AGENDA OF Development and Health 19 March 1997

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 97 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-

05:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

05:01.01 19 Douglas Haig Street, Oatley (D.A. 332/95) Detached Dual Dwellings

05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward

05:02.01 235 Forest Road, Hurstville (D.A. 211/96)
Modification Of Condition 2 Of Development Consent D.A. 211/96
(Report By Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

05:02.02 126 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville (D.A. 321/96) Attached Dual Occupancy
(Report By Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison)

05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward

05:03.01 65A Melvin Street, Beverly Hills (D.A. 426/96)
Erection Of Four (4) Single Storey Dwellings Consisting Of 3 Bedrooms In All Dwellings With Associated Car Parking (Report By Town Planner, Mr T. Moody)

05:03.02 5-7 Macquarie Place, Mortdale (D.A. 348/96) Residential Flat Building

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward

05:04.01 10B Llewellyn Street, Oatley (D.A. 146/95)
Section 102 Modification - Dual Occupancy Development
(Report By Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)

05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

05:05.01 Development Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority Between 13 January 1997 And 28 February 1997

05:05.02 Development Applications Received Between 13 January 1997 And 28 February 1997

05:05.03 12-14 Yarran Road, Oatley (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) Appeal Against Council's Refusal Of Da's 238/95 & 239/95 For A Ten (10) Townhouse/Villa Development

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH & PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-

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 & Planning Committee:-

05.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.01.01 19 DOUGLAS HAIG STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 332/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLINGS

Applicant : Mr. Joseph Mazza
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL DWELLINGS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "A"
Owners : Mr. Joseph Mazza
Existing Development : Single Dwelling
Cost of Development : $150,000

This application has been reported to Council on the 27 March 1996, 11 December 1996 and 29 January 1997 and at the last meeting the Council resolved as follows:

"THAT the matter be deferred for inspection and report by the Ward Councillors and appropriate Officers".

Since this meeting, there has been a site meeting with Clrs Sanson, Smith, Stewart and Lynch and further discussions with Ward Councillors. Also on the 10 March 1997, the applicant lodged coloured drawings for the proposed development. These matched the floor layout submitted to the last meeting, but showed the roof design returned to the curved style of the original concept.

To re-acquaint Councillors with the details of this application the report, as considered by Council on the 29 January 1997, is reproduced below:

"A report on this matter was considered by Council at its Meeting held on 11 December, 1996 and Council resolved as follows :

"THAT the matter be deferred for a redesign that provides an acceptable area for four (4) carparking spaces and provides full details of stormwater drainage disposal."

Since this meeting the applicant has further met with the Ward Councillors and Council Officers and an amended plan has been lodged which provides for four (4) carparking spaces on the site. Satisfactory stormwater drainage details have also been supplied by the applicant.

Another issue raised in the previous report was the design of the roof and the need to improve the architecture of the building facade. Consequently the applicant has lodged two (2) alternatives for Council's consideration, firstly, a false fascia around the top of the wall of the building and secondly, an altered design shape similar to that first proposed to Council.

The latest details overcome the problems raised by Council at the last meeting, plus the return to the original roof shape is considered to be the better design.

Accordingly the matter is recommended for approve with it being noted that an additional condition has been applied to obtain adequate planting on the eastern boundary to benefit the privacy of the adjoining neighbour.

To reacquaint Council with this matter a copy of the previous report is reproduced below :

Background

Council at its meeting held on 27 March, 1996, considered an application for the construction of a second dwelling on the subject site. A copy of this report is reproduced below in order to allow Councillors to reacquaint themselves with same.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site is located in Development Area "A", in Oatley. It is a narrow site, with a frontage and general width of 13.715 metres, however, it has a total area of 627 square metres.

The existing dwelling is located at the rear of the site as it is much flatter in that portion. The front section has a fall away from the street of approximately 3.6 metres in 25 metres. This front portion is currently left in its natural state with rocky outcrops and five (5) substantial trees. A pedestrian path winds its way to the existing house, however, there is no off-street parking for that dwelling.

Stormwater currently discharges into a pit at the rear of the house and then seeps into the ground.

The surrounding houses are generally a mixture of one and two storey due to the slope of the land. A variety of materials have been used in the area, however, the predominant form is brick. The houses in the street are largely single detached dwellings.

History

12/7/95	Application lodged with Council officers for a detached dual occupancy.
11/9/95	Applicant advised that additional information is required to assess the application.
18/9/95	Meeting held between Council officers and applicant to discuss problems with the proposal and possible amendments.
11/10/95	Applicant advised Council officers that they were still negotiating a possible stormwater easement.
12/12/95	Meeting with Council officers and applicant re. the amendments and stormwater.
5/1/96	Amended plans received.
19/1/96- 2/2/96	Adjoining owners notified of amended plans.

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 Development Code 1995.

Proposed Development

The proposal is to establish a second dwelling on the subject site, detached from the existing single storey dwelling. It will be located at the front of the site, and due to the slope of the land, will be a two-storey split level design. From the street, it will appear as a two-storey dwelling.

The design incorporates a round roof, with construction of timber weatherboards for the main walls and concrete blocks for the lower storey. The roof will be constructed of corrugated metal roof.

The entry foyer, garage and study are at street level, with a split level down at the rear to accommodate laundry and living room. Bedrooms are located above the entry level with a bridge connecting the east side to the west. A void area exists above the foyer with glass louvres allowing view to the street. The kitchen, dining and family rooms are located above the laundry and living room at the rear of the dwelling.

The amended proposal was decreased in height and re-designed internally to ensure that a large Eucalypt and Angophora could be maintained. These trees will be located adjacent to the study and upper bedroom, and to ensure their roofs are not affected; that part of the dwelling will be constructed on piers instead of on a solid wall.

The applicant has tried to maintain the existing rocky outcrops by building above them, instead of excavating into them. The proposal still complies with Council's height requirements and now provides a private open space courtyard area which is maintained in its natural state. This is located partially under the living room (with a head clearance ranging from 1.8 metres to 2.4 metres); and to the eastern side of the living room, thus achieving adequate sunlight. A deck area extends from the living room, which has a total of approximately 17 square metres and is included as part of the private open space area. This needs to be increased by 3 metres to comply with Council's repealed code, however it forms an adequate useable portion of the private open space.

Vehicle access will be provided to the rear dwelling by constructing a ramp down the eastern side boundary and providing a return bay, adjacent to the proposed deck. The ramp will be elevated (a maximum of 1.8 metres near the street) so as to achieve appropriate grades. The resulting grade is 1:5 with transient grades located at each end. A car space will be provided to the eastern side of the existing bedroom 1, adjacent to the eastern side boundary. This ramp is 2.5 metres wide to ensure the two trees are maintained. It is suggested that this be widened to 2.7 metres alongside the private open space area, once it is clear of the two trees.

The applicant has argued that the proposed dwelling cannot be lowered any more due to the natural constraints of the site. If it were to be lowered it would result in a floor plan that is impractical, due to the amount of stairs and levels, rooms below the driveway ramp and loss of the natural rocky outcrops.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Repealed DCP	Compl	iance	Draft DCP
			Rep	Dft
Site Area	627m²	-	Yes	No	630m²
Density	2 dwellings	-	Yes	Yes	1.99 dwellings
Development Area " A"
Building Height - front - rear	9.2m 5.5m	9.5m 9.5m	Yes Yes	No Yes	9m - See Comment 6m
Private Open Space: - front - rear	95m² 104m²	70m² 60m²	Yes Yes	No Yes	100m² 80m²
Landscaped Area	348m²	55% (344.8m²)	Yes	No	55% (344.8m²) See Comment
Building Setbacks: Front	3.8m	3.5m (min.)	Yes	No	4.5m
Side/rear	0-0.9m/ 7.6m	0-0.9m/ 0.9m	Yes/ Yes	No/ Yes	2m/3m
Residential Parking	3	3	Yes	Yes	3
Visitor Parking	-	N/A	-	-	N/A
Building Envelope - Front	3.5m/ 45^o	3.5m/ 45^o	No	No	3.5m/ 45^o See Comment
- rear	3.5m/ 45^o	3.5m/ 45^o	Yes	No	1.5m/ 45^o See Comment
Frontage	13.715m²	-	Yes	No	15m

Comment:

The proposal complies with the requirements of Council's repealed code, under which it was lodged; with the exception of the building envelope for the front dwelling projected from the western side boundary.

Building Envelope

Due to the narrowness of the site and particularly the slope of the land, it is extremely difficult to design a dwelling to comply with the 3.5 metres/45 degree building envelope. It is only from the western side boundary that the building protrudes the envelope, and since the building is situated in line with the western adjoining dwelling, it should not pose any problems to that dwelling. The adjoining dwelling is two-storey with a side setback varying from 0.9 metre to 2.4 metres from the common side boundary. No windows are located on the walls that face each other. The only concern might be the terrace of the adjoining property and possible loss of privacy. However, that terrace is located at a higher level than the proposed living room and terrace of the subject site. So if any loss of privacy were to occur, it would be to the subject premises.

Non-Compliance Under the Interim Code
(Please note: This proposal was lodged under the repealed code and complies with the requirements of that code.)

Site Density	The subject site is 3 metres short of the required 630 square metres and has a frontage 1.28 metres short of the required 15 metres.
Building Height	The proposal exceeds the 9 metres height limit by 0.2 metre at the worst case.
Private Open Space	The proposed landscaped area provides 78 square metres at ground level with an additional 17 square metres for the decking. The interim code requires 100 square metres at ground level.
Landscaping	The proposal provides 55% landscaping, however, 17 square metres is made up of the terrace which cannot be included under the interim code. Therefore 53% is provided under the requirements of the interim code.

Stormwater Disposal

The applicant approached the neighbours to the rear of the site for a stormwater easement. This was valued at between $3,000 and $4,000, which the applicant advised the appropriate neighbours in writing. Both neighbours refused.

Therefore, the applicant will be draining the roof waters of the proposed dwelling by gravity to the street. The stormwater from the driveway and existing dwelling will be pumped to Douglas Haig Street.

It is suggested that a "Deferred Commencement" consent be granted until these hydraulic plans are submitted.

Manager, Building Services

The proposal was referred to the appropriate building inspector who raised the following concerns:-

* western boundary setbacks;
* access ramp is less than 3 metres wide;
* front building line encroachment; and
* size of double garage is less than 5.5 metres wide

The first three issues have been discussed previously in this report. The size of the garage will be conditioned to a minimum of 5.5 metres and details to be shown with the Building Application.

It was also stated that should approval be granted, stormwater drainage plans are to be submitted to Council for approval and the existing mature trees should be preserved as far as practicable.

Manager, Development Advice

The proposal was referred to the Manager of Development Advice who raised no concerns with the proposal provided drainage amplification was paid and two concrete crossings are provided.

Initially, all stormwater was to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Macken Crescent via a 1 metre wide easement. However, the appropriate neighbours refused to allow an easement, so the applicant has agreed to drain the stormwater from the front house to Douglas Haig Street via gravity. The new driveway and roof waters of the existing house will be pumped to the kerb and gutter of Douglas Haig Street. At present, the existing house simply drains to a pit on the site and seeps into the land. The proposed pump-out will alleviate this problem.

Tree Preservation Officer

After a site inspection it was found that the site contains four (4) Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) and one (1) Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum).

It is ultimately desired that no trees are to be removed from this site and that it be retained in its natural state. However, it would be impossible to design a second dwelling and driveway access to the rear which accommodates this.

Therefore, with reference to the construction of any buildings near trees to be retained, no excavation is to be conducted closer than 2 metres to the tree trunks and all construction work is to be carried out with the protection of the trees in mind.

The Eucalypt and Angophora next to it, MUST be retained, with absolutely no interference to the trees or tree roots.

The Angophora on the western side boundary fence and the small (4 metre high) one located near the western side boundary in line with the proposed decking, can be removed if construction demands it.

Council's tree inspectors would like to see the Angophora located towards the front of the site, where the proposed double garage is to be retained as it is "healthy and stable". However, as mentioned previously, the retention of this tree would make it extremely difficult for any second dwelling to be built. It is believed that the applicant's redesign of the building to ensure the Eucalypt and adjoining Angophora are maintained, is considered an appropriate compromise for the site, and therefore approval should be granted for the removal of the Angophora near the street.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view the amended plans and submit comments on the proposal within fourteen (14) days. Nine (9) submissions were registered, their concerns are outlined below:

(Please note: the original application generated thirteen (13) letters from ten different households and two (2) petitions)

1. Excessive height - the proposed dwelling towers above adjoining dwellings.

Comment: The proposed dwelling complies with Council's height restrictions under the repealed code and only encroaches by 200mm under the interim code. The applicant provided gutter levels of the two adjoining dwellings and the proposed dwelling's roof exceeds the gutter of No.21 Douglas Haig Street by approximately 3.6 metres at the rear and 4 metres at the front of the site. Obviously, the distance between the two roofs will be much less. At the closest point, the roof of the proposed dwelling is 3.89 metres above the roof of No. 17 Douglas Haig Street. It is higher due to No. 17 being located further down the slope as it is further from the street.

2. Loss of privacy, particularly from the living rooms.

Comment: The proposed living room deck is approximately 1.2 metres lower than the existing deck of No. 21, so any loss of privacy will occur to the proposed dwelling. The western side of this terrace can be screened. With reference to No. 17 Douglas Haig Street, although the living room and family room windows face east, toward No. 17, they are located 12 metres away from windows at the closest point. This is considered an adequate separation, particularly since the majority of No. 17's living area is at the rear of the house, where they too have a large balcony

3. Overshadowing of No. 17 in the afternoon and the terrace of No.21 in the morning.

Comment: Morning overshadowing will not occur on the terrace of No. 21 in summer, however, it will occur in winter. Unfortunately, No. 17 will experience afternoon overshadowing on the front entry porch in summer and across the dwelling in winter.

4. Drainage problems appear to be present.

Comment: Drainage details have been discussed elsewhere in this report.

5. The proposal is out of character with the street due to its height, medium density and building materials. Most houses are single storey from the street. It should not be compared with dwellings in other streets, such as Marine Drive.

Comment: The height is permissible and is not excessive. The choice of building materials will provide variety in the street and some uniqueness to the building. They are more modern and the applicant should not be criticised for choosing a different style Medium density in this form is permissible under Council's LEP requirements.

6. The proposal could not comply with the total landscaping required and what about the number of trees being removed?

Comment: The proposal provides 55% total landscaping in accordance with Council's repealed RDCP. The issue of the trees has been discussed previously in this report.

7. The proposal does not comply with Council's Interim Residential Development Code.

Comment: Council at its meeting on 17th July 1995, resolved the following:
"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 Residential Development Control Plan - 1995 on display."

This application falls into that category, complies with the repealed code (apart from building envelope) and only has minor variations to the interim code.

8. The proposed dwelling will be located too close to the Eucalypt and will probably kill it.

Comment: The dwelling has been re-designed around the tree and construction details changed in order to comply with the requirements of Council's Tree Preservation Officer.

9. The location and construction of the pit for the pump, as it will be noisy and attract mosquitos, to which an adjoining neighbour is allergic.

Comment: The details of the pit and pump will be required with the hydraulic plans, however, it will definitely need to be enclosed and appropriately encased.

10. The proposal will cause a loss of value due to increased density.

Comment: This has not been substantiated with facts and some people argue that the increase in density actually increases the value of land due to development potential.

In Summary

The proposal before Council for a second detached dwelling is on a site which has constraints, largely by the fall of the land and its natural topography.

The applicant has designed a dwelling and its construction overcomes the problems of the natural topography without disturbing the site too much.

It is believed the use of different materials and the rounded roof will provide a variation in the street, but will not look out of place. It is only two storey and is simply a more modern approach to building.

Due to the problems of stormwater disposal and not achieving an easement, it is believed that a "Deferred Commencement" consent be granted for three (3) months, to enable the applicant to provide the sufficient hydraulic details. Therefore, this is the recommendation.

THAT Council as the consent authority grant a "Deferred Commencement" consent for the construction of a detached dual occupancy at No. 19 Douglas Haig Street, Oatley subject to the following conditions:

A. The submission to Council of full hydraulic plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc; dimensions and types of drainage pits; and details re: the pump(s) and its associated pipes are to be shown. The roof works of the front dwelling are to drain to the kerb and gutter in Douglas Haig Street via gravity. All surface water from driveway and rear dwelling is to be pumped to the kerb and gutter in Douglas Haig Street.

This is to be submitted within three (3) months from the date of the "Deferred Commencement" consent. This requirement must be satisfied before the formal consent can operate from the following conditions:

1. Compliance in all respects with amended drawings, plans dated 29/6/95 and received by Council 5/1/96, Drawing No DA.01a, submitted with DA 332/95, 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 $1,110.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by ,the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed RL106.2 for the front portion and RL105.8 for the rear portion at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Natural colours such as browns and greens are to be used for the exterior roof and walls. 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.

11. The building and or work being the subject of the development consent shall not be occupied until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Building Certificate issued.

12. 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.

13. Applicant to pay Council to construct two (2) 100mm thick concrete crossings.
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.

14. 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. This is to be done in accordance with Council's Tree Preservation Officers.

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.

15. Reports prepared by the applicant's landscape architect and design structural engineer are to be submitted with the required building application. The reports are to detail:

(a) the effect of the root system of the retained trees on the footings of the proposed villas

(b) the required villa footing design to overcome any damage to the villas as a result of the retention of the trees

(c) the effect of the root system of the trees on the driveway pavement

(d) the design of the driveway pavement having regard to the root system of the retained trees.

The landscape plan shall have particular regard for the detailed report outlined above. All trees nominated for retention or removal shall be shown. No trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

16. The developer and his agents shall take all measures to prevent damage to trees and root systems during site works and construction. No excavation is to be conducted closer than 2 metres to the tree trunk of the trees to be retained.

17. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwelling/s. For any future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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. All plumbing and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.

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. The proposed double garage is to be a minimum of 5.5 metre wide internally. Details are to be shown with the Building Application.

25. The proposed living room deck is to be a minimum of 20 square metres and the proposed family room deck is to be deleted. Details are to be shown with the Building Application.

26. The driveway ramp is to be widened to 2.7 metres alongside the house and alongside the Private Open Space, once it is away from the tree trunk in accordance with Council's Tree Preservation Officers. Details are to be shown with the Building Application.

27. A return bay with a minimum width of 2.7 metres and a minimum length of 6.7 metres from the eastern side boundary is to be provided adjacent to the proposed living room deck for the rear car. Details are to be shown with the Building Application.

It should be noted that the recommendation in the report was for a "Deferred Commencement" approval, however, Council resolved as follows :

"THAT the application be deferred and returned to the applicant for a redesign to address criteria as follows :

1. Proposal is out of character with the local streetscape.

2. Encroachment upon the building line.

3. Excessive height of the building.

4. Overshadowing and privacy concerns for the rear dwelling.

5. Privacy concerns for decking overlooking the property adjacent known as No. 17.

6. Landscaping inadequate as landscaping areas under and on the structure are unacceptable.

7. The effect on the adjacent property caused by the height of the driveway to the rear dwelling."

The applicant has submitted amended plans in response to the above Council resolution. These plans are the subject of this report. The applicant has submitted the following details in response to each of the items raised in Council's resolution.

"Pursuant to Council's correspondence dated 1 April, 1996, please find accompany this letter an amended design with regard to the Development Application for the abovementioned project; including :

A Three (3) copies, one (1) coloured, of architectural drawing DA01B and DA02B.

B One (1) copy each of architectural drawings DA03A and DA04A showing shadow projections for the prescribed dates;

C A photographic study of existing building located along Douglas Haig Street; and,

D Two (2) x A4 colour photocopies from an article in the June, 1966 issue of Steel Profile magazine, which describes a home (of similar architecture to the proposal) designed by Lippmann Associates and located in the suburb of Mosman.

For the record, the Development Application was originally submitted under the now repealed Development Control Plan (DCP) of 13 May, 1994.

The amended proposal addresses the seven (7) objections as follows :

1. Proposal is out of character with the local streetscape.

The Douglas Haig streetscape retains no significant character. In fact, each existing building is out of character with its immediate neighbours and other buildings in the street. The accompanying photographs clearly indicate that Douglas Haig Street is diverse in architectural styles, from the uniquely proportioned, unattractive garage at No. 17 (Plate 20) to the more classical and modern two (2) storey residence at No. 9 (Plate 12); with a myriad of weatherboard, cape-cod project and red-textured brick homes (devoid of place in the architectural scheme of things) in between.

The Land and Environment Court is littered with failed attempts by Councils arguing the streetscape issue, as architects like Harry Seidler are only too familiar with.

It should be accepted that the previously proposed building and more so, the currently amended design, are not only approvable under Council's repealed DCP but appropriate to the on-going processes of development of the built environment (of which Lippmann Associates' design is an example).

2. Encroachment upon the building line

The amended proposal has been set 300mm further back, from the western side boundary, than the previously proposed building. However , in view of Council's concerns with regard to the existing Eucalyptus Haemastoma, the front boundary setback is reduced from 3.8 metres, as previously proposed, to a 3.5 metres; the minimum allowed under Council's repealed DCP.

3. Excessive height of the building

The amended proposal is 860mm lower than the previously proposed building.

As can be seen from viewing the drawings, the proposal now sits well within the 9.5 metre Building Envelope. However, there is no doubt tat an issue existed in locating the side/rear 45 degree height envelope with regard to the previous proposal; which if taken (and extended along the side boundaries ) from footpath level, provided for a building in compliance with Council's repealed DCP. This was/is exacerbated by the sloping nature of a site which falls approximately 5.75 metres from front footpath to back corner.

4. Overshadowing and privacy concerns for the rear dwelling.

Neither the previous or amended proposal overshadow the existing dwelling located at the rear of the site. The minimum four (4) hour requirement for solar access was/is satisfied.

With regard to the issue or privacy, the impact will always be less than the loss of privacy created by the recently constructed balcony at No. 21 which is located further down the site and at a higher level than first floor room and balcony of the currently proposed building. It is a pity that the civic mindedness expressed, under this heading, was not accorded to me when Mr. Thompson's application went before Council.

Clearly, the situation with regard to privacy is typical of the urban context in which residential development exists. Nonetheless, as the amended proposal is shorter in length, located closer to the front boundary and lower than the previous proposal, the perceived impacts are greatly reduced.

5. Privacy concerns for decking overlooking the property adjacent known as No. 17.

It is difficult to understand this concern in the context of existing and proposed conditions. It would appear that the (previously mentioned) deck at No. 21 creates a greater opportunity for overlooking than any element proposed at No. 19. While the south-western corner of the two (2) storey building at No. 17 virtually cuts out any view of its deck from the proposed development, the deck at No. 21 (which is located further down the site and at a higher level than first floor rooms and balcony of the currently proposed building) has a direct and unobstructed view over the deck at No. 17.

Furthermore, it is a pity that the civic mindedness expressed, under this heading, was not accorded to me when Mr. Stevens application (for a deck at No. 17) went before Council. This deck has a clear view into the second bedroom, bathroom and the rear yard area of the existing dwelling at No. 19.

In addition, the retention of existing trees and proposed planting further eliminates the possibility of any overview from No. 19 Douglas Haig Street.

6. Landscaping is inadequate as landscaping areas under and on the structure are unacceptable.

While this issue could be argued by a previous compliance based upon allowances as published in Council's repealed DCP, it is sufficient to say that removal of the previously proposed driveway now creates more than enough landscaped area to satisfy Council's requirements.

7. The effect on the adjacent property caused by the height of the driveway to the rear dwelling.

While there is sufficient precedence, in Douglas Haig Street (refer previously submitted Plates 6 and 7) of driveways tot he rear of existing allotments, it is sufficient to say that removal of the previously proposed driveway makes this concern redundant.

Despite Council's recommendation for approval of the previous proposal, I have elected to amend and redesign rather than take the matter to the Land and Environment Court. I am committed to having this matter resolved in the interest of all parties concerned."

Amended Proposal

The amended proposal varies from the original application in the following respects :

1. Alteration to the design of the roof.

The previous design incorporated a round roof to be constructed of corrugated metal. The current design has incorporated a flat roof of corrugated metal. It should be noted that the roof design has been amended in order to reduce the height of the roof by .860mm. The purpose is to meet the concerns of objectors and point 3 of Council's resolution.

2. Mirror reversal of the front portion of the building and driveway at ground level.

Deletion of the second garage, driveway ramp and relocation of the carspace for the rear dwelling to the front of the site.

This amendment has resulted from the need to meet point 7 of Council's resolution in respect of the effect of the driveway height on the adjacent property. The deletion of the driveway has removed this concern and allowed for increased landscaping on the site. It is noted that this amendment has resulted in the proposed removal of the existing red gum tree at the front of the site. It should be further noted that it would be desirable to retain all the trees on the site, however, this is not a feasible option if a second dwelling is to be constructed on the site. It is considered that the amended design has greater benefits to the funtionalism of the proposed dwelling than the retention of the existing tree to the front of the site.

3. The alteration of the building alignment from 3.8 metres to 3.5 metres.

Council's repealed DCP requires a minimum building alignment of 3.5 metres. This has been done to alleviate Council's concerns in respect to the existing Eucalyptus Haemastoma tree to the eastern property boundary which is to be retained.

Council's draft DCP requires a building alignment of 4.5 metres. In this regard, as the original application was lodged prior to 13 July, 1995 Council must take into consideration Section 90 matters and heads of consideration with the plan in force when submitted i.e., the repealed DCP and the draft Multi-Residential Control Plan, 1995.

The applicant has indicated as detailed in his submission that he is prepared to provide an increased setback to the front of the site, resulting in the loss of the tree in question.

4. The increase to the western side setback by 300mm.

This increase to the setback is noted and is more desirable.

5. The removal of the existing Angophora located adjacent to the existing Eucalyptus Haemastoma.

Council's previous report detailed the trees to be removed and retained and in respect to the subject Angophora, it was required that an amendment to the design of the building be carried out in order to retain same. The applicant has not met this requirement in the redesigned proposal and it is considered feasible that this tree be retained and the applicant requested to redesign the proposal to achieve same. This will be addressed as a condition of the development approval.

6. Reduction in the amount of carspaces on the site from three (3) to two (2).

Further to the points raised in point (2) above, the applicant, by the deletion of the driveway to the rear carspace, has allowed for improved and increased landscaping area to the site which is highly desirable. It is not considered feasible in this regard to require a third carspace and therefore the deletion in the carparking requirement from three (3) spaces to two (2) spaces is supported in this instance.

7. Alteration to the building design.

The amended design to the facade of the building as proposed is considered unattractive. It is appropriate that a requirement be made in order to improve the architectural treatment of the front facade of the proposed building. This may be achieved by the redesign of the type and size of the windows. An appropriate condition will be imposed requiring same.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Repealed DCP	Com	pliance	Draft DCP
			Rep	Dft
Site Area	627 m²	-	Yes	No	630 m²
Density	2 dwgs	-	Yes	Yes	1.99 dwgs
Development Area "A"
Building Height - Front - Rear	8.6 m 5.5 m	9.5 m 9.5 m	Yes Yes	Yes Yes	9.0 m 6.0 m
Private Open Space: Front Rear	110.46 m² 105.6 m²	70 m² 60 m²	Yes Yes	Yes Yes	100 m² 80 m²
Landscaped Area	383 m²	55% or 345 m²	Yes	Yes	55% or 345m²
Building Setbacks: Front	3.5 m	3.5 m	Yes	No	4.5 m
Side/rear	1.2 m	0-0.9/0.9 m	Yes	No	2.0/3.0 m
Residential Parking	2	3	No	No	3
Building Envelope - Front	3.5m/45^o	3.5m/45^o	Yes	Yes	3.5m/45^o
- rear	3.5m/45^o	3.5m/45^o	Yes	Yes	1.5m/45^o
Frontage	13.715 m	-	Yes	No	15.0 m

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and invited to view the amended plans and submit comments on the proposal within fourteen (14) days. Nineteen (19) letters of support to the proposal submitted, seven (7) of these from residents in Douglas Haig Street. Nine (9) submissions in the form of letters of objection and one (1) petition containing eleven signatures and representing seven (7) households were received.

Their concerns are outlined below :

i) Proposed dwelling is out of character with the area in respect to design and choice of building materials.

Comment : The choice of building materials in this instance is timber with a flat iron roof. This is considered an acceptance proposal subject to certain amendments being made to the increase of the size of the windows on the front elevation in order to provide an improved building facade, as discussed previously in this report. It is considered that the proposed design will provide a variety in the street and some uniqueness to the building, as stated in Council's previous report.

ii) The drainage is inadequate for the proposal.

Comment : As detailed in the previous Council report, after failed negotiations in order to secure easement rights for stormwater disposal with the neighbours to the rear of the site, the applicant must drain the roof waters of the proposed dwelling by gravity to the street. Hydraulic plans are required which detail the proposed method of achieving this. Again, it is suggested that a "Deferred Commencement" consent be granted until such time as those hydraulic plans are submitted, should Council resolve to grant approval to the application.

iii) The amended building facade to the street is worse in design than the original proposal.

Comment : This point of objection is considered reasonable and a requirement will be made for the improvement of the architectural treatment at the front facade as mentioned previously in this report.

iv) The proposal will result in the destruction of mature trees on the site.

Comment : As mentioned previously in this report ideally it would be desirable to retain all the existing trees on the site. However, this is not feasible if a second dwelling is to be built on the site. An investigation of the existing trees on the site has identified trees that should be retained and trees that may be removed and this has been discussed previously in this report.

v) The proposal encroaches into the building alignment stipulated by the draft DCP.

Comment : This point of objection has been discussed previously in this report.

vi) The height of the proposal is excessive.

Comment : The proposed height complies with Council's height requirements.

vii) Overshadowing and privacy concerns for the existing dwelling at the rear.

Comment : The proposed dwelling does not overshadow the existing dwelling located at the rear of the site. The minimum four (4) hour requirement for solar access has been satisfied. Attempts have been to minimise loss of privacy to the rear dwelling as much as possible with the design of the proposed building.

viii) Privacy concerns for No. 17 Douglas Haig Street.

Comment : It is considered that adequate separation exists between the proposed dwelling and No. 17 Douglas Haig Street to enable minimal loss of privacy. The existing and proposed landscaping treatment of the site will allow further potential for reduction in loss of privacy to No. 17.

ix) Landscaping on the site is inadequate.

Comment : The amount of landscaping to be provided is more than the required 55% in accordance with Council's repealed DCP and draft DCP.

x) The choice of building materials, i.e., timber and corrugated metal is not in keeping with the remainder of the street.

Comment : The choice of building materials is considered acceptable with the remainder of the street.

Summary

It is reiterated that the subject site has physical constraints largely by the fall of the land and its natural topography. The applicant has designed a second dwelling on the site which aims to minimise any disruption to the natural topography as much as possible. It is noted that the proposed design and type of building materials to be used is different to what currently exists in the area, but it should be considered as a variation in the existing design and style. The applicant in the amended design has attempted to alleviate the concern of the objectors and concerns of Council. There has been an improvement to the architectural treatment at the front of the site and the proposed building at the rear has been redesigned in order to retain the existing as identified in this report. Due to the problems of stormwater disposal and not achieving an easement, it is recommended that a "Deferred Commencement" consent be granted for three (3) months to enable the applicants to provide sufficient hydraulic details."

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 19 DOUGLAS HAIG STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 332/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLINGS

. Recommendation 19 DOUGLAS HAIG STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 332/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLINGS

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council as the consent authority grant a Development Consent for the construction of a detached dual occupancy at No. 19 Douglas Haig Street, Oatley subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance generally with amended drawings DA01b and DA02b, dated 23 July 1996 and marked amended 28/2/97, submitted with DA 332/95, 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 rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,110.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. In accordance with the submitted plans, the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed RL105.94 for the front portion and RL104.64 for the rear portion at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Natural colours such as browns and greens are to be used for the exterior roof and walls. 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.

11. The building and or work being the subject of the development consent shall not be occupied until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Building Certificate issued.

12. 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.

13. Applicant to pay Council to construct a 100mm thick concrete vehicular crossing.

Quote given on request.

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.

14. 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.

This is to be done in accordance with Council's Tree Preservation Officers.

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.

15. Reports prepared by the applicant's landscape architect and design structural engineer are to be submitted with the required building application. The reports are to detail:

(a) the effect of the root system of the retained trees on the footings of the proposed dual occupancy

(b) the required footing design to overcome any damage to the dual occupancy as a result of the retention of the trees

(d) the design of any pavement having regard to the root system of the retained trees.

The landscape plan shall have particular regard for the detailed report outlined above. All trees nominated for retention or removal shall be shown. No trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

16. The developer and his agents shall take all measures to prevent damage to trees and root systems during site works and construction. No excavation is to be conducted closer than one (1) metre to the tree trunk of the trees to be retained.

17. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwelling/s. For any future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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. All plumbing and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.

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. The landscape plan shall include details of dense screen plantings adjacent to the eastern boundary to provide adequate screening to the patio and living area windows of the adjoining property.

25. 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. These plans shall show stormwater from the front dwelling draining to the Douglas Haig Street gutter via gravity and stormwater from the rear dwelling and all other surface waters being pumped to the same gutter.

26. The courtyard wall adjacent to the street boundary shall be constructed so that it is 50% transparent and details of this construction shall be included with the Building Application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.02.01 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
MODIFICATION OF CONDITION 2 OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT D.A. 211/96
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

Applicant

N. De Luca

Proposal

MODIFICATION OF CONDITION 2 OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT D.A. 211/96

Zoning

3(b) City Centre Business Zone

Owners

N & E Luca

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Development Consent D.A. 211/96 was issued on 10 October 1996 for the erection of a first floor addition to an existing commercial premises.

2. The issue of Development Consent was subject to the imposition of conditions including the payment of a Section 94 contribution for parking.

3. The applicant has requested the amount of contribution be reduced from a total of $50,040 to $33,360 on the basis of a shortfall of 2 spaces rather than 3 spaces.

4. It is recommended the request for reduction in the S.94 contribution be approved.

Background

In June 1996, Council received a Development Application for second storey additions to an existing commercial building located in Forest Road, Hurstville. The initial development plans submitted involved the construction of a full second storey covering the entire roof of the existing ground floor. The existing building was characterised by a decorative brick fascia which rose above the ground floor awning and was similar to many other commercial buildings in the locality. Although the building was not a listed heritage item in accordance with LEP 1994, the facade was assessed as having historical, archaeological and aesthetic significance in the Heritage Study carried out for Council in 1988.

On the basis of its location amongst listed heritage items and Council's desire to retain or recreate where possible, appropriate facade treatments, the applicant was requested to reconsider both the design and extent of the first floor additions.

Following a meeting held in August 1995 with the applicant, revised plans were submitted which retained the existing facade above the awning and set back the new 2 storey section of the building a distance of 3 metres from the original facade.

The revised plans were considered acceptable, and processing of all the applications then took place as normal.

Conditions of Consent

In accordance with Council policy, the proposed additional floor space was calculated to determine a Section 94 Contribution for parking. In this instance, the revised plans proposed an increase of 150m

in floor space, which in turn equated to a contribution of $50,040, comprising 3 spaces at $16,680 per space.

A Development Consent incorporating the requirement for the payment of the relevant Section 94 contribution was duly issued in October 1996.

Proposal

A request has been received from the applicant/owners of the subject property for the Section 94 contribution to be reviewed and reduced from $50,040 to $33,360, i.e. a reduction in the basis of the calculation from 3 spaces to 2 spaces.

The justification provided by the applicant for the reduction is based on the fact that the applicant willingly agreed to retain the existing fascia of the building and reduce the extent of the proposed second storey by a distance of 3 metres, thus a reduction in floor space of 21m

. In return for the loss of lettable area, the applicant considers Council should accept a reduced Section 94 Contribution.

Planning Comments

Had the subject property been listed as a heritage item in LEP 1994, it is likely that Council may have waived the requirement for a Section 94 Contribution in order to provide a "Conservation Incentive" for the preservation of the building in accordance with Clause 30(1) of the LEP. Although the building is not a listed item, Council may wish to follow the same principle outlined in Clause 30 by considering a reduction in the Section 94 Contribution as an incentive for the conservation of the original fascia of the building. In considering the applicant's request, Council should also take into account the following:

a) The building is located within close proximity of listed heritage buildings, therefore there is a cumulative benefit in retaining the streetscape within the entire precinct.

b) Council's 1988 Heritage Study identified the subject building as having historical, architectural and aesthetic value.

Taking into account all of the matters discussed above, it is recommended that Council accede to the applicant's request.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

. Recommendation 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council as the consent authority and in accordance with Section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 modify Condition 2 of Development Consent DA 211/96 to reduce the Section 94 Contribution from $50,040 to a total of $33,360.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.02.02 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison)

Applicant

: Nautilus Designs

Proposal

: ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY

Zoning

: Zone No. 2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area "B"

Owners

: Mr. Stan Sepcas

Existing Development

: Detached Residential Dwelling

Cost of Development

: $250,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Attached dual occupancy, two storey.

2. Corner allotment with frontage to Carrington Avenue and side boundary to Ruby Street. The applicant seeks a variation to Council's Code on building height and for building setback to the secondary street frontage.

3. No objections received.

4. Stormwater to drain to Carrington Avenue.

5. Recommendation - Approval.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The site of the proposed attached two storey dual occupancy proposal is located at the corner of Carrington Avenue and Ruby Street, Hurstville. The existing site contains a Federation single storey dwelling identified in the Municipality of Hurstville Heritage Study of 1988 as "Colvin". The building as submitted by the applicant is in poor condition and no longer considered to be an item of heritage significance under this study. The dwelling has not been identified as a heritage item on Schedule 2 of the Hurstville City Council Local Environmental Plan 1994.

The subject site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage to Carrington Avenue of 16.85 metres and depth to Ruby Street of 40.09 metres. The site generally falls to the eastern side of Ruby Street and has a total site area of approximately 682.86 square metres.

126 Carrington Avenue is located in an area which contains residential development consisting of one and two storey dwellings. Services and facilities which are available within close proximity to the proposal include local shops, public open space, schools and public transport.

History

16/9/96	Development application submitted to Hurstville City Council.
24/10/96	Letter to the applicant outlining design issues to be resolved prior to notification. Issues to be amended include a 50% landscaping component, Carrington Avenue and Ruby Street setbacks and private open space areas to be fenced to a height of 1.8 metres for dwelling "B".
22/11/96	Amended plan submitted to Council addressing above issues.
5/12/96 - 19/12/96	Proposal notified to adjoining and affected property owners.
10/1/97	Applicant further notified following detailed assessment of areas of non-compliance. Advised to submit amended plans addressing areas of non-compliance.
16/1/97	Amended plans submitted to Council.
11/2/97	Letter to the applicant outlining provision of landscaped area up to 50%, accurate site dimension plans, 2 carparking spaces for Dwelling B, double garages to have a minimum of 5.4m clear width between door jambs and side setbacks of 2m on the north-eastern boundary along Carrington Avenue.
28/2/97	Amended plans submitted to Council.

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 Interim Residential Development Code and its relevant amendments.

Proposed Development

The proposal as submitted for this application is to demolish the existing detached residential dwelling and to construct two storey attached dual occupancy dwellings, having frontage to both Carrington Avenue and Ruby Street, Hurstville. The dwellings contain three (3) bedrooms each and address the corner site and site orientation principles satisfactorily. The dwellings have been designed to ensure natural light is received by all rooms within the dwellings, with private open space areas addressing both solar access and living room areas. The new dwellings will have vehicular access via both Carrington Avenue and Ruby Street with off-street parking being provided on site and away from side boundaries.

The new dwellings will be of brick veneer construction with concrete roof tiles.

The site has a total site area of 682.86 square metres and a frontage to Carrington Avenue of 16.865 metres. The Ruby Street frontage is 40.49 metres in length.

The proposal as submitted by the applicant does not comply with the Hurstville City Council Interim Residential Development Control Plan (IRDC) 1995 as the building line is reduced and the rear dwelling is two (2) storeys in height. The applicant feels that the corner configuration of the site permits the reduced alignment and additional height without impacting adversely on adjacent properties.

Tabled Information

	Proposed	Compliance	Draft DCP
Site Area	682.86 m²	Yes	630 m²
Density	2 dwgs	Yes	2.16
Development Area "B"
Building Height	7.4 m	Yes/No	9.0/6.0 m
Private Open Space:	70/115 m²	Yes	60.0 m²
Landscaped Area	353 m² (52%)	Yes	341.43 m²
Building Setbacks: Front	4.5 m	Yes	4.5 m
Side/rear	3.0 m	No	4.0 m
Residential Parking	4	Yes	4
Building Envelope - Front	3.5/45^o	Yes	3.5/45^o
- rear	1.5/45^o	No	1.5/45^o
Frontage	16.85 m	Yes	15.0 m

Comment

Building Height

- The proposal does not comply with Council's IRDC 1995, due to the rear dwelling being two storeys in height. (See "Summary" for further comment.)

Building Setback

- The proposed Carrington Avenue setback has an encroachment on the southern corner of the site but is generally behind the 4.5 metre setback requirement to this frontage.

The proposed setback for Dwelling A facing Ruby Street is 3.0m. However, the existing footpath area to Ruby Street is larger than normal in this instance giving support to this variation sought by the applicant.

A purpose built retreat located on the southern corner of the site is also forward of the required setback to which architectural merit and design consideration is sought by the applicant.

Building Envelope

- The Ruby Street dwelling "B" is proposed to be two storeys in height due to the corner site location. Consideration by the applicant is sought due to the non-compliance with the required building envelope height of 6.0 metres for rear dwellings.

Manager, Building Services

The proposal was referred to the Manager, Building Services to which the following comment was made. No objection to the proposal was raised subject to standard conditions relating to the submission of a building application and stormwater drainage details.

Manager, Development Advice

The proposal was referred to the Manager, Development Advice to which the following comment was made. All stormwater is to drain to the kerb and gutter in Carrington Avenue. Provision for on site detention is also to be incorporated into the proposal as a condition of consent. Standard conditions associated with the existing crossing and kerb and gutter with the applicant to register as "Road Widening" a 3m x 3m splay at the corner of Ruby Street and Carrington Avenue. A new fence is to be incorporated to match this dedicated splay.

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. No submissions were registered to the proposal during this notification period.

Summary

The applicant has commented in the Statement of Environment Effects as follows:

"The development proposed complies with Council Control Plan in terms of both development standards and spirit and intent, but not in conjunction with your code that only allows two (2) storey dwellings at Carrington Avenue (the shortest boundary), and only single storey to the rear. Being a corner block it would look detrimental to the aesthetic appearance and practical use of the land; if we would adhere to your code, the longest boundary would be fenced in lieu putting forward a solution that will enhance the appearance of the subject property as indicated in the accompanying alternative solution. It is also viewed that the proposed development also succeeds on merit and as such, is appropriate for the granting of consent subject to conditions."

The attached dual occupancy proposal for development at 126 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville generally complies with the objectives of the Hurstville City Council IRDC 1995. It should be noted, however, that the applicant is seeking Council consideration to vary the requirements of the IRDC 1995 in regard to rear dwelling height requirement and building setback in certain areas along the two street frontages.

The variations sought by the applicant in this instance are considered to be acceptable due to the opportunity presented by the site to address both Ruby Street and Carrington Avenue. The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams for the proposal which reflect only minor overshadowing impact upon the adjoining residence in Carrington Avenue. The development is a good utilisation of a high profile corner allotment with the proposal suiting the locality.

The retreat located on the southern corner of the site breaks up the proposal creating a significant architectural feature which compliments the staggered street frontages of the development.

Assessed on the controls of the IRDC 1995, the corner location and existing streetscape of the locality and the amendments requested by Council's planning officers to the original proposal, approval to the attached dual occupancy proposal is therefore recommended.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison

. Recommendation 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council as the consent authority grant approval for the development of an attached two storey dual occupancy proposal to be constructed at 126 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 309 tables and documentation prepared by John Korkidas of Nautilus Designs dated 28 February 1997 and submitted with DA 321/96, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

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 7am to 5pm 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.

The contribution is $2,967 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 $331 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. The applicant to provide an on site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional hydrological/hydraulic engineer, showing computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:

* For events up to a 5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) design event as defined by Australian Rainfall and Runoff (May 1987), maximum peak site discharge resulting from the development shall not be greater than peak site discharge under existing conditions for all durations up to the time of concentration with OSD included and of the same AEP.

* Where the stormwater discharge points are connected to the street gutter system, the peak flow from the site shall not increase the width of gutter flow by more than 200mm at the design storm.

* The OSD facility shall be designed to meet all safety requirements and childproof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is greater than 300mm.

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 Carrington Avenue.

9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by Nautilus Designs, the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed 9.0 metres at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point. Finished RL's are to be submitted with the building application plans.

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 building and or work being the subject of the development consent shall not be occupied until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Building Certificate 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 car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m.

16. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Each proposed double garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 5.4 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.

17. The dedication to Council of a 3m x 3m splay to Carrington Avenue and Ruby Street for the purpose of road widening. The dedication shall be registered prior to the issue of a Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

18. Applicant to pay Council to :

a) Replace the existing crossing with kerb and gutter.

b) Construct two concrete crossings each 100mm thick.

Quote given on request.

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.

19. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development 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, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development 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.

20. The developer and his agents shall take all measures to prevent damage to trees and root systems during site works and construction.

21. 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.

22. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwelling/s. For any future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

23. 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, Telstra, Energy Australia and the Sydney Water Board.

24. 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.

25. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.

26. All plumbing except stormwater downpipes and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.

27. 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.

28. The dwelling to be demolished is currently identified in the City of Hurstville Heritage Study, 1988. The applicant is to provide at no cost to Council, a full recording of the building for historical purposes which is to be done prior to demolition. This is to involve photographs of the exteriors and interiors of the building, floor plans, elevations, and any other architectural details which contribute to the character and historical significance of the building. This historical recording is to be carried out by a person with demonstrated experience in this field and is to be submitted to Council prior to any demolition work on the building being carried out.

29. The Ruby Street frontage for dwelling "A" is not to encroach beyond the 3.0 metre setback as submitted in the amended plans dated 28 February 1997, with DA 321/96.

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 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
ERECTION OF FOUR (4) SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS CONSISTING OF 3 BEDROOMS IN ALL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody)

Applicant

: Westminster Homes Pty Limited

Proposal

: ERECTION OF FOUR (4) SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS CONSISTING OF 3 BEDROOMS IN ALL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING

Zoning

: Zone No. 2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area "B"

Owners

: Ms Diana Brent

Existing Development

: Dwelling

Cost of Development

: $300,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Proposal to erect four (4) single storey dwellings consisting of three (3) bedrooms in all dwellings with associated car parking.

2. Proposal does not comply with provisions of Interim Residential Development Code ("IRDC"). Minor variation of provisions considered reasonable or can be satisfied by conditions.

3. No objection is raised by Council's Engineers and Building Surveyors.

4. Four (4) letters of objection lodged. Points of objection not supported or can be addressed by conditions of approval. Objections relating to lack of parking supported and condition imposed to increase on-site parking level.

5. Recommendation - approval subject to conditions.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The subject site is a battle-axe lot surround on three (3) sides by standard residential subdivision containing predominantly single storey dwellings.

To the south of the site is the East Hills Railway Line.

To the east of the site across Melvin Street is Beverly Hills Girls High School.

Subject Site

The site is an irregular shaped lot. A 4.57m wide access handle of 42.67m in length provides access to the site off Melvin Street.

The main body of the site contains a single storey brick and tile cottage. A small brick and metal shed is also erected on the block. The site slopes relatively gently from the northern tip of the site down tot he southern boundary which adjoins East Hills Railway Line.

Pine trees are on the site.

Proposed Development

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence on the site and erect four (4) single storey dwellings containing three (3) bedrooms in all villas with associated parking.

The proposal has the following additional features:

. all villas are single storey

. the roofs of the villas contain hips and gables

. each dwelling has one (1) garage

. one (1) visitor space is proposed

. each dwelling has a private courtyard

. an access handle, 42.67m long, provides access to the development from Melvin Street

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the proposal is permissible with Council consent.

The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Interim Residential Development Code ("IRDC"). The proposal does not comply with a number of provisions of the IRDC but the minor variation of the provisions is considered reasonable or can be satisfied by conditions.

Compliance with IRDC Requirements

Further comment is provided below in respect of the compliance of the proposed development with the IRDC.

	IRDC	Proposal	Complies
Site Area	1260m²	1234m² (excludes access handle)	No. 1
Density	3.92 dwellings	4 dwellings	No. 1
Frontage and General Width	15m	35m (approx at mid point at body of site)	Yes
Storeys	2 - 1 storeys	1 storey	Yes
Building Height	9m - 6m	5m (1 storey)	Yes
Landscaped Area	559	647	Yes
Setbacks Front Rear and Side	4.5m Building Envelope	45m (at end of access handle) Complies	Yes Yes
Residential Parking	5 spaces	4 dwellings	No. 2
Visitor Parking	1 space	1 space	Yes
Private Courtyard	60m² with minimum dimension of 3m	All courtyards comply	Yes

Comment

1. The variations from the IRDC site area and density requirements is only very minor. In fact, the variation is only 2%.

2. An additional one (1) parking space is required. Sufficient area is available on site to provide the additional space.

Other Section 90 Issues

Bulk, Scale and Height

: The proposal is considered compatible in bulk, scale and height with the adjoining residential area due to its single storey construction.

Overshadowing

: There will not be unreasonable overshadowing onto adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposal is for single storey units. Further, there is no unreasonable overshadowing onto private courtyards of each proposed dwelling as a significant portion of each private courtyard has a northern orientation.

Traffic and Parking

: As previously advised, it is considered that the traffic and parking arrangements are satisfactory subject to provision of additional one (1) on site space.

Privacy

: No loss of privacy is anticipated due to the fact that the dwellings are to be only of single storey construction. Additionally, the dwellings are to be setback from the side boundary in excess of that normally evident for 1 and 2 storey dwellings.

Existing and Proposed Vegetation

: There is no significant vegetation on the site which is worthy of preservation.

A condition has been imposed requiring intensive perimeter landscaping.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was placed on public exhibition and adjoining owners notified. A total of

4 letters

of objection were received. The main issues raised in their submissions were as follows:

Loss of Privacy

: There is unlikely to be an unreasonable loss of privacy given that the proposed villas are all one storey. Further a dividing fence plus perimeter landscaping will minimise any loss of privacy.

It should be noted that the site is also generally lower than the adjoining dwellings.

ii)

Problems with Plumbing to Toilets

: The development will be required to comply with the relevant Council and Water Board requirements regarding water and sewerage services.

iii)

Parking Problems in Street

: Inspections reveal some parking, although fluctuating in the street at various times due to adjoining developments, such as the Beverly Hills Girls High School.

The original proposal did not comply with Council's Code. A condition has been imposed requiring the provision of additional on site parking.

iv)

Noise Impact

: Given that the development is residential and is permissible, any increase in noise is considered reasonable.

Villas Will Look Out of Place

: The design of the dwellings is in keeping with other residential development. The dwellings have a style and appearance consistent with other dwellings in the locality.

vi)

Villas "Too Cramped"

: The dwellings are proposed at a higher density than normal residential lots but such a higher density is part of the urban consolidation sought be Council's Code. It should also be noted that the proposed villa development is not too cramped relative to Council's Code given the following:

. the proposed density is only slightly in excess of Council's density requirement

. the landscaped area is in excess of Council's requirement even with additional on site car parking

. the setbacks to the side and rear boundaries are in excess of Council's Code.

vi)

Inadequate Entrance to Property

: The Roads & Traffic Authority recommend a minimum width of 3.5m to service up to 15 spaces where the roadway is a maximum of 40 metres. A roadway width of 3.5m wide can be provided within the access handle although the handle is only slightly longer than 40 metres. The access handle can also provide a passing bay.

vii)

Lower Living Standards and Devalue Property

: There is no evidence to support such a submission. Further, any loss must be counterbalanced against the wider public interest arising from properly designed urban consolidation developments.

viii)

4 Villas to Replace Existing Dwelling

: The development will result in increased density of development but is nonetheless considered a reasonable standard of development.

ix)

Extra Overloading on Street

: The proposed development will generate up to 26 vehicle trips per day compared to 9 vehicle trips for the existing dwelling based on RTA guidelines. An additional 17 trips per day is not likely to result in adverse impact on the street system.

Increased Traffic Accidents:

Council's Engineering Department has not raised objection to the proposal. Further, there appears to be adequate sight line distances at the entrance of the access handle onto Melvin Street.

Manager Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposal. It should be noted that the Building Services Department has required a noise and vibration assessment study primarily to ensure that the future occupants of the development do not suffer unreasonable noise impact from the adjoining railway. Such a study is to be required a condition of consent.

Engineering Department

No objection has been raised by Council's Engineering Department subject to conditions including the creation of a stormwater easement to benefit adjoining properties at Nos. 65, 63 and 61A Melvin Street.

Summary

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development is considered reasonable subject to conditions.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody

. Recommendation 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council, as the Consent Authority, grant development consent for the erection of four (4) single storey dwellings on Lot N, DP 420878, No. 65A Melvin Street, Beverly Hills subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance in all respects with Drawing No. Issue A, tables and documentation prepared by John Smit dated 10.12.96 and submitted with DA 426/96 except when amended by the conditions of consent.

2. The submitted plans shall be amended in the following manner:

i) On site parking provision shall be increased to six (6) spaces including one (1) visitor space. It should be noted that the amended plan shall not alter the location of external walls of all proposed dwellings.

ii) The turning areas into the proposed garages shall be increased in accordance with the turning paths of the RTA guidelines.

iii) The driveway width within the access handle shall be a minimum of 3.5m. The area within the access handle not required for driveway purposes shall be landscaped as part of the landscape plan. A retaining edge of masonry or other approved barrier of a minimum height of 150mm shall be erected around the landscaped areas in the access handle.

The above amendments shall be incorporated in the Building Application plans for Council's consideration and approval.

PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

The contribution is $12,291 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 $1,371 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. 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.

7. The RL ground floor levels of the dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans. The floor to ceiling height of all dwellings shall be 2.4m. Upon construction of the ground floor slab, a qualified surveyor shall provide a certificate to Council certifying that the ground floor slab of each dwelling is constructed at the approved RL levels.

10. 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.

11. 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.

13. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.

14. All visitor spaces and resident outdoor spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m x 5.5m.

15. 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.

16. 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.

NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approva

17. Perimeter planting along all 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.

18. 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.

19. Compliance with the requirements of the Water Board. Written advice from the Board in this regard shall be submitted with the Building Application.

20. The development shall be constructed to a standard of construction which will result in noise levels within habitable rooms from external noise sources not exceeding 50 dB(A) with the windows and doors shut. A report from a qualified and practising Acoustical Engineer and the recommended construction details to comply with the above shall be submitted with the Building Application. The report must also demonstrate that the dwellings will be able to comply with AS2107, Acoustic - Recommended Design Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors.

21. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwelling/s. For any future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

22. Provision is to be made for separate electricity and drainage services if a future subdivision application is to be made to Council.

23. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. All stormwater to drain by gravity to the East Hills Railway property subject to the approval of the State Rail Authority. Written approval of the Authority shall be submitted in conjunction with the Building Application.

27. The applicant to provide an on site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional hydrological/hydraulic engineer, showing computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:

* For events up to a 2% annual exceedance probability (AEP) design event as defined by Australian Rainfall and Runoff (May 1987), maximum peak site discharge resulting from the development shall not be greater than peak site discharge under existing conditions for all durations up to the time of concentration with OSD included and of the same AEP.

* Where the stormwater discharge points are connected to the street gutter system, the peak flow from the site shall not increase the width of gutter flow by more than 200mm at the design storm.

28. The Applicant is to register stormwater easement to benefit Nos. 65, 63 & 61A Melvin Street. Evidence of such registration shall be submitted to Council prior to issuing of the Building Permit.

29. The applicant shall pay to Council a monetary amount to construct an 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh to replace the badly damaged crossing and such amount shall be provided by Council on request. The required payment shall be submitted prior to issuing of the Building Permit.

30. 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.

31. Details of the garbage bay and recycling areas to be submitted for Council's consideration and approval in conjunction with the Building Application.

Advisory Note(s)

1. The dividing wall between the attached dwellings must be taken to the underside of the roof tiles. Details to be submitted with the Building Application.

B. The applicant be advised of Council's decision.

C. The objectors be advised of Council's decision and, in particular, be advised that two additional spaces have been required.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.03.02 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING

Applicant

: John Klepac

Proposal

: RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING

Zoning

: Zone No. 2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area "D"

Owners

: M. Williams and D. & M. Hutt

Existing Development

: Two Single Storey Dwellings

Cost of Development

: $680,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to construct a residential flat building containing 4 x 3 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings with ancillary basement car parking.

2. The proposal is in compliance with the criteria of Councils policy except for the minimum frontage requirement

3. No objection is raised by Councils engineers and building surveyors.

4. One (1) letter of objection has been received from nearby and surrounding residents.

5. Recommendation - approval subject to conditions.

Proposed Development

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwellings on the sites, consolidate the allotments, and construct a residential flat building containing three floors of units with car parking under. The building will contain 4 x 3 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings. The parking level is generally below ground in the form of a basement and will be accessed along the western boundary of the site.

Site and Locality Description

The subject site is currently under two separate titles, each containing a single storey detached brick and tile dwelling and a detached garage to the rear of the dwelling. The sites are relatively flat, however, do have a slight cross fall from the southern boundary to the northern boundary fronting Macquarie Place, falling from a maximum RL of 51.69 at the south east corner to RL 49.65 at the north west corner. The site has a number of significant trees to the rear which have been identified for retention as part of the current proposal.

Existing development in Macquarie Place is generally characterised by medium density residential development. However, the properties to the east, 1 and 3 Macquarie Place, contain similar single storey detached dwellings which have been converted to non-residential uses. The properties to the rear, fronting Pitt Street, are zoned commercial, reflecting the site’s proximity to the Mortdale shopping centre and railway station.

Statutory Requirement

The subject site is Zoned No. 2 - Residential, under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

Compliance with the IRDC Requirements

The proposal has been assessed against Councils Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC). The following table summarises the proposals compliance with the provisions of the IRDC. Further comment is provided where appropriate.

	Proposed	Complies	Interim DCP
Site Area	840.578m²	Yes	840m²
Density	8	Yes	8
Building Height	10.8m	Yes	12m
Storeys	3	Yes	3
Private Open Space	All above minimum	Yes	12m²
Building Setbacks Front Rear Side (3 Storey)	6m 6m 7m	Yes Yes Yes	6m 6m 7m
Residential Parking	12	Yes	9
Visitor Parking	2	Yes	2
Frontage	23.47m	No	24m
Landscaped Area	52.9% (444.67m²)	Yes	45% (378.26m²)

Comment :

Frontage - The subject property fails to comply with Council’s minimum frontage requirements for Development Area D by approximately 0.53m. This is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

* the proposal is consistent with the form and character of development in the locality and provides for an efficient use of the site

Building Design/Streetscape/Courtyard Wall Fence

The design of the building incorporates architectural elements which reflect the design of comparable residential flat buildings in the locality. These features include the provision of balconies to the street elevation, articulation to the walls and the use of similar finishes and materials. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to ensure the use of acceptable materials, colours and finishes.

The proposal presents an acceptable bulk and scale to the street, reflecting the recently constructed residential flat building to the west. The proposal has reduced its overall bulk and scale through increased set backs from the front and side boundaries of the third storey. The overall height of the proposal is consistent with existing development.

The plans submitted indicate that the ground floor units will have their courtyards enclosed by 1.5 metre high brick walls. They indicate the courtyards to the ground floor units facing Macquarie Place. These areas will be enclosed by the brick courtyard wall constructed on a 3.0 metre alignment to the front boundary.

The Council's IRD Code requires private open space to be behind the building line, i.e. on a 6.0 metre alignment in this case, but the applicant has submitted comments to propose a variation as follows:

"The proposed fence is 1.5m high exceeding the code by 0.5m, which is hardly significant. The fence is reduced in scale by frequent change of shape, contrasting capping and projecting rendered panels. Also, the fence incorporates low level planter boxes, which will be landscaped with shrubs, climbing vines, etc.

Also, the fence is 3.0m from the front property boundary, giving ample space for attractive dense landscaping which will conceal the fence.

We point out that this development is very close to the Mortdale Shopping Centre and the RSL Club, both generating large numbers of cars and pedestrians and we feel a fence of the type sought is desirable for privacy and security.

In conclusion, we enclose photos of recently completed projects in Hurstville (Bonds Road & Martin Place) which are provided with high front fences that enhance rather than detract from the streetscape."

The proposed courtyard wall is considered an appropriate alternative in this case due to the close proximity of the site to the Mortdale Shopping Centre and dense landscaping of the front 3.0 meters of the site will give relief to the brick wall construction.

Landscape Quality

The plans submitted pay cursory attention to the provision of additional landscape planting to the site. Particular attention needs to be given to the area between the street alignment and the building, and the boundaries adjoining other properties. It is recommended that a full landscape plan be submitted with the building application. This will ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the landscape quality of the locality.

Amenity Considerations

i) Overshadowing

The proposed development will create additional overshadowing of adjoining properties during the mid-winter period, as shown on the shadow diagrams submitted with the application. The properties most readily affected include 9 Macquarie Place and 24 and 26 Pitt Street to the rear.

During the 9.00am period, 9 Macquarie place will experience overshadowing along its eastern boundary, which will encroach upon the existing residential flat building to a maximum height of 4.7 metres to its eastern wall. The articulation of the adjoining building along this elevation, which results in an increased side boundary set back of the building from the subject property, means that the height of the shadow along the eastern wall is reduced to approximately 3.5 metres toward Macquarie Place during the same 9.00am period.

The level of overshadowing decreases during the remainder of the day, such that at 12 noon, the overshadowing to 9 Macquarie Place as a result of the proposal is less than that which would be cast by a 1.8 metre high fence along the common boundary. The impact upon 9 Macquarie Place is considered acceptable given solar access available during the remainder of the day.

The properties to the rear of the subject site, 24 and 26 Pitt Street, will experience overshadowing during the 12 noon and, increasingly so, the 3.00pm period of the winter solstice. The buildings are not affected until some time between 2.00pm and 3.00pm. The proposal allows for reasonable solar access to these properties during other parts of the day.

ii) Privacy

The proposal allows for the maintenance of the privacy enjoyed by adjoining development through adequate building set backs from the boundaries. Whilst the proposed balcony to the three bedroom unit within the first floor level projects approximately 2.0 metres within the required rear set back, in lieu of the minimum 1.0 metre permitted by Council's Code, the existing trees to the southern boundary which will be retained on the site provide screening amenity to maintain the privacy of 24 and 26 Pitt Street. Also, the projection into the set back area is considered acceptable as the rear properties are zoned commercial and their future use for private residential open space is improbable.

Manager, Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to the following amendments:

* relocation of the garbage bay from the basement car park to the ground level; and

* provision of an additional pedestrian exit from the basement car park.

Comment:

The applicant was advised of these required amendments in writing on 21 January 1997. Amended plans were received on 3 February 1997 which satisfactorily address these issues.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to conditions related to the following:

* Stormwater drainage by gravity to the street

* Drainage amplification

* Pay Council to replace redundant vehicle crossings, construct new kerb and gutter and a new vehicle crossing

* Creation of a drainage easement to benefit the properties to the rear

Tree Inspector

Council’s Tree Inspector has advised that the proposal will result in the removal of 3 trees on the subject site which are not considered worthy of retention. It has been advised that the two trees to the south eastern corner of the site should be retained as indicated on the plans submitted to Council.

With regard to the trees to be retained, it would appear that the proposed building will necessitate some pruning of the trees given the extent of their crown. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure a qualified arborist carry out any necessary pruning subject to advice from the relevant Council Officer.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised to adjoining owners and occupiers for a period of three (3) weeks. One (1) submission was received objecting to the proposal on the following basis:

i) The proposal will retard or deny rear access to the properties at 18, 22 and 24 Pitt Street.

Comment:

The proposal will not alter any access arrangements for any property not part of the current application.

ii) The proposal will overshadow the properties to the rear.

Comment:

The level of overshadowing has been discussed elsewhere in this report and is considered acceptable.

iii) Each property in Macquarie Place and Pitt Street should dedicate a portion of land at the rear to create a formal right-of-way.

Comment:

It is considered unreasonable to expect the subject property owners to dedicate land to create a formal right-of-way to provide access to adjoining properties. The current proposal does not impede access to any other property, and should not be burdened with this suggestion.

Summary

The proposed development generally complies with Council’s planning controls and objectives except for rear balcony and front courtyard wall setbacks. Also, the subject land fails to achieve the minimum frontage to Macquarie Place by approximately a half a metre. These are considered acceptable in light of the proposal’s compliance elsewhere with the relevant controls, and the reasonable impacts upon adjoining properties and locality in general.

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions of consent.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
Report by Divisional Manager, Mr D. Beaumont

. Recommendation 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
Report by Divisional Manager, Mr D. Beaumont

RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council as the consent authority pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, approve Development Application No 348/96 for the construction of a three storey residential flat building with basement car parking at land known as 5 and 7 Macquarie Place, Mortdale, subject to the following conditions of consent:

1. Compliance generally with Drawing Nos. 4.140.3 to 4.140.6 dated 26 September 1996 and 4.140.1A to 4.140.2A, dated 23 January 1997 and 26 February 1997 plus tables and documentation prepared by Huntington and MacGillivray and submitted with DA 348/96, 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 7am to 5pm 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.

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 $33,904.00 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 $3780.00 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 rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1488.00 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 is to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Macquarie Place.

9. A 1m wide easement to drain water is to be created over the subject site to benefit the lands adjoining the southern boundary known as 22 and 24 Pitt Street to allow their stormwater to be drained to the kerb and gutter in Park Street. The easement is to be registered with any plan of subdivision prior to issue of a Building Certificate. Where the easement is located under a proposed garage, the developer is to pipe that portion of the easement to the satisfaction of Council.

10. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by John Klepac the proposed residential flat building shall not exceed RL 61.55 at the main ridge lines as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 carried out by Council and a Certificate of Classification being issued.

15. 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.

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. All existing vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject property that have become redundant are to be reinstated with kerb and guttering at the applicant’s expense prior to issue of Certificate of Classification.

18. Applicant to pay Council to replace the existing brick kerb with 150mm high concrete kerb and gutter for the full width of the site, and construct a new 150mm thick concrete vehicular crossing reinforced with F72 mesh. Quote given on request.

19. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.1 metres for all areas traversed by cars.

20. 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.

21. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development 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 Council, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

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 450mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval and a qualified arborist shall carry out any pruning work on the two existing trees at the rear only after having received the prior approval in writing from Council.

22. Perimeter planting along all 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.

23. The retaining wall at the rear boundary shall be kept 3.0 metres clear of the two existing trees on that boundary.

24. The developer and his agents shall take all measures to prevent damage to trees and root systems during site works and construction and details of this work shall be included with the landscape plan.

25. A retaining edge of masonry or other approved barrier of a minimum height of 150mm shall be erected around the landscaped areas to contain the soil and mulch material and to prevent to encroachment of motor vehicles.

26. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwellings. For future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

27. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.

28. 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.

29. The 3.0 metre setback from the front boundary to the ground level courtyards shall be densely landscaped and details shall be submitted with the building application to the satisfaction of Council. This area shall then be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

30. Submission to Council of a report prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer detailing the stability of the site and specifying any design constraints to be placed on the foundations, earthworks and excavations for the proposed building.

31. Structural details being submitted with the building application detailing the proposed method of supporting or retaining the excavation.

32. During excavation and construction of the proposed development adequate environmental controls must be undertaken, as outlined in Council’s “Guidelines on Sediment and Silt Control”, to ensure there are no sediments, spillages or contaminated water which leaves the building site. Details of sediment and silt control measures must be submitted with the building application.

33. Maximum noise levels from any mechanical ventilation system or equipment installed on site must not exceed the background noise level when measured at the boundary and within any residential premises. An acoustical engineers report must be submitted prior to the installation of any mechanical equipment. Details of the equipment and proposed siting must be submitted with the building application.

34. Bathroom windows to the rear units on the ground and first floors shall be infilled with translucent glass bricks and the rooms shall be provided with mechanical exhaust ventilation.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

A) Ventilation to the basement car park must be carried out in accordance with clause F4.11 of the B.C.A. Should a system of mechanical ventilation be proposed details prepared by a suitably qualified mechanical engineer must be submitted to Council complying with AS 1669.

B) Hydraulics must be provided in accordance with Park E1 of the B.C.A. Details prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulics engineer must be submitted to Council complying with AS 2419.

C) Details of the internal sanitary mechanical ventilation system complying with AS 1668.2 must be submitted for approval. Consideration must also be given to maintaining the required noise transmission rating and fire separation between adjoining units.

D) The building must be provided with a system of Smoke Hazard Management in accordance with Park E2 of the B.C.A. Details prepared by a suitably qualified person to be submitted to Council for approval.

E) Emergency lighting and exit signs must be installed in the building in accordance with Park E4 of the B.C.A. Details complying with AS 2293.1 must be submitted to Council.

F) Soil and waste pipes that pass through more than one sole occupancy unit, in particular between the second and third floor, must be separated so that a S.T.C. of not less than 45 is obtained if the adjacent room is a habitable room or 30 if the adjacent room is non habitable. Details to be submitted.

G) Window opening between separate sole occupancy units that face each other, must be separated by a minimum of 30m or alternatively shall be protected by external wall wetting sprinklers, fire shutters or fire windows. Details to be submitted.

H) Details being submitted of the spandrel and fire separation between the second and third floor level, in particular where on opening in on external wall of the second floor will allow the spread of fire to the third floor via the roof space.

Note: All details required by the above advisory notes must be submitted with the building application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO:
.
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.04.01 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)

Applicant

: Gary Finn, Architect

Proposal

: Section 102 Modification Dual Occupancy

Development

Zoning

: Zone No. 2 - Residential

Residential Development

Control Plan 1994

: Development Area "A"

Owners

: Progressive Development Corp.

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The modifications proposed comprise a re-configuration of the internal layout of both dwellings. (Main changes are internal redesign of dwellings and the addition of west facing decks.)

2. Modified design was notified to adjoining owners on 11 December 1996. One objection received.

3. Recommendation:

THAT Council agree to the proposed modifications subject to deletion of the rear deck to house B04.

Background

On 17 January 1996, a Development Commencement Consent was granted to the erection of a Dual Occupancy Development at 10 Llewellyn Street, Oatley (front Lot 100 adjacent to street). The special requirements to be satisfied included registration of reciprocal rights-of-carriageway over Lots 100 and 101.

On the 27 March 1996, Development Consent was granted for the erection of detached dual occupancy dwellings at 10B Llewellyn Street, Oatley (Centre Lot 101). NOTE: The Appeal previously lodged to the Land and Environment Court was withdrawn when consent was granted.

On the 18 September 1996, consent was granted to Torrens Title Subdivisions of the proposed dual occupancy dwellings on 10 and 10B Llewellyn Street, Oatley.

On the 26 August 1996, a Building Application was lodged for both the dual occupancy dwellings on No. 10 (Lot 100) and No. 10B (Lot 101). A separate application was required for the dwellings on allotment No. 10B and a Section 102 Application under the E.P. & A. Act has also been required to enable consideration to be given to the modified design of the buildings.

Notices advising that the building plans modify the approved development plans were forwarded to neighbouring properties on 11 December 1996.

Site and Locality

The subject allotment is situated on the western side of Llewellyn Street and is located between No. 10 at the street frontage and No. 10A the rear allotment adjacent to the Gungah Bay foreshore. The allotment is a rhomboid shaped battleaxe and is accessed via a steep driveway shared by the rear dwelling No. 10A.

Inspection of the site will reveal that it is vacant land with considerable overgrowth and some felled trees. Approval has been granted by Council for the removal of several trees which were either diseased/unsafe or located within the building or driveway areas.

Proposal

The plans submitted with the Building Application and those accompanying the application for a Section 102 Modification are substantially the same as the plans the subject of the Development Consent. The plans have been redrafted with changes being made to the internal layout of the dwellings. A summary of the amendments is submitted below:

Building 4

(lower building westernmost)

1. Revised internal layout to the ground floor incorporating:

- an additional bedroom

- reversal of the living areas from north to south side

- a separate WC

2. Additional external recreation area taking the form of a timber framed deck proposed to be located on the western side.

3. Relocated windows and fenestration associated with altered floor plan.

4. Cantilevered ground floor structure an additional 660mm at bedroom 3 and 4 to facilitate revised ground floor layout.

5. Raised ground floor level by 250mm. Ridge level unaffected.

6. Relocation of laundry to the basement carparking area.

7. Internal door added to stairwell.

8. Addition of enclosed storage space to basement carparking area.

9. New external door to proposed laundry.

10. Raised mezzanine floor level by 290mm. Ridge level unaffected.

11. Revised mezzanine floor plan to accommodate main bedroom and ensuite.

12. Added window seat to gable window (lower sill level).

13. Added highlight glass to gable end.

14. Reverse robes to mezzanine bedrooms from west side to east side (reduce direct morning light to bedrooms).

15. Reverse dormer windows from east side to west side.

16. Increase floor area of mezzanine level.

17. Reduce projection of stairwell to reduce mass.

18. Colourbond roofing instead of tiles.

19. Provide full brick enclosure of subfloor space to reversing bay in lieu of lattice screens.

Building 3

1. Revised internal layout to the ground floor incorporating:

- Location of kitchen and living areas to western side

- Swap bedroom 1 with bedroom 3 to provide a study on the ground floor

- Larger kitchen

2. Additional external recreation area in the form of a cantilevered structure timber deck over part of the car manoeuvring area.

3. Additional ground floor area achieved by cantilevering part of floor structure (600mm) over car manoeuvring area. New columns incorporated.

4. Relocated windows and fenestration associated with altered floor plan.

5. Raised ground floor level by 270mm. Ridge level unaffected.

6. Relocation of laundry to the basement carparking area.

7. Internal door added to stairwell.

8. Addition of storage space to basement carparking area.

9. New external door proposed for laundry.

10. Raised basement floor level by 200mm. Ridge level unaffected.

11. Raised mezzanine floor level by 410mm. Ridge level unaffected.

12. Added window seat to gable end.

13. Removed mezzanine level bathroom window and provided velux sky window.

14. Added highlight to glass gable end window.

15. Increase floor area of mezzanine.

16. Reduce projection of stairwell to reduce mass and scale.

17. Colourbond roofing in lieu of tiles.

Examination of the plans will confirm that the redrafted plans propose the erection of two dwellings substantially similar to the original buildings consented to by Council in terms of location on site, overall size, form and bulk. The most significant changes are:

1. The provision of a west facing deck on each dwelling.

2. The internal redesign of each dwelling resulting in the provision of the laundry in the basement, repositioning of living areas and in dwelling 4, the provision of an additional bedroom (4 bedrooms in lieu of 3).

3. The raising of floor levels by about 300mm to comply with development consent conditions, relating to ramp gradients and access to basement garages. NOTE: Overall height has been maintained.

Public Notification and Comment

In response to the notification of neighbouring residents one letter of objection was received from the owners of the waterfront property to the rear of the subject site (premises 10A Llewellyn Street). The text of the letter is quoted in full.

"We refer to your letter dated 11 December 1996 advising proposed changes to the approved development plans.

We refer to the Interim Residential Development Code dated 19 July 1995, as amended on 9 and 23 August 1995. Also Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and make the following strong objections based on non-compliance with the Code and general breaches of privacy and overlooking our property.

We object to that part of the development consisting of a west facing second storey deck or balcony extending from the most westerly dwelling ("BO4") to within 1.9m of our eastern boundary at an estimated height of between 4.0m and 4.5m above our adjacent garden and up to 8.0m above our house ground level, with the attendant ability to look directly down into the bedrooms and other occupied areas of the recently approved extensions to our existing dwelling (refer your files).

We note that the positioning of the proposed deck puts a further tree at risk (marked on the original plans as to be retained) and puts it over a drainage easement.

We also object to this building now being designed with four bedrooms (of absolute minimum dimensions) encouraging even higher density occupation on what is already an extremely overdeveloped and difficult to access site.

We note that at least two trees marked to be retained on the original drawings have already been cut down.

You will recall from your files that this development was the subject of extensive and repeated discussions with and presentations to the Building Committee during the latter part of last year and the first months of this. During that process, the developer presented a number of redesigns in order to meet with a variety of objections supported by Ward Councillors and the Committee. If these amendments had been represented at that time, they too would have been objected to and supported by Ward Councillors as being, if nothing else, simply too far removed from the requirements of the code - not least to reasonably protect our privacy.

We strongly object to the ongoing inconvenience and pressure of having to respond to a developer continually changing his demands and pushing the boundaries of acceptable development. This constitutes a serious and unreasonable infringement of our rights to quiet enjoyment of our property.

Please acknowledge this letter. Thankyou."

Comment is offered on the issues raised in the above letter of objection.

West facing deck on Dwelling 4

- the provision of this deck is seen to be the most contentious modification to the plans. It was anticipated that this deck could present a privacy concern to the neighbours although the deck edge, if approved, will be approximately 47m from the dwelling at No. 10A Llewellyn Street. The objectors make reference to approved extensions to their dwelling at No. 10A Llewellyn Street. These extensions carry forward 13m and thus the distance between the proposed deck at 10B and the future extensions to house 10A will therefore be approximately 34m. Council's code adopts a distance of 9m as a desirable minimum for window to window privacy.

The Council's Code states that screening or separation must be used to ensure balconies do not unreasonably overlook the private open space of the adjacent dwelling. Here screening of the deck is not practical due to the elevation of the deck above the slope of the land and there is little separation as the deck is within 3 metres of the site boundary. Here the decision is based on one's interpretation of the word "unreasonably" and the officer's view is that overlooking would be unreasonable in this instance.

The deck proposed is adjacent to several large trees which are shown to be retained. Because the deck is of cantilevered design, it should pose no threat to the trees provided its shape or width is changed to suit the position of the trees with appropriate clearances being determined on site.

Trees on site have been removed

- It is a fact that permission has been given to remove five (5) Angophora Costata trees and one (1) Eucalyptus and removal of dead wood and lower branches of other trees.

The lower dwelling has been designed with four (4) bedrooms

- This redesign to accommodate one additional bedroom has been made possible by eliminating the entry foyer and relocating the laundry to the basement. The bedroom sizes are Bedroom 1 - 15.2 sq.m, bedroom 2 - 16 sq.m, bedroom 3 - 11.4 sq.m, bedroom 4 - 11.6sq.m. These room sizes are well above the sizes previously prescribed for habitable rooms. (Minimum sizes are no longer prescribed.)

Summary

The modifications proposed to the development do not affect compliance with the numerical standards of Council's Residential DCP. If approved, the modified development will have no greater impact upon the environment than the development originally approved. The privacy concerns of the neighbour at 10A Llewellyn Street are noted, especially in regards to the height and proximity of the deck to the ground line at the common boundary.

When Council approved the subdivision of this steeply sloping site into three (3) allotments, it was inevitable that buildings on the higher blocks would overlook the lower blocks as the view is in that direction.

However, with multiple dwellings on this site it is felt that privacy should override views and as this deck will overlook the private open space of No. 10A it is recommended that the deck part of the application be refused.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)

. Recommendation 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify the development consent to DA146/95 for the erection of a detached dual occupancy at Lot 101, H. No. 10B Llewellyn Street, Oatley subject to deleting Condition 1 and replacing it with the following condition:

1. Compliance generally with Drawing Nos. 69A-101-A/A1/A2/B1/B2 as prepared by Zurich Plan Drafting Service dated 20 February 1997 for final amendment except the deck for Building 4 shall be deleted and except where amended by the conditions of consent.

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 BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been

Approved

(Part A) or

Refused

(Part B) under delegated authority between 13 January 1997 and 28 February 1997.

Part A

DA NO.	PROPERTY	APPLICANT	DESCRIPTIONS	RESULT DATE
532/95	39 Dora Street Hurstville	Kaz Kuczma Architects	Section 10 Amend Existing Heritage Building to be Health Consulting Rooms	11/02/97
253/96	121 Belmore Road Riverwood	A Day Peakhurst West Public School	Basketball/Netball Courts	13/02/97
272/96	33 Pritchard Place Peakhurst	Mrs J Sharan	Child Care Centre	17/01/97
283/96	337 Belmore Road Riverwood	A G Huang	Electronics Repair Shop	11/02/97
320/96	1038 Forest Road Lugarno	Kawawl Constructions	3 Attached Villas with Attached Garages - 3x2 bed - 4 x parking spaces	17/01/97
325/96	23 Stanley Street Peakhurst	Hai Cheng Xiang	Furniture Manufacturing	16/01/97
333/96	51 Park Street Peakhurst	S Anderson	3x3 Bed Villas with 6 Parking Spaces - Single Storey	05/02/97
361/96	35 Mountview Avenue Beverly Hills	Westminster Developments	3 Detached & 2 Attached Villas - 5x3 Beds - 7 x Parking Spaces	28/01/97
380/96	1 Pitt Street Mortdale	Caldis Cook Group	Addition of Poker Machine Lounge to Lower Basement - Mortdale Hotel	16/01/97
388/96	55C Penshurst Street Penshurst	Mrs G M Burns	Additions to Detached Dual Occupancy (Granny Flat)	23/01/97
411/96	1/53-55 Lorraine Street Peakhurst	Podravka International	Warehouse Fitout - Dry Good Food Items	14/01/97
416/96	118 Moons Avenue Lugarno	T. Sako	Land Reclamation, Ramp, Slip Rails & Pontoon	29/01/97
425/96	189 Belmore Road Riverwood	Minnett Cullis-Hill Peterson Pty Ltd	Installation of Underground LPG Tank	14/02/97
440/96	61 Kimberley Road Hurstville	Mr P Fotoulis	Shop Fitout - Repair of Second Hand White Goods & Spare Parts	17/01/97
448/96	Marna 16-32 MacMahon Street Hurstville	Optus Vision	Office Fitout - Television Studio - Optus Vision Pty Ltd	16/01/97
2/97	70 Broadarrow Road Narwee	Mr P Kotronis & Mrs H Kotronis	Shop Fitout - Takeaway Food	13/02/97
4/97	366 Forest Road Hurstville	W K Wong	Shop Fitout - Bookshop	14/02/97
6/97	11/17-37 Lorraine Street Peakhurst	M Smith	Factory Fitout - Joinery & Cabinet Making	14/02/97
17/97	2/8-10 The Avenue Hurstville	S Yazar	Formal Wear Hire	19/02/97

Part B

DA NO.	PROPERTY	APPLICANT	DESCRIPTIONS	RESULT DATE
46/96	7 Mavis Avenue Peakhurst	Mrs A Khodr & Mr K Khodr	2 Storey Attached 3 Bed Dual Occupancy	16/01/97
199/96	103 Mulga Road Oatley	Mrs A Rumsey	Hairdressing Salon	24/02/97
435/96	241 Forest Road Hurstville	J Ange	Shop Fitout- Hurstville Adult Book Exchange	04/02/97
456/96	8 Vivienne Street Kingsgrove	Mr A Mazzucco	Home Activity - Mechanical Repairs (Carburettors)	04/02/97

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the information be received and noted.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been received between 13 January 1997 and 28 February 1997.

DA NO.	PROPERTY	APPLICANT	DESCRIPTIONS	VALUE
2/97	70 Broadarrow Road Narwee	Mr P Kotronis & Mrs H Kotronis	Shop Fitout - Takeaway Food	Use
3/97	19 Clarence Street Penshurst	Mrs D Romanous	Detached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy with attached Double Garage - 2x4 bedrooms	$200,000
4/97	366 Forest Road Hurstville	W K Wong	Shop Fitout - Bookshop	$50,000
5/97	6/438-452 Forest Road Hurstville	Mr G N Zhao	Shop Fitout - Mixed Business	Use
6/97	11/17-37 Lorraine Street Peakhurst	M Smith	Factory Fitout - Joinery & Cabinet Making	Use
7/97	174 Lugarno Parade Lugarno	Fibrent Pty Ltd	Detached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy Forward of Existing Dwelling - 3 x bed and 2 x parking	$170,000
8/97	43 Norman Street Peakhurst	Mr R Feng	Cleaning & Separation of Brass (Metal)	Use
9/97	15 Wright Street Hurstville	Mr S Saade	3 Storey Unit Block with Basement Parking - 14x3 bedrooms - 127 parking spaces	$1,200,000
10/97	803 Forest Road Hurstville	Mr R Squadrito & Mrs F Squadrito	Attached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy with Attached Double Garages - 2x4 bedrooms	$200,000
11/97	47 Josephine Street Riverwood	J & V Alliance Pty Ltd	3 Storey Unit Block with Basement Car Parking - 7x3 Bed, 7x2 Bed, 1x4 Bed - 23 Parking Spaces	$980,000
12/97	32 Mavis Street Peakhurst	Mr J Apostolovski & Mrs N Apostolovski	Detached Single Storey Dual Occupancy with Attached Single Garage - 2xbed	$85,000
13/97	24 Flora Street Narwee	Mr G Fares	1x5 bed Townhouse & 2x4 Bed Villas with basement car parking	$245,000
14/97	92 The Avenue Hurstville	Mr K Atkinson & Mrs L Atkinson	Wall/Heritage	$9,487
15/97	33 Dora Street Hurstville	G.J. Taylor Pty Ltd	Additions to Heritage Building & Fitout for Restaurant	$150,000
16/97	165 Penshurst Street Beverly Hills	Baycel Pty Ltd	Factory Fitout - Metalwork (Wrought Iron) Manufacture	Use
17/97	2/8-10 The Avenue Hurstville	S. Yazar	Formal Wear Hire	Use
18/97	182 Forest Road Hurstville	D. Wong	Shop Fitout	Use
19/97	3/176-184 Belmore Road Riverwood	Mr T. Cosic	Hairdressing & Beauty Salon	Use
20/97	305 Forest Road Hurstville	Mr M Rizvi	Shop Fitout - Tobacco & Spices House	Use
21/97	3 Patrick Street Hurstville	ADI Signs	Office Fitout - Computer Graphics	Use
22/97	3 Patrick Street Hurstville	ADI Signs	Commercial Sign - ADI Signs	Use
23/97	342 Forest Road Hurstville	Mr H Nasser & Mrs Z Nasser	Addition of Staircase to First Floor Office & Alterations to Shop Front	Use
24/97	243A Forest Road Hurstville	L R Burcher Pty Ltd	Refurbishment of Post Office to 4 Separate Retail Usages	$200,000
25/97	1/176-184 Belmore Road Riverwood	Mrs J Jurkovic	Shop Fitout - Hairdressing Salon	Use
26/97	1/81 The Avenue Hurstville	Archvision Design	Heritage Building Additions	$60,000
27/97	5 Hardwicke Street Riverwood	Mr R Bozinovski	Attached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy 2x3 Bed	$180,000
28/97	1 Bayside Drive Lugarno	Mr R Sleiman & Mrs Z Sleiman	Sunroom Addition to Rear of Heritage Dwelling	Use
29/97	29 Argyle Street Penshurst	City Growth Service	Detached Dual Occupancy 2x3 Bed	$50,000
30/97	47 Lorraine Street Peakhurst	Mr C Yip	Warehouse/ Wholesale	Use
31/97	245 Belmore Road Riverwood	I Khoury	Grocery Shop	Use

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the information be received and noted

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

05.05.03 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT

Notice is the above Appeal was served upon Council on 3rd March 1997. The Appeal has been set down for callover before the Registrar of the Land and Environment Court on Friday, 14th March 1997.

Council's Solicitors, Deacon, Graham and James, have been advised of the receipt of the appeal and in concurrence with usual practice have been instructed to represent Council and defend refusal of the consent.

The subject proposal involved the construction of 3 x 3 bedroom townhouses and 2 x 2 bedroom villa homes on each site. The two applications are matching developments resulting in a total of ten (10) units over the two sites. The application was determined by Council at the Meeting held on 21st February 1996 by refusal of the applications due to issues of excessive bulk, scale and size, out of character and detrimental to amenity of the local area.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT

. Recommendation 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the action taken to instruct Council's solicitors to represent Council in the Land and Environment Court and oppose the Appeal be confirmed.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

ADDENDUM TO
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-

The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE

Dear Sir,

Hereunder is my Addendum to report No.01 to be submitted to the DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING Committee:-

05.05.04A WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)

Introduction

To review and comment on the NSW Government White Paper and Exposure Draft Bill on "Integrated Development Assessment". This paper proposes significant changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act, 1993.

The White Paper was released by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister for Housing, Mr Craig Knowles, MP, on 12 February 1997 and public comment is invited up to Thursday, 27 March 1997. This closing date has now been extended to Friday, 11 April 1997.

Following consultation and consideration of submissions, the Government will finalise its position on the proposal set out in the draft Bill before it is introduced to Parliament.

Background

This White Paper on Integrated Development Assessment follows two Green Papers, which were released for public comment in May 1996, entitled "Towards an Integrated Land Use, Planning and Natural Resource Approvals Policy for New South Wales" and "Regulatory Innovation - Regulating for Results".

A Report was prepared on these Green Papers by the Divisional Managers of Policy, Planning and Environment and of Development and Health and considered by Council at the meeting held on 28 August 1996.

A number of issues were raised and forwarded to the Government in Council's submission but the major concerns involved potential loss of community consultation and the introduction of private certification.

Objectives of the White Paper

The White Paper proposes changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EPA Act) and Local Government Act, 1993 to introduce a more organised and simplified development assessment process. It is claimed that barriers to environmentally and economically sound proposals are to be removed. It is argued in the White Paper that a more streamlined approvals process is likely to result in quicker, clearer and more consistent decisions with reduced savings in cost and time for business, government and the community.

The proposed reform initiatives aim to:

* reduce the need for sequential approvals and duplicated regulatory processes;

* simplify assessment considerations and approval procedures for development proposals; and

* open compliance aspects of the development assessment process to competition.

To achieve these aims, the draft Act will provide for integrated development consents, for appropriate assessment and will increase the role of the private sector in the assessment process.

Major Issues Affecting Council

* Despite the publicity that this Bill is all about improving the development application process, the immediate major impact is on building applications.

Most of the buildings affected by the proposed regulation presently do not and previously did not require a development application under Hurstville LEP.

However, it is agreed that a framework is proposed in the Bill which could reduce Council's involvement in assessment of current development approvals in the future.

* Statistically, this Council receives 1000 building applications per year, 300 of which require development approval. The latter involves multi-residential, commercial and industrial buildings and, as "local development", the Council approval will still be required for these development by the draft laws.

Initially most changes will be in the role of the one officer who currently processes the 700 domestic type building applications, but the proposed legislation will impact in the longer term on eight (8) other professional building surveyor staff.

* Whilst most publicity has been on the approval process, the amendments propose to allow inspection by private certifiers. This includes the private certifier issuing certificates on completion of the building to permit occupation. Potentially the Council involvement could be reduced to one of a repository for building records. There is more likely going to be a greater impact on the inspection process than there is on the approval process.

Strategically this makes it even more important for Council to exercise control over the approval process.

* The introduction of the proposed laws will require a review of the Local Environmental Plan and the preparation of extremely prescriptive Development Control Plans for each form of building. Depending upon the time available prior to the commencement of any new laws, additional resources will be required to prepare such plans.

* No details have been made available of fee structures so the impact on Council's resources is unknown.

* Many questions are still to be answered on numerous procedural issues which will arise if the new laws are introduced by Parliament, i.e. no regulations have been drafted.

* Concern is still expressed for a regulatory system which allows the applicant to employ a person to certify their development and where there is no independent party adjudicating on behalf of the community.

Proposed Reforms

The White Paper indicates that:

Integrated Development Consents

It is proposed to integrate development consents under the EPA Act with other approval processes by:

* Introducing a new single assessment system for development, building and subdivision control

Three currently separate approvals will be covered by a single application, which may be dealt with in stages, according to the needs of the applicant.

* Rationalising other Government approvals such as Section 68 activities under the Local Government Act, 1993 with a development consent under the EPA Act.

If the matter is assessed as part of a development application, there will be no need for a separate application under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

* Linking approval requirements under other acts such as pollution control licenses, with a development consent granted under the EPA Act.

The environmental outcomes required to satisfy other acts will need to be agreed up-front and reflected in a single development consent.

Providing for Appropriate Assessment

It is proposed to streamline the decision making process according to the significance and likely environmental impact of a development by:

Simplifying and rationalising assessment criteria

The range of matters to be considered by a consent authority in determining development applications will be simplified. The current Section 90 of the EPA Act will be replaced by a more concise list of generic matters to be taken into account when assessing development applications.

Clarifying and improving the assessment process for "Local Development"

"Local Development" will be defined as development which requires consent and is not "State Significant Development". In most cases, Local Councils will be the decision making authority for "Local Development".

Also, new categories of "Exempt Development" and "Complying Development" are proposed, together with pre-application notification and certification of aspects of "Local Development" in the pre and post consent phase.

Rationalising the decision making process for State or Regionally significant development

"State Significant Development" will be development identified by an environmental planning instrument (EPI) or by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning as being of State or Regional significance. The Minister will be the consent authority for such development, to provide a more consistent and integrated decision making process. There is little difference between proposed and current requirements in relation to Council's involvement with this type of development.

Exempting minor proposals from the need for approval

A new classification of "Exempt Development" will remove the need to seek any approval for certain minor development provided that pre-determined standards are satisfied, eg development not to exceed specified maximum height or floor space and compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

This is not a new requirement for Councils as Local Approval Policies under the Local Government Act, 1993 already fulfil this role.

Introducing specific assessment process for "Complying Development

"Complying Development" is considered by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in the White Paper to be straight forward or routine development. It can be certified by Council or by an accredited certifier as entirely complying with pre-determined criteria. Separate complying procedures aim to provide a faster system for complying developments.

Increasing the Role of the Private Sector in the Assessment Process

It is proposed to implement policies to encourage competition and expand the role of the private sector in the development assessment process through the establishment of a certification scheme, by:

Enabling accredited certifiers to perform compliance functions currently conducted by consent authorities

"Accredited Certifiers" will be private sector professionals endorsed by an accrediting association. Both applicants and consent authorities will be able to engage accredited certifiers to confirm or check compliance with procedural or technical aspects of a development. "Accredited Certifiers" will also be able to certify and grant approval to applications for "Complying Development".

Enabling professional organisations, subject to the approval of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, to act as "Accreditation Bodies"

Enabling "Accredited Certifiers" to issue four new types of certificates

Summary of the Principal Reform Proposals

The White Paper indicates that:

* There will be four main development categories comprising:

. exempt development

. complying development

. local development, and

. State significant development

* Future EPI's must specify the classes of development that fall within each of the above four development categories.

* Building work which previously required a building application (BA) will now require development consent, unless declared as "exempt development".

* Specific local development proposals will fall within the separate sub-category of "Complying Development", in which compliance with pre-determined standards and policies may be approved by "accredited certifiers".

* Section 90 heads of consideration will be replaced by a simplified but generic list of assessment criteria.

* Planning enforcement will be somewhat streamlined by the introduction of an Orders regime into the EPA Act.

* Provisions will be made for the review of development consents, third party appeals and new assessment criteria for Section 102 Applications.

* State agency requirements, where applicable, must be obtained and included in development consents.

Overview and Comments

Integrated Approvals

Approvals for building, demolition and subdivision will be transferred to the EPA Act from the LGA, 1919 and LGA, 1993. There will no longer be a subdivision/DA/BA process. Instead, applicants will only be required to apply for one consent, which will be referred to as a "Development Consent". Applicants will be able to seek consent in stages to suit individual circumstances. It is also proposed to transfer a number of other activities contained in Section 68 of the LGA 1993 to the EPA Act, including applications for building works, demolition works, hoardings, occupancy of uncompleted buildings and advertising structures.

Some approvals required by Section 68 will remain in the LGA 1993. It is also proposed to streamline the process where approvals remaining in Section 68 are required subsequent to a development consent. If a development consent is granted for the activity, a separate application under the LGA Act will not be necessary.

Comments

The integration of development, building and subdivision applications into a single approvals process is a positive step. The applicant will be able to choose whether or not consent is sought in stages, ie subdivision, development and building approval stages, to suit individual circumstances. Alternatively, an applicant may choose to seek all of the consents in a single stage and provide all of the necessary documentation up-front and receive a single determination of the overall proposal. This process therefore provides flexibility to applicants.

Although in practice, an applicant proposing a substantial development may be reluctant to prepare complex and detailed documentation, including building, engineering, drainage and landscaping details at the initial stage, because the application may not be fully successful in its original form and a number of modifications may subsequently be required.

The transfer of a number of Section 68 activities into the EPA Act is a positive step to provide an integrated approval and will remove some duplication inherent in existing processes. However the White Paper states that the LGA will still contain a number of activities associated with land use, including applications for temporary structures, places of public entertainment and for various activities held on community land. It is considered that all land use related approvals should be included under the EPA Act within one of the four development categories.

There was a chance here for placing all local government approvals under the one Act but it has been lost.

While the concept of including the requirements of State agencies in development consents is a good one, State agencies will need to improve their performance as currently substantial delays are often experience din obtaining their requirements. There is also a concern that State agency requirements, included in a development consent, will be left to Council (the consent authority) to enforce. This may result in a further devolution of State responsibility to Local Government with no income source clearly identified at this stage.

Assessment Criteria for Development

Section 90 of the EP & A Act which currently lists all the assessment criteria for a development application will be replaced by a more simple generic statement. In the Appendix A separately forwarded to Councillors is a commentary on the changes to the current criteria under Section 90.

Comments

The proposed changes may appear to provide for a more rational assessment of development applications, however, the generic list of matters to be considered remains so broad there is unlikely to be much difference in the range of matters that must be considered. The "best practice guidelines" (to be published) may assist but could be of little use unless they are given some legal status. Thus, the general nature of the "new section 90" could have the unintended effect of increased disputation on the matters that should be taken into account in assessing and determining development applications.

Exempt Development

Exempt development is considered to be minor development that will not necessitate any approval from Council, provided that specified criteria, are satisfied. The White Paper contains a preliminary list of exempt development. It is intended that Councils will prepare LEP's to expand,

but not reduce

, the list by specifying additional minor developments and criteria that reflect local conditions.

Where justified, State wide provisions applying to exempt development may be modified by such LEP's.

Examples of State wide exemptions are contained in Appendix B separately forwarded to Councillors.

Comments

The concept of exempt development is not new as a result of the long term operation of SEPP 4 and Local Approvals Policies. However, the current LGA and EPA Act provisions give Council the discretion of introducing exemptions for certain types of development and building works or other activities according to the nature and character of the locality. Council can currently specify detailed criteria that the exempt development and building works and other activities are required to meet. Council can also choose to reduce the extent of some of the exemptions so as to ensure that the building works or activity does not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of adjoining premises and character of the environment, particularly in heritage conservation areas.

A number of the items included in the list of exempt development would have a significant impact upon the amenity of a nearby premises or the environment, particularly within the metropolitan area. For example, the draft list includes an exemption for the installation of portable classrooms for a period of up to five years, business identification signs in an industrial area up to 10 square metres in area projecting over a public footway, the installation of temporary signs (with no limitations on size or locations) for a period of up to forty two days and home occupations.

The concept of exempt development can improve the approvals process and remove unnecessary red tape, however, it is important that each local Council can specify what types of development and other activities are exempt and the specific conditions and requirements which those exemptions are subject to, particularly in relation to any heritage conservation or other sensitive areas. Councils

must

be permitted either

add or subtract

from the list, without going through complex processes.

Also, it must be remembered that Council will need to continue to employ personnel to maintain surveillance over "exempt" development.

Complying Development

"Complying Development" is a new category which is considered to be of a straight-froward or routine nature, which can be certified in its entirety as complying with pre-determined standards and requirements.

"Complying Development" will operate as a special fast track or simple form of local development. For example, a new single dwelling house that satisfies preset development and building requirements such as parking and landscaping could be a complying development.

Development that does not fully comply with pre-determined criteria will require the consent of Council. An applicant for "Complying Development" will need to obtain a "Complying Development Certificate" in order to proceed and a formal development consent from the Council would not be required. The "Complying Development Certificate" may be issued by either an accredited private certifier or the Council. Neighbours will still be notified about a complying development proposal, if this is specified in Council's notification policy. Before a "Complying Development Certificate" is issued by a private certifier, the private certifier must consider the submissions of any nearby residents and must determine the application in accordance with pre-determined standards and requirements.

Complying developments will be identified in environmental planning instruments. The draft Bill proposes that initially a State Environmental Planning Policy will declare what developments will fall into the categories of "Complying Development". Basic compliance criteria will be specified for each type of development and complying development will then apply across the State.

The aim is to achieve comprehensive plans in each Council area containing all complying development provisions. Councils will have the opportunity to prepare new LEP's to recognise local standards and add to the core list of complying development.

The core list of "Complying Development" with compliance standards is set out in Appendix C separately forwarded to Councillors.

Comments

The introduction of "Complying Developments" has significant implications on local Councils, particularly those in the metropolitan area. In a dense urban area such as Hurstville, most building and development proposals will, to some extent, affect the amenity of nearby property owners and the environment. Council receives a number of letters of objection in relation to developments which may appear to be straight forward or routine and are included in the core list of "Complying Developments".

Currently, Council fully considers all development and building proposals and assesses the concerns and issues raised by nearby property owners in carrying out independent assessments and determinations.

The private certification of these types of development will have a significant impact upon the community. The private certifier may consider submissions made in relation to the proposal, but only insofar as compliance with the pre-determined standards and requirements are specified in the planning instrument. Consideration will not be given to amenity issues, including views, overshadowing, privacy, building line, protection of the environment, public health, safety and convenience, amenity of the streetscape and the impact upon nearby premises.

The private certification of complying development would result in a loss of consideration to a number of these amenity concerns, which may have significant detrimental effect upon the quality of the determination and upon the amenity of nearby premises and the streetscape.

If Council, as the consent authority, approves a complying development, there is a third party right of appeal for neighbours who may be affected by the proposal. However, if a private certifier grants an approval to a complying development there is no right of appeal to an objector. This discrepancy must be questioned.

The community's best interests are served by an independent and unbiased consent authority to carry out the assessment and determination of building and development proposals.

The introduction of a complying development category and the types of developments which fall within that category should not be mandatory, as the type of development which may be considered to be "routine development" in a country area or town may not be considered appropriate or "routine development" in a dense urban area such as Hurstville.

"Complying Development" standards should therefore be left

entirely

to the discretion of the local consent authority having regard to the nature of the local area and community expectations about what should be outside the "normal" development assessment process.

For example, the mandatory list proposes that single storey dwellings have 33% landscaping and one (1) car space on the property, whereas this Council requires 50% to 55% landscaping and two (2) car spaces behind the building line. The new legislation will delete this community demanded requirement of Hurstville Council.

Local Development

Local Councils will normally be the consent authority for this type of development (eg a commercial building or townhouse development). The White Paper proposes to streamline the assessment process by introducing a number of measures:

Pre-application notification

The applicant will be given the discretion to undertake neighbour/public notification of a development application proposal, in accordance with Council's "Notification Policy", prior to formal lodgement of the development application.

Co-ordination of Integrated Assessment

Council's will be given greater responsibility to co-ordinate the integrated assessment of development applications where certain subsequent licenses and permits are required.

Use of an accredited certifier

The applicant will be given the discretion to use a private accredited certifier, to check compliance with non discretionary parts and/or procedures applying to the development application.

An accredited private certifier may issue a "complying component certificate" which applies to a particular aspect or aspects of a development application.

- that the specified aspect of a proposal will comply with all the development standards applicable

- that the necessary requirements with respect to the advertising and notification have been complied with

- that work has been carried out as specified in the certificate and complies with the development standards applicable, and

- that the conditions attached to a development consent or complying development certificate have been complied with.

A "Complying Component Certificate" issued in relation to a specified aspect of a proposed development has the effect of allowing the consent authority (or private certifier) to deal with the development application for the development without having to consider that aspect of the development.

Comments

It is expected that the majority of current development, building, subdivision and local approval applications will fall into the category of "Local Development".

A number of concerns are raised in relation to the proposed procedures which allow pre-application notifications for "Local Development" to be carried out by the applicant and for the use of private certifiers for issuing "Complying Component Certificates" for specified aspects of development proposals, including:

- the accuracy and quality of the certified documentation and/or construction

- independence of private certifiers

- liability, and

- protection of public interest and protection of public health, safety and fire safety

- merit aspects

Significant difficulties may arise if it is discovered at a later date that a "Complying Component Certificate" for a particular aspect of the development and/or construction was found to be inaccurate after the issuing of the development consent or during/after building construction works. Although technically, the private certifier may then be subject to action from the accreditation bodies and insurance agencies or through the penalties and offences prescribed in the legislation, in practice, it is, and will remain, the Council which will be responsible and accountable to the community.

An applicant, upon obtaining the initial development consent from Council may choose to have a private certifier carry out the building control process, thereby certifying that the relevant development consent conditions have been satisfied and that the proposal has been designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act and Regulation, Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and terms and conditions of the development consent.

Council officers currently carry out an independent assessment and determination of building and other Local Government applications. The plans and associated documents are assessed for compliance with any relevant development consent (if applicable), together with an assessment of the relevant matters for consideration in the LGA and Regulations, BCA and Australian Standards. A determination is made on the proposal from an independent point of view, in the interests of the overall community and environment.

Council's Environmental Health and Building Surveyors carry out inspections of specific critical stages of construction and notices and orders are issued upon detection of non-complying or unauthorised works. It is considered that without inspections of the development by an independent consent authority, many non-complying or unauthorised building works, together with other health and environmental breaches, could go undetected.

This process raises a number of concerns and it is considered that the public health, fire safety and interests of the community as a whole are best served by an independent building assessment and control authority.

There is also the issue of a conflict of interest where private certifiers are paid directly by the applicants. There may well be greater opportunities for corrupt conduct and cover influence of private certifiers.

Private Certification

The draft Bill that proposes that private-sector professionals will play a greater part in the compliance of non discretionary elements of the assessment process. The certification scheme allows accreditation bodies to accredit private-sector professionals to issue certificates for the compliance functions usually performed by consent authorities. The certificates will be proof that the matters covered in the certificate comply with the applicable pre-set standards.

Consent authorities relying on the certificate issued by an accredited certifier will not have to re-visit any of the issues covered in a certificate. Under the proposed scheme both applicants and consent authorities will be able to employ accredited certifiers. Applicants will have the choice of using either credited certifiers or a consent authority to perform the compliance functions associated with the assessment of their development applications.

For example, an applicant may have the consent authority undertake the advertising and neighbour notification for a townhouse application, while employing an accredited certifier to certify the proposals compliance with building and development standards.

There will be no right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court on the decision given by an accredited certifier. If an applicant is dissatisfied with an accredited certifier's decision, they may choose to lodge the application with the consent authority. (This would increase an applicant's cost when the draft legislation infers the opposite will occur.) Normal appeal rights will apply against a decision made by the consent authority.

It will be a requirement that local Councils receive copies of all certificates issued within the local government areas. The White Paper asserts that it is expected that a certification scheme will result in:

- reduced application response times

- reduced holding costs associated with delays in the assessment process, and

- improvement in the service provided to applicants, due to increased competition

The draft Bill contains provisions aimed at protecting the public interest and providing accountability of private certifiers, including penalties and offences provisions, requirements of accreditation bodies and insurance agencies, pecuniary interest provisions and liability provisions.

Accredited private certifiers will be able to issue the following four certificates:

(a)

Complying Development Certificates

"Complying Development Certificates" will apply only to complying development proposals and may state that a proposal will comply with the relevant development standards, that the advertising and notification has been carried out in accordance with the Act, Regulations and relevant policy and that the building on completion will be of the specified class.

(b)

Complying Component Certificate

The "Complying Component Certificate" will apply to a specified component or aspect of a development application and will state one or more of the following:

- the specified aspect of a proposal will comply with the relevant development standards

- the requirements with respect to advertising and notification have been complied with

- The work complies with the relevant development standards and the conditions of a development consent or a complying development certificate have been complied with

(c)

Completion of Building Works Certificate

The "Completion of a Building Works Certificate" may apply to the whole or part of a building and it enables a building to be used or occupied in accordance with its classification under the Building Code of Australia.

(d)

Subdivision Certificates

A "Subdivision Certificate" will state that the requirements imposed by, or under the EPA Act, have been complied with. This certificate endorses a plan of subdivision and enables a plan of subdivision to be registered in the office of the Registrar General under the provisions of Conveyancing Act 1919.

Comments

One of the main underlying philosophies of the NSW Government's White Paper is that the building and development control process is a consumer protection role. This misrepresents the very nature of public services. Building and development control is fundamentally a community protection role which is reflected in the objective of the Building Code of Australia 'to ensure acceptable standards ... are maintained for the benefit of the community'.

While the White Paper focuses on efficiency, there are other components of the services provided by council, and government, that are of perhaps greater importance. They include the provision of appropriate and effective services to the community. It is of little value to the community if the Council provides very efficient inappropriate and ineffective services.

Private certification is the simplest to apply when the matters to be certified are technical and non discretionary, therefore, it is considered that the introduction of private certification into the approvals process would be entirely unsuitable.

Private certification of complying development will remove the independent assessment and determination of certain types of development, will reduce community consultation, is likely to detrimentally affect the quality of the development and impact upon the environment. Similarly, the granting of a building approval, inspection of buildings throughout construction and verification of compliance with development or building consent conditions is very rarely straight forward and of a simple technical nature. The process regularly requires the exercise of discretion.

In this regard, the Building Code of Australia will become a performance based document on 1 July 1997 and will give applicants the choice of complying with the performance requirements or specified "deemed-to-satisfy" requirements. It would certainly be inappropriate for a private certifier to assess and determine whether or not a building satisfies the health, structural and fire safety performance requirements of the BCA based on their discretion.

Private certification would be most suitable for verifying compliance with straight-forward technical matters, such as the construction of specified building elements and compliance with relevant Australian Standards.

The private certification of complying development where there are objections following the neighbour notification process is also inappropriate. It removes Councils control of this extremely important community consultative process for which Councils must be fully satisfied prior to the determination of an application. Developments involving objections should be referred to Councils for independent determination.

It is also considered that the provision aimed at protecting the public interest and accountability of private certifiers is inadequate in its current form. The Act provides for a maximum penalty of $15,000 if a private certifier issues a certificate that contains a statement that is false or misleading or if the certifier is not accredited in relation to that particular development. These penalty provisions are considered to be extremely low when considering the importance of the certificates which may be issued. For example, non-compliance with a single provision of the Building Code of Australia could result in savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single project, which may endanger public health and safety to the residents and the community. The LGA 1993 currently provides penalties up to $40,000 in relation to unauthorised or non-complying building works. Therefore, if penalties are the appropriate solution, the penalty provisions for private certifiers should at least be comparable.

The Accreditation bodies may technically have the ability to take action against private certifiers, however, in practice this may not be an effective control, e.g. AMA, Law Society. The pecuniary interest provisions in the draft Bill may also not be stringent enough to prevent a conflict of interest and are virtually impossible to be policed. If a certifier is fully paid by the applicant how can pecuniary interest be avoided?

The draft Bill proposed a ten year limitation period in which a person can bring an action about building defects. The issue of liability and certification has generated a great deal of debate for a number of years and the aim to remove liability via legislation may be ineffectual.

An accredited private certifier for any development

may

issue a notice on the developer requiring that person to comply with an approval, in a similar way that a consent authority can issue a notice.

The private certifier is required to send a copy of the notice to the Council which, in effect, requires the Council to follow-up the unauthorised or non-complying works and determine whether or not an Order should be issued, requiring the demolition or rectification of the works. This would create significant difficulties for Council if it has had no involvement in the development project up until this date and Council would then be required to resolve or order the rectification of the non-complying works carried out by the developer. There does not seem to be a provision for income to Councils to meet this circumstance.

It would be more appropriate if the provisions imposed a mandatory requirement on the private certifier and developer to rectify the unauthorised or non-complying works, to comply with the approval. Council should not have to utilise its resources to resolve or rectify the errors of those responsible for the unauthorised works.

Where a development approval and construction is being carried out by private certification, it would appear that Council can have no involvement even if there is complaint from a neighbour. Also, an applicant for a "Completion of Building Works Certificate" or a "Subdivision Certificate" may appeal to the court against consent authority's decision to refuse such a certificate, but has no right of appeal against a private certifiers refusal of a certificate. If a private certifier does not wish to issue a certificate due to non-complying building works, these provisions will also, in effect, require Council to assess and determine final inspections of buildings or other stages of construction without having any prior knowledge of the works carried out to that date.

A "Completion of Building Works Certificate" in effect requires building works to be carried out fully in accordance with every provision of the development consent, LGA, Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards. This is similar to the former provisions for a 317A Certificate under the LGA 1919, in which the Council issued certificates confirming that the development was fully in accordance with the terms of the approval.

The provisions of Section 317A of the LGA 1919 were abolished because, in practice, it is almost impossible for a person to verify compliance with every aspect of an approval or Australian Standard. Therefore, it may be appropriate to review these provisions.

Although the White Paper suggests that private certification will reduce costs to an applicant, data from other States indicates that private certification schemes have actually resulted in an increase in costs to the applicant, particularly in relation to residential building works.

Issuing of Notices, Orders and Building Certificates

A number of the Orders provisions from Section 124 of the LGA are proposed to be transferred to the EPA Act. These Orders relate to the use, construction and demolition of a building as well as fire safety orders. The transfer of the Order provisions is an integral part of the approvals process and will be a significant improvement on the current provisions of the EP & A Act.

Generally, the Orders provisions in Section 121A of the draft Bill are satisfactory, however, the provisions should clarify the issuing of orders in relation to non-complying "exempt" building works or other activities and also in relation to non-complying, "Complying Development". The provisions should be extended to duplicate Order Nos 15 and 16 in s.124 of the LGA 1993 relating to the cessation of a use or activity which is a danger to the public/occupants. It is also considered appropriate to introduce provisions to allow the consent authority to issue on-the-spot penalty notices in relation to unauthorised or non-complying building works or other activities or unauthorised uses of buildings.

All the Building Certificate provisions of the LGA are transferred to the EP & A Act but one has to question the liability being placed upon the Council to issue a Certificate on a building in which it had no involvement for either approval or construction.

Summary

There is complete agreement that improvements should be made to the current approvals process and the integration of approvals should provide simplification and greater choice for applicants.

Hurstville Council had already recognised this need for better service to the community for the approval process by combining the Development and Building/Health divisions and by providing a single service enquiry counter.

However, it should not have been done at the expense of Council's and the community's rights to specify the most suitable development standards for their area.

This raises three major points as follows:

(i) Local Councils must be given the discretion and flexibility to determine what specific conditions should apply to "exempt" and "complying" types of development according to the nature and characteristic of the individual local government area.

(ii) To ensure independent assessment of objections to applications and to provide for just and reasonable community consultation the Council approval should be required for all applications. At the very least, a Council should grant approval for ALL those applications which involve objections from neighbours.

(iii) The introduction of private certification should be limited to only those straight forward post-determination technical matters which are non-discretionary. The building and development approvals process and assessment of amenity and environmental concerns is considered unsuitable for private certification and should remain with Council as the independent consent authority.

The use of private certification should be at the discretion of the consent authority according to the nature and individual characteristics of the area. Consideration should be given to modifying the draft Bill to ensure that the integrity and accountability of the approvals and certification process is maintained.

Concerns must be raised in relation to the independence and integrity of a private certifier that is employed by and paid by the applicant to grant an approval to proposed development. The Australian Consumers Association has criticised the concept of private certification for many years claiming that it will become like registering a car. If one private certifier does not grant an approval to the complying development you can always shop around until you can find one that will.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.04A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)

. Recommendation WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)

RECOMMENDATION

That a submission be prepared in reply to the New South Wales Government White Paper and Exposure Draft Bill (Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill, 1997) titles "Integrated Development Assessment" in the terms of the above report.

Yours faithfully

D Beaumont

Divisional Manager - Development & Health

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 97 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-

06:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

06:01.01 50 Moons Avenue, Lugarno - New Split Level Dwelling

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

06:05.01 Review Of Green Paper - Protection Of The Environment Bill 1996 (Report By Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

06:05.02 Waste Levy To Southern Sydney Waste Planning And Management Board (File W/00028)

06:05.03 Delegates Report - Cooks River Catchment Management Committee (File R/00580) (Report By Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

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 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling

Applicant

: Mr David Mackaway (BA 751/96)

Proposed:

New Split Level Dwelling (5 levels, 2 & 3 storeys)

Development Area

: A

Referred for

: - Letter of objection

- Non-compliance with Code for Single Dwelling

Houses

A report on the above application was considered by Council at its Meeting of 26th February, 1997 when it was resolved:-

"THAT the matter be deferred for further consideration and

on-site inspection of the area by the Ward Councillors,

applicant and Council officers."

The matter was referred to Council for the following reasons:

1. Letter of objection

2. Non-compliance with Code for Single Dwelling Houses

A copy of the report as considered by Council on 26th February, 1997 is reproduced below:-

"An application has been received for a proposed split level dwelling at the subject address. The site is located on the northern side of Moons Avenue and the land falls steeply to the Georges River.

Due to the steep land gradient and the difficult topography, the building has been designed to follow the terrain. By means of massive excavation, the building will generally be below the nine (9) metre height limit, except for the lift shaft which will protrude about 1.5 metres, making the highest point about 10.5 metres above natural ground level. The protrusion of the lift is located in the centre of the building which minimises any impact on surrounding properties.

The entire building will have side boundary setbacks of 1.5 metres, complying with the Code for Single Dwelling Houses and the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation (Clause 57.C2). Landscape ratio provided is 52.3% and is 2.7% less than what is required in the Code for Single Dwelling Houses. Noting the site profile and the battleaxe nature of the allotment, this slight shortfall is considered acceptable as additional landscaping is also provided underneath the lowest level of the building.

The building has been designed to take advantage of the view of the Georges River, hence most of the habitable room windows are facing north towards the rear. Other windows facing side boundaries will either be of glass blocks or louvre construction to minimise overlooking into adjoining properties. The applicant has also proposed to erect full height louvre screens to the eastern side of the balconies at Levels 5 and 4, to preserve neighbour's privacy.

The proposed dwelling has been designed to comply with the relevant Council requirements but variations of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses do exist in relation to building envelope and landscaping as set out above. These are considered justified, noting the following characteristics of the site:-

- narrow block: about 15 metres wide, tapering to the rear

- steep gradient to rear

- battleaxe allotment with long access handle.

Adjoining landowners have been notified and one submission from No. 48 Moons Avenue has been received. A summary of the concerns raised is as follows:-

- loss of privacy and overlooking

- loss of sunlight

- appearance from the waterways

- overdevelopment: excessive F.S.R.

- inadequate landscape area.

Comment

Loss of privacy

: As mentioned above, the building has been designed in such a way that windows facing side boundaries are minimised and screened by glass blocks or louvres. The flat roof terraces are produced by the stepped design of the house. The main entertainment balconies will be on Levels 4 and 5, and a full height screen wall will be provided on the eastern side to preserve neighbour's privacy. Clause 3.6 of the Council's Code requires that habitable room windows shall be either offset or screened. The proposal will comply with this requirement as all windows facing the eastern boundary are of glass block or louvred construction.

Loss of sunlight

: Shadow diagrams indicate that the objector's premises will not be significantly affected and only afternoon sunlight will be blocked. As the proposed building is on the western side of the objector's premises, this can not be avoided.

Appearance from the waterways

: The allotment is a long block of land falling from the street to the Georges River on a steep gradient. The building when completed will follow the existing land profile and will not be as bulky as depicted on the northern elevation and should diminish in size and width the further away from the waterfront. When viewed at normal sight angles, the design is not considered to be 'dull' or, indeed, obtrusive.

Overdevelopment: excessive F.S.R.

: Clause 3.3.3 of the Council's Code permits building on allotments less than 15.5m wide to comply with the 1.5 metre side boundary setbacks or 0.45 F.S.R. A 1.5m setback to both side boundaries has been provided. Multi-level design is necessitated by the topography.

Inadequate landscape ratio

: The Council's Code requires that a 55% landscape ratio shall be provided to premises in Development Area A. The applicant has provided 614 square metre unbuilt area (1147.11 square metres - 547 square metres), i.e. about 52.3% landscape ratio. The applicant proposed to provide additional landscaping to the void at the lowest level to make up the difference, which is considered acceptable.

Conclusion

The allotment has a number of site constraints which limit the options for dwelling design to comply with the relevant regulations. The application has attempted to observe the objectives set in the Council's Code. Development of land of this nature will inevitably have an impact on the adjoining properties. This has been kept to a minimum through the screening measures and window styles adapted in the building design."

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling

. Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT the Council allow the lift shaft to exceed the maximum

height limit of nine (9) metres set in the Code for Single

Dwelling Houses, and the 55% landscape area requirement.

2. THAT the building application be approved, subject to

standard conditions 1-12 and the following additional

conditions:-

13. GS010 ... pouring of concrete for footings

14. GS190, 201, 316, 340, 350, 370

15. GS511

16. GS550

17. GS601

18. GS630

19. GS641

20. GS740

21. GS751

22. GS771 ... all balconies and roof top terraces

23. GS780 ... 50

24. GS930

25. GS1160

26. RD040 ... 1125mm

27. RD260

28. RD090 ... outbuilding. Separate occupation in the

outbuilding is not permitted.

29. ST080, ST090

30. The building must be protected from attack by

subterranean termites in accordance with Part B1.3(j)

of the Building Code of Australia and AS3660.1. A

certificate shall be submitted to the Council certifying

compliance upon completion. A durable notice must

be permanently fixed to the building in a prominent

location indicating:-

i) the method of protection,

ii) the installation date of the system,

iii) the life expectancy where a chemical barrier

is used,

iv) the need to maintain and inspect the system

regularly.

31. All wet areas shall be waterproofed in accordance with

AS3740. The applicant shall notify the Council for all

wet area inspections, and submit a certificate of

application of waterproofing material upon completion.

32. Demolition of the existing structure on site is approved,

subject to:

i) The demolition must be in accordance with

AS2601-1991 .

ii) Asbestos cement sheeting/materials must

be removed in accordance with the requirements

of the WorkCover Authority.

33. Mechanical or natural ventilation shall be provided to

all wet rooms.

34. A structural certificate shall be provided by a qualified

practising structural engineer for the satisfactory

completion of the house and lift shaft construction.

35. A certificate for satisfactory lift installation shall be

provided to the Council.

36. The applicant is responsible for notifying the

Council and adjoining landowners before the

commencement of excavation work. Details of

the shoring proposal and lateral support and other

progressive precautionary measures to prevent

collapse shall be submitted to Council for acceptance

prior to excavation.

37. Details of the proposed inclinator including all

vertical supports and landing stations shall be

provided prior to installation. A certificate for proper

installation and operation shall be submitted upon

completion and before putting in use.

38. Details of the proposed louvre screens (1:20 sections)

on the eastern elevation shall be provided prior to

installation. The louvre screen shall either be of

frosted glass or other opaque materials to avoid

overlooking into adjoining properties.

3. THAT the objector be notified of Council's determination.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.02 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF HURSTVILLE WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.03 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PENSHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PEAKHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.05.01 REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

Introduction

The Environment Protection Authority NSW (EPA) has released a Green Paper on legislative changes to better protect the environment by making it easier to find, catch and punish polluters.

This report briefly summarises the main impacts that the "Protection of the Environment Operations Bill 1996" may have upon Hurstville City Council. This report is presented as an executive summary and the Green Paper is available from the Divisional Manager - Development & Health.

Background

Minister for the Environment (NSW), Pam Allan, has released a Green Paper and exposure draft titled "Protection of the Environment Operations Bill 1996" which would see the repeal of the Clean Air Act 1961, Clean Waters Act 1970, Pollution Control Act 1970, Noise Control Act 1975, Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 and associated regulations. The exposure draft would also repeal some provisions of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995.

With repeal of these Acts, the exposure bill would consolidate and enhance current legislative provisions controlling pollution. On the whole, this bill is considered to be a positive simplification and evolution of current environmental law.

Protection of the Environment Polices - PEPs

The bill would allow for the formulation and adoption of PEPs. PEPs are instruments for setting enforceable environmental standards, goals, protocols and guidelines. PEPs may be produced by the EPA on its own initiative or by ministerial direction. Public consultation is required other than for interim PEPs issued as a matter of urgency. PEPs will set various environmental standards and plans that Council will be required to take into consideration when developing LEPs and DCPs as well as other plans such as catchments management plans.

Resource Impacts

Once again, the State Government has managed to insert some potentially poorly funded provisions. Council may be able to offset some costs by Tier 2 and Tier 3 enforcement provisions however, fees will be regulated by the State and thus full cost recovery is unlikely.

The major change from Council's perspective will be that current "Pollution Control Licences" issued only by the EPA for scheduled premises will be revamped, being called "

Environmental Protection Licences

". The EPA will retain control and regulation of scheduled premises, however the role of "

Environmental Protection Licences

" will be extended to cover Non-Scheduled premises and Councils given power and responsibility for this role.

The Green Paper in this regard states "

In order to offset the extra resources needed by councils to undertake such licensing, council will be able to keep fees (set by Government regulation) for any licences issued by them

One cannot help but be somewhat cynical about this statement which imposes additional duties, declares extra resources will be required and clearly states that the State will regulate the fee. Cost recovery may not be achieved and we will not see the true outcome until regulations (setting fees) are created after enactment of any such legislation. Irrespective of fees, the corporate cost to Council in setting up any licensing system in terms of physical and capital resources could be substantial.

Staffing Implications

Fully authorised officers will need to hold relevant applied science qualifications and have experience, thus being capable of assessing and determining Environmental Protection licences, investigating, enforcing all legislative provisions and representing Council in the Local and Land and Environment Courts where necessary.

Council's current Environmental Health Officers are well qualified in this regard, however, given current demands within their Development and Health spheres of duty, Council will have to seriously reconsider legislative impacts upon staffing when more detail is released by the EPA.

Council may delegate limited authorities, eg for littering, to other officers with less formal qualifications, ie Regulation Control Officers, and these officers' duties will be enhanced by relevant littering offence changes.

Offences and enforcement

The bill specifically targets some pressing environmental issues and issues of concern that Councillors, Officers and the public in general have raised in recent times.

These include:

* Water Pollution, a strict liability offence;

* Strong noise abatement order provisions;

* Ability to regulate littering from motor vehicles;

* Ability to regulate phosphate content in detergents;

* Wider range of sentencing options; and

* Higher fines.

Land Pollution

Part 5.6 of the Bill provides a clearly defined offence for land pollution which will be a very useful provision for Council with respect to dumped rubbish.

Littering from Vehicles

Clause 5.6.5 of the Bill makes the driver and the owner liable for litter deposited from a motor vehicle. This is an excellent provision which Councils have sought for many years.

Summary

On balance, the bill is a move in the right direction. Some concerns are raised about licensing and fees plus more information is needed to enable better analysis of the impact of this legislation on Council's resources.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

. Recommendation REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT the information be noted.

2. THAT the Divisional Manager - Development & Health

respond to the Green Paper by congratulating the

Minister with respect to the improvements highlighted

in this report and raise concern and seek clarification with

respect to the licensing method and fees for

non-scheduled premises due to the potential to increase

demands upon Council resources.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.05.02 WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)

A request was received from the Southern Sydney Waste Planning and Management Board for comments on waste program funding for the region. This mainly involved the imposition of a waste levy and the Board advised Council of a possible recommendation as follows:-

"1. That the Board agrees with the principal of a waste

levy for 1997/98 to be made through constituent

Councils.

2. That the levy for each Council be calculated at a flat

fee per rate assessment with the formula to be applied

against individual categories of ratepayers to raise

the total levy remaining the prerogative of the individual

Councils.

3. That the Board determine the levy per assessment using

the table as contained earlier in this report as a guide.

4. That such contribution be recovered from constituent

Councils in four equal instalments to be paid in full by

the end of the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th months of the

financial year."

A reply was required on this issue prior to a Council meeting and, as a result, the General Manager forwarded a response as follows:-

"I refer to your letter of 11th February, 1997 in connection with the above and advise that consideration has been given to the issue of a waste levy on this Council.

The proposal for such a levy is opposed by this Council and I would note the following points:-

* The Local Government Association is pursuing the State Government to make more funds available to local councils through the Section 72 levy. Income of $30 million is raised through the levy but only $13 million is returned for waste management.

* Cr Peter Woods wrote to our Mayor on 25th February, 1997 and stated "... It is essential therefore that Councils refrain from placing any additional imposts on their communities in the form of waste levies or charges, while the State Government continues to make a profit from the levy ..."

I support this view.

* The draft report for the Waste Board nominates levies from $2 to $20 per rate assessent but at present has no regional waste plan, no program and no budget to justify any levy.

* It is felt that the Board should explore income sources from State Government and the commercial/industrial sector to make it self-sustaining before simply imposing a levy on Councils.

* The Section 501 charge which would need to be raised to fund a levy on non-domestic premises would cause an equivalent drop in revenue from general rates due to present State Government rate pegging procedures. This would cause a reduction in Council services is some other area of responsibility.

In summation, I believe any consideration of a levy on local councils should be opposed and that the Local Government Association's action be supported for hypothecation of the Section 72 waste levy."

The matter is placed before Council to note the action taken.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)

. Recommendation WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the information be noted.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

06.05.03 DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

Purpose of Report

To advise Council of the outcomes of a sub-committee of the Cooks River Catchment Management Committee considering sedimentation control measures on building and development sites.

Background

Councillor Griffin represents Hurstville Council on the Cooks River Catchment Management Committee (CRCMC). The CRCMC has established a number of working groups/sub-committees to consider a variety of issues that affect the quality of the Cooks River. The Sediment Control Working Group is chaired by Councillor Griffin and has representatives from Hurstville, Strathfield and South Sydney Councils assisting.

Hurstville is also represented by the Manager Environmental Services, Peter Chrystal, and Manager Engineering Administration, Laurie O'Connor.

Comments

At its most recent meeting of 12 March 1997 the Sediment Control Working Group considered a report which looked at improved measures for Councils to utilise in an attempt to control sedimentation from development sites.

On this issue Hurstville Council currently places the following standard conditions on all building approvals:

The excavation is to be extended clear of all external walls and graded away from the building so that all surface and subsoil water is drained to a suitable drainage system that discharges to the street gutter. BEFORE ANY WORK IS STARTED details of the drainage system to be used are to be submitted to an approved by Council.

The owner shall prevent the discharge of loose sediment to the street or neighbouring properties by the installation of soil erosion control barriers where necessary.

A site management plan detailing runoff and erosion controls shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of any works.

Removal or disturbance of vegetation and top soil shall be confined to within 3m of the approved building area.

Runoff & erosion controls are to be installed prior to commencement of any site works & shall incorporate:

(a) Diversion of uncontaminated runoff around cleared or disturbed areas;

(b) A silt fence or other device to prevent sediment and other debris escaping from the cleared or disturbed areas into drainage systems or waterways;

(c) Controls to prevent tracking of sediment by vehicles onto adjoining roadways.

Topsoil, excavated material, construction & landscaping supplies and onsite debris are to be stockpiled within the erosion containment boundary and shall not encroach upon the footpath, nature strip or road.

All disturbed area are to be rendered erosion resistant by turfing, mulching, paving or other methods approved by Council or erosion controls shall be continuously maintained to Council's satisfaction throughout construction.

FAILURE TO INSTALL & MAINTAIN RUNOFF & EROSION CONTROLS MAY RESULT IN:

(a) Injunction proceedings in the Land & Environment Court;

(b) Prosecution under s16 Clean Waters Act 1970 (Maximum $125,000 Fine);

(c) Council carrying out all works required to prevent pollution and costs charged against the Foreshore & Environmental Damage Bond.

Vehicle access shall be controlled so as to prevent tracking of sediment onto adjoining roadways, particularly during wet weather or when the site is muddy.

To complement these conditions, the CRCMC Sediment Group has requested that member Councils consider using additional conditions of consent that improve the likelihood of all workers on a building site being made aware of their obligations to prevent sediment and erosion of the site.

The recommendations arising from the Sediment Working Group are:

1. That the CRCMC advise member councils to include an additional standard condition of building approval requiring that warning signs be erected on all building/development sites. Such warning sign to state

'It is an offence to allow water containing sediment to be pumped, drained or be allowed to flow off the building site. All workers must maintain sediment control measures.'

The sign is to be reproduced in appropriate languages given the ethnic nature of the local community and should be of sufficient size and illumination to be readily observed.

2.. That the CRCMC advise member councils to include an additional advisory note to be included on ALL building and development approvals to the effect that '

The Applicant may be liable to prosecution under the Local Government Act 1993 for a breach of an approval condition, or under the Clean Waters Act 1970, if its employees, agents or sub-contractors allow sediment, including soil, excavated material, building materials, or other materials to be pumped, drained, or allowed to flow to the street, stormwater pipes or waterways. The Applicant shall ensure that its employees, agents or sub-contractors understand and maintain sediment control measures.

These additional conditions can be readily placed on all building approvals issued by Council and the Environmental Health and Building Surveyors, as part of their inspectorial role, can ensure that where signs are not provided that appropriate directions are issued to the applicant/owner to erect the signs. Failure to do so constitutes an offence under the Local Government Act 1993.

As such the suggested conditions place no additional resource strain on the organisation and are fully supported.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

. Recommendation DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council agree to the following conditions being included

as additional conditions of consent to be placed on building

approvals issued by Hurstville City Council:

1. It is an offence to allow water containing sediment to be pumped, drained or be allowed to flow off the building site. All workers must maintain sediment control measures.

2. The Applicant may be liable to prosecution under the Local Government Act 1993 for a breach of an approval condition, or under the Clean Waters Act 1970, if its employees, agents or sub-contractors allow sediment, including soil, excavated material, building materials, or other materials to be pumped, drained, or allowed to flow to the street, stormwater pipes or waterways. The Applicant shall ensure that its employees, agents or sub-contractors understand and maintain sediment control measures.

B. THAT Council advise other Councils in the region of this

initiative and seek their support.

* * * *

Yours faithfully

D Beaumont

Divisional Manager - Development & Health