HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________
SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 96 02 21ST FEBRUARY, 1996-
05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward
05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward
05:03.01 34-38 Martin Place, Mortdale (233/95)
18 X 2 Bedroom Units
05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward
05:04.01 8 Eldon Street, Riverwood (244/95)
Detached Dual Dwelling
05:04.02 12 & 14 Yarran Road, Oatley (238/95 And 239/95)
Multiple Dwellings (Amended)
05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters
05:05.01 Development Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority
05:05.02 Development Applications Received 1 January To 9 February, 1996
05:05.02 Development And Health - Section One Report
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 96 02 21ST FEBRUARY, 1996-
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 96 02 21ST FEBRUARY, 1996-
The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE
Dear Sir,
Hereunder is my report No.01 to be submitted to the DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING Committee:-
05.01 WARD COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.03.01 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (233/95)
18 X 2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)
- Applicant : Robert Matar
Proposal : 18 X 2 BEDROOM UNITS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : Mr. Howle, Mr. & Mrs. Slater, Mr. & Mrs. Warren
Existing Development : Single Dwellings
Cost of Development : $1,575,000
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Application was originally lodged under Council's repealed code for 21 x 2 bedroom units.
2. Amended plans for 18 x 2 bedroom units with basement parking.
3. Encroachment to front setback but otherwise generally complies with Council's repealed RDCP.
4. One (1) objection received.
5. Recommendation - Approval.
Existing and Surrounding Development
The site is situated on the corner of Martin Place and The Strand, one block from the Mortdale Shopping area in Morts Road. It slopes to the rear and is currently developed by way of one fibro cottage, one weatherboard dwelling and one brick dwelling. A number of trees are present on the site, these being a Jacaranda, Crepe Myrtle, Liquid Amber, Camphor Laurel and Gum. These will all need to be removed.
The properties adjoining the rear boundary, the western side boundary and across the road are all developed by units. The only exceptions are the properties across The Strand, being Nos. 30 and 32 Martin Place. They have single dwellings on them.
This area of Mortdale was zoned for units under Council's previous Planning Scheme Ordinance, 1980, and therefore there is a variety of existing two and three storey residential flat buildings in the immediate area.
History
| 6/6/95 | Development application for 21 x 2 bedroom units lodged with Council officers. |
| 3/7/95 | Applicant advised that Council repealed the RDCP. |
| 4/7/95 | Amended plans for 21 x 2 bedroom units lodged with Council officers. |
| 23/8/95 | Preliminary Assessment of application made. Applicant advised the application is considered an overdevelopment. |
| 27/9/95 | Applicant further advised to reduce the number of units, increase the provision of deep landscaping and increase the setbacks. This was confirmed in a letter dated 28/9/95. |
| 24/11/95 | Amended plans for 18 x 2 bedroom units was received. |
| 27/11/95 | Preliminary assessment undertaken. |
| 5/12/95 - 29/12/95 | Adjoining owners notified and advertisement placed in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader". |
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 under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's repealed Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and Council's Interim Residential Code 1995, with its subsequent amendments.
Proposed Development
The amended proposal is for the establishment of two (2) three storey residential flat buildings with 18 x 2 bedroom units and basement parking.
Vehicular access is from The Strand and enters the basement garage via a ramp parallel to the rear boundary. Due to the slope of the site, the basement at the rear of the site will extend 0.6 to 0.8 metres above natural ground level.
The design will comprise of two buildings slightly offset, with mirror reversed floor plans. They will be separated by 5.7 metres for the majority of the building, with the minimum separation being 3.0 metres between bedroom windows and kitchen walls.
Three units are on each floor of each building, with two per floor from each building fronting Martin Place and one per floor at the rear of each building. Bedrooms, bathrooms and laundries have been limited to the middle of the site to reduce the amount of internal overlooking. However, it still exists with three of the bedrooms per floor, so it is suggested that these windows be rearranged to alleviate this problem. Also, the internal ends of the balconies will need to be screened to ensure privacy.
Tabled Information
 | Proposed | Repealed DCP | Com | pliance | draft DCP |
| | | Rep | Dft | |
| Site Area | 1309.5 m2 | - | Yes | No | 1890.0 m2 |
| Density | 18 units | - | Yes | No | 12.5 units |
| Development Area "D" | | | | | |
| Building Height | 11.2 m | 12.0 m | Yes | Yes | 12.0 m |
| Private Open Space: | 14.0-19.6 m2 | 15.0 m2 ea | No | Yes | 12.0 m2 ea |
| Landscaped Area | 46% 604.0 m2 | 45% 589.0 m2 | Yes | Yes | 45% 589.0 m2 |
| Building Setbacks: Front - Martin Place The Strand | 3.0-4.7 m 1.775 m | 4.7 m min - | No Yes | No No | 6.0 m min 2.5 m min |
| Side/rear | 3.0-4.3/ 5.7 m | - / - | Yes/ Yes | No/ No | 7.0/ 6.0 m |
| Residential Parking | 18 | 18 | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Visitor Parking | 5 | 5 | Yes | Yes | 5 |
| Building Envelope - front | 5.5m/45o | 5.5m/45o | Yes | No | 1.5m/45o |
| Frontage | 36.575 m | - | Yes | Yes | 24.0 m |
Comment :
Breakdown of Landscaped Area - Council's repealed RDCP requires a minimum of 30% (176.2 square metres) of the landscaped area to be deep landscaping and Council's Interim Code requires 40% (235 square metres) to be deep landscaping. The applicant has provided 232.5 square metres (39%) which is greater than 3.0 metres in width, as well as a further 51.0 square metres at the rear, 53.8 square metres along the north-eastern side and 55.8 square metres along the south-western side which have dimensions less than 3.0 metres wide. Additional landscaping will be provided above the basement area.
Front Setback - Martin Place : Since the buildings are slightly offset, the front setbacks vary with the balconies being set back between 3.0 metres and 4.4 metres. The building's front walls are set back between 4.8 and 6.0 metres. The walls comply with the repealed code requirements of 4.7 metres but not the interim RDC requirements of 6.0 metres, however, the balconies do not comply with either requirements. Since the immediate area has units surrounding it is believed the minor encroachment to the front setback under the repealed code (between 0.3 and 1.7 metres) will not affect adjoining residents.
Manager, Building Services (South)
No objections were raised in relation to the amended plans, however a number of advisory notes are to be attached to ensure the proposal complies with the Building Code of Australia.
Manager, Development Advice
No objections were raised provided all stormwater drains to the kerb and gutter, drainage amplification is paid, appropriate conditions regarding crossings are adhered to and a 3 x 3 metre splay at the corner is registered.
Public Notification and Comment
The proposal was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was registered and their concerns are outlined below :
(i) Traffic along Martin Place has increased considerably over recent years, especially since the introduction of "one way" through the shopping area, Pitt Street and Macquarie Place.
Comment : It is true that traffic has increased due to the one way streets, however, the introduction of an eighteen (18) unit proposal will not compound any problems that may already be existing.
(ii) This development of eighteen (18) units is out of character with the usual six (6) to nine (9) unit buildings in the area.
Comment : The unit developments in the immediate area are a mixture of seven (7) units (at the rear) to twelve (12) units (at the rear and adjoining). The two developments across the road consist of nine (9) and eleven (11) units. Although all of these are less than the proposed eighteen (18) they are also built on one and two allotments, whereas the proposal is spread over three allotments thus allowing an extra unit capacity. There are other examples in Martin Place of fifteen and eighteen unit developments (at 41 and 47 Martin Place) and these extend over similar sized allotments to this proposal.
(iii) Can our resources (sewerage, water, garbage, etc.) cope with the influx of bigger unit constructions.
Comment : The applicant is required to pay drainage amplification fees to go towards Council's upgrading of stormwater pipelines. However, the area has been designated for unit developments for a number of years and it is believed that the resources can cope.
(iv) A "delightful federation brick cottage on the corner .... (is) well worth preserving for the benefit of retaining some character and historic value to Mortdale."
Comment : The property is not registered in Council's LEP or Heritage Study, 1988, as an historic dwelling. Therefore, the owners should be permitted to sell it any time they wish, especially since the area is designated for unit development.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (233/95)
18 X 2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)
. Recommendation 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (233/95)
18 X 2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. T. Christy)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent for the establishment of 18 x 2 bedroom units at Nos. 34-38 Martin Place, Mortdale, subject to the following conditions :
1. Compliance in all respects with Amended Drawing Nos 1-3 tables and documentation prepared by Quick Draw Drafting & Design dated May, 1995, and submitted with DA 233/95, except where amended by the conditions of consent.
2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.
3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.
4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.
The contribution is $64,845 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.
The contribution is $7,233 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.
The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $2,318 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.
8. All roof waters to be drained by gravity to a Council kerb and gutter and ground water plus basement garages to be "pumped" to a Council kerb and gutter.
9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by , the proposed units shall not exceed RL 45.45 at the main ridge line.
10. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.
11. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.
12. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.
13. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.
14. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.
15. All access driveways, queuing areas, ramps, gradients and the like for basement and ground level parking areas are to conform with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2890-1-1993 - Parking Facilities except where otherwise required by Council. Details are to be submitted with the Building Application for approval.
16. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m, except for disabled spaces which shall have minimum dimensions of 3.0m X 5.5m.
17. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.
18. All entry and exit points and one or two way circulation movements are to be clearly signposted to the satisfaction of Council.
19. Applicant to pay Council to :
a) Replace all redundant crossings with kerb and gutter
b) Construct a 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
c) Construct a 1.52 m wide by 80mm thick concrete footpath in Martin Place for the full width of the site and in The Strand for the full depth of the site.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.
20. The dedication to Council of a 3m x 3m splay to Martin Place and The Strand for the purpose of road widening. The dedication shall be registered prior to the issue of a Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.
21. Visitor spaces to be identified on strata plan and spaces to be suitably signposted on site using metal screw-on or rivet-on type signs.
22. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.1 metres for all areas traversed by cars. A minimum of 3.6 metres headroom shall be provided over all areas traversed by service vehicles.
23. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services.
Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.
24. A retaining edge of masonry or other approved barrier of a minimum height of 150 mm shall be erected around the landscaped areas to contain the soil and mulch material and to prevent the encroachment of motor vehicles.
25. Compliance with the requirements of Sydney Electricity in relation to the provision of a site within the subject land for the establishment of an electricity kiosk type substation, if required for the locality. Prior to submission of building plans, the developer shall present details of the development in writing to Sydney Electricity and obtain confirmation of that authority's requirements. The kiosk site shall be dedicated at the applicant's expense for use of Sydney Electricity.
26. Where a sub-station kiosk is required, such shall be suitably located and screened, and details of screening and location shall be submitted with the landscape plans and shall be to the satisfaction of Council.
27. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.
28. All plumbing and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.
29. Any trade waste containers are to be screened from public view and are not to obstruct or interfere with the use of loading and parking facilities and accessways. Such bins are to be stored within 12 metres from the front boundary. The structure housing the bins is to be designed to reflect the approved building. Details are to be submitted with the building plans.
30. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.
31. The north facing laundry and bathroom windows of the rear units are to be relocated with the north facing bedroom 1 window of the same unit, to alleviate privacy problems from internal overlooking. Details to be shown with the building application.
32. All internal facing bedroom windows must be offset by a minimum of 1.0 metre from the edge of the opposite window. Details are to be shown with the building application.
33. Planting is to be provided between the two buildings allowing a dense foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the internal problem of overlooking. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.
34. The internal facing ends of the front balconies are to be suitably screened to ensure the privacy of each unit. Details are to be shown with the building application.
ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION
A) Details fo the subsoil drainage system around the basement carparking level.
B) Structural details relating to the method of supporting Council's footways and public utility services under the footways along both Martin Place and The Strand during excavations of the basement carparking level.
C) Details of the ventilation to be provided in the basement carpark level to meet the requirements of Clause F4.5 of the Building Code of Australia.
Note : In the event that a mechanical ventilation system is provided to the carpark level, such system will be required to be dedicated for smoke control purposes under Part E2 of the Code.
In addition the smoke control and ventilation system will be required to be designed in such a manner that in the event of the air handling system for ventilation purposes being turned off, the system will continue to operate for smoke control purposes should a fire occur in the basement level.
D) Details of the smoke hazard management measures installed in the building to satisfy the mandatory performance requirements laid down in Clause E2.2(a) of the Building Code of Australia.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04.01 8 ELDON STREET, RIVERWOOD (244/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. I. Yap)
- Applicant : Simon Fan
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL DWELLING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "B"
Owners : Shi-Ping Yang & Fen Chen
Existing Development : Single Dwelling
Cost of Development : $50,000
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Construction of 1 x 3 bedroom villa at the rear - lodged with Council on 9 June, 1995.
2. Proposal requires the use of a pump out system for the proposed rear dwelling.
3. A pump-out system is proposed for the rear dwelling.
4. Two (2) submissions received, one for and one against the proposal.
5. Proposal complies with the objectives of Council's repealed RDCP 1994.
6. Recommendation - Approval.
Existing and Surrounding Development
The site currently has a single storey brick dwelling which is in satisfactory condition and is set back from the street front approximately 7.6 metres. The subject site is predominantly bounded by one to two storey residential buildings with the accommodation of a large two storey doctors surgery at the rear.
The land itself slopes 0.83 metres to the rear and 0.5 metres from east to west.
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 under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's repealed Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and Council's Multi Unit RDCP 1995.
Proposed Development
The proposal is for the erection of a single storey detached three bedroom dwelling at the rear of the site. Vehicular access for both dwellings is via a common 3.0 metre driveway (partly existing) along the eastern boundary. The applicant has submitted amended plans including a revised driveway layout which enables Council's requirement in relation to landscaped open space to be met.
A garage and a carspace stacked behind one another is now provided for the rear dwelling. The use of a carspace situated at the middle portion of the allotment is also provided for the existing dwelling. The disposal of stormwater for the proposed rear dwelling will be via a pump-out system.
Tabled Information
| Proposed | Repealed DCP | Com | pliance | draft DCP |
| | | Rep | Dft | |
| Site Area | 726.6 m2 | n/a | Yes | Yes | 630.0 m2 |
| Density | 2 | n/a | Yes | Yes | 2.3 |
| Development Area "B" | | | | | |
| Building Height | 4.5 m | 9.5 m | Yes | Yes | 9.0 m |
| Private Open Space: | 77.0-79.0 m2 | 60.0 m2 | Yes | Yes | 60.0 m2 |
| Landscaped Area | 366.70 m2 | 363.3 m2 | Yes | Yes | 326.97 m |
| Building Setbacks: Front | Existing | 7.57 m | Yes | Yes | 4.5 m |
| Side/rear | 0.9 m | 0.9 m | Yes | No | 1.35 m |
| Residential Parking | 3 | 3 | Yes | Yes | 3 |
| Building Envelope - front | 3.5 x 45o | 3.5 x 45o | Yes | Yes | 1.5 x 45o |
| - rear | 3.5 x 45o | 3.5 x 45o | Yes | Yes | 1.5 x 45o |
| Frontage | 13.105 m | n/a | Yes | No | 15.0 m |
Comment :
Repealed RDCP - The proposal complies with all requirements under the repealed RDCP.
Interim Residential Code - The proposal generally complies with the objectives of the draft Code except in two (2) instances :
(a) Side setback to the proposal is only 0.9 metres from both the eastern and western boundaries, whereas the Interim Code required 1.35 metres. The minor inconsistencies in this particular instance is considered acceptable due to reasons that the proposal was submitted when the repealed RDCP was in force and under the Local Government Act, 1993, a minimum of 900mm setback is required for a Class 1 building (such as this).
Street Frontage - The proposed site is 13.105 metres in width instead of the required 15.0 metres, however, it is to be noted that no minimum frontage was required under the repealed RDCP under which this application was originally lodged. Further to note, the building is only of a single storey development and previous approvals have been made for dual dwelling development on smaller allotments with only 10.71 metre street frontages, e.g., 108 Penshurst Street, Penshurst.
Manager, Building Services (South)
The proposal was referred to the appropriate building surveyor who raised no objections provided a building application is submitted and the ground levels external to the building are not raised.
Part of the finished ground levels of the proposed building is below the existing ground level and part of it submerged to a depth of approximately 0.15 metres. The 0.15 metres is considered, in this case, to be relatively low and will have minimal impact on adjoining residents.
Appropriate conditions will be applied upon consent for the applicant to submit a building application.
Manager, Development Advice
No objections were raised by the Manager, Development Advice provided that all stormwater drains by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Eldon Street or via a registered 1.0 metre wide drainage easement to the kerb and gutter in Cairns Street. Roofwaters from the existing dwelling may well drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Eldon Street but the remaining stormwater from the site cannot be disposed of in a 1.0 metre drainage easement to Cairns Street. The applicant has not approached the adjoining resident at the rear to obtain stormwater easement due to the fact that their land also slopes down from the street creating a small valley of running water along the back fences. In addition, the rear allotment also has a built structure which sits adjacent to its side boundary where an easement would be best situated. Major demolition and excavation work would result in accomplishing the 1.0 metre wide drainage easement. A drainage easement is therefore not warranted.
The applicant has proposed a pump out system instead for the erection of the rear dwelling on the subject site. This is believed to be the best option to enable stormwater disposal.
Public Notification and Comment
Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was registered and their concerns are outlined below :
(i) "The development of the new dwelling will give a close direct view from the front windows onto a large open patio area which is across the rear of our house and is in constant use."
Comment : Any consent granted for this development is subject to numerous conditions one of which is to provide screen planting along the eastern boundary to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining properties.
(ii) "It would also concern us if any building work on this new dwelling was to be carried out outside the normal building hours, particularly on a Sunday."
Comment : The conditions attached to the consent granted for this development states as follows :
"The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7.00 am and 5.00 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays."
Summary
The proposed dual occupancy at No. 8 Eldon Street, Riverwood will not impact upon the adjoining properties by way of privacy, noise or solar access. The applicant has endeavoured to comply with Council's standard requirement for single storey dwellings under the repealed and draft RDCP and the proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 8 ELDON STREET, RIVERWOOD (244/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. I. Yap)
. Recommendation 8 ELDON STREET, RIVERWOOD (244/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. I. Yap)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent for the establishment of a detached single storey dual occupancy at No. 8 Eldon Street, Riverwood, subject to the following conditions :
1. Compliance in all respects with Drawings, tables and documentation prepared by Simon Fan, dated June, 1995, received by Council on 31 October, 1995 and submitted with DA 244/95, except where amended by the conditions of consent.
2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.
3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.
4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.
The contribution is $2,119 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.
The contribution is $236 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.
The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,287 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.
8. All stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Eldon Street for the front dwelling and a pump-out system for the rear dwelling. Details are to be submitted at the building application stage.
9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by Simon Fan, the proposed dwelling shall not exceed RL 13.46 at the main ridge line.
10. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.
11. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.
12. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.
13. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.
14. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.
15. If the existing vehicular crossing is damaged during construction it shall be replaced with a 100mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.
16. Payment to Council for an additional garbage service on occupation of the new dwelling. For relief from the second garbage service the landowner shall signify, in writing, that one service is sufficient for the approved dual dwelling developments on the site and that there is no intention to seek approval for a subdivision of the lands by way of a strata subdivision or the like.
17. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services.
Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.
18. Perimeter planting along eastern boundaries shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining development. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.
19. Should the applicant wish to subdivide the subject dual dwelling at a later date, the relevant authorities are to be contacted regarding their requirements prior to laying any cables or services; Australian Gas Light Company, Telecom and the Sydney Water Board.
20. Provision is to be made for separate electricity and drainage services if a future subdivision application is to be made to Council.
21. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.
22. A street number shall be clearly displayed in a prominent location at the front of the premises at all times, and shall be affixed to the building before occupation.
23. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.
24. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04.02 12 & 14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (238/95 AND 239/95)
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (AMENDED)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)
- Applicant : Mr. P. Barry
Proposal : MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (AMENDED)
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "A"
Owners : Mr. P. Barry
Existing Development : Weatherboard and Fibro Cottages
Cost of Development : $1,020,000
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. 3 x 3 bedroom townhouses and 2 x 3 bedroom villa homes on each allotment.
2. Engineers and Building Surveyors raise no objection subject to conditions.
3. Council's Manager, Traffic and Transport raises no objection.
4. 386 written submissions and 277 signatures on petitions.
5. Recommendation - deferral for redesign.
The development application before Council seeks favourable consideration for the establishment of multiple dwellings upon Nos. 12 and 14 Yarran Road, Oatley.
History
The two original applications submitted to Council on 7 June, 1995 each proposed 4 x 3 bedroom townhouses and 2 x 3 bedroom villas. This proposal generally complied with the provisions of the repealed Residential DCP 1994. During mediation by Council officers, the applicant agreed to modify the proposal by reducing the density by two dwellings and altering the location of courtyards and the basement parking.
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 under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's repealed Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and amended Interim Residential Code 1995.
Resulting from concerns by Councillors of proposals submitted under the RDCP 1994 Council considered amending this plan to reflect current resident opinions. Council at its Meeting held on 17 July, 1995, resolved :
"THAT applications submitted to Council prior to 13 July, 1995 be considered according to their merit using Section 90 considerations and taking into account as heads of consideration both the plan in force when submitted and the draft Multi Unit Residential Development Control Plan - 1995 on display."
Furthermore, Council at its Meeting held on 19 July, 1995, included the provision of densities, i.e., 315 square metres and 105 square metres per dwellings/unit.
To this end the provisions above have been used to assess this proposal and the following report acknowledges this resolution.
The Proposal
The amended proposal incorporates two separate properties (12 and 14) to establish three (3) x 3 bedroom townhouses and two (2) x 3 bedroom single storey villa homes on each allotment.
No. 12
The subject site has an area of 1011 square metres with a street frontage of 20.115 metres and depth of 50.29 metres. From the street the land rises approximately 2.0 to 2.5 metres above the kerb level of Yarran Road with a slight rise in the middle of the site and slopes gradually to the rear. The northern corner between the existing dwelling and the street is occupied by a small grove of mature trees. The site is currently occupied by a single storey weatherboard and tiled roof cottage with fibro garage situated on the rear southern boundary.
The proposed buildings are to be situated in three locations detached from each other. Firstly two (2) townhouses are to be placed 6.0 metres from the street boundary vertically separated north/south resulting in an orientation to the streetscape. Main courtyards to each townhouse are located on the northern side delineated by matching fencing and further separated by a pathway 1.8 metres from the said northern boundary accessing the rear villas.
Each townhouse has an open ground floor plan north/south to maximise the provision of solar access. Townhouses 1 and 2 are clear from the southern boundary to No. 14 by 3.00 metres and 8.2 metres from the northern boundary with No. 10. Townhouse No. 3 is located centrally on the site, also having a north/south orientation with private courtyard on the southern and northern side of the site. The building stands 5.2 metres from the southern boundary and 6.0 metres from the northern boundary.
The rear two single storey villa homes are placed at the rear of the site separated vertically under one roof with a rear boundary setback at 3.0 metres and southern and northern boundary clearance of 3.0 and 4.0 metres.
Parking for the proposal is at basement level utilising the difference in grades from kerb level and natural ground level extending 30.0 metres to the middle of the site. Double garages are provided for each occupancy with pedestrian access from the basement to ground level on the north-east and western ends.
No. 14
This proposal, to an extent, is a mirror image of No. 12 on 1011 square metres of site area introducing the same building form except for the relocation of the main pedestrian entry and rear access corridor for residents to the southern side of the property.
The applicant has placed the rear two villa homes in a similar location, i.e., 3.0 metres off the rear boundary and 3.0 to 4.0 metres from the southern and northern boundaries. However, the townhouses observe an increased setback of 8.2 metres (townhouses 1 and 2) and 6.0 metres (townhouse 3) from the common southern boundary to No. 16 Yarran Road. The primary courtyards to these townhouses are located on the southern side with the secondary courtyard on the north.
The basement carpark is adjacent to the basement carpark proposed for No. 12 so as to keep any excavation towards the middle of No. 12 and 14 and away from adjoining residents.
Tabled Information - No. 12 Yarran Road
| Proposed | Repealed DCP | Com | pliance | draft DCP |
| | | Rep | Dft | |
| Site Area | 1011.0 m2 | - | - | No | 1575.0 m2 |
| Density | 5 | - | - | No | 3.2 |
| Development Area "A" | | | | | |
| Building Height | 8.9 m | 9.5 m | Yes | Yes | 9.0 m |
| Private Open Space: | 431.32 m2 | 350.0 m2 | Yes | No | 500.0 m2 |
| Landscaped Area | 590.0 m2 | 55% 556.0 m2 | Yes | Yes | 55% 556.0 m2 |
| Building Setbacks: Front | 6.0 m | 4.5 m | Yes | Yes | 4.5 m |
| Side/rear | 3.0/3.0 m | n/a | Yes | Yes | 2.0/2.0 m |
| Residential Parking | 10 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 10 |
| Visitor Parking | 2 | 2 | Yes | Yes | 2 |
| Building Envelope - side | 3.5m/45o | 3.5m/45o | Yes | No | 1.5m/45o |
| - rear | 3.5m/45o | 3.5m/45o | Yes | No | 1.5m/45o |
| Frontage | 20.115 m | n/a | Yes | Yes | 15.0 m |
Tabled Information - No. 14 Yarran Road
| Proposed | Repealed DCP | Com | pliance | draft DCP |
| | | Rep | Dft | |
| Site Area | 1011.0 m2 | - | - | No | 1575.0 m2 |
| Density | 5 | - | - | No | 3.2 |
| Development Area "A" | | | | | |
| Building Height | 9.0 m | 9.5 m | Yes | Yes | 9.0 m |
| Private Open Space: | 431.0 m2 | 350.0 m2 | Yes | No | 500.0 m2 |
| Landscaped Area | 590.0 m2 | 55% 556.0 m2 | Yes | Yes | 55% 556.0 m2 |
| Building Setbacks: Front | 6.0 m | 4.5 m | Yes | Yes | 4.5 m |
| Side/rear | 3.0/3.0 m | n/a | Yes | Yes | 2.0/2.0 m |
| Residential Parking | 10 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 10 |
| Visitor Parking | 2 | 2 | Yes | Yes | 2 |
| Building Envelope - side | 3.5m/45o | 3.5m/45o | Yes | No | 1.5m/45o |
| - rear | 3.5m/45o | 3.5m/45o | Yes | No | 1.5m/45o |
| Frontage | 20.115 m | n/a | Yes | Yes | 15.0 m |
Repealed DCP 1994
This application was submitted under the provisions of the repealed DCP. As the above tables suggest both applications complied with the said DCP.
Interim Code 1995
As acknowledged earlier in the report the applicant has amended the proposal and the following comments relate to its compliance with the Interim Residential Code.
Development Area "A" - objective, encourage development which :
* "is in the form of detached houses;
* is compatible with the scale and character of the existing detached housing;
* has a high proportion of natural ground surface to maximise natural surface drainage and tree planting."
Comment : The proposal, although comprising of a number of attached units the overall proposal consists of three (3) large detached dwellings.
1. Building Height and Form - objectives :
"To ensure new development is compatible with the existing in bulk and scale, the control of dwelling height and form will be achieved by the use of a building envelope which controls the building height, side and rear setbacks."
Comment : The surrounding area and street is dominated by single storey dwellings with the exception of a number of first floor additions and new two storey dwellings generally on the eastern side of Yarran Road.
The code does not prohibit two storey development and indeed acknowledges that two storey dwellings are a standard and accepted building form. The two proposals reflect a modern federation form with a combination hip and gable roof. To ensure that any building form and height is controlled the code introduces a building envelope which permits only eaves and gutters to encroach by 450mm. The proposal complies with this provision with the exception of a small section of roof ridge on the villa homes.
2. Private Open Space - objectives :
"Private Open Space must meet user requirements for privacy, access, outdoor activities and landscaping. Each dwelling must provide open space, or private courtyard area, which has direct private access from the dwelling. The location of the private open space must take into account factors such as solar access, outlook, privacy, and the location of adjoining dwellings."
Comment : The provision of courtyard area can be physically located in two sections. The code allows a primary and secondary allocation of private area having direct access to main living areas. The applicant has provided a range of areas totalling from 80.0 to 100.0 square metres which complies with the minimum 3.0 metre dimension. The code requires 100.0 square metres for each three (3) bedroom dwelling. The proposal fails to meet this requirement for each villa home and townhouse Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Landscaped Area - objectives :
"To create a pleasant and safe living environment that is environmentally responsive."
Comment : Notwithstanding each courtyard's size, the proposal has provided landscaped and courtyard areas which are in response to the above objective and for the practical use of future occupants.
4. Development Form - objectives :
"To permit low density housing with minimal impact on existing residences and streetscape."
Comment : The proposal as it stands has a density of 202.0 square metres as opposed to the required 315.0 square metres. It is consider that the proposal is not low density.
General Development Controls
Site Planning
A critical part of residential redesign is "site planning" which establishes the attributes of a site and while maximising the site the applicant should ensure good relationship between buildings on site and adjoining properties.
The applicant has proposed three (3) dominant buildings on each site which generally provide for reasonable space between buildings. The combined buildings have been sited towards the centre of each allotment to minimise overshadowing to adjoining properties without compromising on solar access to private courtyards, especially for townhouses 1, 2 and 3 on No. 14.
Existing Landscaping
Both sites have a grove of established trees and shrubs forward of the existing dwellings. The middle and rear of each site is occupied by structures with no significant vegetation. It is envisaged that the two gum and maple trees situated on the north-eastern side of No. 12 will remain and form part of the improved landscape concept. However, the applicant will have to ensure that during basement excavation the root systems are not dramatically affected causing long term damage to these trees.
The existing stand of trees forward of the existing dwelling adjacent to the stone garage at No. 14 will be removed due to the location of the basement carpark. Overall trees are to be preserved and further planting where appropriate will be encouraged.
Solar Access
The Interim Code requires, where possible, sunlight penetration into a building by providing "..... an unshaded northern elevation and a protected western elevation". The proposal has achieved this requirement with the open ground floor plan to each dwelling however, the southern most villa to each proposal will not have a northerly aspect due to the proposed wall separation. Furthermore building setbacks adjacent to common boundaries at No. 10 and 16 are as such that overshadowing is minimised.
Privacy and Views
The applicant has ensured side boundary clearances are greater than required by Council, thereby reducing any impact on privacy to adjoining properties. All first floor areas to each townhouse accommodates bedrooms and bathroom facilities which is generally accepted. The siting of each dwelling allows for adequate space between outdoor living areas minimising any overviewing by other occupants of the complex. The immediate and surrounding precinct is well planted with established trees restricting views, however, the subject proposal will not impinge on adjoining property views.
Local Character, Height and Scale
This Oatley precinct is currently dominated by single storey residences with a number of new two storey dwellings and numerous first floor additions. The code states ".... The style of new buildings should reflect the buildings around them. This would include the size and spacing of neighbouring buildings and the way in which they relate to the street."
This objective should be looked at in light of the surrounding built form and generally what could be expected to happen by way of future building work. It would be fair to say that Council's current "Single Dwelling Code" encourages two storey development resulting from the provision of landscaped area and maintaining a required percentage. To this end the proposal notwithstanding density, conforms with both the Interim Code and Single Dwelling Code with regard to building form.
The proposal itself appears dominant when visualised on the subject sites, however, the difference in natural ground level from the kerb and gutter to the proposed building site exacerbates building height.
Building Form and Style
The Code aims "..... to promote the design of new residential development dwellings which will enhance the streetscape, contribute positively to the local housing stock and not unmeasurably impact upon the existing community."
A number of design standards are required to be observed they are : building envelope, roofs, materials and colours, walls, storeys, rear of site.
The building envelope generally complies with the Interim Code with the exception of a small portion of the ridge line to the villas and the decorative gable of townhouse 1.
The "rear of the site" as defined by the Interim Code, is considered inappropriate in this circumstance as adjoining dwellings in their locations allow for a greater extent of two storey development. This is due to the defined rear of site being located approximately 30.0 metres from the front boundary. The remaining design standards have been met.
Building Setbacks
The objective is "..... to provide adequate space for landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, sunlight penetration, safety requirements and for the establishment of an attractive streetscape."
The street boundary should be determined by the character of the street and the setbacks of existing buildings.
The building setback requirement has not been achieved as No. 10 Yarran Road has a street setback at the greatest point of 11.0 metre decreasing to approximately 6.5 metres. With No. 16 Yarran Road observing 12.0 metres. These setbacks are quite large when compared with other existing buildings in the street and Council's minimum setback of 4.5 metres. It can be assumed that these dwellings, including the existing buildings on each subject site where placed this far back due to existing vegetation and the restrictive nature of the site by way of slope from the street to suitable level land.
It is considered that for any proposed building either single or multiple dwellings, would not be maximising their potential of land use if relocated in the same position as adjoining dwellings. The proposal has observed a 6.0 metre building line which is acceptable and consistent with the large majority of existing buildings in the street.
Car Parking and Access
The provision of carparking for residents and visitors have been met. The driveway to the basement area is centrally located away from adjoining properties. The Interim Code encourages basement carparking subject to "... no part of a basement should extend more than 1.0 metre above natural ground level. A key aspect of this requirement is that basement parking must not unnecessarily elevate a dwelling so that privacy between adjoining sites is maintained."
The proposal appears to be totally underground from levels and plans submitted by the applicant and would not elevate each townhouse to compromise privacy.
Solar Design and Energy Efficiency
The Interim Code aims "..... to provide dwellings with adequate daylight to habitable rooms and adequate sunlight to private open spaces."
The location and design of the dwellings provide more than adequate natural sunlight to habitable rooms due to the open floor plan, however, with the siting of townhouse 3 on both sites some overshadowing upon southern courtyards is exacerbated.
Overshadowing of adjoining properties is kept to a minimum resulting from the central location on the block by the dwellings.
Landscaping
The provision under the Interim Code requires the dedication of 55% of the total site area to landscaping which excludes any part of the site occupied at or above ground level by any building or any area set aside for driveways and parking. Where landscaping at or about finished ground level is proposed over a building structure, the soil depth must be a minimum of 600mm.
The applicant has indicated that each site provides 58.3% with 44% of the landscaped open space being capable of growing substantial trees. The Development and Health Division, however, questions the figures provided by the applicant having in mind the amount of basement parking, impervious surfaces and building site coverage.
Services
The subject sites will direct all stormwater to discharge into Yarran Road, by gravity, subject to satisfactory hydraulic stormwater designs. A Sydney Water sewer line crosses each site towards the rear and will require either relocation or built over subject to Sydney Water's approval.
Manager, Building Services (South)
The proposal was referred to the Building Surveyor for assessment and comments in relation to the Building Code of Australia and other pertinent provisions. No objections were raised subject to adequate provision of stormwater disposal and satisfactory location of garbage facilities.
Manager, Development Advice
No objection is raised subject to the applicant providing new driveways and gravity fed stormwater to Yarran Road.
Manager, Traffic and Transport
The application was referred to Council's Manager, Traffic and Transport. His comments are copied below :
"Having inspected both the sites and plans for the proposed five three bedroom dwelling developments at both Nos. 12 and 14 Yarran Road, the following comments are made :
The internal traffic design of the development is good.
The driveway access point is also satisfactory, and no concern about pedestrian/vehicle conflict is raised.
The vehicular access point to Yarran Road has adequate sight distance for normal traffic operation.
Traffic volumes on Yarran Road have not recently been surveyed, however, they are estimated to be less than 1,000 vpd at No. 12 and 14 Yarran Road. The impact of an additional four dwellings on each allotment at this address will be approximately 40 vehicle trips per day, which will have negligible impact on the surrounding street system.
There is no objection raised on traffic design or traffic generation grounds to this development proposal."
Public Notification and Comment
The proposal was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. 386 letters and a petition containing 277 signatures were registered and their concerns are outlined below :
The issues raised are :
* Density
* Out of character with the surrounding area
* Overshadowing
* Privacy
* Traffic hazard
* Site distance for driveways
* Increase in traffic
* Landscape deficiency
* Water/Drainage
* Objection under heads of consideration Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
* Excessive height
* Solar access into dwellings
* Parking layout
* Bushfire risk
* Objectives
* Street setbacks
* No provision for tree planting
* Lack of room for children to play
* Increased pedestrian traffic
* Damage during excavation
* Loss of existing trees
Comment : A number of the above issues have been addressed earlier in the report, however, some issues require expansion.
Density/Overdevelopment
Comment : The Interim Code 1995 restricts development proposal to a given density of 315 square metres per dwelling. The proposal before Council yields a density of 202.2 square metres per dwelling (5 dwellings).
Notwithstanding the proposal having been submitted under the repealed RDCP and prior to Council's 19 July, 1994 resolution introducing density controls, the development application should be compared with the objectives and numerical standards of both the repealed and Interim Code. Therefore, having the benefit of the Interim Code 1995 the proposal would be considered as an overdevelopment. Council would no doubt be aware of a number of judgements produced by the Land and Environment Court of NSW, involving past and recent applications. Each judgement has used the merit argument under the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and not weighted heavily on the failure or non-compliance with each code.
Traffic Hazzard/Increase in Vehicles
Comment : Residents have raised that the proposal as submitted would determinedly increase the traffic to the street and surrounding road system. Furthermore, the site distance for each driveway is obstructed by virtue of the road design and gradient. This matter has been referred to and assessed by Council's Manager, Traffic and Transport who raises no objection to the proposal in its present form as the current and expected traffic volumes are acceptable together with both driveway access points.
Bushfire Risk
Comment : The issue of bushfire risk has been raised inter-alia by a Solicitor acting on behalf of the "Gungah Bay Residents Association". Section 90(1)(g) of the EPA Act of 1979 requires Council to consider whether the subject sites are unsuitable for the proposed development by reason of bushfire risk.
It is acknowledged that the immediate and surrounding area is densely vegetated by trees and undergrowth. The recent bushfires which devastated Sutherland Shire and other areas of Sydney have brought to light difficulties of such wooded areas and has raised awareness of the potential for less of property and life. It is suggested by the objectors that access to the area and any need to evacuate residents from the local area should be investigated and that no development should take place until a report is prepared.
Council and State Governments have actively canvassed measures to encourage residents to clear the undergrowth from the rear of their homes to restrict and assist in preventing bushfires occurring.
Summary
The proposal before Council is an attempt by the applicant to redevelop two (2) reasonably sized allotments. The objectives of the Interim Code is to encourage development which is in the form of detached houses, compatible with the scale and character of the existing precinct together with a high proportion of natural ground surface. The applicant has endeavoured to design a proposal that will maximise the attributes of the site without having an undesirable affect on adjoining residents.
However, although the proposal has merit, it is the opinion of the Development and Health Division that the planning issue of density requires further consideration by the applicant. The objections raised by residents strongly supports the issue of density resulting in this development being out of character with the area. The Interim Code 1995 strongly "..... promotes the design of new residential development dwellings which will enhance the streetscape, contribute positively to the local housing stock and not unreasonably impact upon the existing community."
The Gungah Bay precinct together with other Development Area "A" localities are changing in character as each development and building approval is granted. Areas dominated by single storey buildings generally are upgraded by the addition of a first floor. This is considered more cost effective for growing families than relocating.
The Development and Health Division raises no objections to the two storey concept as this building form is consistent with the Interim Code. However, in the circumstances of the case the proposed density is considered inappropriate.
The proposal of five (5) dwellings within three (3) dominant buildings should be redesigned to give the appearance of two (2) main buildings. Although the Interim Code permits a maximum of three (3) occupancies, four (4) occupancies can be accommodated if townhouse No. 3 on each allotment is deleted.
It is acknowledged that the proposal was submitted under the repealed RDCP 1994 and therefore a reduction in density closer to the Interim Code is reasonable, subject to compliance with the objectives required under the said Interim Code.
To this end it is recommended to Council that the development application be deferred for a redesign which deletes townhouse No. 3 on each allotment. This would achieve greater space around the buildings, increase common and private open space, reduce bulk, reduce overshadowing upon private areas and positively address scale and character to that which exists in Yarran Road and surrounding precincts.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 12 & 14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (238/95 AND 239/95)
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (AMENDED)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)
. Recommendation 12 & 14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (238/95 AND 239/95)
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (AMENDED)
(Report by Manager, Planning Services, Mr. M. Buckley)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the proposed multiple dwellings on properties known as Nos. 12 and 14 Yarran Road, Oatley be deferred.
THAT the applicant delete Townhouse No. 3 to each proposal on Nos. 12 and 14 Yarran Road, Oatley, to improve and increase private/common open space, provide increased space around structures, reduce overshadowing upon private open space areas, positively address bulk, scale and character of the proposal compared to the existing built form of the locality.
THAT the applicant be required to liaise with the Manager, Planning Services to address other issues raised by residents prior to re-notification of any amended proposal.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05.01 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
- The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been Approved (Part A) or Refused (Part B) under delegated authority from 1 January, 1996 to 9 February, 1996.
APPROVED (Part A)
DA NO | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTIONS | RESULT DATE |
181/95 | 120 Morts Road Mortdale | Tunfield Pty. Ltd. | Detached Dual Occupancy | 12/1/96 |
260/95 | 244 Patrick Street Hurstville | L. & C. Josevski | Attached Two Storey Dual Occupancy Each With 3 Bedrooms | 16/1/96 |
294/95 | 7 Dalcassia Street Hurstville | Joyfirst Investments Pty. Ltd | Three Storeys - 14x2 Bedroom Units with Basement Carparking | 12/1/96 |
300/95 | 27 Myall Street Oatley | A. Fanos | One Townhouse and Two Villas - 3 x 3 Bedrooms | 3/1/96 |
317/95 | 2 Myall Street Oatley | Nu-Steel Homes | Detached Dual Occupancy - 4 Bedrooms, Single Storey | 29/1/96 |
324/95 | 58 Broughton Street Mortdale | S T & A J Healy | Two Townhouses - 2x3 Bedrooms and Two Villas with Attic Space - 1x3 Bedroom and 1x2 Bedroom | 29/1/96 |
328/95 | 39 Anderson Road Mortdale | Dickson Designs | 2x3 Bedroom Townhouses and 1x3 Bedroom Villa with Rooms in the Roof | 16/1/96 |
404/95 | 259 Stoney Creek Rd Kingsgrove | M K & M F Andrews | Detached Dual Occupancy - Each 2 Bedroom - 1x2 Storey 1x1 Storey | 19/1/95 |
457/95 | 2 Balfour Road Beverly Hills | N R M Bale | Detached Dual Occupancy | 29/1/96 |
482/95 | 50 Gloucester Road Hurstville | A & M Holdings | Extensions to Heritage Item | 25/1/96 |
490/95 | 1 Inverness Avenue Penshurst | B. Alexander | Detached Dual Occupancy 2 & 3 Bedrooms | 29/1/96 |
525/95 | 284 Belmore Road Riverwood | Allbeury | Change of Use | 22/1/96 |
560/95 | 55 Valentia Avenue Lugarno | K R & M Page | Temporary Office to Carry on Business of Fully Licenced Motor Dealer | 1/2/96 |
564/95 | 3/79-81 Boundary Road, Mortdale | Nicholas Agency | Warehouse | 4/1/96 |
572/95 | 53-55 Lorraine Street, Peakhurst | A Basic & Sons | Warehouse & Office Administration | 9/1/96 |
581/95 | 198 Belmore Road Riverwood | C & D Lois & Rivermed P/L | Ground Floor - Doctor's Surgery First Floor - Dental Surgery | 17/1/96 |
582/95 | 2 Woodville Street Hurstville | McFadyen Awlezark | Offices | 29/1/96 |
586/95 | 289 Belmore Road Riverwood | Pepe P/Limited | Flower Shop | 29/1/96 |
3/96 | 380 Forest Road Hurstville | Autobarn | Hot Air Balloon - Temporary Commercial Sign | 12/1/96 |
11/96 | 202 Forest Road Hurstville | W Q Tian | Awning and Top Hamper Signs | 17/1/96 |
13/96 | 198 Forest Road Hurstville | Davenport Campbell | Commercial Sign | 17/1/96 |
REFUSED (Part B)
DA NO | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTION | RESULT DATE |
484/95 | 6 Caloola Crescent Beverly Hills | A Candalepas | Two Townhouses and Two Villas with Rooms Within the Attic Space | 16/1/96 |
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the information be noted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 1 JANUARY TO 9 FEBRUARY, 1996
- The Development Applications set out in the attached schedule have been received between 1 January and 9 February, 1996.
DA NO | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTION | VALUE |
1/96 | 2/10 Woodville Street Hurstville | Tanseys Pty Ltd | Deli Coffee Shop | Use |
2/96 | 373 Forest Road Penshurst | K. Mundy | Weighing Scale Business | Use |
3/96 | 380 Forest Road Hurstville | Autobarn | Hot Air Balloon - Temporary Commercial Sign | Use |
4/96 | 6/63 Norman Street Peakhurst | S. Chow | | |
5/96 | 9 Oxford Street Mortdale | M. G. Abdullah | 3x3 Bedroom Townhouses with Underground Parking | $205,000 |
6/96 | 4 Barcoo Street Peakhurst | A E & K A Magnus | Office for Mail Order of Wines | Use |
7/96 | Cancelled due to non-payment of fees | | | |
8/96 | 430 Stoney Creek Road Kingsgrove | P T Su | BBQ Ribs Takeaway Shop | Use |
9/96 | 26A Macquarie Place Mortdale | O J Shipp | 3 Townhouses | $240,000 |
10/96 | 202 Forest Road Hurstville | W Q Tian | Chinese Herbs & Medicines | Use |
11/96 | 202 Forest Road Hurstville | W Q Tian | Signs | Use |
12/96 | 245 Belmore Road Riverwood | T D Hoang & T D Le | Shop Extensions | $38,000 |
13/96 | 198 Forest Road Hurstville | Davenport Campbell | Commercial Sign | Use |
14/96 | 23 Hearne Street Mortdale | United Towing Services Pty Ltd | Tow Truck Base of Operations | Use |
16/96 | 114 Boundary Road Peakhurst | K R Basman | Service Station Extension | $35,000 |
17/95 | 28 Penshurst Street Penshurst | E Pascoe | Eat In and Take Away Thai Restaurant | Use |
19/96 | 233 Belmore Road Riverwood | M. A. Galluzzo | Change of Use from Shop to Dental Surgery | $15,000 |
20/96 | 411 King Georges Rd Beverly Hills | Trafalgar Securities P/Ltd | Change of Use from Auction Room to Computer School | Use |
22/96 | 29 William road Riverwood | J Ward | Child Care - Administration Offices | $70,000 |
23/96 | 51 Kingsway Kingsgrove | M Hatz | Church Additions | $300,000 |
25/96 | 1124 Forest Road Lugarno | Don Fox Planning | Modification of Consent | Use |
26/96 | 2A Ernest Street Peakhurst | G Yeremeyev & Associates | 5x3 & 2x2 Bedroom Villas | $490,000 |
28/96 | 172 Forest Road Hurstville | Oceanview Group | Refurbishment & Addition of Awning to Front Elevation | Use |
29/96 | 170 Boundary Road Peakhurst | McFadyen Awlezark | Aged Care Hostel | $4.3 million |
30/96 | 55 Norman Street Peakhurst | Blackwood Seddon & Partners | Increase Office Area | $1.5 million |
32/96 | 244 Forest Road Hurstville | Interco Pty Ltd | Shop Fitout - Lobby Area | $30,000 |
33/96 | 244 Forest Road Hurstville | Interco Pty Ltd | City Centre Sign | Use |
34/96 | 112 Boundary Road Mortdale | S Chan | Takeaway Chinese Shop | Use |
35/96 | 6B Inverness Avenue Penshurst | S & L McKenzie | Detached Dual Occupancy | $110,000 |
36/96 | 1 Shade Place Lugarno | GT & JL Harris | Optical Dispensing and Spectacle Assembly | Use |
38/96 | 3/63 Norman Street Peakhurst | Fung Lee Food Services | Poultry Deboning Factory | Use |
41/96 | 53-55 Lorraine Street Peakhurst | Stephen & Co Pty Ltd | Office and Warehouse for Electrical Contractor | Use |
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 1 JANUARY TO 9 FEBRUARY, 1996
. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 1 JANUARY TO 9 FEBRUARY, 1996
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the information be noted.
.................../SECTION 2
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 96 02 21ST FEBRUARY, 1996-
06:01.01 20A Llewellyn Street, Oatley First Floor Addition
06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward
06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward
06:03.01 39 Delves Street, Mortdale Ground And First Floor Addition To Existing Dwelling (Report By Environmental Health & Building Inspector, Mr. G. Champion)
06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward
06:04.01A 7 Lloyd Street, Oatley Dwelling Additions And Alterations Plus Garage
06:04.02A 18 Riverside Drive, Lugarno Reconsideration Of Building Application For Three Storey Dwelling
06.05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters
06:05.01 Alcohol-Free Zones - Hurstville And Riverwood (P/00108 & P/00135) Report By Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
06:05.02 Kerbside Recycling (W/00008) (Report By Manager - Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
06:05.03 Recycling Contract (Extension Or Renewal) (W/00005) (Report By Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
SECTION 2
06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.01.01 20A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY First Floor Addition
- Applicant: Creative Architecture (BA952/95)
Proposed: First Floor Addition
Development Area: A
Referred for: Objections from Adjoining Landowners
The application was brought before the meeting of Council on 31st January 1996 and Council resolved to defer the application for Councillors' inspection and report.
After further consideration of the proposals the following is submitted:-
"THAT the recommendations of the Divisional Manager
- Development and Health be adopted."
To reacqaint Councillors with this matter, the previous report is reproduced below:-
- "The site is a battleaxe allotment located on the lower side of Llewellyn Street.
It is proposed to construct a first floor addition over an existing brick residence. The proposed building will have a floor space ratio of 0.33:1 and maximum height of 9.0m to comply with Council's Code for Single Dwellings.
The application was notified to adjoining landowners and two (2) written objections were received. The grounds of objection are:-
18 Llewellyn Street:
* Pleasant outlook from our ground floor kitchen and
rear garden will be eliminated;
* The western extensions threaten to eliminate the water
views we currently enjoy from our ground floor balcony;
* The height of the development will eliminate up to 50%
of the water views we currently enjoy from our upper
floor balcony.
Comment: The objector's property is located at street level and contains views of the Georges River over the applicant's property. The proposed addition will result in a significant loss of view from the ground floor kitchen, balcony and rear garden area. Some loss of view will also occur from the first floor balcony area of the objector's property as a result of the addition. In order to reduce the impact on the objector's property, the master bedroom, balcony and gable roof form over the rear area of the addition would need to be deleted. A reduction in roof pitch would achieve very little in this instance due to the wall and gable roof construction.
22A Llewellyn Street:
* The development will greatly overshadow several properties;
* Loss of privacy to adjacent properties and our property;
* Floor to land space ratio too large for the block size;
* Over-utilisation of a block that has been subdivided
three times;
* Major loss of view to some properties.
Comment: The objector's property is located at the rear of the applicant's property. Apart from the rear first floor balcony overlooking the objector's property to take advantage of water views, the addition will have little effect on the objector's property. The addition will cause no overshadowing or loss of view to the objector. The floor space ratio of 0.33:1 complies with Council's Code.
- 1. THAT the building application be approved, subject to
standard conditions 1-12 and the following additional
conditions:-
13. GS190, GS381
14. GS411
15. GS751
16. GS1160
17. RD260
18. ST080, ST140
19. Access to the existing swimming pool is to be
restricted in accordance with the Swimming
Pools Act 1992.
2. THAT the objectors be advised of Council's decision."
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 20A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY First Floor Addition
. Recommendation 20A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY First Floor Addition
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the recommendations of the Divisional Manager - Development and Health in the report to the meeting on 31st January, 1996 be adopted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.02 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR HURSTVILLE WARD FOR THIS MEETING.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.03 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.03.01 39 DELVES STREET, MORTDALE Ground and First Floor Addition to Existing Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Inspector, Mr. G. Champion)
- Applicant: Mr. V. Quigley (BA876/95)
Proposed: Ground and First Floor Addition to
Existing Dwelling
Development Area: B
Referred for: 1. Non-compliance with Council's Code for
Single Dwelling Houses.
2. External wall less than 900mm to boundary
line.
The site is located on the south-western side of Delves Street, five (5) doors from the corner of Sparkes Avenue. Land fall is to the rear.
It is proposed to construct ground and first floor additions to an existing dwelling. The building design does not comply with Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses in the following respects:
1. Requirement of Code: The maximum height above natural
ground level shall be 9.0 metres measured at any point.
- Description of Non-compliance: The construction of the first floor addition will result in a maximum height of 9.1 metres. The first floor ceiling height is 2.45 metres and the roof pitch of 30 degrees is designed to match the lower roof area and gable. The height of the hip roof will have no effect on the adjoining land owners.
the side boundary.
- Description of Non-compliance: The attached garage has to be designed to accommodate two vehicles behind the front boundary setback to comply with the parking requirements of Council's Code. This results in the external garage wall being located 100mm from the side boundary which is less than that prescribed under Clause 57(2) of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.
The site has a narrow frontage of 12.07m and to design the double garage and addition in keeping with the existing house, it has been necessary to extend the garage to 100mm from the boundary.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 39 DELVES STREET, MORTDALE Ground and First Floor Addition to Existing Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Inspector, Mr. G. Champion)
. Recommendation 39 DELVES STREET, MORTDALE Ground and First Floor Addition to Existing Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Inspector, Mr. G. Champion)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the building application be approved, subject to standard
conditions 1-12 and the following additional conditions:-
13. GS190, GS201, GS316, GS381, GS370
14. GS411
15. GS570
16. GS630
17. GS751
18. GS771 (decking)
19. GS1160
20. RD040 (675mm)
21. RD260
22. ST080, ST140
23. ST250
24. Two (2) native trees being planted elsewhere on the site
to replace the existing liquid amber tree.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.04.01A 7 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY Dwelling Additions and Alterations plus Garage
- Applicant: T.K. Jarvis (BA694/95)
Proposed: Dwelling Additions and Alterations plus
Garage
Development Area: A
Referred for: Non-compliance with landscaping requirement
In October 1995, the above application was approved subject to the premises maintaining a minimum 55% landscaping area on the site.
As a result of difficulties in complying with this requirement, the owner has written to the Council as follows:
"On 17 October 1995 Council granted its approval for certain building works to be carried out on the above property.
We refer to Special Condition 21 which, because of the 55% landscape requirement, does not allow for the construction of a hard surface driveway to the proposed garage.
We would ask Council to reconsider this matter and agree to vary the landscaping ratio in this instance. In support of this application we would draw Council's attention to the following:
(a) The garage has been approved by Council, but we are prevented from having access to it because of Special Condition 21.
(b) The remaining area, should Council agree to vary the landscaping ratio, is still large in comparison to the overall size and structure of the building.
(c) We already have spent a considerable sum of money landscaping the front of the property. We have now engaged the services of McKenzie Landscapes of Leura to enhance the rear of the property with many native trees and shrubs.
(d) A minimum amount of rainfall turns the rear of the property into a quagmire making it impossible to drive on the surface - a concrete driveway would eliminate this problem.
We would be most grateful if Council could give favourable consideration to our request."
This site is a single dwelling development which existed prior to Council applying minimum landscaping requirements to low density housing. The existing buildings already occupied 40% of the 697 sq. metre site area and the works proposed increase the building area to the maximum of 45% but a further 7% is lost in driveway construction.
It is reasonable to accept this 7% excess over Council's Code requirements as:
* the works are basically general improvements to upgrade an existing single dwelling and do not constitute a major re-development of a residential property.
* the actual area for landscaping is still 336 sq. metres.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01A DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 7 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY Dwelling Additions and Alterations plus Garage
. Recommendation 7 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY Dwelling Additions and Alterations plus Garage
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT approval be granted for the landscape area to be reduced to 48% for alterations at 7 Lloyd Street, Oatley under BA 694/95.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.04.02A 18 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LUGARNO Reconsideration of Building Application for Three Storey Dwelling
- Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. T. Alifano (BA901/95)
Proposed: Three Storey Brick Dwelling
Development Area: A
Referred for: Non-compliance with Council's Code for
Single Dwellings
The Council at the meeting of 31st January 1996, resolved to refuse the above application due to the excessive height of the building.
A written request for reconsideration of Council's decision has been received from the owner/applicant's architect, Stephen Barnes & Associates, and states as follows:
"In reply to Council's letter dated 1st February 1996 informing my clients that their Building Application No. 901/95 was refused, we as Architects for the above project, wish to lodge the following points in support of the Building Application and request that Council reconsider its decision to refuse the application based purely on a numerical assessment of the maximum height of the house.
With regard to the Building Envelope in Council's Code it is virtually impossible to design a house on a block of land as steep and as narrow as 18 Riverside Drive, Lugarno without exceeding the building envelope in some areas.
The block of land is very large but has a very limited building area which is reasonably sloped, while further to the west the block falls away steeply. This has the effect of keeping the footprint of the building very much restricted towards the eastern end of the site.
The total site area is 1151 sq. metres while the site coverage of the proposed building is 217 sq. metres or only 18.8% . The Floor Area of the proposed house if 365 sq. metres which is only 0.31:1 in terms of Floor Space Ratio as the site is so large.
This indicates that even though the house is not strictly complying with the building envelope it is a relatively small building on this site. The main reason it cannot comply is that it must be compacted up to one end of the site to keep away from major rock ledges and drop offs which prevent the house from being spread along the ground.
This is a common approach on adjacent similar sites which require a large home on large blocks but with similar difficulty with the topography of the site.
As an indication of the type of buildings around the site built on similarly steep sites the house to the north is 3 stories high at the rear adjacent to the proposed house and the building to the south is up to 5 stories high at the rear.
One of the objectives of Council's Residential Development Control Plan is that new housing should reflect the character and scale of adjoining housing which this proposal does, but is significantly less in scale than the house to the south of the site.
Due to the narrowness of the site (15.5 metres at the rear of the house) it is impractical to construct a building within the building envelope where the site falls away as rapidly as this site.
Despite the split level design which steps down the site from the entry level, it is impossible to drop down as fast as the land and this results in under floor space which has been enclosed to form the lower floor rumpus room. This area would otherwise be an empty volume under the living room level so it seems sensible to enclose it to form the rumpus room, which does not add to the bulk or height of the house.
Where the building is on less steep land at the eastern side of the site, the building envelope is adhered to, but in steeper areas this becomes impractical as the setbacks to the boundaries would have to be so large that there would be very little of the site left to build on in the middle within the envelope.
The overall height of the house is a maximum of 9.5 metres in one small area at the centre of the roof, but this is mainly due to the rapid fall of the land and again cannot be avoided. The majority of the roof ridges are less than 9 metres above the natural ground immediately below, therefore keeping the height within the controls required by Council.
The proposed dwelling will not cause undue shadowing on any adjoining property because the house to the south is so much longer and projects 19 metres further to the west, thereby having ample unobstructed north sunshine access.
In addition, the existing house to the south is higher in most areas than the proposed house so will not have northern windows shaded by the proposed house.
The adjoining neighbour to the east is 2 stories and elevated above the subject site and would not be shaded in any way by the single storey garage structure proposed.
We therefore believe that the small variations from the maximum height and the building envelope is very much justified in this case due to the narrowness of the site, the limited reasonable building area and the rugged falls on the site.
Combined with the form of the adjoining existing houses this house, as proposed, will fit in well with the streetscape and therefore Council should reverse its previous decision to refuse the application and approve the application, due to the special circumstances of the site and the existing built environment immediately adjacent.
The view that this building should strictly adhere to a numerical value on its height is inappropriate considering the circumstances and topography of the site, and therefore the reason for refusal is also inappropriate, and should be reconsidered at Council's earliest convenience."
The views raised by the architect are reasonable and it is felt a case exists for special consideration.
The original report recommended approval and is reproduced below for Councillors' information:
"The subject premises are situated on the northern side of Riverside Drive near the intersection with Banksia Place. The heavily sloping land is essentially a long, narrow, tapering block that extends almost to the Georges River. The average width of the site is less than 15.5m.
The above building application proposes the erection of a three storey brick dwelling and triple garage thereon. The lower floor area comprises a rumpus room, cellar and storage area, while the middle floor plan consists generally of the living areas, including the kitchen. The bedrooms and bathroom will be located on the top level.
The proposal complies with the boundary setbacks laid down in Clause 57 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation, 1993 in respect of three storey dwellings.
Assessment of the plans under Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses has found that they generally comply with the exception that the height of the building exceeds the 9m limit laid down in Clause 3.3.1 of the Code. The non-complying area is in fact the ridge approximately in the middle of the roof which will have an overall height of 9.5m.
It is commented that the 9m height limitation is suited more for level sites and therefore should not be applied in respect of the subject steeply sloped site.
For this reason it is recommended that Council's 9m height restriction be varied in this instance to 9.5m.
It may be worth pointing out that the perusal of the plans will reveal that it would appear certain that other aspects of the abovementioned Code are not being met, one being that the building encroaches onto the building envelope.
As stated earlier, the site has been assessed as having an average width of less than 15.5m and consequently under Clause 3.3.3 of the Code, the dwelling may comply with one of three requirements. In this case the maximum floor space to site ratio does not exceed 0.45%, and therefore the building envelope is not an issue.
The plans also show the visual requirements not be met in relation to the northern and southern walls, i.e. the windows in the proposed dwelling and those in the adjoining dwellings not being provided with a 9m separation or a 1m offset or screening.
However, the proposed windows are either opposite small highlight or unopenable windows and therefore will not impact on such openings, or the windows are at different levels.
In support of the application, the architect has forwarded two very detailed submissions. The submissions are quoted under:
21st November 1995
"As Architects for the above project we wish to lodge the following points in support of the Building Application.
With regard to the Building Envelope in Council's Code it is virtually impossible to design a house on a block of land as steep and as narrow as 18 Riverside Drive, Lugarno without exceeding the building envelope in some areas.
The block of land is very large but has a very limited building area which is reasonably sloped, while further to the west the block falls away steeply. This has the effect of keeping the footprint of the building very much restricted towards the eastern end of the site.
The total site area is 1151 sq.m. while the site coverage of the proposed building is 217 sq.m or only 18.8%. The Floor Area of the proposed house is 365 sq.m which is only 0.31:1 in terms of Floor Space Ratio as the site is so large.
This indicates that even though the house is not strictly complying with the building envelope it is a relatively small building on this site. The main reason it cannot comply is that it must be compacted up to one end of the site to keep away from major rock ledges and drop offs which prevent the house from being spread along the ground.
This is a common approach on adjacent similar sites which require a large home on large blocks but with similar difficulty with the topography of the site.
As an indication of the type of buildings around the site built on similarly steep sites, the house to the north is 3 stories high at the rear adjacent to the proposed house and the building to the south is up to 5 stories high at the rear.
One of the objectives of Council's Residential Development Control Plan is that new housing should reflect the character and scale of adjoining housing which this proposal does, but is significantly less in scale than the house to the south of the site.
Due to the narrowness of the site (15.5 metres at the rear of the house) it is impractical to construct a building within the building envelope where the site falls away as rapidly as this site.
Despite the split level design which steps down the site from the entry level, it is impossible to drop down as fast as the land and this results in under floor space which has been enclosed to form the lower floor rumpus room. This area would otherwise be an empty volume under the living room level so it seems sensible to enclose it to form the rumpus room, which does not add to the bulk or height of the house.
Where the building is on less steep land at the eastern side of the site, the building envelope is adhered to, but in steeper areas this becomes impractical as the setbacks to the boundaries would have to be so large that there would be very little of the site left to build on in the middle within the envelope.
The overall height of the house is a maximum of 9.5 metres in one small area at the centre of the roof, but this is mainly due to the rapid fall of the land and again cannot be avoided. The majority of the roof ridges are less than 9 metres above the natural ground immediately below, therefore keeping the height within the controls required by Council.
The proposed dwelling will not cause undue shadowing on any adjoining property because the house to the south is so much longer and projects 19 metres further to the west, thereby having ample unobstructed north sunshine access.
In addition, the existing house to the south is higher in most areas than the proposed house so will not have northern windows shaded by the proposed house.
The adjoining neighbour to the east is 2 stories and elevated above the subject site and would not be shaded in any way by the single storey garage structure proposed.
We therefore believe that the small variations from the maximum height and the building envelope is very much justified in this case due to the narrowness of the site, the limited reasonable building area and the rugged falls on the site.
Combined with the form of the adjoining existing houses this house as proposed will fit in well with the streetscape and therefore Council should approve the application given the special circumstances of this case."
18th December 1995
"Please find attached 3 copies of drawing 1A showing position of windows on adjoining houses. Also enclosed are photographs of adjoining house walls taken from the subject site.
The photographs demonstrate that :-
1. The house to the north of the site has only 2 windows facing the land which both have high sill levels and are of small size. Also, on the lowest level, two french doors open onto the south facing roofed veranda. The roof of the veranda will provide screening between these doors and the living levels of the proposed house. There is therefore no concern for privacy loss in this instance.
2. The house to the east has a few small windows also which are facing the site but since the garages are proposed at this end of the site there will be no conflict creating privacy concerns.
3. The house to the south of the site has numerous smaller windows, mainly of a high silled nature along the eastern end where the existing building will be opposite the proposed house. However, the windows on the south wall of the proposed house are narrow slit windows which are not large enough to cause privacy problems. The majority of the windows on the southern adjoining house are well clear of the rear of the proposed house and therefore receive ample north sunlight and do not face any main windows or rooms of the proposed dwelling.
It can therefore be seen that no privacy problems would occur if the proposed house were to be built as shown on the submitted plans.
With regard to the disposal of stormwater, the Engineer for the project is including details on his documentation which will be forwarded to council soon.
If you require any further information please contact the writer."
Notification of the adjoining owners has occurred and no responses were received.
By way of comment, and to reiterate part of the architect's submission, it is mentioned that the difficult nature of the site has created problems as regards designing a house that otherwise could be spread over the site, thus avoiding a proposal involving three storey construction.
However, in this instance it is considered the architect has designed a building which will suit the block, despite the topography of the land, and be in keeping with the surrounding development."
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02A DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 18 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LUGARNO Reconsideration of Building Application for Three Storey Dwelling
. Recommendation 18 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LUGARNO Reconsideration of Building Application for Three Storey Dwelling
RECOMMENDATION
- 1. THAT Council allow the variation of its Code for Single
Dwelling in relation to the overall height;
2. THAT Building Application 901/95 be approved subject to
Council standard conditions 1-12 plus the following
additional conditions:-
13. GS100
14. GS130
15. GS160
16. GS190, GS370
17. GS400
18. GS511
19. GS570
20. GS641
21. GS751
22. GS771 ... balconies
23. GS780 ... 18 ...
24. GS1170
25. RD040 ...1125mm
26. RD260
27. To ensure that Council's Requirements for Driveway
Access policy is being complied with (copy attached), a
driveway profile, drawn from the garage to the centre
line of the road and to a scale of 1:20 shall be submitted
to Council prior to commencement of work.
28. All trees, with the exception of the tree opposite the front
entry, shall be retained.
29. Open catch and agricultural drainage lines shall be
provided behind the subfloor walls and footings to divert
any seepage water from the footings and to prevent the
build up of such water behind the walls.
30. Details as to the method of protecting the building from
subterranean termites shall be submitted prior to
commencement of work.
31. The top of the middle floor slab shall be constructed of
not less than RL46.479. A survey report prepared by a
registered surveyor shall be submitted to Council at
completion of the formwork for this slab verifying that the
work is being constructed at the above stated level. The
work is not to proceed beyond this stage until a release
has been given by Council.
Note: The survey report shall relate to the levels shown
on the architectural plans prepared by Stephen Barnes &
Associates Pty. Ltd. - Drawings 1A and 2 - Job No.9527.
The survey report should also state the siting of the
building is in accordance with the approved plans.
32. The dissipater pits shown on the structural engineer's
plans prepared by S. Ibrahim & Associates - Job
No.95128-1 dated June 1995, shall be located at least
3m clear of the allotment boundaries.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.05.01 ALCOHOL-FREE ZONES - HURSTVILLE AND RIVERWOOD (P/00108 & P/00135) Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
- At its meeting on 13th December 1995 the Council considered a report on the re-establishment of the Alcohol-Free Zones in Hurstville and Riverwood. In adopting the report the Council resolved in the following terms:
"1. The information in the report be noted.
2. On receipt of appropriate applications for an Alcohol Free Zone the Council authorise the General Manager to give notice of Council's intention to declare an Alcohol Free Zone in Hurstville and Riverwood in accordance with the provisions of Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993 and subject to the extent of the zones remaining as defined in previous resolutions of the Council."
An application to renew the Alcohol-Free Zone in Hurstville was received from Hurstville Police on 9th January 1996. An application to renew the Riverwood Alcohol-Free Zone was received from Mr. G. Inglis, President of the Riverwood Rotary Club on 27th December 1995.
Since receipt of the above applications, the new Ministerial Guidelines for Alcohol-Free Zones have been perused and it is considered that opportunity should be taken to extend the existing Alcohol-Free Zones for a further period to take advantage of the maximum three (3) year period now allowed. Previously Alcohol-Free Zones could only be established for a twelve (12) month period.
The amendments to the Local Government Act concerning Alcohol-Free Zones include the following changes:-
* A council may prepare a proposal for the establishment of an alcohol-free zone on its own motion
* An alcohol-free zone may be established in a public place that is a carpark
* An alcohol-free zone may be established in relation to a special event
* An alcohol-free zone may operate up to a minimum period of three years
* Notification procedures relating to the establishment of alcohol-free zones require notification of additional parties and allow concurrent notification
* An alcohol-free zone may be enforced only by police officers (excluding special constables) except where the Commissioner of Police has authorised particular council employees as enforcement officers for special events.
A savings provision in the amendment legislation allows a council, by resolution, to extend the operation of an alcohol-free zone existing at 22nd December 1995 for a period of up to three years from its starting date provided the signs erected for the zone are changed to indicate the extended period. The Hurstville and Riverwood Alcohol-Free Zones are currently in force and therefore the opportunity should be taken to extend the validity of the zones for a three (3) year period.
To support the amendment legislation the Minister has prepared new Guidelines, which must, under section 646, be complied with in order to validly create an alcohol-free zone. The Guidelines outline in more detail the procedures required under the new legislation and additionally provide for increased consultation with the Police Service in the creation and signposting of alcohol-free zones. However, the Guidelines provide for a simplified procedure for extending the period of existing Alcohol-Free Zones.
Under the transitional arrangements following the commencement of the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-Free Zones) Act, 1995 the existing alcohol-free zones may be extended by resolution of Council for a period of three (3) years from their commencement date without the need for following the detailed procedures for establishing a new Zone. The Hurstville Alcohol-Free Zone commenced on 5th April 1995 and therefore may be extended to the 4th April 1998. The Riverwood Alcohol-Free Zone commenced on 8th March 1995 and accordingly may now be extended to 7th March 1998.
It is anticipated that Council will now agree to extend the operation of the Alcohol-Free Zones for a period of three (3) years to save on the considerable costs involved in establishing the Zones year by year.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation ALCOHOL-FREE ZONES - HURSTVILLE AND RIVERWOOD (P/00108 & P/00135) Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
. Recommendation ALCOHOL-FREE ZONES - HURSTVILLE AND RIVERWOOD (P/00108 & P/00135) Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT :-
1. Pursuant to the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-Free Zones) Act 1995 and the transitional arrangements under the relevant Ministerial Guidelines, the operation of the Hurstville Alcohol-Free Zone (as described in a notice given in the Leader Newspaper on the 20th December 1994) be extended and be in force to the 4th April 1998 and the operation of the Riverwood Alcohol-Free Zone (as described in a notice given in the Leader Newspaper on the 28th February 1995) be extended and be in force to the 7th March 1998.
2. The signs erected within the above Zones be altered to indicate the extended period.
3. The Hurstville and Riverwood Police be advised of the extensions made to the relevant zones.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.05.02 KERBSIDE RECYCLING (W/00008) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
- The Council is informed that the EPA has recently forwarded a rebate cheque in the sum of $22,690.40 in respect of 1134.52 tonnes of recyclable materials collected in the third quarter of 1995.
In about April this year the EPA will forward a further cheque under the Council Recycling Rebate Scheme for the 1355.52 tonnes of recyclable materials collected by Council during the fourth quarterly period of 1995. When received, that cheque will be the final payment to Council under the CRR Scheme and the full cost of kerbside recycling will then be borne by Council.
The following table indicates the tonnages of recycled materials collected in Hurstville over the past three years:
1993 | 1994 | 1995 | |
| First Quarter | 1100.40 | 1226.44 | 1329.00 |
| Second Quarter | 1285.79 | 1227.55 | 1160.36 |
| Third Quarter | 1226.44 | 1192.31 | 1134.52 |
| Fourth Quarter | 1227.55 | 1343.95 | 1355.52 |
| TOTAL YEAR | 4840.18 | 4990.25 | 4980.11 |
The EPA has ranked Council at position 18 (compared to the 42 Metropolitan Councils) based on the recycling rate of kilograms per person per year. It is interesting to note that the Councils with the highest recycling rates still use the black crate/kerbside sort method.
A copy of the table indicating the recycling performance of the Metropolitan Councils will be available on the night of the Council meeting for perusal by interested councillors.
Submitted for the information of Council.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation KERBSIDE RECYCLING (W/00008) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
. Recommendation KERBSIDE RECYCLING (W/00008) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the information be noted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.05.03 RECYCLING CONTRACT (EXTENSION OR RENEWAL) (W/00005) (Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
- The current recycling contract was commenced on the 29th May 1993 and will terminate on 31st May 1996. The contract provides for the kerbside collection of recyclables from residential premises only using a 50L black crate.
The appointed contractor, Progressive Recycling Pty. Ltd., was selected after a public tender process which was conducted in parallel with the tendering of the garbage service. Only two (2) conforming tenders were received for the recycling service and Progressive Recycling Pty. Ltd. was selected on the basis of price and proven ability to perform the service.
It is acknowledged that there are performance problems with the existing service and also that it is limited to residential premises and therefore a considerable quantity of recyclable material is not captured. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the service cost ($6.50 per household per year) is one of the lowest in Sydney. Many Councils are paying from four to eight times the cost per service and are not achieving a commensurate reduction in complaints or, a significant improvement in recycling performance. Indeed, some Councils pay higher costs and obtain less performance.
At its meeting on 7th June 1995, Council resolved to investigate the demand for, and the potential of, a recycling service for commercial premises. Later, on 16th August 1995, Council resolved to appoint consultants Maunsell Pty. Ltd. to undertake a waste audit together with a community consultation process with a view to designing a suitable waste collection and recycling service for Hurstville. It was hoped that this work would be completed by the end of 1995 so that a new tender specification could be prepared for the recycling service in Hurstville.
In November and December of 1995 negotiations were undertaken with Progressive Recycling to determine whether it was possible to extend the current contract for a period of 6-12 months. This action was taken in view of the uncertainties created by the introduction of the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill which proposed radical changes, especially in so far as a Council's ability to determine the type of service it may operate in its area. As Council will be aware, the Bill was adopted into law in late December 1995.
In letter dated 20th December 1995, Progressive Recycling Pty. Ltd. advised Council in the following terms:-
"In reference to your letter dated 12th December 1995 we would be happy to accept your offer of extending existing contract for further twelve (12) months.
The compensation for the fall in glass price would have to be notified to Council as it comes about."
The Council is advised that the Contract Agreement between Progressive Recycling Pty. Ltd. and the Council provides an option for Council to renew the Contract for a further term of three (3) years provided that the Council gives not less than three (3) months notice that it wishes to exercise such option. The contractor may, however, decline to renew. In the instant case the contractor appears to be happy with a twelve month extension. The legal implications of varying the exact terms of the contract are being investigated with Council's legal advisers.
It should be appreciated that the process of letting a new recycling contract involves:
* Agreement on the details of service provision (style and design of the service)
* Preparation of contract documentation (service specification and contract agreement)
* Advertisement of tenders
* Evaluation of tenders
* Acceptance of tender
The above process could take as little as 3-4 months to complete. However, after acceptance of a tender, a period of 3-4 months would be required by the successful tenderer to provide suitable vehicles and to employ and train drivers and collectors. It will be seen therefore that a lead time of 6-8 months is required to complete the tender process.
Should Council concur with the offer made by Progressive Recycling to extend the term of the contract for a further twelve (12) months there will be adequate time to incorporate into the service any requirements of the future Waste Reduction Board (NOTE: The Regional Waste Board will control the type of service offered and the manner in which it is operated). Significant cost savings will also result to Council in delaying the commencement of a new service as contracts for recycling services recently let by other councils are from $15-$24 per household per annum for a crate system and significantly higher for mobile bin systems.
This report is submitted for Council to determine whether the three year option under the Contract Agreement should be exercised or whether the offer of the contractor to renew the contract for a further twelve (12) months should be accepted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation RECYCLING CONTRACT (EXTENSION OR RENEWAL) (W/00005) (Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
. Recommendation RECYCLING CONTRACT (EXTENSION OR RENEWAL) (W/00005) (Report by Manager, Environmental Services, Mr. G. Young)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT :-
1. The Council agree to a twelve (12) month renewal of the Recycling Contract with Progressive Recycling Pty. Ltd. and Council's solicitor be instructed to advise on the terms of Agreement and otherwise prepare the necessary Contract documents.
2. The General Manager be authorised to sign the necessary Contract Agreement.
* * * * * *
Yours faithfully
D Beaumont
Divisional Manager - Development & Health