcony area of 15m

provided.

The building has an east/west orientation and will have frontage to both Hampden Street and Melvin Lane.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	1114.882m²	-	-
Development Area D
Building Height	12m	12m	Yes
Private Open Space	15m²	15m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	540m²	501.7m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	4m 3m	4.5m 0.9m	See Comment Yes
Residential Parking	19	19	Yes
Visitor Parking	5	5	Yes

Comment:

Setbacks:

The proposal provides 4 metres (to balcony and 6 metres to walls) setback which would not comply with the required 4.5 metre requirement, based on the adjoining property setback. Potentially the 4.5 metre setback could be achieved by moving the building closer to Hampden Lane, however, this would require the removal of the existing Jacaranda tree and impose on the Melvin Lane residents. As the encroachment only relates to balconies and preserves existing amenities, it is recommended that the 4.0 metre setback be permitted in this instance.

Landscaping:

A large Jacaranda tree is located at the rear of the site and this is proposed to be retained. This should be a condition of approval, if granted.

The original submission included enclosed 15m

balconies at ground level as landscaped area. This was not acceptable and the proposal has now been redesigned to open the balconies to be terraced areas which complies with the definition for landscaped areas and has also included balconies at upper levels with 20m

in area. This now complies with the landscaping requirements under the DCP.

Manager, Building Services (North)

The application was referred to the Manager of Building Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to adequate storage for garbage bins and stormwater drainage disposal and structural engineer details on supporting/retaining walls.

Manager, Development Advice

The application was referred to the Manager of Development Advice who raised no objection to the proposal subject to stormwater draining to Hampden Street.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the Leader and adjoining residents were notified by letter, inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. One (1) objection was registered as outlined below:

Overshadowing:

Contended that the development will overshadow, greatly, the property to the south (No.33 Hampden Street) and sites off Melvin Lane. It is agreed that due to the three-storey nature of the building (which is permissible in this locality) No.33 Hampden Street will be overshadowed.

The development is to be approximately 3 metres from the southern boundary whilst No.33 Hampden Street is located approximately 2 metres from this boundary. Hence, there will be a separation of 5 metres between buildings. Overshadowing of the southern property will occur and this will be significant during winter. This situation is unavoidable for localities which are identified for higher density redevelopment and would require a setback of 10 metres or greater to reduce the overshadowing. Such a setback would not be a viable alternative for these sites as individual allotments are only approximately 12 metres in width.

With regard to the overshadowing of lands off Melvin Lane, it is noted that any overshadowing would only be during early morning and is lessened as a 6 metre wide Lane exists between the sites.

Wind Tunnel Effect

It is agreed that large buildings may create wind tunnels where they are in close proximity to each other and continuous for a distance. In this instance the buildings are stand alone developments which means winds will dissipate quickly when clear of the buildings. With regard to the premises to the south of the proposed building, it is only single storey as against the proposed three storeys, which should not generate any wind tunnel effect.

Privacy/Overlooking

Concerns raised at windows/balconies along the southern and western walls of the development.

In particular, thirty-three (33) bedroom/bathroom windows and two (2) balconies are located along the southern elevation. The balconies are located off bedrooms only. The main living areas for these units face northerly, hence the windows along the southern boundary are not the major active rooms of the residences and thus the potential for overlooking is reduced. However, it is not denied that overlooking could occur. Overlooking, to a degree, is unavoidable in redevelopment areas due to the greater scale of residential development which takes place. Viable options for Council are to introduce obscure glass for bathroom or laundry windows (which is recommended) and also higher level windows (1.5 metre sill level) to minimise overlooking from the bedrooms. Higher level windows will result in greater expanse of brick wall area in the southern elevation and this would not be desirable for design reasons.

Carparking

The development proposal provides adequate carparking in accordance with the Council carparking requirement. It is argued that insufficient parking is provided, however, it is contended that due to the sites proximity to the railway station, or public transport, that the overall demand for carparking in this locality will be less. Additional carparking is provided for in the form of visitor spaces totalling five (5). It should be noted that Hampden Street accommodation is in demand for public transport commuters.

Air/Noise Pollution

Concerns by the owner of No.33 Hampden Street have been raised as to the noise and air pollution impacts which will result from the construction of the building and use of the driveway along the southern boundary. It is argued that vehicle emission fumes will escape from the basement carpark via the ramp entry/exit and that these odours will affect the amenity of the adjoining building.

It is not possible to overcome the noise issue related to the construction of the building other than to restrict the hours of work, however, it is possible that noise/air pollution relating to the ongoing use of the building can be greatly reduced by the relocation of the ramp to the basement carpark. The applicant has subsequently lodged amended plans which relocate the ramp access to the northern boundary, which will greatly reduce these concerns.

Flooding/Drainage

The objector has lodged an old photograph which depicts extensive past flooding of Hampden Street. This situation has been eased by the construction of the current stormwater drainage system and flooding, as depicted, is unlikely to eventuate in the future.

Summary

The residential flat building as proposed generally complies with Council requirements under the Residential Development Control Plan, subject to minor variations. It will be consistent with the bulk and scale of similar three-storey residential developments proposed within Hampden Street.

Approval of the development is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 35-37 (PART) HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (609/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

05.03 Recommendation 35-37 (PART) HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (609/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.04 (PART) 37A-39 HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (656/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

Applicant

: L & S Saade

Proposal

: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND

BASEMENT CARPARK

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area D

Owners

: M & J Ford, V. Ralph, K & D Lui,

K & A Chai

Existing Development

: Residential cottages

Cost of Development

: $1,295,000

Precis of Report

1. 15x2 bedroom and 3x3 bedroom units.

2. Stormwater drainage to Hampden Street.

3. Two (2) objections lodged.

4. Approval recommended.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The subject land accommodates three single storey cottages of cement sheet clad and tile construction with garage access off the rear via Melvin Lane. Only part of No.37 Hampden Street is subject of this development as this site comprises two elongated allotments and only one is to be utilised.

The adjoining lands to the north accommodate single storey cottages of mixed condition. The sites adjoining the northern boundary has an older style weatherboard/tile cottage and has been approved for units.. The land immediately to the south accommodates a good quality single storey brick and tile residence, however, this site, Nos. 35-37 is also the subject of a residential development application.

No substantial vegetation is located on the subject land and the street trees should be retained.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the proposal is a permissible use within this zoning. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Hurstville Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and has been found to be generally consistent with the objectives and provisions of the DCP.

Proposed Development

The proposal is to establish a three-storey brick and tile residential building above basement carparking. Each storey of the building shall contain 5x2 bedroom and 1x3 bedroom units, providing the site with 15x2 bedroom and 3x3 bedroom units overall.

The building is designed to comply with the DCP building envelope and landscaping provisions whilst private balconies are to be a minimum of 15m

in area.

Vehicular access is to be off Hampden Street and provision has been made for nineteen (19) resident and five (5) visitor carspaces. Adequate turning/manoeuvring areas are to be provided.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	1114.9m²	-	-
Development Area D
Building Height	11m	12m	Yes
Private Open Space	15m²	15m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	540m	501.7m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	4m 3m	4.5m 0.9m	See Comment Yes
Residential Parking	19	19	Yes
Visitor Parking	5	5	Yes

Comment:

Setbacks:

The proposal provides 4 metres (to balcony and 6 metres to walls) setback which would not comply with the required 4.5 metre requirement, based on the adjoining property setback. Potentially the 4.5 metre setback could be achieved by moving the building closer to Melvin Lane however, amenity-wise this would impose on the Melvin Lane residents. As the encroachment only relates to balconies and preserves existing amenities, it is recommended that the 4.0 metre setback be permitted in this instance.

Balconies/Landscaping

The original submission included enclosed 15m

in area. This now complies with the landscaping requirements under the DCP.

Manager, Building Services (North)

This proposal was referred to the Manager of Building Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to the submission of detailed stormwater plans, provision of an appropriate garbage storage enclosure and structural details on retaining walls proposed.

Manager, Development Advice

The proposal was referred to the Manger for Development Advice who raised no objections to the proposal subject to all roof and basement stormwater draining to the kerb and gutter in Hampden Street.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the Leader and adjoining residents were notified by letter inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Two (2) objections were registered.

The issues raised by one objector generally only apply to the application for 35-37 Hampden Street, as this building adjoins the objector's land. This development is removed from the objector's land and will have minimal impact on No.33 Hampden Street. The only issues remaining of concern are those relating to noise/smell and carparking which may have a cumulative effect on the street in general.

Comment:

Noise/Air Pollution

Generally this concern is related to the construction stage of the development only in which case measures should be taken by the applicant to minimise such problems and hours of work are restricted. Upon completion of the building, noise and air pollution concerns are greatly reduced.

Carparking

The development complies with the requirements of the Council code, for developments of this nature (including five (5) visitor spaces) and considering its proximity to Beverly Hills Railway Station the carparking provided is considered to be adequate.

The second objector is the Salvation Army which has a property in Melvin Street to the north of the subject site. Concerns raised were related to privacy from rear balconies and overshadowing.

Comment :

The balconies will have a view towards the rear yards of properties in Melvin Street, however, the adjoining laneway and appropriate planting will reduce overviewing. Overshadowing will occur and will be at its peak in winter. Again, the laneway adds distance and the shadoe footprint is mostly reduced to covering yards and not dwellings.

Summary

The development is generally in compliance with the provisions of the Residential DCP subject to minor variations to the original landscaped area proposal. The development is now acceptable and is a mirror reflection of the development proposed for No.35-37 Hampden Street.

Approval of the development is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation (PART) 37A-39 HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (656/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

05.04 Recommendation (PART) 37A-39 HAMPDEN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (656/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.05
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.05 459-461 FOREST ROAD, PENSHURST (502/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: George Elkhouri Pty. Ltd.

Proposal

: 9X2 BEDROOM UNITS -

MODIFICATION UNDER SECTION

102 OF THE E.P.A. ACT 1979

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area D

Owners

: D & F McSeveny

Existing Development

: Two weatherboard cottages

Cost of Development

: $500,000

Precis of Report:

1. Modification Section 102 of the E.P.A. Act, 1979.

2. Improvement in drainage and basement parking.

3. Encroachment, in part, to both building envelope and height.

4. No objections received.

5. Recommendation - approval to amended conditions.

Council at its Meeting held on 23 November, 1994, granted consent to the establishment of 9x2 bedroom units and basement parking, subject to appropriate conditions. The applicant has submitted amended plans for the subject site to improve the following :

a) drainage - to Forest Road in lieu of Nelson Street,

b) reduce the grade to the driveway ramp leading to the basement parking,

c) vehicular access,

d) internal staircase and lobby area.

The above alterations will improve the circulation of people and vehicles on site, together with a more practical solution to drainage.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential and the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994.

Proposed Development

As a result of these amendments, a section of the eastern wall on the fourth level encroaches the building envelope and a portion of the ridge line measuring 13m in length in the centre of the site exceeds the 12m maximum by 100mm. All other requirements are unaltered and comply with Council's Code. Overall, the building is the same, apart from the amendments which the Division supports.

Manager, Building Services (North)

The amendments were referred to the building surveyor for comment. No objections were raised subject to additional conditions for compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Manager, Development Advice

The matter was referred to the Manager, Development Advice. No objection was raised subject to on-site detention and 3x3 splay to Forest Road/Nelson Street for the purposes of road widening.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. No objections were registered.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.05
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 459-461 FOREST ROAD, PENSHURST (502/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.05 Recommendation 459-461 FOREST ROAD, PENSHURST (502/94) (PNS WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

Amended to Read

Advisory Notes - Amend to Read

Additional

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.06
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.06 1-3 PHILLIP STREET, RIVERWOOD (14/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: Tanshell Pty. Ltd.

Proposal

: RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area D

Owners

: Department of Housing, Messrs.

Kalogiros & Joannou

Existing Development

: Two single storey residences

Cost of Development

: $1,300,000

Precis of Report

1. 16 x 2 bedroom units.

2. Stormwater to rear lane.

3. Three (3) objections received.

4. Approval recommended.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site currently accommodates two brick and tile cottages which are proposed to be demolished. The land has dual frontage to Phillip Street and a lane at the rear. The site has a number of small trees centrally located and one large tree adjacent to the boundary fronting the lane. The majority of these trees, including the large tree, will be removed as part of this development.

The land has a fall of approximately one metre across the site east-west, from Phillip Street to the lane at the rear.

The adjoining lands are predominantly of similar brick and tile single storey residences to the subject land. The locality is a relatively low key residential area with housing of no particular architectural features.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Control Plan 1994 and the development generally complies with the objectives and standards of the Development Control Plan.

Proposed Development

Proposal is to demolish the existing brick/tile residences and to erect in their place a three and (part) four storey brick and tile residential building.

This building shall accommodate 16 x 2 bedroom units and a basement carpark for twenty (20) car spaces. The units will be distributed basically over three levels with a fourth level providing for bedrooms only for units located on the third storey.

The development provides for over 55% of the site as landscaped area.

The building shall achieve a maximum height of 12 m and stormwater drainage shall be to the rear of the allotment to the kerb and guttering in the lane.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	1291m²	-	-
Development Area D
Building Height	12m	12m	Yes
Private Open Space	13m²	15m²	No
Landscaped Area	721m²	581m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	4.5/9.5m 3.5m	6.75m 0.9m	See Comment Yes
Residential Parking	16	16	Yes
Visitor Parking	4	4	Yes

Comment:

Private Open Space

The proposal provides a number of units with balconies less than 15m

in area. This non-compliance is relatively minor and can be rectified by a condition of development consent requiring balconies to comply with minimum area.

Setbacks

The proposal provides a setback of only 4.5m for 50% of the structure. Based on the building alignment of No.5 Phillip Street, the setback would normally be calculated at 6.7m as this reflects the dwelling setback located to the south. However, the dwelling (although fronting Coleridge Street) to the north (No. 21 Coleridge) encroaches on the 4.5m setback both with the residence and rear carport. The proposal provides a median setback for the building between the two adjoining properties. The DCP does not set down specific guidelines for setbacks for developments between properties with variable setbacks, hence, the median setback proposed is considered acceptable in this instance. The 4.5m setback is a standard setback representative of developments of this nature throughout Council under the DCP.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The Manager of Building Services raised no objections subject to the basement carpark being vented and providing additional exit stairs in accordance with the Building Code of Australia requirements.

Manager, Development Advice

The Manager for Development Advice raised no objections to the proposal subject to suitable stormwater drainage to the kerb and gutter in Phillip Street or the rear lane.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Three (3) objections were registered, their concerns are outlined below:

Overshadowing:

Objections were raised by a resident to the south regarding overshadowing. The diagrams provided with the application indicate that these properties will be overshadowed to a degree during winter. However, the extent of overshadowing is limited to the yard area only and this relates to approximately 60-70% of the yard. The residences and, in particular the sunrooms at the rear, will not be overshadowed.

The nature of 3-4 storey residential buildings is that shadows will affect southern properties. Further, the area including these southern allotments, has been identified as an area for Residential Redevelopment. The extent and impact of the overshadowing in this particular instance is considered to be acceptable, as it allows part of the rear yard and particularly the sunrooms, to be free of overshadowing.

Privacy:

The building is orientated in an east/west direction along a deep allotment in order to achieve a northern orientation for the units. This results in the building fronting the adjoining allotments. Hence, living areas and balconies may allow overviewing of adjoining properties.

It is noted that only one adjoining property owner (there are six (6) adjoining properties) has objected to the development. It is agreed that overlooking of the adjoining properties could occur, however, due to the redevelopment of this locality it is an unavoidable potential impact to some degree. The area has been identified for redevelopment of this nature.

Options to minimise the potential for overlooking are to treat windows with obscure glass and to screen balconies. This option is not considered suitable for this development as it may adversely affect the amenity of the potential residents.

An alternative is to provide high level vegetation as a screen. It is recommended in this instance and that a vegetation screen of 8m high trees be required along the southern boundary. An 8m limit is imposed as it will restrict overlooking but should not increase overshadowing concerns.

Local Amenity:

Concerns raised with the likely character change to the street should the development be approved. The locality is identified for redevelopment for unit style housing and therefore a street character change will occur.

Traffic Generation

The application proposes the main vehicular access to be off the rear lane. This lane provides a service link for the Belmore Road businesses backing onto the lane. It is considered that due to the limited scale of business in Belmore Road and the off-peak traffic movement of residents in the units, that traffic congestion in the lane should be limited.

Each unit is provided with one carpark space and the development has four (4) visitor spaces available. In addition to this on-site carparking area, there is also space available at the kerb for possibly two (2) more spaces.

The development complies with Council's requirements under the DCP and it is believed that the development is acceptable in this instance.

In Summary

The development generally complies with Council's Residential Development Control Plan, apart from two minor inconsistencies as discussed, and is recommended for conditional approval to comply with the DCP and to provide privacy screening to properties to the south.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.06
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1-3 PHILLIP STREET, RIVERWOOD (14/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.06 Recommendation 1-3 PHILLIP STREET, RIVERWOOD (14/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.07
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.07 13-15 ERSKINE STREET, RIVERWOOD (15/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

Applicant

: Huntington & MacGillivray

Proposal

: 16 X 2 BEDROOM UNIT BUILDING

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area D

Owners

: Goodfellow & Pecic

Existing Development

: Two residences

Cost of Development

: $1,200,000

Precis of Report:

1. Demolition of two dwellings.

2. Erection of three storey building with 16x2 bedroom units.

3. Stormwater drainage to Littleton Street.

4. Eleven (11) letters and two (2) petitions of objection received.

5. Approval recommended.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The subject land currently accommodates two single-storey brick and tile cottages of reasonable condition. The land slopes from the southern boundary to the northern boundary adjoining Littleton Street.

The adjoining premises are a mixture of single storey brick and tile or cement sheet clad residences of reasonable standard.

The land is located in close proximity to various other land uses associated with Riverwood shopping centre including a church, RSL Club and shops. The land immediately south of the site, being 9-11 Erskine Street, is currently the subject of a similar development proposal now with Council.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the proposed use is permissible.

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and is generally in compliance with the provisions of the DCPs.

Proposed Development

The proposal is to demolish the existing residences and to establish a three storey, with attic, brick and tile residential building. This building shall contain 16x2 bedroom units with two of the units at the third storey level being townhouse style with bedrooms located in the roofspace as an attic.

A basement carpark area is to be provided which shall accommodate sixteen (16) garages, four (4) visitor spaces, a garbage area and a power meter room. Access to the carpark shall be off Littleton Street, some 32 metres west of the intersection with Erskine Street.

The proposed building shall comply with the building envelope applicable to the Development Area D.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	1091.5m²	-	-
Development Area D
Building Height	12m	12m	Yes
Private Open Space	15-20m²	15m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	512m²	491.2m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	3.5-4.5m 3.0-4.0m	3.5m 1.0m	Yes Yes
Residential Parking	16	16	Yes
Visitor Parking	4	4	Yes

Manager, Building Services (South)

This matter was referred to the Manager for Building Services who advised that no objection was raised subject to the building and basement carpark complying with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Manager, Development Advice

This matter was referred to the Manager for Development Advice who raised no objections to the proposal subject to all stormwater draining to kerb and gutter in Littleton Street.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Eleven (11) letters and two (2) petitions (54 signatories and 74 signatories) in objection were registered, their concerns are outlined below.

Loss of Privacy:

The objection is a general statement objecting to

any

high-rise development taking place in the locality. The building has been designed so that, where possible, living areas of the units will face onto either Littleton or Erskine Streets. The building elevations which face adjoining lands are predominantly accommodating bedrooms, bathrooms and some kitchens only.

The nature of the development, being three storeys in height, would suggest that some overlooking of adjoining lands may occur. The design is such as to reduce this likelihood and it is noted that in an area which is undergoing change, certain privacy intrusion may result.

Overshadowing:

It is noted that the adjoining landowners have not objected. As the development is to be a three storey building it is acknowledged that overshadowing will occur. It should be noted that Nos. 29 Littleton Street, 9 and 11 Erskine Street are the subject of a development application currently being assessed.

The adjoining site to the west, No.29 Littleton Street, will be overshadowed during morning periods whilst the property to the south, No.11 Erskine Street, will be overshadowed during late morning to afternoons. The western property will adequately achieve four (4) hours of sunshine daily, however, the southern property is unlikely to achieve four (4) hours. Due to its location, directly south, overshadowing cannot be avoided.

The locality is zoned to permit this scale of development and it can only be reasonably expected that some overshadowing is unavoidable.

Noise:

Noise associated with such developments is predominantly during construction stage. The units remain residences and are generally low noise generators. To a degree, more noise may be generated by individual houses where storage sheds/garages can be more easily utilised as workshops.

Specific noise control conditions will be imposed as conditions of consent for the construction stage of the development.

Traffic/Carparking:

The requirement for carparking provision is set down within the Residential Development Control Plan and the proposal complies with this requirement. On-site provision has been made for four (4) visitor carparking spaces.

Traffic in the immediate street system will increase, however, such increase will be minimal and would not impact on the existing system.

Lower Property Values:

It is contended that the new development will lower property values. This is definitely

not

true of lands within "D" Area. It remains unclear what value impact a flat development adjacent to a lower density area (such as "B" Area) may have, however, no justification has been put forward by the objectors to substantiate a value loss.

Sewer Services:

It is contended that existing sewer services will be inadequate. Council's Building Services Manager has advised that sewer servicing will be adequate. This was confirmed by the Water Board during consultation of the draft code.

Safety Concerns:

Reference was made to the use of the Riverwood Legion Club carpark by persons in the evening and that this could happen with the residential basements. This situation is unlikely to occur in a residential basement carpark as it is in constant use and is private property. In comparison, the Club carpark is a public thoroughfare and is generally used only during operational hours.

Summary

The development is an initial three storey with attic, residential building in this locality and has provided a reasonable concept for a double frontage allotment.

The concept is in general compliance with the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan. Conditional approval of the development is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.07
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 13-15 ERSKINE STREET, RIVERWOOD (15/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

05.07 Recommendation 13-15 ERSKINE STREET, RIVERWOOD (15/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.08
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.08 34 PEACE AVENUE & 18-20 ISAAC STREET, PEAKHURST (653/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)

Applicant

: Department of Housing

Proposal

: MIXED DWELLINGS

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area A

Owners

: Department of Housing

Existing Development

: One (1) single cottage and two (2)

vacant allotments

Cost of Development

: $483,145

Precis of Report:

1. Re-determination of proposal for five (5) dwellings - two (2)

single storey dwellings and three (3) two-storey dwellings.

2. Does not comply with Council's RDCP in regard to parking and landscaping.

3. Matter was deferred from last Council Meeting of 15th March 1995.

4. Recommendation - approval subject to concurrence from the Minister.

Members will recall that at the last Council meeting held on 15th March 1995, Council deferred this application "...to enable officers to negotiate with the applicant to overcome the deficiencies of carparking and landscaping." A copy of that report is set out below :

Existing and Surrounding Development

The proposed site is located on the corner of Peace Avenue and Isaac Street, Peakhurst. The rear of the site is traversed by an easement for transmission lines which runs parallel with the western boundary. The surrounding development in Peace Avenue and Isaac Street is of fibro/weatherboard single-storey cottages.

History

Preliminary discussions were held with the Department of Housing prior to submission of the development application, where it was indicated that parking did not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan and also a minimum of 55% landscaping must be achieved.

31/1/95 Discussions were held with the Department of Housing regarding parking. It was felt by the Department that one (1) visitor space was ample for their complex and indicated that the second space would be better utilised for landscaping.

The second carparking space for each three-bedroom dwelling was discussed, however, the Department of Housing believed that one (1) carport per dwelling was adequate. (This will be discussed further in this report.)

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential and the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan.

Proposed Development

The proposal is for the erection of five (5) dwellings consisting of one (1) single storey, three-bedroom dwelling, three (3) two-storey, three-bedroom dwellings and one (1) single storey two-bedroom dwelling. The dwellings will be arranged in the form of two duplex style buildings and one detached dwelling, which will be located furthest from the corner. The two single-storey dwellings are located at each end of the development.

Vehicular access for each dwelling is via a common driveway running parallel with the western boundary and is located over the existing easement for transmission lines.

Tabled Information

	*Proposed*	*Required*	*Compliance*
Site Area	1817m²	-	Yes
Development Area A
Building Height	7.5m approx.	9.5m (max.)	Yes
Private Open Space	-	-	-
Landscaped Area	990m²(54.5%)	999m² (55%)	No
Building Setbacks - Front (Peace Avenue) - Side - Rear	5.8m/7.5m 4m (Isaac St)/ 900mm 7.5m	- 8.25m - -	See comment - -
Residential Parking	5	9	See comment
Visitor Parking	1	2	See comment

Comment:

Front Building Setback:

The majority of the proposed buildings vary from a 5.8m setback from Peace Avenue to 7.5m . Under the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan a front setback of 8.25m would be required because the adjoining dwelling is setback 11m from Peace Avenue. This is considered an excessive front setback for single and two-storey dwellings considering a park is located across the road. Therefore, it is recommended that should Council grant consent, a variation of 2.45m to the front building line be allowed. (It should be noted that a single storey dwelling is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing dwelling in Peace Avenue which is setback 11m, so that any impact on that dwelling would be minimal)

Residential and Visitor Parking:

The proposal provides one residential carport for each dwelling and, after, discussions with the Department of Housing, the proposal will be amended to provide one visitor parking space located parallel to the common driveway with access of Isaac Street. It will be setback 1 metre from the Isaac Street boundary.

The parking proposed results in a total landscaped area of 54.5% (i.e. 990.25m

) instead of the required 55% (i.e. 999m

). Also, there is a deficiency of four (4) residential spaces as required under Council's Residential Development Control Plan and it is still short one visitor space. The Department of Housing have stated that:

"Due to the low level of vehicle ownership by the tenants it is expected that the parking provided will satisfy the demand on site. It should be noted that in this development there is no garage or carports facing the street and a private access road is provided at the rear of the site, thus providing an improved streetscape appearance. Additional parking can be made available on site, however, it would be considered to the detriment of the project by decreasing the quality and size of open space available to the residents."

Additional factual survey data regarding the parking demand in Peakhurst area was requested to be submitted to aid in the assessment of this comment.

In total, the development is deficient by five (5) carspaces and it these were provided without a reduction in building size, the landscaping requirement would be further deficient.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The proposal was referred to the appropriate inspector who raised no objections.

Manager, Development Advice

No objections were raised from the Manager, Development Advice provided the standard drainage and crossing conditions are adhered to.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. No submissions were registered.

In Summary

At present, the proposal does not comply with parking, landscaping and front setback requirements of Council's Residential Development Control Plan. As previously discussed, the front setback is only minor and should Council approve this application, it is recommended that the minor encroachment be considered favourably.

In order for the proposal to provide the required parking, the proposal would need to be reduced in size, or the total landscaping of the site would be deficient. The Department of Housing believe that the proposed parking is sufficient and after previous discussions, appear to be reluctant to alter the proposal.

The following options for determination of the application were considered:

A. Council approve the application as submitted subject to conditions as deemed necessary by the Manager, Planning Services in order to require compliance with the Residential Development Control Plan for all aspects other than "Front Building Setbacks".

B. Council refuse the application on the basis of non-compliance with the Residential Development Control Plan in relation to carparking and landscaping requirements.

C. The matter be deferred to enable officers to negotiate with the applicant to overcome the deficiencies of carparking and landscaping and a further report be presented to Council.

Council should note that under Section 91A of the E P & A Act, 1979, Council shall not refuse, or impose a condition of consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or the applicant. This requirement would apply to options A and B as outlined.".

Subsequently, a meeting was held between Council Planning Officers and the Department of Housing Officers on Monday, 20th March 1995. During this meeting the issue was raised that, based on data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1991 Census for car ownership in Hurstville local government area,"the ratio of cars per public housing dwelling is 0.66 whereas the ratio of cars per dwelling for the total sample was 1.36. Thus, the ratio of cars per dwelling for public housing is less than half that for the total sample. Also, 88.6% of public housing dwellings, for which car ownership data was stated, had either only one car or no car". (A.B.S. 1991 Census) Therefore, the Department of Housing believes that one carspace per dwelling is adequate.

The current proposal for the Department of Housing project provides one garage per dwelling to comply with the A.B.S. data. However, it falls short of Council's requirements for residential parking by four (4) spaces. The Department of Housing agreed to provide one visitor space, as mentioned in the previous report, however, Council's Residential Development Control Plan required two.

Two options were given for the location of the visitor space. Option 1 is to provide it parallel to the proposed carports with access off the common driveway and located outside the private open space for the corner dwelling. Option 2 is to locate it parallel to the driveway with its own access from Isaac Street. Option 1 is the preferred option because both options result in a total landscaping of 54.1%, however, Option 1 leaves a private open space area for the corner dwelling of 70m

(in lieu of 48 square metres provided by Option 2).

During discussions, the point was raised that, should this proposal be required to comply with Council's car parking requirements, it would result in one less dwelling and therefore, the proposal would not be viable to continue with from the Department of Housing's point of view. The applicant argued that they are different from a developer. Where a developer can afford to reduce one dwelling and regain the profit by increasing the price of each remaining dwelling, the Department will not do this, as the proposal is for general housing and thus the costs must be kept low.

After lengthy discussions, Council Officers could see the reasoning for providing only one car space per dwelling and one visitor space located as per Option 1. However, it was proposed that future Department of Housing applications will need to comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan, or else the overall result will be a lack of on-site parking provisions for the area. The Department of Housing agreed to this.

On this basis, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.08
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 34 PEACE AVENUE & 18-20 ISAAC STREET, PEAKHURST (653/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)

05.08 Recommendation 34 PEACE AVENUE & 18-20 ISAAC STREET, PEAKHURST (653/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.09
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.09 71 TRAFALGAR STREET, PEAKHURST (24/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

Applicant

: Arthur Velliss Architects

Proposal

: DUAL OCCUPANCY

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area C

Owners

: Michael Sala & Robert Rofi

Existing Development

: Single Residence

Cost of Development

: $210,000

Precis of Report

1. 2 x 4 bedroom attached residences.

2. One objection lodged.

3. Stormwater to drain to Gover Street.

4. Approval recommended.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site currently accommodates a single storey cement sheet clad with metal roof residence and garage. These buildings are in a reasonable condition and would appear to have no particular architectural merit.

The land has a fall of approximately 2 metres from south to north diagonally across the allotment to the intersection of Gover Street and Trafalgar Street.

The allotment is only sparsely vegetated and the proposal will include landscaping.

The adjoining lands predominantly accommodate single storey cement sheet clad and metal roof or similar style, and are of mixed condition.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and pursuant to this zoning the development is a permissible use. This proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan and the proposal is generally in accordance with the provisions of this DCP.

Proposed Development

The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a two-storey Dual Occupancy building. This building accommodates two residences each containing double garages, lounge, family, study, guest rooms and kitchen/laundry at ground level and four bedrooms, family room and bathroom at first floor level.

The site will be landscaped as part of this development and the new dwellings will have access off Gover Street, being a north-east orientation.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	767.8m²	-	-
Development Area C
Building Height	8.5m	9.5m	Yes
Private Open Space	60m² +	60m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	411.8m²	383.9m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	3.2/7.8m 0.9m	2.5m 0.9m	Yes Yes
Residential Parking	4	4	Yes

Comment :

The proposed front building line to Trafalgar Street has been reduced from 6.8 metres to 3.2 metres and 7.8 metres. The adjoining property in Trafalgar Street has a setback of 11.0 metres, however, the dominant building line in the street varies from a minimum of 4.5 metres. It is considered that a 3.2 metre and 7.8 metre setback is acceptable.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The application was referred to the Manager for Building Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Manager, Development Advice

The application was referred to the Manager for Development Advice who raised no objection to the proposal subject to stormwater draining by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Gover or Trafalgar Street.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within fourteen (14) days. One (1) objection was registered, their concerns are outlined below:-

Privacy/Overlooking:

Objection has been raised to potential overlooking of adjoining properties. With regard to first floor family rooms and balconies this is possible. With regard to bedroom windows it is argued that these are not the main living areas of the premises and that overlooking is unlikely to be an issue from such windows. The applicant has proposed the erection of a lattice screen to the side boundary balcony and this should adequately address this issue. It is recommended that Council impose conditionally that any first floor living rooms facing onto adjoining properties shall be high level windows of obscure glass with a lower sill level being 1.5 metres above the floor level.

Overshadowing:

The subject land is positioned diagonally towards a north orientation and due to the height of the proposed buildings overshadowing of adjoining lands will occur to a degree. During mid-winter, sunlight will remain available to the two properties to the south-east and south-west. These premises will be overshadowed either in the morning or afternoon, however, each will generally achieve four hours sunlight onto the premises during mid-winter. This is further supported by shadow diagrams subsequently submitted by the applicant.

Pursuant to the objectives of the Area "C", two-storey development across the allotment is permissible. It is noted that this locality is identified for redevelopment to a higher residential density in accordance with the Area "C" objectives. Clearly, some limited overlooking and overshadowing will result from the suggested style of development in the Area "C" and attempts should be made to mitigate these impacts.

Summary

The development proposal is a permissible use within the Development Area and is generally in accordance with the requirements of the Residential DCP. Subject to minor design changes recommended to minimise overlooking of adjoining properties, the development is considered to be satisfactory.

Approval of the development is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.09
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 71 TRAFALGAR STREET, PEAKHURST (24/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

05.09 Recommendation 71 TRAFALGAR STREET, PEAKHURST (24/95) (PK WARD)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. C. King)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.10
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.10 4 WOODCLIFF PARADE, LUGARNO (628/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: Oceanview Group Pty. Ltd.

Proposal

: MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area A

Owners

: Sangha Holdings

Existing Development

: Vacant

Cost of Development

: $660,000

Council at its Meeting held on 15th March 1995, considered the application and resolved:

"THAT the matter be deferred to allow notification of an adjoining property owner and

FURTHER THAT the application be the subject of a further report to Council following expiration of the appropriate notification period."

To reacquaint Members with the various aspects of the application, the Divisional Manager, Development and Health's report to the Meeting is reproduced below:

"Precis of Report"

1. 6 x 3 bedroom townhouses

2. Previous approval granted for 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings - Council Meeting of 22 July, 1992.

3. Six (6) objections received.

4. Stormwater to Council's easement.

5. Recommendation - approval.

The application before Council seeks favourable consideration for the establishment of 6 x 3 bedroom townhouses at No. 4 Woodcliff Parade, Lugarno.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The area is predominantly residential with the majority of existing dwellings being two storey. The subject site is vacant of structures and is a battleaxe configuration with a strip of land extending to Bayside Drive, adjoining Council's reserve.

History

Council at its meeting held on 22 July, 1992, granted conditional consent for 2 x 3 bedroom townhouses and 2 x 3 bedroom villa homes upon the subject site.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential and the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994.

Proposed Development

The buildings are situated north/south on the property having views east over Lime Kiln Bay. Vehicular access off Woodcliff Parade leads down to basement carparking with each double garage having direct access to each townhouse. There is a substantial amount of excavation along the western boundary towards the middle of the site. The eastern-most boundary common to No. 1 Bayside Drive will have approximately 1.33 metres of fill to be retained for courtyard use. This is 1.18 metres less than originally proposed.

Units 5 and 6 are at basement parking level, differing in level by 700mm. Courtyards are directly off living and dining areas having an easterly aspect. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 have individual access to the basement and their garage for ultimate security. Their private courtyards are relocated over the basement carpark facing west. These courtyards together with common areas, are approximately 2.8 metres below natural ground level at the rear of No. 2 Woodcliff Parade. Privacy will be enhanced by a 1.5 metre wide planter bed along the entire western boundary as part of the 1.2 metre retaining wall on the subject property.

Bedrooms for each of units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are within roof space with windows facing both west and east. Drainage is to be directed to the rear of the site and to Council's land, subject to consideration of Council's approach to "stormwater easements through community land".

Tabled Information

	*Proposed*	*Required*	*Compliance*
Site Area	1700.6 m2	-	-
Development Area A
Building Height	8.0 m	9.5 m max	Yes
Landscaped Area	1131.5 m²	935.3 m2	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	Battleaxe lot 1.0/3.5 m	N/A -	N/A -
Residential Parking	12	12	Yes
Visitor Parking	2	2	Yes

Comment :

The amended proposal has been reduced further below the existing ground level yielding a finished roof height for the proposal of approximately 8.0 metres. The landscaped area together with private courtyard areas exceed the minimum requirements and provides future residents with practical open space.

To improve vehicular access, a condition of consent will require the applicant to provide a passing bay along the access handle to minimise vehicular conflict.

Shadow Diagram - The plan submitted indicates the majority of winter overshadowing would take place on the adjoining

undeveloped

allotment of land with some partial cover of the rear of No. 1 Bayside Drive. Properties in Woodcliff Parade are not affected by the subject buildings.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The proposal was referred to the building surveyor for comments. No objection is raised subject to appropriate conditions, one in particular regarding means of egress for the basement car park.

Divisional Manager, Engineering

The Divisional Manager, Engineering raises no objection to the proposal and has requested that an advisory note be included with the condition for a 1.0 metre wide easement through the rear of the site subject to the adoption of a satisfactory Plan of Management for the Community Land involved.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Six (6) letters of objection were registered, their concerns are outlined below :

i) The proposal is excessive.

Comment :

The proposal complies with Council's design standards resulting in an increase in the provision of landscaped area.

ii) "Carparking will no doubt be a huge problem."

Comment :

The parking complies with Council's requirements, that is, a double garage for each dwelling, together with two (2) visitor spaces.

iii) "The intersection of Woodcliff and Boronia Streets is already a problem. Add another driveway to this with vehicles entering and departing diagonally across a very steep intersection could prove extremely dangerous."

Comment :

This particular area has more than adequate sight distance to Woodcliff Parade to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in safety. Furthermore, Woodcliff Parade is not a "through road" and would only attract the use of residents and their visitors, thus any conflict of vehicles would remain minimal.

iv) Increase in stormwater runoff from the subject site.

Comment :

Such drainage will be collected and it is proposed that it then be piped via a 1.0 metre drainage easement through to Council's reserve in Bayside Drive into Lime Kiln Bay under strict conditions.

Summary

Overall the proposal will compliment the surrounding development that has taken place in Bayside Drive and Woodcliff Parade. Although the proposal has increased the number of dwellings from the approved 4 to 6, the landscaped area has increased due to the basement carpark and the common use of paved areas.

Design features such as the roof design and the aluminium balconies with safety glass will be conditioned to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the proposal. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions."

Comment:

As a result of Council's resolution, the adjoining property owners in Boronia Parade, were advised in writing of the proposal and given until 4th April 1995 to make submissions if so desired.

The owners have been up to Council to view the plans and discussed the proposal with Council's staff. Should there be a written objection, those concerns will be raised on the night of the Meeting.

Further, plans have been submitted by the applicant indicating each elevation and its compliance or non-compliance with the building envelope.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.10
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 4 WOODCLIFF PARADE, LUGARNO (628/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.10 Recommendation 4 WOODCLIFF PARADE, LUGARNO (628/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.11
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.11 63-67 JOHNSTONE STREET, PEAKHURST (569/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

Applicant

: Optima Property Development Pty Ltd.

Proposal

: ELEVEN (11) UNIT CLUSTER

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area A

Owners

: A.R. and J.P. Howlett

Existing Development

: Residential cottage and tennis courts

Cost of Development

: $1,160,000

Precis of Report:

1. 9 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings.

2. Basement carparking for twenty-seven (27) vehicles.

3. Two (2) objections received.

4. Stormwater drainage plans received.

5. Recommendation - approval.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site currently accommodates a single storey cottage and three tennis courts. The site has only limited vegetation cover, which is restricted to the portion of the site in the vicinity of the dwelling. A mature tree is located at the rear of the existing dwelling and this is to be retained. The land falls away from Johnstone Street with a slope of 4.7 metres from the south-east to the north-west corners. The land accommodating the tennis courts has been partially levelled with a maximum of 2 metres of fill being used in the north-east corner of the courts.

The adjoining properties are a mix of style of single domicile housing , being of cement sheet clad and brick construction and of single and two storey height.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and this is a permissible use within this zoning.

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and is found to be generally consistent with the provisions of the DCP.

Proposed Development

The proposal is to demolish the existing cement sheet clad cottage and establish a cluster of housing containing eleven (11) dwellings (9x3 bedroom and 2x2 bedroom). These will include use of attic space for the accommodation of bedrooms and bathrooms.

All dwellings are to be provided with garages in a basement carpark arrangement. Each garage shall have direct stairway access to the dwelling above from within the garage.

With the provision of carparking underground the proposal is able to provide over 60% of the site for landscaping.

The buildings are predominantly single storey with attic space being utilised and will comply with the building envelope control apart from the spire above a feature turret. This is considered to be acceptable as it is a feature element of the design of the complex.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	3399m²	-	-
Development Area A
Building Height	9.5m	9.5m	Yes
Private Open Space	50-100m²	60-70m²	See Comment
Landscaped Area	2260m²	1869.5m²	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	7m 1.5m	6m 0.9m	Yes Yes
Residential Parking	21	21	Yes
Visitor Parking	3	3	Yes

Comment:

Private Open Space

: The DCP requires minimum courtyard areas of 60m

for units with less than three bedrooms and 70m

for units with greater than three bedrooms. The design of the development has resulted in Units 7 and 5 providing less than the area required for courtyards. These Units only require movement of the building by between 0.5 and 1.0 metre in order to achieve this requirement and the site layout enables such changes to take place acceptably. These changes shall be required as a condition of consent.

Fencing

: The proposal is for low-scale fencing fronting Johnstone Street with an average height of 1.0 metre. As the front of the development is also to include courtyards for the units, it is recommended that the front fence be a height of 1.5 metres and setback 1.0 metre from the street front boundary. this will create private courtyards as well as create a low-scale and attractive frontage to the development.

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted indicate a 9.00 a.m. winter shadow that extends, at its peak, over the rear yards of properties south of the subject site. The property most affected by the proposed development is the southern adjoining property in Johnstone Street. This dwelling is set back from Johnstone Street by 25.0 metres and would be expected to be redeveloped in the future. Notwithstanding, the midday shadow, in winter, extends over the rear and front of the 11.18 metre wide allotment, with the front yard receiving all morning sun and rear yard receiving all afternoon sun.

Drainage

A concept hydraulics plan has been submitted which indicates the stormwater from the driveway and basement to be pumped to the street. Sub-surface drainage around the dwellings will be directed to the pump to raise the water to the collection pit at terrace level to be gravity fed to Johnstone Street. The applicant has approached rear property owners, in writing, requesting an easement. All have responded, in writing, indicating that they have no desire for a easement through their property.

Manager, Building Services (South)

This matter has been referred to the Manager of Building Services who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions.

Manager, Development Advice

The proposal was referred to the Manager of Development Advice who raised no objections to the proposed drainage concept subject to stormwater draining by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Johnstone Street. There is no objection to the drainage proposed outlined above.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the Leader and adjoining residents were notified by letter, inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Two (2) objections were registered, their concerns are outlined below:

Tree Preservation:

Concerns have been raised as to the protection of existing trees located along the rear of the Clarke Street properties. The concerns relate to the protection of the root system of these trees due to building works taking place nearby. The buildings at the rear of the subject land are proposed to be between 3.5m and 10m clear of the rear boundary and this should be adequately clear of existing boundary trees. A standard condition for such development is for developers to take such necessary action to preserve existing root systems.

Landscaped Area:

The development proposes approximately 66% of the site as landscaped area, far in excess of the 55% required for the "A" area. A portion of this land is to be brick paved and concerns were raised at the amount of impervious areas. This not considered to be a concern as the amended plans now indicate that only central entry and driveways will now be paved, with all stormwater being directed to Johnstone Street.

Stormwater Drainage:

Concerns raised at the possible stormwater runoff which may result from the development and impact on rear properties. The development is required, by condition, to provide a suitable stormwater drainage system for the development which will minimise any possible stormwater runoff. This has been addressed under the heading of "Drainage". The development provides a large amount of landscaped area which in itself, will minimise any overland flow. The basement carpark area stormwater is to be pumped back to Johnstone Street.

Summary

The development is a sprawling, low-scale, cluster housing development on a large residential holding.

The development is low-scale through the use of basement carparking and only upper levels in the residences being provided as attic areas. The complex will provide a large amount of landscaped area and is generally in accordance with Council's requirements under the Residential Development Control Plan.

Approval of the proposal is recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.11
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 63-67 JOHNSTONE STREET, PEAKHURST (569/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

05.11 Recommendation 63-67 JOHNSTONE STREET, PEAKHURST (569/94) (PK WARD)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.12
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.12 59 ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (610/94) (PK WARD)

Applicant

: Mr. Tony Piccioni

Proposal

: FIVE (5) TOWNHOUSES

(AMENDED PLANS)

Zoning

: Zone No.2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area C

Owners

: Piccioni Bros. (Investments) Pty Ltd.

Existing Development

: Vacant

Cost of Development

: $856,185

Precis of Report:

1. Amended plans for 4x4 bedroom and 1x2 bedroom Townhouses.

2. Complies with Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994 except for minor encroachment to front setback due to architectural feature.

3. Four (4) objections and one (1) petition were received.

4. Recommendation - approval subject to conditions.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The property is located towards the end of a cul-de-sac in Elwin Street and runs east-west, with Council's Reserve and Salt Pan Creek to the west (at the rear of the site) and residential properties to the north and south.

The remains of a cottage and shed are located at the rear of the site, with a chicken coop located midway on the site. A concrete driveway runs along part of the northern boundary.

The site has an incline, approximately 3.0 metres from the road to the top of a rock ledge. It is then relatively flat for the first 30.0 metres until it reaches another bank and drops approximately 1.3 metres, gradually falling to the rear of the site. The southern adjoining property No. 61 is a two storey brick dwelling with its first floor approximately level with the front portion of the subject site. It should be noted that no windows appear in the northern elevations of No. 61.

The southern battleaxe allotment, No. 61A, is occupied by two structures. The main dwelling is single storey and has three (3) windows in its northern wall with its ground level approximately 400mm higher than the subject site.

The single storey brick dwelling adjoining the northern boundary (No. 57A) maintains the same slope as the subject property, but is marginally higher. Their rear yard is partially occupied by an above-ground pool.

The rear battleaxe property, No. 57A, adjoining the northern boundary is single storey with its ground level marginally higher than the subject site.

History

Numerous discussions have been held between Council officers and the applicant in order to maintain a development that takes into account adjoining residents' concerns and Council's requirements under the RDCP. Following discussion of the original proposal, the dwellings have been relocated closer to the northern boundary, the roof ridges have been reduced between 450mm and 550mm and the dwellings have been reduced in width. These changes have resulted in the shadows being reduced on the southern boundary, the improved location of the rear courtyards for the proposed dwellings and the driveway being relocated to the southern boundary.

The driveway has maintained a curved effect from the kerb and gutter to ensure the gum trees near the southern boundary are maintained. It also curves along the site to reduce the long straight effect, also providing sufficient landscaping and adequate manoeuvrability and turning areas into and out of the garages.

Discussions were held regarding off-setting units 4 and 5 so they were at an angle to the street. The applicant was willing to do this however, after working with a number of concepts he believed that the private open space for those dwellings would have been compromised and also the design would have lost the common cabana and barbecue area. The applicant therefore decided to remain with the second amended option.

Section 90

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential and the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994. The site is located in Development Area C.

Proposed Development

The amended proposal is for the erection of 4x4 bedroom townhouses and 1x2 bedroom townhouse. Access is via a common driveway along the southern boundary, however, due to the rock ledge and three large gum trees located on Council's street reserve, the driveway sweeps northwards and meets Elwin Street kerb and gutter closer to the northern boundary.

The private courtyard for each dwelling is located on the northern side of the site to achieve maximum solar aspect. Also, a common BBQ and cabana area is located at the rear of the site adjacent to Council's Salt Pan Creek Reserve.

The five (5) dwellings step down the slope to the rear boundary, thus reducing the overall bulk and height of the proposal.

This amended application varies from the original one that was submitted by relocating the driveway from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. This resulted in the proposed townhouses being located 7.1m from the southern boundary (where previously they were 4m), thus reducing the overshadowing onto the southern adjoining properties. The overall height of each townhouse has been slightly reduced as well, to also improve the effects of overshadowing.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Required	Compliance
Site Area	1503m²	-	-
Development Area C
Building Height	8.5m	9.5m	Yes
Private Open Space	375.5m²	240m²	Yes
Landscaped Area	752.6m²	751.5m²(50%)	Yes
Building Setbacks - Front - Side/Rear	3.7m/5m-5.5m 4m/6.3m	4.9m -	Yes (see comment) Yes
Residential Parking	9	9	Yes
Visitor Parking	2	2	Yes

Comment:

Front Building Setback

The proposed ground floor verandah of the front dwelling will be set back 3.7m from the front boundary at the closest point, however, the main wall of the building and second floor varies from a 5m to 5.5m setback.

The dwelling to the north is set back 6.5m therefore requiring a minimum setback of 4.9m for the subject site; which the main bulk of the dwelling complies with. Due to the 3m high rock ledge located at the front of the site, it is believed that an encroachment of 1.2m for a ground floor verandah will have minimal impact on the adjoining residents or the streetscape of Elwin Street.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The proposal was referred to the appropriate building surveyor who raised no objections to the proposal subject to a building application being submitted and stormwater drainage plans prepared by a hydraulics engineer being submitted with the building application.

Manager, Development Advice

No objections to the proposal were raised from the Manager, Development Advice provided all stormwater drains by gravity to the Georges River also that the applicant comply with Council's standard conditions for crossings.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one (21) days. Four (4) objections and one (1) petition (with 41 signatures) were registered, their concerns are outlined below:

Please Note:

Adjoining residents were also notified by letter of the amended plans and given seven (7) days to view them and submit comments. One (1) submission was registered for the amended plans from the resident of No. 61A who had lodged a submission initially.

1. An excess number of motor vehicles will result in traffic congestion, parking problems, loss of vision in the narrow street and danger to children.

Comment:

The proposal complies with the RDCP in that two (2) visitor spaces have been located on site, each four bedroom dwelling has a double garage and the proposed two bedroom dwelling has one (1) single garage. (Adjoining residents have claimed that already existing dwellings in the street have problems of parking in the narrow street due to the number of cars per dwelling, and having to reverse the full length of battle-axe allotments). The proposal provides adequate parking and turning areas, therefore all movements will be in a forward motion and it is believed that the proposal will not exacerbate an existing problem.

2. Overshadowing to the properties to the south.

Comment:

Due to the concerns of overshadowing the applicant was asked to interpolate the shadow diagrams. Following is a copy of this explanation.

The shadow lines at the respective time periods at Winter and Summer are those that would be cast upon the ground of the adjoining property by the uninterrupted path of the shadow line in question. The length to height ratio of the winter shadow line is 3:1 (for every metre in height a 3.0 m length of shadow is cast upon the ground).

The location of the adjoining property and outbuilding to the east of this dwelling, No. 61A, would in fact obstruct the length of shadow the development would cast. The position of the adjoining dwelling, No. 61A, would create a barrier and as such the shadows cast would be upon the wall. Under the current circumstances the height of the 9.00 a.m. shadow upon the wall would be approximately 2.5 metres above natural ground level. In comparison the shadow cast by the fence would be approximately 1.4 metres above ground level. In relation to the shadow lines cast, the existing dwelling, No. 61A, has an eaves line of approximately 2.9 metres at the high end (north-eastern corner) and approximately 3.3 metres at the low end (north-western corner). This relates to a shadow line cast upon the northern wall of the adjoining property, varying between 400mm (at the high end) to 800mm (at the low end) below the existing eaves line. The fence shadow line in comparison would be 1.5 metres (high end) and 1.9 metres (low end) below the eaves line.

The morning shadow (9.00 am) does not cast any shadow upon the roof of the adjoining property and is well below the level of the existing eaves.

Similarly, the afternoon shadow (3.00 pm) is in effect marginally less severe by approximately 150mm in height (lower in this instance).

The summer shadow lines do not effect the adjoining dwelling whatsoever for both 9.00 am and 3.00 pm time periods.

In conclusion, the proposed development has very little impact on the adjoining southern properties, and those shadows as cast, are representative of unobstructed, full length casting on existing ground level. A marginal increase in shadowing would be present at both 9.00 am and 3.00 pm and the length and impact towards noon time period would be even less, to not affected by noon.

The development as proposed does not encroach upon the property for any loss whatsoever to possible future inclusions of solar heating installations, as all shadows cast are below the level of the eaves line

The properties affected lie directly south and No.61 Elwin Street is lower than the subject site, so any form of development (whether single or two-storey) will have an impact on No. 61. Also, the shadows cast from the existing trees on the reserve must be taken into account.

3. Loss of Privacy to adjoining residents.

Comment:

The dwellings are located 4m from the northern boundary and 7.1m from the southern boundary

Northern Boundary

: The land to the north is at a similar level to the subject site so any potential over-viewing will only be from the first floor which consists of bedrooms and bathrooms. The exception to this is Unit 3 which proposes to have dining room and kitchen on the first floor facing north, with an external staircase to the rear courtyard. The dwelling has been designed this way to accommodate the rock ledge and limit the amount of excavation.

To reduce the effect on the neighbours, a 1.8m high fence will be located along the northern boundary and a further 600mm high lattice screen will be provided on top of that.

Southern Boundary

: The proposed dwellings to the south are located 7.1m from the common boundary with a driveway and 1.8m high fence. Due to the difference in height of the land levels, any development (whether single storey or two storey), would overview both Nos. 61 and 61A Elwin Street. With the relocation of the driveway to the southern boundary the impact is considerably reduced.

4. The proposal will lose the unique quiet and peaceful character of the area and will set a precedent for similar development in Elwin Street. Villas would be better !

Comment:

The proposal is located in Development Area C under Council's RDCP which permits townhouse development.

5. The location of the garbage bins.

Comment:

In the amended plans, the garbage bin storage area was relocated to the front of the site, (approx. in the middle of the front boundary), alongside the driveway. This has moved it completely away from adjoining residences and should alleviate any concerns re. smells and noise, etc.

Summary

The proposal is for five (5) townhouses which are permitted within Development Area C. They have been designed to step down the site, taking advantage of the natural lie of the land and the Salt Pan Creek to the rear of the site. The applicant has amended the design to try to overcome problems of overshadowing, driveway manoeuvrability and privacy for adjoining residents.

However, the fact that the site runs east-west and the change in ground level it does make it difficult to have

impact on the southern adjoining properties particularly Nos. 61 and 61A Elwin Street. Taking these factors into account, approval is recommended, subject to conditions.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 05.12
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 59 ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (610/94) (PK WARD)

05.12 Recommendation 59 ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (610/94) (PK WARD)

RECOMMENDATION

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________

SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION TWO' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON JANUARY

1 Tonitto Avenue, Peakhurst (Pk Ward)
Ward Councillors' Report

2 Vivienne Street, Kingsgrove (Hv Ward) Garage And Carport Addition, Porch Enclosure

83 Victoria Avenue, Penshurst (Pns Ward) Detached Double Carport

84 Jersey Avenue, Mortdale (Pns Ward) Rear Extension To Existing Dwelling

19 Lansdowne Parade, Oatley (Pk Ward) First Floor Addition And Extension To Existing Dwelling

6 Akoonah Place, Peakhurst (Pk Ward) First Floor Addition

19H Elwin Street, Peakhurst (Pk Ward) Two (2) Storey Dwelling

130 Myall Street, Oatley (Pk Ward) Rear Dwelling Additions

31 Belmore Road, Peakhurst (Pk Ward) Extensions To Existing Dwelling

Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre - Request For Amendment Of Approval Granted

Declaration of Dangerous Dog

2 Bowman Street, Mortdale (Pk Ward) Reconsideration of amount of Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee

3 Gungah Bay Road, Oatley (PK Ward) Review of determination of Building Application

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

SECTION 2

06.01 1 TONITTO AVENUE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD)
WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORT
(Report by Secretary to Divisional Manager - Development & Health, Mrs L Stephens)

Council, at its meeting of 15th March, 1995, considered a report in respect of the subject premises, when it resolved as follows:-

"THAT the matter be deferred and referred for a Ward Councillors' report,

AND FURTHER, THAT information regarding the height of the ridge line of the building be provided."

The report submitted to the meeting of 15th March, 1995 is reproduced below for the information of Council:-

"The premises are located on the eastern side of Tonitto Avenue on the corner of Beale Crescent, in Development Area C.

The site is triangular in shape with a frontage of 33.71m and a depth of 31.55m. Landfall is to the rear.

It is proposed to construct a new two storey dwelling and double garage. Construction will consist of external brick walls and a pitched tile roof.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: Dwelling height and form must comply

with the building envelope.

Description of Non-compliance

: The encroachment of the building envelope occurs at the side of the dwelling due to the fall of the land. The applicant has made an attempt to comply with the building envelope by offsetting the first floor level at the rear. This is considered reasonable due to the shape of the land and the fact that the encroachment occurs on the northern side of the dwelling.

The application has been notified to adjoining landowners and one (1) written objection has been received from the owner of No. 4 Beale Crescent, Peakhurst. The grounds of objection relate to loss of winter sunlight and privacy.

The proposed dwelling will be located on the north-western side of the objector's property and a distance of approximately 10.0m will separate the two storey portion of the dwelling from the objector's dwelling. It is considered that the overall effect on loss of sunlight will be minimal as the new dwelling is located 10m north of the adjoining premises.

In regard to privacy, the windows at first floor level that overlook the adjoining property are bedroom windows.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the building application be approved, subject to standard conditions 1-12 and the following additional conditions:-

13. GS070

14. The northern, southern and eastern walls are to be carried

down to natural ground level and supported on deepened

edge beams. Under no circumstances are the existing

ground levels external to the building to be raised.

15. Any excavated embankment is to be retained by a suitable

wall to Council's satisfaction.

16. GS190, GS370, GS381, GS390

17. GS570

18. GS601

19. GS751

20. GS780 (1)

21. GS1160

22. RD040 (675mm)

23. RD250

24. RD270

25. ST080, ST100

26. ST160

27. Application is to be made to Council's Engineering Division

for the construction of a driveway crossing and removal of

the existing street tree.

FURTHER, THAT the objector be notified of Council's decision."

A detailed report was issued to Ward Councillors, including the height of the ridge line being 8.05m above natural ground level. At the time of writing this report, no responses had been received.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1 TONITTO AVENUE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD)
WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORT
(Report by Secretary to Divisional Manager - Development & Health, Mrs L Stephens)

06.01 Recommendation 1 TONITTO AVENUE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD)
WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORT
(Report by Secretary to Divisional Manager - Development & Health, Mrs L Stephens)

RECOMMENDATION

The matter is submitted for determination by Council.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.02 2 VIVIENNE STREET, KINGSGROVE (HV WARD) Garage and Carport Addition, Porch Enclosure
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr R Verrelli)

Applicant

: J Abihanna (BA 5/95)

Proposed

: Garage and carport addition, porch enclosure

Referred for

: Variation to Clause 57(2)(c) of the Local Government

(Approvals) Regulation 1993, to allow wall of dwelling

to stand closer than 900mm from the boundary.

The site the subject of this application is located in Development Area B, on the northern side of Vivienne Street.

It is proposed to erect a garage and carport, attached to the western side of the existing dwelling, and enclose the front porch. As a result of the addition, the attached garage will stand 300mm from the side boundary. Under Clause 57(2)(c) of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, the garage wall is required to stand 900mm from the boundary line unless the wall does not contain windows and the Council:

(i) is satisfied, in the case of a single class 1 building, that

compliance would be impracticable because of the levels

or width of the allotment or other exceptional conditions of

the site; and

(ii) permits, by resolution in the individual case, the erection of

a wall or part of a wall at a lesser distance from the boundary

line of the allotment.

The garage wall does not contain windows and is of masonry construction.

The subject allotment is irregular in shape with a frontage of 14.3m and a site area of 417 square metres. No access to the rear yard is available, as it is developed with an inground swimming pool. There are similar garages in the street, one directly adjoining the eastern boundary of the site.

No objections were received for the proposal and the building complies with the fire resistance requirements of C1.9 of the Building Code of Australia. The additions also comply with the objectives of Council's Residential Development Control Plan.

Comments

In support of the application, the owner has indicated it is essential that they have a lock-up garage to house their motor vehicle and tools of trade. Due to the shape of the block, the location of the existing dwelling and pool, it would be impracticable to locate the garage elsewhere to comply with the required 900mm setback from the side boundary.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 2 VIVIENNE STREET, KINGSGROVE (HV WARD) Garage and Carport Addition, Porch Enclosure
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr R Verrelli)

06.02 Recommendation 2 VIVIENNE STREET, KINGSGROVE (HV WARD) Garage and Carport Addition, Porch Enclosure
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr R Verrelli)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.03 83 VICTORIA AVENUE, PENSHURST (PNS WARD) Detached Double Carport
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: A D Drafting Services (BA 134/95)

Proposed

: Detached Double Carport

Referred for

: Consideration of objection from adjoining property

owner.

The subject land is located on the southern side of Victoria Avenue, four (4) doors opposite and north of the intersection with Cross Street, in Development Area C. The land has a fall to the street.

The site is currently developed with a two (2) storey dwelling, set back 6m from the front boundary, with clearances of 1.9m and 4.4m from the northern and southern side boundaries respectively.

The site is also developed with two (2) detached outbuildings in the rear yard area.

The application involves the construction of a detached carport 11m long x 3.1m wide x 2.4m high, to be located between the existing dwelling and the southern side boundary, with clearances of 700mm between same.

The adjoining property owners have been notified, in accordance with Council's Policy, and a letter of comment has been received from the southern side adjoining property owner (No 85 Victoria Avenue).

The grounds for objection are:-

(a) Does not indicate the position of the downpipe and is concerned

about stormwater runoff.

Response

: The applicant has advised that the downpipe is to

located at the front of the proposed carport and will discharge

to the street gutter.

(b) The number of steel posts (six each side) would be unsightly.

Response

: The steel posts are 50mm wide at 2m centres, which

is unlikely to be considered unsightly.

Response

: There is a clearance of 3m between the north facing

wall of No 85 and the proposed structure which, considering the

height of the carport (i.e. 2.4m), is unlikely to cause any additional

overshadowing than that currently being experienced in respect of

the existing two storey dwelling on the subject land.

In summary, the grounds for the objection are not considered to be sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application.

Comment

The proposed carport complies with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, the Residential Development Control Plan and the Building Code of Australia.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 83 VICTORIA AVENUE, PENSHURST (PNS WARD) Detached Double Carport
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.03 Recommendation 83 VICTORIA AVENUE, PENSHURST (PNS WARD) Detached Double Carport
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.04 84 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (PNS WARD) Rear Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: Mr J McHugh (BA 98/95)

Proposed

: Rear extension to existing dwelling

Referred for

: Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

The application involves the construction of a timber framed extension with a metal skillion roof, to the rear of the existing dwelling.

The site is located on the northern side of Jersey Avenue, one (1) door west of the intersection with Junction Road, in Development Area B. Land fall is to the street.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: All residential developments in Development

Area B must provide a minimum of 50% of total site area as

landscaped open space.

Description of Non-compliance

: The applicant has provided 49% of the site area as landscaped open space.

The following points should be noted:-

(a) There have been no responses received from the adjoining

property owners.

(b) Apart from the previously mentioned matter, the building

application complies with the requirements of the Local

Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, the Building Code

of Australia and the Residential Development Control Plan.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 84 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (PNS WARD) Rear Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.04 Recommendation 84 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (PNS WARD) Rear Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.05
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.05 19 LANSDOWNE PARADE, OATLEY (PK WARD) First Floor Addition and Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: Mr C & Mrs H Healey (BA 67/95)

Proposed

: First Floor Addition and Extension to Existing Dwelling

Referred for

: Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

The application involves the construction of a first floor addition and a rear facing ground floor extension to the existing dwelling.

The site is located on the southern side of Lansdowne Parade, three (3) doors west of the intersection with Macken Street, in Development Area A. The site has a width of 15.24m.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: Where the proposed addition protrudes

beyond the Building Envelope, the maximum floor space ratio

must not exceed 0.4:1.

Description of Non-compliance

: The proposed addition and extension has a floor space ratio of 0.41:1, which is a marginal encroachment of eight (8) square metres over the maximum allowable floor area.

Requirement of Code

: Buildings must have a maximum straight

length of 6m to the street frontage.

Description of Non-compliance

: The north facing first floor wall is directly over the existing ground floor wall.

This is required in order to reduce the cost of structural support of the first floor addition.

The following points should be noted:-

(a) The proposed extensions have been designed to be consistent

with the architectural style of the existing dwelling.

(b) There have been no responses from the adjoining property owners.

complies with the requirements of the Local Government

(Approvals) Regulation 1993, the Building Code of Australia and

the Residential Development Control Plan.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.05
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 19 LANSDOWNE PARADE, OATLEY (PK WARD) First Floor Addition and Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.05 Recommendation 19 LANSDOWNE PARADE, OATLEY (PK WARD) First Floor Addition and Extension to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.06
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.06 6 AKOONAH PLACE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) First Floor Addition
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: Mr & Mrs B Attard (BA 81/95)

Proposed

: First Floor Addition

Referred for

: Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

The application involves the construction of a first floor addition over the existing dwelling.

The site is located in Development Area A, on the eastern end of the cul-de-sac, is splayed in shape, and has a fall to the street.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: Driveways must not occupy more than

40% of the frontage.

Description of Non-compliance

: Due to the splayed shape of the block, the width of the street frontage is 6m, of which about 60% is used as a driveway.

The following points should be noted:-

(a) There have been no responses received from the adjoining property

owners.

(b) With the exception of the previously mentioned matter, the Building

Application complies with the requirements of the Local Government

(Approvals) Regulation 1993, the Building Code of Australia and

the Residential Development Control Plan.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.06
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 6 AKOONAH PLACE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) First Floor Addition
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.06 Recommendation 6 AKOONAH PLACE, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) First Floor Addition
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.07
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.07 19H ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Two (2) Storey Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: Masterton Homes Pty Ltd (BA 87/95)

Proposed

: Two (2) Storey Dwelling

Referred for

: (a) Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

(b) Letter of comment from adjoining property owners.

The application involves the erection of a new two (2) storey dwelling of brick veneer construction with a tile roof, with clearances of 6.6m and 1.5m from the northern and southern side boundaries respectively.

The site is located in Development Area A on the western side of Elwin Street, eleven (11) doors south of the intersection with Clarendon Road. The site is a battle axe shaped block, 17.68m wide, with a fall to the southern side boundary.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: The proposed building must be designed

to comply with the Building Envelope.

Description of Non-compliance

: The southern section of the first floor encroaches on the Building Envelope due to the following:-

(a) The fall of the site to the southern side boundary (i.e. 11%).

(b) Provision of a clearance of 6.6m in order to provide

vehicular access to the attached garage.

A relocation towards the northern side boundary may still cause an encroachment of the Envelope, would create problems with vehicular access and would serve no practical purpose.

The adjoining property owners have been notified and a letter has been received from the owners of No 21 Elwin Street (southern side adjoining) in relation to the disposal of stormwaters.

The applicant has advised that the stormwaters will discharge into the one (1) metre wide drainage easement located along the northern part of the site which discharges to Salt Pan Creek.

The following points should be noted:-

(a) The proposed dwelling complies with the requirements of the Local

Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, the Building Code of

Australia and all other aspects of the Residential Development Control

Plan.

(b) Apart from the previously mentioned matter, there have been no

responses received from the other adjoining property owners.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.07
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 19H ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Two (2) Storey Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.07 Recommendation 19H ELWIN STREET, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Two (2) Storey Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.08
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.08 130 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (PK WARD) Rear Dwelling Additions
(Report by Acting Manager - Building Services, Mr G Deehan)

Applicant

: R B Sheahan (BA 66/95)

Proposed

: Rear Dwelling Additions

Referred for

: (a) Consideration of external wall of an attached garage

to within 400mm of a side boundary.

(b) Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

The subject premises are situated on the western side of Myall Street, four (4) doors from Gungah Bay. Under Council's Residential Development Control Plan, the area in which the site is located is Development Area A.

Existing on the land is a single storey brick dwelling, and some 3.5m to the rear is a detached brick garage standing 400mm off the northern boundary. There are no windows constructed in the northern wall of the garage.

The building application involves the erection of brick additions at the rear of the dwelling. The additions will extend to the existing garage, resulting in this structure being incorporated under the main roof of the dwelling.

Under Clause 57(1)(b) and (2) of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, where a garage is attached to a Class 1 dwelling, the external wall of that garage is taken to be the external wall of the dwelling and is required to be not less than 900mm from the boundary line.

Section 82 of the Local Government Act 1993 makes provision for an applicant to lodge an objection against the provisions of certain building regulations, and for Council to set aside those regulations if it considers the objection is well founded and the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives is obtained.

The applicant has submitted an objection in writing dated 21st March, 1995, to the provisions of Clause 57(2) on the following grounds:-

"1) Our neighbour, 132 Myall St, has a fully attached garage

directly on our boundary. The house was built just
11 years ago.

2) Our garage has existed in its present position for 45
years, and we are not proposing to alter it's (sic) position.

3) Our neighbours have lodged no objection whatsoever.

4) We are improving the quality of the garage by replacing
the flat roof with a pitched, tiled roof. We also believe the
appearance of the garage will be greatly improved.

5) There are no windows on the north, or boundary
side of the garage.

6) We have 4 children, and own a Toyota Tarago. For the
next 15-20 years we intend owning a large family sized
car, which currently does not even fit into the existing
garage because of the low roof. Repositioning the wall
would make the garage virtually useless for storing a
car in.

7) Repositioning the garage further back on the block is
out of the question, as the current structure sits on a
large rock ledge, and existing levels preclude moving
it backwards."

In this instance, it is considered the grounds for objection are well founded and that Council should support the objection.

It is also pointed out that the construction of the northern wall of the subject garage in solid brickwork ensures the fire separation required under Specification C1.9 of the Building Code of Australia is achieved.

The application has been assessed under Council's Residential Development Control Plan and does not comply in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: Windows must have decorative elements.

Description of Non-compliance

: The new windows will match the existing windows.

Requirement of Code

: Windows within 9m of an adjoining premises

must be offset by a minimum of 1m for visual privacy.

Description of Non-compliance

: The new window in question is situated in the new section of the northern wall between the existing garage and existing dwelling. It is pointed out that, having regard to the length of wall involved (i.e. 3.5m), there is no alternative location for this window fixture.

Requirement of Code

: Insulation having a minimum R2

must be provided to the roof cavity areas.

Description of Non-compliance

: A condition will be imposed on the approval, if granted, requiring the installation of some form of insulating material in the roof space.

The adjoining property owners have been notified of the proposal and no responses have been received.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.08
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 130 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (PK WARD) Rear Dwelling Additions
(Report by Acting Manager - Building Services, Mr G Deehan)

06.08 Recommendation 130 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (PK WARD) Rear Dwelling Additions
(Report by Acting Manager - Building Services, Mr G Deehan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.09
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.09 31 BELMORE ROAD, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Extensions to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

Applicant

: Mr B Martin (BA 1048/94)

Proposed

: Extensions to Existing Dwelling

Referred for

: (a) Consideration of encroachment of Foreshore

Building Line (FSBL)

(b) Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan

The subject land is a battle-axe shaped block located seven (7) doors north of the intersection with Forest Road, in Development Area A, and has a fall away from the street.

The site is developed with an existing three (3) storey brick veneer dwelling, with a tile roof, with a setback of 6m from the front (eastern) boundary and a clearance of 2.2m from the northern side boundary.

The existing dwelling also includes a substantial unroofed rear facing ground floor deck that encroaches by up to 3m onto the Foreshore Building Line affecting the property.

The application involves the following:-

(a) The construction of two (2) attached carports to the eastern and

southern sides of the existing dwelling.

(b) The erection of a two (2) storey extension to the rear (north-western)

of the existing dwelling.

deck.

The proposed extension has increased the floor space to 0.34:1 (in lieu of 0.26:1) and provides a total landscape area of 0.58.

The adjoining property owners have been notified, in accordance with Council's Policy, and no responses have been received.

Report by Manager - Planning Services

: (in relation to the encroachment of the Foreshore Building Line)

"The proposed decking and part of the roof covering the dwelling will encroach the FBL.

No objection is made as it will not impinge on the adjoining residents and will enhance the rear section of the existing dwelling."

The proposed extensions do not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: Must comply with the Building Envelope.

Description of Non-compliance

: The roof of the proposed attached carport, adjoining the southern side boundary, encroaches on the Building Envelope due to the fall of the site.

Requirement of Code

: The proposal must provide an unshaded

northern elevation and a protected western elevation.

Description of Non-compliance

: The rear facing north-west and south-west facing windows of the proposed dining room.

(i) The north-west facing window will be shaded by the

dwelling on the northern side adjoining.

(ii) The south-west facing window will be shaded by the eaves

and gutter of the roof line.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.09
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 31 BELMORE ROAD, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Extensions to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

06.09 Recommendation 31 BELMORE ROAD, PEAKHURST (PK WARD) Extensions to Existing Dwelling
(Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr C Donnellan)

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.10
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.10 HURSTVILLE AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE - Request for Amendment of Approval Granted

Applicant

: Hurstville City Council (BA 263/94)

Referred for

: Request for amendment of approval granted to allow for

partial dispensation to Clause E1.4(a) of the Building

Code of Australia.

Council has received a request, from the applicant for approval to erect the above structure, that the approval granted be amended to allow for partial dispensation to Clause E1.4(a) of the Building Code of Australia. This Clause requires, inter alia, that the whole of the building be serviced by hose reels. Under the proposal submitted by the applicant, three small areas of the building will not be serviced. These comprise an area in each of the male and female shower facilities and the furthest corner of the "Non Sports Hall".

This request is considered to be reasonable.

Under the provisions of Clause 44(4) of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, Council may exempt a building from compliance with Part E1 of the Building Code of Australia, subject to a report from the Director-General of the New South Wales Fire Brigades.

Correspondence was sent to the Brigades seeking such a report. A reply was received on 13th February, 1995 advising that an exemption to the installation of one internal hose reel should be granted, subject to the installation of a water type extinguisher in lieu of the hose reel.

The content of the report is supported.

Under Section 106(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council may amend an approval if:

(a) it is satisfied that the approval as amended will be substantially the

same as the original approval; and

(b) it is satisfied that no prejudice will be caused to any person who

made a submission concerning the application for the original

approval; and

to the original approval was required to be obtained and the

person or authority has not, within 21 days after being consulted,

objected to the amendment of the original approval.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.10
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation HURSTVILLE AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE - Request for Amendment of Approval Granted

06.10 Recommendation HURSTVILLE AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE - Request for Amendment of Approval Granted

RECOMMENDATION

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.11
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.11 DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS DOG

The content of this report was considered by Council at its meeting on 15th March, 1995, when it resolved as follows:-

"1. THAT subject to appropriate considerations being given

to any representation made to Council by the owner of

the dog, the following dog be declared by Council to

be a dangerous dog pursuant to Section 9D of the

Dog (Amendment) Act 1993.

(a) Brown and white Staffordshire Bull Terrier, male,

born 6/12/93, registered number 2994 of '95 to

Rebecca Wright, 30 Samuel Street, Peakhurst.

2. THAT the owner of the dog be advised of any declaration

made by Council in accordance with the provisions of

Section 9H of the Dog (Amendment) Act 1993."

Under the Dog (Amendment) Act 1993, Council is required to implement its resolution within seven (7) days of determination. This action was not implemented due to the leave of absence of the Manager - Environmental Services. Accordingly the report is resubmitted to Council to enable implementation of the action recommended.

The information previously submitted to Council is reproduced below for the information of Councillors.

"By way of letter dated 2nd February, 1995 the owner of a dog at 30 Samuel Street, Peakhurst was asked to show cause why the dog, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, male, 13 months old, should not be declared a dangerous dog.

At 9 am on 12th January, 1995 this dog attacked and savaged a resident in Samuel Street, Peakhurst. This person required medical treatment as a result of this attack.

When Council's Impounding Officer and two Police Officers from Riverwood attended this address, this dog also attacked them.

The Dog (Amendment) Act 1993 and the Crimes (Dogs) Amendment Act 1993 provide powers for Council to declare a dog 'dangerous' if it has:

* attacked a person or animal without provocation on any

place (including the place where it is ordinarily kept)

* repeatedly threatened to attack, or repeatedly chased a

person or animal without provocation on any place.

The responsibilities of the owners of a dangerous dog include:

(a) ensure that the dog is effectively controlled or restrained

on the premises where it is kept,

(b) ensure that warning signs are displayed on the premises

where the dog is kept,

(c) ensure that the dog is always on a leash and under the

effective control of a competent person when away

from the premises at which it is ordinarily kept,

(d) specific measures (a), (b) and (c) must be observed when

the dog is temporarily kept at other premises,

(e) ensure that any person who assumes ownership of the dog

is informed of the declaration in force and the consequences

of such declaration,

(f) the owner of the dog is to inform the Council of certain

events including:

* any attacks on persons or animals

* that the dog cannot be located

* that the dog has died

* that ownership has changed

* that the dog is no longer being kept in the area

of the Council

* that the dog is being ordinarily kept at a different

location in the area of the Council

(g) the owner of the dog is to advise the Council of another

area, if it is intended to keep the dog at premises within

the area of that Council.

In addition to the foregoing, a magistrate will have the power to impose any additional controls (such as muzzling) on a dangerous dog. This will include destruction of the dog, if necessary.

It is the opinion of Council's Senior Ordinance Officer and the contract dog catcher that this dog is dangerous and should be declared as such.

A report will be given to the Committee of any representation made to Council by the owner of the dog.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.11
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS DOG

06.11 Recommendation DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS DOG

RECOMMENDATION

Divisional Manager - Development & Health

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.12A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

SECTION 2

ADDENDUM

06.12A 2 BOWMAN STREET, MORTDALE (PK WARD) Reconsideration of amount of Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee payable.

Applicant

: Mr J Kotevski (BA 32/95)

Proposed

: Two (2) Storey Dwelling and Outbuilding

Referred for

: Reconsideration of amount of Cash Bond or Bank

Guarantee payable.

At its meeting held on 15th March, 1995, Council considered a report on the above building application and resolved -

"THAT the recommendations of the Divisional Manager -

Development and Health be adopted."

Item 2 of the recommendation is provided below:-

"2. THAT Council allow the occupation of the proposed

outbuilding during the construction of the new dwelling

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The term of occupation of the cabana is to

be limited to a period of twelve months, or

completion of the dwelling, whichever is the

sooner.

(ii) The lodgement of a non-terminating bank

guarantee or cash bond to the value of

$10,000 as security against the separate

occupation of the cabana beyond the

approved period."

Council has been informed that correspondence will be submitted by the applicant again requesting that the value of the Bank Guarantee required by Council be reduced to $5,000. A copy of the applicant's correspondence will be provided to Councillors when it is received.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993, an applicant may request the Council to review a determination of the applicant's application within 28 days after the date of determination.

Council maintains a register of Bank Guarantees and cash bonds required as security for the execution of various activities.

With respect to security against temporary occupation or demolition of old premises on completion of new, nineteen (19) Bank Guarantees, or cash bonds, have been required since 1988.

Of these, seven (7) have been Bank Guarantees to the value of $10,000, eight (8) have been Bank Guarantees to the value of $5,000 and four (4) cash bonds of $5,000.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.12
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 2 BOWMAN STREET, MORTDALE (PK WARD) Reconsideration of amount of Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee Payable

06.12 Recommendation 2 BOWMAN STREET, MORTDALE (PK WARD) Reconsideration of amount of Cash Bond or Bank Guarantee Payable

RECOMMENDATION

Submitted for the consideration of Council.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 06.13A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.13A 3 GUNGAH BAY ROAD, OATLEY (PK WARD) Review of determination of Building Application

Applicant

: N & J Betson (BA 875/94)

Proposed

: Two Storey Dwelling

Referred for: Review of determination of Building Application

At its meeting held on 15th March, 1995 Council considered a report on the above application and determined, inter alia, that "the setback from the street boundary must not be less than 8.0m to comply with Council's objectives for building setbacks".

The text of the report considered by Council is provided below:-

"Referred for

: Non-compliance with Council's Residential

Development Control Plan.

The site is located on the eastern side of Gungah Bay Road, two (2) doors from the corner of Roberts Avenue, in Development Area A.

It is proposed to demolish the existing residence and construct a new two storey dwelling. Construction will comprise of external brick walls and a pitched tile roof.

The building design does not comply with Council's Residential Development Control Plan in the following respects:-

Requirement of Code

: The setback from the street

boundary must not be less than 8.0m.

Description of Non-compliance

: The 12.0m setback of adjacent development means that the minimum setback permitted is 8.0m. The applicant proposes a 6.0m setback.

The applicant in a letter to Council has stated that:-

"The proposed new residence is set back from the street 6m. It is understood that the code will allow a setback of no less than 8m, however, we request to vary this setback due to the Owners' desire to preserve outdoor recreation area and existing landscape to the rear of the property. It is the intention of the Owners to provide for a pool and recreation area to the rear of the property at a later date. A front setback of 8m would restrict the Owners in future use of the land to the rear of the dwelling and may require the removal of substantial existing landscape.

We would note that there exists residences in Gungah Bay Road with front setbacks of as little as 6m and we would suggest that a setback of 6m on this property would not jeopardise Council's objectives to "provide adequate space for landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, sunlight penetration, safety requirements and for the establishment of an attractive streetscape."

The site has an overall length of 50.56m and an 8.0m setback will provide a clearance of 23.66m to the rear boundary. The rear of the proposed dwelling will be located forward of the rear of the existing dwelling. Therefore, it is not agreed that the 8.0m setback requires the removal of substantial existing landscaping. For these reasons, the 6.0m setback proposed cannot be supported. The rear area of the existing dwelling is smaller than the rear area of the proposed dwelling so any restriction on use would presently exist and would not be imposed by the proposal.

The application for the swimming pool has recently been submitted and the location of the pool may need to be altered if the dwelling is approved with an 8.0m setback. Preliminary examination of the application does not reveal any problems in relocating the pool.

Requirement of Code

: Windows within 9.0m of a habitable room of an adjacent dwelling must be offset by a minimum

of 1.0m or adequately screened.

Description of Non-compliance

: The meals room window is

within 9.0m of the habitable room of an adjacent dwelling. The

position of the meals room window is an important feature of

the residence, as being on the northern elevation it allows sunlight penetration to the meals area, kitchen and family room.

In order to provide visual privacy, the applicant proposes to screen the meals room window with lattice and appropriate landscaping.

Requirement of Code

: Landscaped areas must not

include more than 20% of impervious surfaces.

Description of Non-compliance

: The ability to meet this requirement is prevented by the existing driveway serving the garage at the rear of the premises.

The application has been notified to adjoining landowners and no written submissions have been received."

The applicant for approval has subsequently written to Council. An extract of the correspondence is provided below:-

"We refer to the recent building approval letter dated the 22nd of March 1995, specifically Clause 26, referring to the set back not being approved for the requested 6m.

The average set back of houses facing Gungah Bay Rd, is between 4.5m and 6m. We specifically refer to new developments at N.81, 83 and 85 where the set back is at 4.5m from Gungah Bay Rd.

At the Council Meeting on the 15th of March, during which our building application was discussed and approved, Clr Bailey, the Development, Health and Planning Committee member for Peakhurst Ward, expressed her view that a setback of '12m was ridiculous, 8m was excessive' and recommended 'a set back of 6m'. And when no objections to this was raised, we thought that this would be the basis for the Council approval.

A set back of 6m is essential for our proposed usage of our land, incorporating the existing structures and extensive landscaping and both the proposed swimming pool and house. Following the nature of set back predominant in our street and the lack of objection from the neighbouring properties, we thereby seek the Council's assistance by reviewing Clause 26 of the determination prior or at the forthcoming Council meeting."

In accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993, an applicant may request the Council to review a determination of the applicant's application, provided the request is made within 28 days after the date of the determination.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: 06.13
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 3 GUNGAH BAY ROAD, OATLEY (PK WARD) Review of determination of Building Application

06.13 Recommendation 3 GUNGAH BAY ROAD, OATLEY (PK WARD) Review of determination of Building Application

RECOMMENDATION

Divisional Manager - Development & Health