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

SUMMARY OF ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED AT
THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 1ST OCTOBER, 2003


Summary:

Item No: DAC022 - 03 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC022.01 - 03 - 32 MORETON AVENUE, KINGSGROVE - ALTERATIONS TO
DWELLING HOUSE, DECK AND GARAGE
(Report by Consulting Development Assessment Officer,

Mr G Champion) DA 20030524

Item No: DAC022.02 - 03 - 77 PONYARA ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS - CONVERSION OF
EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE INTO A CHILD CARE

CENTRE
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

DA 20030495

Item No: DAC022.03 - 03 - 75 QUEENS ROAD, HURSTVILLE - COMMUNITY TITLE
SUBDIVISION INTO THREE LOTS
(Report by Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green)

DA 20030681

Item No: DAC022.04 - 03 - 18 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE - ALTERATIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO HERITAGE ITEM TO BE USED AS A CHILD CARE CENTRE
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20030198

Item No: DAC022.05 - 03 - 75 BERONGA AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR BRICK FENCE
(Report by Senior Town Planner, Ms T Christy) DA 20030490

Item No: DAC022.06 - 03 - 43 LOUIS TERRACE, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION SEEKING APPROVAL FOR INCREASED FLOOR LEVELS BASED ON STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20010929 (AD 75/03)

Item No: DAC022.07 - 03 - 135 DORA STREET, HURSTVILLE - ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE
(Report by Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G Champion)

DA 20030369

Item No: DAC022.08 - 03 - 239 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - DEMOLITION

OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE AND ERECTION OF A
TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE
(Report by Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G Champion)

DA 20030500

Item No: DAC022.09 - 03 - 48 CALOOLA CRESCENT, BEVERLY HILLS - ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE
(Report by Consulting Development Assessment Officer,

Mr G Siambis) DA 20030576

Item No: DAC023 - 03 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC023.01 - 03 - 91 BONDS ROAD, PEAKHURST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF THREE (3) DWELLINGS
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20030206

Item No: DAC023.02 - 03 - 1 STATION STREET, MORTDALE - ERECTION OF A THREE
STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING COMPRISING OF THREE DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20030462

Item No: DAC023.03 - 03 - 8 ROSEBERY STREET, PENSHURST - SECTION 96

APPLICATION TO MODIFY CONSENT FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE REAR DWELLING OF AN APPROVED DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Senior Town Planner - Ms T Christy)

DA 19960119 (AD 62/03)

Item No: DAC023.04 - 03 - 443-453 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS -

REPLACE EXISTING TWIN CINEMA WITH A TEN (10) CINEMA AND RETAIL COMPLEX WITH OPEN AIR PLAZA
(Report by Senior Town Planner, Ms T Christy) DA 20020252

Item No: DAC024 - 03 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC024.01 - 03 - 5 BOWMAN STREET, MORTDALE - ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED TWO STOREY DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

DA 20030508

Item No: DAC024.02 - 03 - 19 COLERIDGE STREET AND 2 PHILLIP STREET,

RIVERWOOD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLINGS
AND ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20030517

Item No: DAC024.03 - 03 - 9A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - ERECTION OF A

PART 2/PART 3 STOREY DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Manager - Development Assessment, Mr P Thomas)

DA 20030546

Item No: DAC024.04 - 03 - 3A MYALL STREET, OATLEY - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
DWELLING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A

MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF THREE (3) DWELLINGS
(Report by Town Planner, Mr J Erken) DA 20030410

Item No: DAC024.05 - 03 - 88A, 88 & 90 BELMORE ROAD, PEAKHURST - ERECTION

OF TEN (10) SINGLE STOREY VILLAS
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

DA 20030590




___________________________________________________________________________
Meeting No. 10 to be held on 1st October, 2003




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL

CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE 2220


23 September 2003


His Worship the Mayor and the Councillors


Dear Member,

I am directed to inform you that a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT Committee will be held at the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Hurstville, on WEDNESDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 2003 at 7.00 P.M for consideration of the business mentioned hereunder.

Yours faithfully,





GENERAL MANAGER
B U S I N E S S:


5.30 p.m. Dinner

7.00 p.m. 1. Apologies

2. Disclosure of Interest

3. Confirmation of Minutes of Committee Meeting held on 3/9/03 4. Consideration of reports submitted by the:
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP: QUORUM: 7

Full Council


Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.01 - 03

32 MORETON AVENUE, KINGSGROVE - ALTERATIONS TO
DWELLING HOUSE, DECK AND GARAGE

APPLICANT

Strachan Architects

PROPOSAL

Alterations to Dwelling House, Deck and Garage

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Development Area B

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Mr D and Mrs P Hardjopranoto

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single Dwelling House

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$80,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Variation from Code

REPORT AUTHORS

Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G Champion

FILE NO

DA 20030524


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks to construct alterations to an existing dwelling house, a deck and garage.

2. The proposal does not comply with the general controls of Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses relating to side boundary setbacks.

3. No letters of objection were received.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site is located on the northern side of Moreton Avenue between Margaret and Marina Street. The site has an area of 429sqm and a width of 12.8m. The land fall is to the rear. The site is surrounded by dwelling houses.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to construct alterations to an existing dwelling house, a deck and garage. The garage will be attached to the existing dwelling house and extend to the eastern side boundary of the site. The garage replaces an existing carport and will accommodate two car spaces in tandem formation.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The proposal has also been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) “Matters for Consideration” of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

The site is zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The application is subject to the requirements of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and a summary of compliance with the technical requirements follows.

Code for Single Dwelling HousesStandardProposalComplies
Site Area429sqm
Frontage12.8m
Side boundary setback0.9m0mNo (1)
Building line4.5m5.2mYes
Height9m6.2mYes
Landscape area50%54%Yes
Car parking and access2 car spaces

Maximum width – Garage 40%
3 car spaces

20%
Yes
Front fence1m1mYes
Solar access4 hours to open space areas4 hours to private open space areasYes
Privacy and windows1m offset to windowsBrick up existing windowsYes

(1) Side Boundary Setback

The garage will be attached to the existing dwelling house and will be located less than 900 mm from the eastern boundary on a nil setback. The height of the garage will range between 2.8 m and 2.6 m high and will be adjacent to an external wall and windows of an adjoining dwelling house.The applicant in support of the application states that:

The garage attached to the existing dwelling should be located a minimum of 900 mm from the side boundary to comply with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and provide adequate separation and light and ventilation access to the adjoining property. An open carport structure should only be permitted between the existing dwelling extending to the eastern boundary of the site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Sixteen (16) 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 to the proposal were submitted.


SUMMARY

The garage attached to the existing dwelling should be located a minimum of 900 mm from the side boundary to comply with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and provide adequate separation and light and ventilation access to the adjoining property. An open carport structure should only be permitted between the existing dwelling extending to the eastern boundary of the site.

The proposal is not considered to comply with the relevant objectives and requirements of Council’s Code for Single Dwellings as the garage is attached to the existing dwelling will be located less than 900mm to the side boundary.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, refuse development consent under DA 20030524 for the construction of alterations to an existing dwelling, deck and garage on land known as Lot 69, DP 18561, 32 Moreton Street, Kingsgrove, for the following reasons.

1. The garage attached to the existing dwelling will be located less than 900 mm from the eastern boundary of the site.

2. The garage will reduce the amount of light and ventilation available and amenity of the adjoining property.

* * * * *


APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be deferred for Ward and interested Councillors inspection.
(Moved Clr S Nasser/Seconded Clr M Lynch)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.02 - 03

77 PONYARA ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS - CONVERSION OF
EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE INTO A CHILD CARE CENTRE

APPLICANT

Sam Girgis Architects

PROPOSAL

Conversion of Existing Dwelling House into a Child Care Centre

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development
Control Plan No 6 - Child Care Centre, Development Control
Plan No 2 - Car Parking

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

George and Shirley Iskander

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling House

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$25,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Resident objections

REPORT AUTHORS

Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson

FILE NO

DA 20030495


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks approval to convert the existing dwelling house into a child care centre.

2. The application has been assessed under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking and Development Control Plan No 6 - Child Care Centres.

3. Five (5) objections were received against the application.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is located on the north western side of Ponyara Road, Beverly Hills. The allotment is located between two single storey brick dwelling houses. The area predominately comprises single dwelling houses and is located opposite the Regina Coeli Catholic Primary School.

The subject site is also in close proximity to King Georges Road and is reasonably close to the Beverly Hills shopping precinct and railway station.

The existing single storey brick dwelling house with an attached carport is located on an allotment with a significant fall to the rear. There are no significant trees on the property.


PROPOSAL

The development application seeks approval to renovate and extend the existing dwelling house for use as a Child Care Centre. The proposed Child Care Centre is to accommodate four (4) staff members and twenty eight (28) children (8 x two year olds and 20 x three to five year olds).

The proposed Child Care Centre is to be single storey building with two staff parking spaces and three child drop-off spaces.

The Centre includes a lobby, office, three internal rooms used for one (1) play area, staff room, mat storage area, toilet, preparation area, kitchen, staff room, laundry, store room, three covered deck areas, downstairs (at natural ground level) play area, downstairs preparation area, sand pit and large rear yard.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The land is within zone 2 – Residential under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and Child Care Centres are permissible with Council consent.

The development is subject to the requirements of the Hurstville City Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan No 6 and Council's Car Parking Development Control Plan No 2.

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ASSESSMENT

As mentioned above, the application has been assessed against Hurstville City Council’s Child Care Centre and Car Parking Development Control Plans. A detailed assessment against the technical standards and objectives is detailed below.

DCP No.6 – Child Care Centres
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Minimum Site Area
500sqm
594.9sqm
Yes
Minimum Street Frontage
13m
13.105m
Yes
Staff Car Parking
1 space per 2 staff
2 spaces
No (1)
Visitor Drop-Off (drive through arrangement)
1 space per 10 children
3 spaces
Yes
Indoor Floor Area (3.25sqm per child)
91sqm, 28 children
88.94sqm
No (2)
Outdoor Area
(7sqm per child)
196sqm, 28 children
212sqm
Yes
Verandah
(1.25sqm per child)
Standard if provided
Not provided
Yes
Toilet and Hand Basins
(1 per 8 children)
4
+ 1 adult toilet
3 child toilets + 1 adult toilet
No (3)
Staff Toilets
(1 per 6 staff)
1
1
Yes
Cot Room Required
No
No
Yes
Nappy Change Required
Yes
Yes
Yes
Separate Staff Room Required
Yes
Provided
Yes (4)
Office Required
Yes
Provided
Yes

As illustrated above, the proposed Child Care facility generally complies with the technical standards contained in Hurstville City Council's Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking. The variations are discussed below.

(1) Staff Car Parking

The parking provided complies when considered for the four (4) staff members indicated as necessary for the proposed Child Care Centre. However, Council’s Children Services Coordinator has indicated that this staffing level may not be adequate for the number of children catered for. It is estimated that a part time cook and a possible additional primary contact staff member may be necessary for a more appropriate staffing arrangement which would result in the demand for an additional staff car parking space.

(2) Internal Play Area

Council’s Development Control Plan requires 3.5 square metres of internal play area per child. As such the proposed Child Care Centre requires 98 square metres under Council’s code. DOCS requirements indicate that 3.25 square metres per child is necessary, thereby requiring 91 square metres. The plans provided indicate that 91 square metres of internal play space is provided. However, this includes a sink and preparation area which cannot be included as unencumbered floor space. As such the proposal provides 89.625 square metres of unencumbered play area, which does not meet with DOCS or Council requirements. It is concluded that this play area is not appropriate for the number of children proposed to be catered for at this Centre.

(3) Toilet Facilities

In a Centre with places for twenty eight (28) children, four (4) toilet facilities are necessary plus one (1) staff toilet facility. Three (3) children’s toilets and one (1) staff toilet have been provided. The Code does allow an adult toilet with a suitable step up and junior seat. This can be indicated as a facility catering to both staff and children. While numerical compliance can be argued to be met, Council’s Children Services Coordinator has expressed reservations about the location of the proposed toilet facilities and the ability for proposed staff to monitor children while in the outside play area. It has also been recommended that an additional child toilet facility be provided for the use of children utilising the outdoor play area. It is concluded that the proposed toilet facilities are inadequate for the number of children involved.

(4) Staff Room and Office

The Code calls for a staff room of no less than 16 square metres which can incorporate a small sofa and coffee table. The plan provides two staff areas, one with dimensions of 5.2 square metres and the other with dimensions of 6.65 square metres. It is also apparent that a child bathing area (with hip bath) is incorporated into on of these staff areas, and a laundry is included in the remaining staff area. As such it is considered that negligible floor space provided for solely staff usage. These staff areas provided are considered to be inappropriate for the four staff members.

An office area is to be provided with an area large enough to accommodate two (2) desks, two (2) chairs, two (2) filing cabinets and a cot (in the event of a child falling ill). The office provided is considered to be of inadequate dimensions to satisfy these requirements.

Bin Storage Area

Council’s Code requires a garbage bin storage area with dimensions of 1m x 3m. A bin storage area of 1.35m x 1.2m is indicated on the plans. While this does not comply with the Code, it is considered that slight amendments could be conditioned to rectify this issue.

Based on the level above assessment, the Centre is not capable of catering for 28 children.

Further assessment of the proposal is discussed below.

Locational Criteria

Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 does not recommend that Child Care Centres be located within 300m of a main road or on steeply sloping sites. These controls relating to location are included for pedestrian and child safety and to enable disabled assess.

The site is within 300m of King Georges Road. However it is considered that as the proposed Centre is located opposite an existing primary school, the speed limit is 40km/h and 50km/h at other times. These speed limits are considered appropriate for the proposed Centre. Further to this the applicant has indicated that Ponyara Road has speed humps and a pedestrian crossing, further encouraging pedestrian safety.

Of concern is the fact that the site has a significant fall to the rear. The applicant has indicated that the rear stairs will utilise a wheelchair lift for disabled access. It has also been indicated that the rear play area is relatively flat and is appropriate for a play area. The applicant has indicated clearly that disabled access can be accommodated despite the fall to the rear in that wheelchair access through the front door and via the wheelchair lift down the rear stairs to the play area can be accommodated into the design.

Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan stipulates spatial requirements and internal and outdoor design objectives which should be achieved to ensure a comprehensively planned Centre which is functional, safe and satisfactorily addresses the character of the area.

While Council’s Code does not encourage the use of sites within 300m of main roads or with significant falls, the design and site context is considered to be appropriate for the consideration of this site for the proposed Child Care usage.

Building Form

Development Control Plan No 6 – Requirements for Child Care Centres specifies objectives and desired outcomes in regard to appropriate building form. The proposed Child Care Centre is considered to satisfy these objectives and desired outcomes.

The proposed building complies with the building envelope as described by Council’s Single Dwelling Code. Furthermore, the proposed building is considered to be compatible in scale with the adjoining buildings when viewed from the street, as it retains the existing dwelling house.

Access for Persons with Limited Mobility

It is required by Council’s Development Control Plan, that disabled access is provided in the Child Care Centre. Information has been submitted indicating that disabled access is to be via a stair climber which provides access from the indoor play areas of the centre to the outdoor play areas.

The applicant has indicated that the driveway from the street along the northern eastern boundary has been provided for additional disabled access. It has further been indicated that the driveway does not meet the 1:14 requirement for disabled access, but can be used for prams and strollers.

The use of the driveway for access is not encouraged, however disabled access can be provided internally via this stair climber.

Vehicular Access and Car Parking

The Code requires one (1) car parking space per two (2) staff. Four (4) staff are proposed to be working at the Centre and two (2) parking spaces are provided for these staff in accordance with Council’s Code. However, it is apparent from the design of the centre and the number of children proposed to be catered for, that an additional two (2) staff members will be required for the adequate functioning of the Centre. This would require an additional car parking space. As such, the proposal does not comply with Council’s car parking requirements.

Operation of the Centre

The applicant seeks approval to operate the Centre from 7.30am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan stipulates that a Child Care Centre should not extend outside the core hours of 7.30am to 6.00pm. As such the operating hours proposed are in accordance with Council’s Code.


INTERNAL REFERRALS

Manager, Development Advice

The Manager, Development Advice raises no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to drainage.

Transportation Analyst

Council’s Transportation Analyst has made the following comments:

· The proposed pick up and drop off bay is just adequate enough to accommodate two vehicles in the drive through area.
· The driveway cross-sectional profiles provided have indicated that driveway gradients are adequate.
· The proposed vehicular access is located approximately 20m west of the raised pedestrian threshold in Ponyara Road and is unlikely to cause conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.
· Traffic volumes on Ponyara Road during peak periods have generally reduced since the opening of the M5 East. The traffic generation from the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse effect on Ponyara Road traffic movements, based on Roads and Traffic Authority Traffic Movement Data (West Bound) for Ponyara Road.

Community Services

The subject application was referred to Council’s Children Services Coordinator who has raised the following concerns.

The upstairs play area is divided into three sections but has been indicated as one play area by the applicant. The service is to cater for twenty (20) children aged 3-5 (upstairs) and eight (8) children aged 0-2 (downstairs). Given that the applicant has indicated that there are to be three (3) teaching staff and one (1) part time administrator, it is assumed that two of these staff are to cover the upstairs floor area and two (2) staff are to cover the downstairs floor area. The upstairs floor area would appear very difficult for two (2) staff to adequately supervise the three (3) playroom areas with limited vision of all areas.

To overcome this it is thought that additional staff may be required by DOCS, which would have an impact on the number of car parking spaces provided.

Further clarification of actual necessary staffing is required. It has been indicated by the applicant that a part time cook and part time staff member may be required. This has an impact on the number of parking spaces required.

The issue of access to toilets for children while playing outdoors was raised in previous comments. This was raised as a concern for the following reasons:

· two (2) toilets were recommended for the lower floor area to enable children less waiting time, both for indoor and outdoor play;
· these lower level toilets would be most practical to utilise when playing outdoors to prevent children/staff having to enter the upstairs area of the building from outdoor play;
· these toilets should preferably be located in an area of the building that could be easily viewed from the outdoor area.

The applicant has responded that the toilets are clearly visible from internal and external areas but this does not appear to be the case.

In summary, the main concerns for Council’s Children Services Coordinator are:

· Insufficient staff to monitor upstairs play room areas;
· Additional staff will require additional parking spaces, which are not provided;
· A staff roster should be provide indicating all staffing requirements;
· Inadequate toilet facilities are provided with regards to children/staff visibility, access and waiting times.

Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer (TPO) has inspected the site and raises no objection to the proposed development.


NOTIFICATION

In accordance with Council practice, nearby residents were notified of the proposal and offered fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and make submissions.

Five (5) submissions were received during the notification period raising the following concerns.

Noise

Five (5) neighbours have objected to the proposed development in terms of noise disruptions from traffic, children and the general operation of the proposed Child Care Centre.

Comment: It is not anticipated that an undue amount of noise will be generated from the proposed development.

Traffic

Four (4) neighbours have objected in terms of the traffic generating potential and the impact this will have at peak times and in relation to the traffic problems indicated by the school opposite.

Comment: Council’s Transportation Analyst has indicated that an analysis of RTA Traffic data leads to the conclusion that traffic volumes on Ponyara Road have decreased since the opening of the M5 East. The traffic generating potential of the proposed Centre is not anticipated to be excessive for Ponyara Road to accommodate.

Pedestrian Safety

Three (3) submissions have been received with regards to pedestrian safety with regards to the dual driveway crossover. Neighbour comment has also been received in regards to the turning circle and the potential for vehicles to overshoot this driveway and career into neighbouring properties.

Comment: Pedestrian safety is not concluded to be reduced from the existing level as a result of the proposed development. The turning circle complies with the appropriate Australian Standard.

Impact on Property Value

Three (3) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development based on the impact it may have on the market value of and/or rental return on their property.

Comment: There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will lead to a de-valuation for surrounding properties, and regardless this is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Parking

Three (3) neighbours have indicated that the proposal will reduce the amount of on-street parking available.

Comment: The proposed development has attempted to comply with Council’s car parking requirements. However, the functioning of the centre in accordance with Council’s Code and DOCS requirements indicates that additional staffing may be necessary. Parking is not provided for additional staff. As a result this neighbour objection is concluded to be valid and is supported.

Fencing

The adjacent neighbours have expressed concerns as to the condition of the side boundary fencing and the potential for young “mischievous” children to climb the fence to get access to their pool and to interact with their dog.

Comment: Any potential consent would entail the condition that adequate boundary fencing be installed.

Garbage Bin Location

The adjoining neighbours have indicated that the storage area for garbage bins is inadequate and will result in them having view of these bins and experiencing the smells from this area.

Comment: The garbage bin area is located behind the primary building alignment adjacent to a 1.8m high side boundary fence. This area will not negatively impact on adjoining neighbours provided the planned pool fencing to the street was replaced with a solid wall to block view of this area. However the neighbour objection is supported as far as 1m x 3m is not provided for bin storage in accordance with Council’s Code.

Centre Design

One (1) neighbour has expressed concern about the internal design of the proposed Child Care facility in that the stairs may prove dangerous to children. The neighbour has also argued that the toilet facilities seem inadequate.

Comment: Child safety is not foreseen to be unduly compromised by the stair plan. No more than three stairs are proposed in any run, which attempts to encourage child safety.

The amount of toilets provided has been indicated as problematic by Council’s Children Services Coordinator. This objection is therefore supported.


SUMMARY

The development application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling in order to create a Child Care Centre.

The Centre proposes to cater for up to twenty eight (28) children with four (4) staff members.

As illustrated above, the proposed development does not comply with Hurstville City Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres in terms of internal play areas, toilets and staff room facilities. The proposal is also argued to not comply with Council's Car Parking Development Control Plan No 2.

The proposal has also been assessed with regard to the relevant Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), under which is can be argued that neighbour amenity is affected.

Given the above, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council under Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, refuse development consent under DA 20030495 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house to create a Child Care Centre on land known as Lot 313, DP 13496, 77 Ponyara Road, Beverly Hills, for the following reasons.

1. Insufficient staff are provided to care for the twenty eight (28) children proposed to be enrolled in the Centre.

2. Additional staff would require an additional car parking space which is not provided.

3. Inadequate toilet facilities are provided in relation to children/staff visibility, access and waiting times to use the facility.

4. The proposed Centre is considered to be of an inadequate size for the numbers of children and staff proposed.

5. Valid neighbour objections have been submitted in relation to car parking facilities, bin area storage, and toilet facilities provided.


* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be deferred for inspection and further consideration of Department of Community Services requirements.

FURTHER THAT the report be referred to the next Development Assessment Committee.
(Moved Clr J Morris/Seconded Clr M Frawley)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.03 - 03

75 QUEENS ROAD, HURSTVILLE - COMMUNITY TITLE
SUBDIVISION INTO THREE LOTS

APPLICANT

Tanshell Pty Ltd

PROPOSAL

Community Title Subdivision into Three Lots

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Tanshell Pty Ltd

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Existing Heritage Residence under renovation, proposed
townhouses and residential flats to be constructed

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Nil

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Council has no Policy or Codes for Community Title
Subdivisions

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green

FILE NO

DA 20030681


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks Council approval to subdivide the existing site by Community Title to ensure the maintenance of the existing heritage residence is under any future owner's total control rather than of an Owner's Corporation of a Strata Title Scheme.

2. The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and Council's Subdivision Code has no provision for Community Title Subdivision.

3. The Subdivision is authorised under the Community Land Development Act 1989 and the Community Land Development Amendment Act 1996 and is permissible with Council's consent.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

Council approved the Development Application for 75 Queens Road, Hurstville (DA 20020246) at its meeting on 7 August 2002. A subsequent Modification to this Development Consent (AD 20/03) was approved on 23 April 2003.

The proposals approved are for the construction of a mixed residential development, including the preservation and renovation of the main section of the heritage residence Yarramundi together with the construction of two (2) townhouses and two three (3) storey residential flat buildings.


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is currently under construction with the heritage building being renovated with demolition and excavation work being completed for the basement garage of Yarramundi.


PROPOSAL

The application is to subdivide the existing site by Community Title into three (3) allotments.

The proposed three (3) allotments are described as follows:

Lot 1

Lot 1 is the Association Property Lot (similar to common property in a strata scheme) and is the 1.385 metre wide access strip through the centre of the site from Queens Road. This land will be jointly owned by the owners of Lots 2 and 3 in the Community Scheme.

The responsibility of the care and maintenance of this lot is the Association (similar to the Owner’s Corporation in a strata scheme).

Lot 2

Lot 2 is a Community Lot and comprises of the area in which the two (2) townhouses and the two three (3) storey residential flat buildings will be constructed. These buildings will have basement car parking wholly contained in this Lot 2.

It is possible to strata subdivide these buildings in the future on completion of the development. A separate application for strata subdivision will have to be lodged with Council for the approval of any strata subdivision.

This Lot has a frontage of 14.815m to The Avenue, a frontage of 14.79m to Queens Road with an area of 1234sqm.

Lot 3

Lot 3 is also a Community Lot and comprises of the area in which the existing heritage building is located. This lot will also wholly contain the basement garage and courtyard for Yarramundi.

This Lot has a frontage of 29.105m to The Avenue, a frontage of 19.65m to Queens Road with an area of 542.5sqm.

Community Management Statement

A Community Plan must include a Community Management Statement to be lodged with the plan at the Department of Land and Property Information for registration. A Community Management Statement has been lodged with this application.

The management statement is the document which sets out all the by-laws necessary for the efficient running of the Scheme (similar to Strata Scheme By-laws).

The management statement provides details on:

- Any special requirements for the use and maintenance of the association property.

- The maintenance and ownership of service lines within the scheme.

- By-laws fixing details of development.

- Mandatory matters applying to managing and maintaining community property, fencing, garbage, insurance and Executive Committee procedures.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994

The site is Zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. Although this Local Environmental Plan has no provisions for Community Title Subdivision the proposed development is nevertheless permissible with the consent of Council.

Community Title Subdivision is authorised under the Community Land Development Act 1989 and the Community Land Development Amendment Act 1996.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The applicant has submitted a Statement of Environmental Effects with the application for consideration.

In an extract from this statement the applicant has stated that:

The Community Title Subdivision proposal will have no adverse effects to the future owners of the proposed development, the adjacent property owners or the general community as nothing is altered with respect to the physical approved building and the impact of the approved development in terms of visual impact, utility services, site prospect, flora, fauna, site drainage, parking and traffic, natural hazards, technological hazards, noise, heritage and public interest.

As outlined above the proposed Community Title Subdivision will ensure the most appropriate management system for the upkeep of the existing heritage residence, will comply with Council’s planning controls and will not have any adverse environmental impact.”


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager - Development Control

The proposal to separate the heritage building and its curtilage from the remainder of the development is supported. The maintenance and management requirements of this dwelling will in fact be very different from that of a new home unit complex. In this regard the Owner’s Corporation of the new development will not be able to dictate requirements to the owner of the heritage dwelling but relevant issues will be administered by the Community Association.


SUMMARY

The development is permissible under the zoning provisions of Hurstville City Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1994.

The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and Council’s Subdivision Code has no provision for Community Title Subdivision.

The Community Subdivision of the site will ensure the future owners of the existing heritage residence have this building under their own control rather than of a Body Corporate. This will enable necessary maintenance and upkeep of the existing residence to occur without requiring the consent from others that may not necessarily be given.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, approve development consent under DA 20030681 for the community title subdivision into three lots on land known as Lot A, DP 312943, 75 Queens Road, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions.

1. A linen plan of subdivision prepared by a Registered Surveyor, plus five (5) copies shall be lodged with Council. This plan shall create any required easements for overhanging roof structures.2. Council requires the construction works on proposed Lot 1 (the access path and entry off Queens Road) and proposed Lot 3 alterations to the heritage building, construction of the basement garage and courtyard) to be built and completed in accordance with Conditions of Development Consent No. 20020246 prior to the release of the signed subdivision plans from Council.

3. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.4. Any easements for services that pass from one lot through any other lot shall be created on the plan of survey by Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act or created by Section 36 of the Community Land Development Act as required by the relevant service authority.

5. The provision of any service and access way plans shall be included in the final management statement as necessary.

6. Appropriate amendments being made to the management statement to reflect Council's requirements regarding waste removal and recycling requirements.

7. Any outstanding fees shall be paid prior to the release of the linen plans.

8. The proposed Lot 2 shall be known as No 75A Queens Road. The proposed corner Lot 3 shall remain as No 75 Queens Road.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
(Moved Clr M Lynch /Seconded Clr S Nasser)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.04 - 03

18 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE - ALTERATIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO HERITAGE ITEM TO BE USED AS A CHILD CARE
CENTRE

APPLICANT

NIACM Pty Ltd

PROPOSAL

Alterations and Additions to Heritage Item to be used as a
Child Care Centre

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control
Plan No 6 - Child Care Centres, Development Control Plan
No 2 - Car Parking

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Nick and Irene Moraitis

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$220,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Resident objections and heritage considerations

REPORT AUTHORS

Town Planner, Mr J Erken

FILE NO

DA 20030198


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks approval to undertake alterations and additions to an existing Heritage Item to be used as a Child Care Centre.

2. The application has been assessed under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking and Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres.

3. The application was supported by a Heritage Impact Statement and was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser.

4. Three objections were received against the application.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be granted a deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site is located on the north eastern side of Millet Street, Hurstville, close to the corner of Pearl Street. The property has a 20.115m frontage and a depth of 48.771m, creating a site area of 981sqm.

The subject site is in close proximity to the Hurstville Community Private Hospital and the Hurstville Central Business District. The site is adjoined by a multi unit (3 villas) development on both side boundaries.The existing dwelling house is listed as a Heritage Item under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1994.


PROPOSAL

The development application seeks approval to undertake alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (Heritage Item) to be used as a Child Care Centre.

As part of this development application it is proposed to undertake alterations to the existing dwelling house (Heritage Item) to convert the residence to a Child Care Centre. The work to the Heritage Item includes the removal of the main hallway walls, and minor changes for services. The proposed work also involves the construction of sliding doors on the rear of the building and on the north western elevation.

It is also proposed to demolish the existing rear garage and construct a two storey building in its place. This two storey building is partially excavated into the slope of the land, reducing its perceived height.

At the front of the site it is proposed to create two driveway crossovers. One crossover is proposed on the north western side of the site to allow the stacked parking of two vehicles. On the south eastern side of the site the existing crossover is to be utilised to allow the parking of one vehicle at the front of the site. A pedestrian ramp at a grade of 1:14 is also proposed in this location to provide access to the entrance to the Centre which is proposed at the rear.

The proposed Child Care Centre is to cater for fifty eight (58) children with seven (7) staff members and is to operate between the hours of 7.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The land is within Residential Zone No 2 under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and "Child Care Centres" are permissible with Council consent.

The development is subject to the requirements of the Hurstville City Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan.

The proposed development is also subject to the requirements of Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking. The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

As mentioned above, the application has been assessed against Hurstville City Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan. A detailed assessment against the technical standards and objectives is detailed below.

DCP No.6 – Child Care Centres
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Minimum Site Area
500sqm
891sqm
Yes
Minimum Street Frontage
13m
20.115m
Yes
Staff Car Parking
4
3
No (1)
Visitor Drop-Off (drive through arrangement)
6
0
No (1)
Indoor Floor Area (3.25sqm per child)
188.5sqm
251sqm
Yes
Outdoor Area (7sqm per child)
406sqm
418sqm
Yes
Verandah (1.25sqm per child)
72.5sqm
74.61sqm
Yes
Toilet and Hand Basins (1 per 8 children)
7
7
Yes
Staff Toilets (1 per 6 staff)
1
1
Yes
Separate Staff Room RequiredStaff Room provided
Yes
Office RequiredOffice provided
Yes

As illustrated above, the proposed Child Care facility generally complies with a number of the technical standards contained in Hurstville City Council's Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking, with the only variations being to the provision of on site car parking provided.

(1) Car Parking

It is clear from the above that the proposed development fails to provide sufficient car parking for staff or parents dropping off children. The provision of car parking, which is based on the intensity of the Centre is a significant variation which is somewhat related to the heritage significance of the existing dwelling house.

When the application was originally submitted to Council, a drive-through arrangement was proposed to allow the drop off and pick up of children as required under Council’s Car Parking Development Control Plan. However, due to the heritage significance of the existing dwelling house such a method of car parking could not be supported. However, Council should note that the car parking resulting from such a proposal would still not cater for the intensity which is proposed for this Centre. Even if a drive-through arrangement was possible, the applicant would only be able to provide between four and five on site car parking spaces in total.

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Transportation Analyst. While supporting a drive-through approach, the Transportation Analyst acknowledged that it was a “heritage v's drive-through” matter.

Unfortunately, the significance of the Heritage Item, and the topography at the front of the site, which would require substantial excavation to cater for a drive-through arrangement negated the possibility of its provision.

Given the heritage significance of the dwelling house, and the inability of providing on-site car parking, the possibility of providing on-street short term car parking spaces directly in front of the site was considered. Due to the heritage significance of the dwelling house, such a measure would not set a “precedent” as it is only supported based on the inability of providing on-site car parking.

As such, the recommendation before Council seeks Council support for the provision of such parking restrictions in front of the site. Without such parking restrictions, given the inability of providing on-site car parking, the subject Centre cannot be supported by Council Officers.

Should Council consider such a measure appropriate, it must be recognised that this would provide for two (2) car parking spaces only. As identified in the above table, the proposed development is deficient seven (7) car parking spaces, and even with the short term parking spaces, would still be deficient five (5) car parking spaces.

This issue is canvassed in greater detail under the heading 'Intensity of the Centre' later in this report.HERITAGE

As mentioned previously, the subject premises is listed as a Heritage Item under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1994.

Clause 34 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1994, provides Conservation Incentives for Development Applications involving Heritage Items. Clause 34 states:

Given the heritage significance of the existing dwelling house, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Statement to support the proposed works. The Heritage Report, prepared by Russell Lee Architect, states:

The proposed development and Heritage Impact Statement was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser for comment. The following response was received:

As identified above, Council’s Heritage Consultant generally supports the use of the Heritage Item as a Child Care Centre, but raises concern over certain aspects of the proposal that result in an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the existing dwelling. These issues are further discussed below under the heading of 'Intensity of the Centre'.

During the assessment period, Council was also in receipt of a submission from the National Trust. The Trust comments that:

INTENSITY OF THE CENTRE

One of the common issues raised in the above assessment is the intensity of the Centre. As illustrated in the compliance table, the proposed development cannot provide sufficient car parking to cater for the proposed intensity of the centre. Having said this, it is the significance of the dwelling house as a Heritage Item that makes it impossible to provide a drive-through driveway and provide additional on site car parking. Furthermore, Council must recognise the Conservation Incentives specified under Clause 34 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 as described above.

As identified by the Heritage Adviser, the use of the Heritage Item as a Child Care Centre is generally supported. The use of Heritage Items as Child Care Centres is an appropriate re-use of a heritage significant dwelling house as it can protect the dwelling house from development pressures in the short term.

Notwithstanding it is important that the re-use of the Heritage Item as a Child Care Centre does not detract from the heritage integrity of the Item or its curtilage. It is clear from the above assessment provided by Council’s Heritage Adviser that the proposed works (particularly the rear two storey building), in her opinion, will detract from the heritage significance of the dwelling house.

As such, it is considered that the proposed use is of an unacceptable intensity and results in degrading the heritage significance of the dwelling house and results in a reduced residential amenity for neighbours by way of increased traffic and impact on on-street parking.

Despite the above, the use of the site as a Child Care Centre is supported in principle, subject to appropriate amendments. It is considered that with the recommended amendments, the resulting Centre would complement the heritage significance of the dwelling house, and not result in an unacceptable impact on neighbour’s amenity.

Given the time taken to receive the Heritage Comments outlined above, and given the relatively simple amendments required, it is proposed that the required amendments be specified in Deferred Commencement Consent. In doing so, the applicant can continue to develop the proposal with confidence, and Council retains the ability to ensure the proposed Child Care Centre respects the heritage significance of the existing dwelling house and does not result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the adjoining owners, or an unacceptable impact on traffic and parking in the street.

The difficulty is to ascertain the appropriate intensity of the subject Centre. Furthermore, the appropriate intensity will depend on whether Council supports the notion of erecting short term car parking spaces directly outside the site as recommended above, based on the heritage significance of the dwelling house and the need to provide a suitable drop off and pick up area.

By allowing the erection of short term car parking signs directly in front of the proposed Centre, two cars would be able to park in front of the Centre. Based on the car parking rate specified in Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking this would provide sufficient parking for a Centre of up to twenty (20) children.

As demonstrated by the applicant, the size of the site (981sqm) is of sufficient size to cater for a Centre of far greater intensity, however, due to the constraints caused by the Heritage Item, car parking cannot be provided at a rate required by Council.

Based on the comments provided by Council’s Heritage Adviser, Deferred Commencement conditions are proposed which result in amendments to the proposed development. One of the major concerns raised by the Heritage Consultant was the impact that the rear two storey building would have on the heritage significance of the dwelling house. As identified above, the Heritage Adviser commented that “the large scale of the rear building is a function of the number of children proposed for the Centre, and therefore recommend that the number of children be reduced to lower the impact of the rear building on the significance of the Heritage Item.”

Based on the above comment, a Deferred Commencement condition is proposed stating that “The rear two storey building proposed at the rear of the site is to be redesigned to reduce the impact on the Heritage Item, and reduce the intensity of the proposed Child Care Centre. To this extent, the upper level playroom 5 is to be deleted, and roofed at the same pitch and height as the roof form proposed at the front of this building above playroom 4.”

By deleting playroom 5, the intensity of the Centre will be reduced to cater for up to fifty (50) children. Furthermore, the level of staff required will be reduced from seven (7) to six (6).

As identified in the above compliance table, by reducing staff numbers to six (6), the level of staff parking (3) will in fact comply with Council requirements. Furthermore, should Council support the erection of short term car parking signs, two (2) drop off spaces would be provided where five (5) are required.

While still representing a variation from Council’s Car Parking Development Control Plan, it is considered that a Centre catering for up to a maximum of fifty (50) children would not result in unacceptable impact on traffic and car parking in Millett Street, and is considered reasonable based on the constraints imposed by the heritage significance of the existing dwelling house.

Furthermore, such an approval would not set an undesirable precedent for future Child Care Centre applications given the Conservation Incentives specified under Clause 34 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. This clause allows the consent authority to vary the level of on-site car parking required based on the heritage significance of the dwelling house being retained.

OPERATION OF CENTRE

Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan states that “in residential areas the approved or licensed operating hours of a Child Care Centre should not extend outside the core hours of 7.30am to 6.00pm”. The applicant proposes to operate from 7.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, and therefore complies with Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager - Development Control

The Manager - Development Control raises no objections to issuing a deferred commencement consent subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring a scaling down of the development and heritage requirements being satisfied.

Transportation Analyst

Comments from Council’s Transportation Analyst have been detailed in the main body of the report.

Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer (TPO) has inspected the site and raises no objection to the proposed development, provided the Eucalyptus street tree is retained and the Jacaranda tree located in the rear yard is also retained.

Community ServicesThe subject application was referred to Council’s Children Services Coordinator (CSC), who raised some concern about certain aspects of the Centre and the level of information provided. These matters were referred to the applicant who provided additional detail and resolved a number of the issues raised by the CSC. Similar to the issues outlined above, the CSC also comments:

Manager, Development Advice

The Manager raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the appropriate conditions relating to vehicular access and stormwater drainage.


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.

When the application was originally notified, nine (9) submissions were received. Since that date, the applicant has made amendments to the proposed Centre, and the application was re-notified.

With the re-notification, three (3) submissions were received raising the following concerns.

Traffic and Parking

All three (3) objectors raise concern about the impact that the proposed Centre will have on traffic and parking in Millett Street. The objectors point out that “all kerbside parking in this area of Millett Street is fully occupied every weekday due to visitors to the Hurstville Community Hospital and Specialist Centre in the hospital, and others who park all day whilst at work.”

The objectors are also concerned about the traffic impact that will result from the completion of the development of the Dominelli Ford Site on the corner of Forest Road and Pearl Street.

The issue of traffic and parking has been canvassed in the above report. As identified above, it is considered that given the inability of providing on site car parking spaces, Council should consider allowing the erection of time restricted parking directly outside of the site. Furthermore, it is considered that the intensity of the Centre should be reduced, to reduce the impact on traffic and parking in Millett Street.

Loss of Amenity

The objectors raise concern about the impact that the proposed centre will have on their “quiet enjoyment of life”.

Child Care Centres will generate some noise impact for adjoining owners during the hours of operation. To ensure any such noise impact is minimised, Council restricts the hours of operation to 7.30am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

While some noise impact may be experienced, the children will not be playing in the outdoor play area all day. A lot of child care activities are carried out in doors. Furthermore, with the proposed reduction in the size and intensity of the Centre, the noise impact would not be considered excessive.

Overshadowing

The residents of villas 2 and 3 at 16 Millett Street have objected to the erection of the rear two storey building as it results in overshadowing of their courtyards.

This matter has been raised with the applicant who has redesigned the rear building to reduce the shadowing impact. The applicant has lowered the height of the building to ensure the level of overshadowing complies with Council requirements.

Furthermore, Council will note that Condition A of Schedule 1 requires the upper level of this building to be further reduced with the deletion of playroom 5. This will further reduce the overshadowing impact of the structure.

Privacy

The residents at 16 Millett Street raise objection to the privacy impact that will result from the proposed development, as the entrance to the development is proposed on the south eastern side of the site, adjacent to the courtyards of the neighbouring villas.

It is proposed as a Deferred Commencement condition that the south eastern boundary be heavily landscaped, particularly in the area adjacent to the entry to the Centre.

However, to further reduce the perceived privacy impact it is proposed as a condition of consent that a 400mm lattice be erected on top of any 1.8 metre high fence to protect neighbours privacy.

Drainage Implications

One neighbour raises concern about the possible increase in stormwater run-off resulting from the proposed development and the possible impact on neighbours. The proposed development has been referred to Council’s Manager, Development Advice who has recommended appropriate conditions for the appropriate disposal of stormwater.

Devaluation of the Property

Two (2) of the objectors raise concern that the proposed development will lead to a devaluation of property values. As identified with previous Child Care applications, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, and regardless this is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Increased Potential for Vandalism

Two (2) of the objectors also raise concern that “as there is no provision for a resident to live in the subject property during the evening or on weekends the potential to attract vandalism or theft is high”.

Given the security that is encumbered in Child Care Centre design, the opportunities for theft or vandalism are considered minor. Child Care Centres are typically designed with high security fences, primarily for the protection of children. Such a Centre gives a clear identity of territory and ownership, and as such discourage unauthorised entry.

The subject Centre is surrounded by multi unit developments which also provide overviewing, reducing the opportunity of crime.

Location of Centre

Two (2) of the objectors also question the location of the proposed Centre. The objectors point out that approval has already been granted for a Child Care Centre at 73 Bassett Street, and question the need for another Centre is reasonably close proximity to this Centre.

The applicant has submitted a demographic analysis in support of the proposed centre. It is quite clear that Hurstville is in need of Child Care Centres, and the location of the proposed Centre is considered appropriate. The subject site is in close proximity to Hurstville Town Centre where high density residential developments are permitted. Given the level of residential development which is permitted in and around the Town Centre, the demand for Child Care Centres is likely to increase.

As such, the location of the proposed centre is supported.


SUMMARY

The development application seeks approval to undertake alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house (Heritage Item) to be used as a Child Care Centre.

The proposed child care facility generally complies with a number of the technical standards contained in Hurstville City Council's Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking, with the only variation being to the provision of on site car parking.

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who raised concern about the intensity of the Centre and the resultant impact the new buildings and works would have on the integrity of the Heritage Item and its curtilage.

The proposed development was notified to adjoining residents who were given fourteen (14) days to provide comment. Three (3) objections were received during the notification period.

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council determine the appropriateness of erecting short term (15 minute) parking signs between 7.30am and 9.30am, and, 3.30pm and 5.30pm on weekdays directly in front of the site to allow for the parking of two vehicles

B. THAT Council determines the appropriate intensity (i.e. number of children) of the Centre based on the information contained in the above report.

C. THAT having resolved the above, pursuant to the powers vested in Council under Section 80(3) the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant Deferred Commencement consent under DA 20030198 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house (Heritage Item) to be used as a Child Care Centre on land known as Lot 22, DP 14092, 18 Millett Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions.
APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be granted a deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
(Moved Clr S Nasser/Seconded Clr P Sansom)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.05 - 03

75 BERONGA AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - CONSTRUCTION OF A
REAR BRICK FENCE

APPLICANT

B and N Simovski

PROPOSAL

Construction of a Rear Brick Fence (Note: Footing system
has already been placed)

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Development Area B

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Erection
of Fences, Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan
No 14

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

B and N Simovski

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single Dwelling House, Detached Outbuilding and Swimming
Pool

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$500.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

One (1) Objection Received

REPORT AUTHORS

Senior Town Planner, Ms T Christy

FILE NO

DA 20030490


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This application seeks the approval to erect a 1800mm high masonry fence along part of the rear boundary line.

2. The proposal requires a Development Consent under Council's Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan No 14.

3. One (1) letter of objection was received.

4. The Development Assessment Committee resolved to defer the proposal for Councillor inspection and redesign to Colorbond Fence.

5. The inspection took place on 15 September 2003.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the original report and the reference to a colorbond fence in the deferred decision be deleted.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

The application was considered and deferred for inspection at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting of 3 September 2003.

The property was inspected on 15 September 2003.

The applicant argued that they want a masonry fence as a feature wall on their side of the allotment, as it faces into a pool area. In the future, the rear adjoining neighbour can still remove the existing boundary paling fence and construct a colourbond fence in its place to their liking; as the proposed masonry fence is wholly within the subject site.


For the assistance of Councillors, the original report is attached.

"SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is located on the southern side of Beronga Avenue between Wellington Road and Croydon Road, Hurstville.

The subject site has dimensions of 15.24m wide by 37.42m deep and is known as Lot 40, DP 12621. The site has a natural fall from back to front (south east to north west) and contains a newly constructed two (2) storey dwelling house with detached outbuilding and swimming pool. The site adjoins other parcels of land which accommodate single residential dwellings.


PROPOSAL

It is proposed to construct a free standing masonry fence along part of the rear boundary line to a height of 1800mm. The masonry fence/wall will be located within the existing pool area against the existing rear timber paling fence and will be used as a feature wall to highlight the swimming pool environment. The fence will have an overall height of 1800mm above natural ground level and will extend from the junction of the side/rear boundary line to the existing BBQ (outbuilding) area with a total length of approximately 7800mm. The fence will be formally finished facing the subject site and will be in brick work where it is exposed to the adjoining site. The works involved do not include the footing system as this part of the construction was carried out without prior approval prior to the application being lodged. Council is to rely on the professional certification from a Structural Engineer in relation to the footing system.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The site is zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The subject application is affected by the requirements of Hurstville City Council’s Code for Exempt and Complying Development.

The proposal has been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) – ‘Matters for Consideration’ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The application has been considered against Council's Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan No 14 and the objectives of Council's Code for the Erection of Fences adjacent to public roads. The proposal does not have a specific control plan which is relevant to the application and therefore, was considered on its merits and against the objectives referred to above.

Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan No 14

The general requirements applying to all fences for exempt development have been exceeded by the proposal, therefore requiring a development application for the proposal.

Objectives for the Erection of Fences adjacent to public road

It is considered that the objectives referred to under Clause 2 (Aims of Code) have been addressed in terms of:

a) Fences being compatible with development of the land;
b) Fence not adversely affecting the character or amenity of the locality by visual impact, size or overshadowing;
c) Encouraging the use of a diverse range of fencing designs and materials.

The above objectives are most relevant to the application and it is considered that the design of the proposal satisfies these objectives.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Adjoining neighbours were notified by letter on 3 July 2003 and were given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal.

One (1) submission was received within the specified period of time raising issues concerned with health, in-accessibility, waste build up, concrete placed without prior approval and security.

Health

The concerns that the proposed fence will cause the build up of mould and further lead to the breeding of termites cannot be supported. The brick fence is without use of timber material and is no different to any other common brick fences which are constructed on common boundary lines. The position of the proposed fence in relation to the existing habitable areas and private open spaces of the objector’s site is such that minimal contact and recreational use will be undertaken in that area of the land and with the screening of the existing timber paling fence, minimum adverse impacts are likely to occur.

In-accessibility

Access to carry out repairs or replace the existing timber paling fence will be via the property of the objector.

The proposal will not inhibit rectification works, if required, but these works will need to be made from one property only and shall be considered under the Dividing Fences Act. The opportunity exists in the future for the masonry fence to become the dividing fence.

A condition of consent outlining satisfactory cleaning of brick work which faces the objector’s property is to form part of any consent granted hereto.

Build Up of Waste/Vermin

Adequate maintenance and ‘house cleaning’ will help maintain the amount of accumulated rubbish/vermin. By providing a setback between the proposed fence and the existing paling fence this will only provide greater area for storage of materials and vermin. The proposal provides no separation between the proposed fence and existing paling fence, therefore reducing the opportunity for storing material.

Works Commenced Without Approval

Excavation and placement of a concrete footing system was carried out without Council consent. The footing system appears to be wholly within the boundaries of the subject site. Council will require certification from a Structural Engineer with respect to this part of the fence. No further action is proposed for the non complying works. The existing paling fence appears in a sound state of repair.

Security

There is greater opportunity for security breaches if a paling fence acts as a dividing fence, in that the horizontal timber support members face the subject site, therefore facilitating climbing access into the objector’s site.

The brick fence will be no lesser a security concern than any other type of fencing.


SUMMARY

The development generally complies with the relevant objectives of Council’s Code for the Erection of Fences.

The development is considered to be of a satisfactory design and is of minor impact to the surrounding properties. The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) – ‘Matters for Consideration’ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030490 for the construction of a masonry fence along part of the rear boundary line on land known as Lot 40, DP 12621, 75 Beronga Avenue, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions.

1. Standard conditions adopted by Council for the Erection of Fences.

2. The applicant must submit to the Accredited Certifier a Structural Engineer’s Certificate from a qualified practising structural engineer for the footing works commenced without approval. This must be submitted prior to the release of the Construction Certificate."

* * * * *



APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the original report.
(Moved Clr M Lynch/Seconded Clr S Nasser)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.06 - 03

43 LOUIS TERRACE, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION SEEKING APPROVAL FOR INCREASED FLOOR LEVELS BASED ON STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT

APPLICANT

Mr Sefian

PROPOSAL

Section 96 Modification Application Seeking Approval for
Increased Floor Levels Based on Stormwater Drainage Report

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development
Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

G Sefian and H Sefian

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Vacant Block

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

N/A

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Resident Objections

REPORT AUTHORS

Town Planner, Mr J Erken

FILE NO

DA 20010929 (AD 75/03)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The subject Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval to increase the floor levels of an approved dual occupancy development based on a Stormwater Drainage Report, which was required as a condition of the original consent.

2. The proposed amendment was notified to adjoining residents who were given fourteen (14) days to provide comment. Three (3) objections were received during the notification period.

3. Despite the need to increase the floor levels, with reduced floor to ceiling height for the first floor, the building complies with the maximum ridge height limit of 9m specified under Council's Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be granted approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

On 20 February 2002, Council considered a Development Application for the construction of an attached dual occupancy at 43 Louis Terrace, Hurstville. The application was approved subject to the appropriate conditions.

The site is affected by a Council stormwater pipeline, and as such, appropriate conditions were recommended by Council’s Manager - Development Advice relating to stormwater disposal. Council’s Manager - Development Advice imposed a condition requiring the applicant to undertake a study to ascertain the appropriateness of the floor level proposed. The condition reads:

“23. Minimum Floor Level – The floor level of the building shall be constructed above the level of the surcharging stormwater generated by a 1 in 100 year recurrence interval, flowing along the overland escape route. Evidence from a Civil Engineer with National Professional Engineering Registration 3 (NPER 3) accreditation that this design requirement has been met shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.”


CURRENT STATUS

The applicant has since undertaken the above required Stormwater Drainage Report. The report, which was prepared by United Consulting Engineers, recommends that the floor levels of the approved building be increased by 1.3m.

Due to the relatively large increase in the floor levels required, and the resulting amendments required to the facade of the building, the applicant has submitted a Section 96 Modification Application for Council approval.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

As identified above, the Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval to increase the floor levels of an approved Dual Occupancy Development at 43 Louis Terrace, Hurstville.

The subject site is traversed by a Council stormwater pipeline, and in approving the original application, Council’s Manager - Development Advice recommended the imposition of a condition requiring the preparation of a Stormwater Drainage Report to ascertain the appropriateness of the floor levels.

A Stormwater Drainage Report has been prepared by United Consulting Engineers. As identified by the drainage consultants this report “determines the rate of stormwater runoff that will pass through this site, both overland and piped in a 1 in 100 year ARI storm event. Based on the existing site conditions, the maximum flood level will also be determined”.

The report prepared by the Consultant was based on two different pipe sizes. As explained by the consultant “The survey plan shows a 900mm-dia pipe traversing the subject site. However, the cadastral maps indicate a 1500mm-dia pipe. For the purpose of this evaluation, both pipe sizes have been assessed.”

Hence, the increase in floor levels by 1.3m was based on a 900mm-dia pipe traversing the site.

The Stormwater Drainage Report was referred to Council’s Manager - Development Advice for review and comment. The Manager reviewed the information and advised the Consultant Hydraulics Engineers that the stormwater pipeline traversing the site is a 1500mm diameter pipe, not a 900mm pipeline to which the increase in floor levels were based.

The Hydraulic Engineer reviewed the floor levels based on a 1500mm diameter pipeline, and the recommended floor levels have been reduced by 300mm to RL 42.86. The originally approved dual occupancy building had an approved floor level of RL 41.8.

Hence, based on the Stormwater Drainage Report, the floor level of the approved dual occupancy building needs to be increased 1.06m.

The impact of this floor level increase can be minimised by Council requiring reduced floor to ceiling heights to those originally approved by Council. For instance, the upper level floor to ceiling height is presently approved at 2.7m. If this floor to ceiling height was reduced to 2.4m, it would reduce overall height impact of the increased floor levels. While the Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan requires a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m, a reduced height is considered appropriate given the circumstances of the case

The ridge level proposed with the subject Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval for a ridge RL of 51.093. However, as identified above, this height is reduced by a further 600mm with the reviewed drainage report (based on a 1500mm pipeline) and a reduced floor to ceiling height for the first floor, resulting in a ridge RL 50.493. At this level, the dual occupancy building will have a maximum height of 8.993m, complying with the 9m height limit specified under Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.

Council should note that regardless of whether the property was developed as a dual occupancy development or a single dwelling house, the minimum floor level would not change.

Given the proposed development complies with the maximum height of 9m as specified by Council Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan, and given the height increase is based on a Stormwater Drainage Report, the proposed amendments to the approved floor level are supported.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager - Development Advice

As identified above, the Manager - Development Advice has reviewed the Stormwater Drainage Report and the resulting floor levels. While requiring a reduced floor level based on a 1500mm diameter pipeline traversing the site, the Manager does not dispute the findings of the report.


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.

Three (3) submissions were received during the notification period, raising the following concerns.

No Height Increase

A neighbour objects to the proposed development stating: “Council fully approved the building application on the 20 February, 2002. In excess of 18 months have now passed, and no earth works have begun. The owner now wants to substantially increase the total height of the building, and no special case should be granted to exceed the Council’s maximum height, which could then start a precedent.”

As identified above, the Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval for increased floor levels based on a Stormwater Drainage Report that was required as a condition of consent.

As a Council stormwater pipeline traverses the site, Council’s Manager - Development Advice required the study to ensure appropriate floor levels.

With the amendments mentioned in the above report, the height increase is to be minimised to approximately 700mm, ensuring the resulting building complies with the 9m maximum height limit as described in Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.

As such, the proposed building does not exceed the maximum ridge height as described under Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan, nor is approval of the subject application considered to set an undesirable precedent.

Loss of View

The neighbour to the rear objects to the proposed amendments based on a perceived loss of views. It appears that the objector is objecting to the development of the site as a dual occupancy, and not just referring to the increase in height. The subject site is at present a vacant block, and the rear neighbour has views across this vacant block. However, as identified above, approval has been granted for development of the site as a dual occupancy development.

The Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval to increase the floor levels of the approved Dual Occupancy based on a Stormwater Drainage Report that was required as a condition of consent. With the amendments mentioned in the above report, the height increase is to be minimised to approximately 700mm, ensuring the resulting building complies with the 9m maximum height limit as described in Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.

The proposed amendment (700mm increase in height) is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the objectors views.

Overshadowing

The neighbour at 45 Louis Terrace writes:

The subject neighbour is to the south of the subject property and is therefore overshadowed by the dual occupancy development.

For this reason, Council has attempted to minimise the height required due to the Stormwater Drainage Report. As identified in the above report, the floor level increase has been reduced by 300mm, given the existence of a 1500mm-dia pipe traversing the site as opposed to the 900mm-dia pipe that the Hydraulic Engineer based his report.

Furthermore, it is proposed as a condition of consent to require the floor to ceiling heights for the first floor to be reduced from 2.7m to 2.4m to further reduce the perceived impact. With the amendments mentioned in the above report, the height increase is to be minimised to approximately 700mm, ensuring the resulting building complies with the 9m maximum height limit as described in Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.

Consideration was given to reducing the floor to ceiling heights for the ground floor, but this was considered to result in an unreasonable impact on the residential amenity of the ground floor living areas, particularly given the building complies with the maximum 9m height limit.


SUMMARY

The subject Section 96 Modification Application seeks approval to increase the floor levels of an approved dual occupancy development based on a Stormwater Drainage Report, which was required as a condition of the original consent.

Despite the need to increase the floor levels, with a reduced floor to ceiling height for the first floor the building complies with the maximum ridge height limit of 9m specified under Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan.

The proposed development was notified to adjoining residents who were given 14 days to provide comment. Three (3) objections were received during the notification period.

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20010929 (AD 75/03) for amendments to floor levels of an approved dual occupancy development on land known as Lot 181, DP 11970, 43 Louis Terrace, Hurstville.The development consent is amended by deleting the following conditions:

2. Approved plans - The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details set out on the application form, supporting information received with the application and the schedule of plans and details below except as amended by the conditions of this consent.Schedule of Plans and Details
Drawing No.Drawing DateDescriptionPrepared by:
751011 (sheets 1b & 2b)15 Jan 02Site plan, floor plans, elevations, sectionDesign Studio 407
L01/1-R48056 Dec 01Landscape PlanMichael Sui
And inserting the following condition:2. Approved plans - The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details set out on the application form, supporting information received with the application and the schedule of plans and details below except as amended by the conditions of this consent.Schedule of Plans and Details
Drawing No.Drawing DateDescriptionPrepared by:
03MB858/D01July 2003Site and Roof Drainage PlanUnited Consulting Engineers
0245-Sec965.8.03Floor plans and elevationMJH Design Pty Ltd
L01/1-R48056 Dec 01Landscape PlanMichael Sui

2(a). The applicant is to submit to Council, and Council is to approve, amended architectural drawings based on the altered floor levels proposed by the Hydraulic Engineer (Ground Floor to be at RL 42.86)

2(b). The floor to ceiling height for the first floor is to be reduced from 2.7m to 2.4m.

All other conditions of DA 20010929 are re-affirmed.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be granted approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
(Moved Clr S Nasser/Seconded Clr M Lynch)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.07 - 03

135 DORA STREET, HURSTVILLE - ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE

APPLICANT

W R Youssef

PROPOSAL

Erection of a Two Storey Dwelling House with Garage

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Development Area B

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

D & L Sidharta

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Vacant Site

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$200,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Variation to Code

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G Champion

FILE NO

DA 20030369


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks to construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage.

2. The proposal complies with the general controls of Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses except for car parking and energy efficiency.

3. No letters of objection were received.

4. The application was deferred at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting held on 3 September 2003 for consultation with Ward and interested Councillors and for legal advice.

5. Legal advice has been obtained and has been circulated to all Councillors.

6. On 13 May 2002 development consent 20020243 was approved for the erection of a two storey dwelling house.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and additional condition limiting the driveway footpath crossing to a maximum width of 4m.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

This matter was considered by the Development Assessment Committee at its meeting held on 3 September 2003 when it was resolved:

"THAT the application be deferred for consultation and advice with Ward and interested Councillors and obtain advice from Council's Solicitors and Council's Director - Policy, Planning and Environment regarding approval for single storey dwellings only on the site.

FURTHER THAT the issue of single storey dwellings and minimum size allotments be referred to a future workshop."

Legal advice has been received from Council's Solicitors confirming that it would be unlikely that Council could adopt restrictive requirements to require only single storey in residentially zoned land or, successfully defend such a requirement in the Land and Environment Court. A copy of this advice has been circulated to all Councillors.

Opportunity has been taken to discuss with the applicant the reduction of the driveway width at the front of the premises. In this regard the relocation of the footpath vehicle crossing and its limitation to 4m in width has been agreed and is suggested as an additional condition of consent.

It should also be noted that following further investigation into the history of this site, than in 2002, consent was granted for the erection of a two storey dwelling house on the site.


The original report is reproduced below for the information of Councillors.

"SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site is located between Pearl and Ruby Street on the south western side of Dora Street. The site has an area of 393.5sqm and a width of 10.06m. The land fall is across the site and to the street. The site is surrounded by dwelling houses.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage of selected face bricks and a tile roof. The garage is incorporated into the design of the dwelling house and will be setback 5.5m from the Dora Street frontage. The dwelling house will have side boundary setbacks of 0.9m at ground floor and 1.5m at first floor level. The dwelling house will contain mainly living areas at ground floor level and bedrooms at first floor level.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The site is zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The application is subject to the requirements of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and a summary of compliance with the technical requirements follows.

Code for Single Dwelling HousesRequiredProposedComplies
Site area393.5sqm
Frontage10.06m
Clause 3.3.3Setbacks min 1.5m and 0.9m0.9m and 1.5mYes
Building line4.5m5.5mYes
Height9m7.9mYes
Landscape area50%52%Yes
Car parking2 car spaces2 car spacesYes
Garage width40%61%No (1)
Solar access4 hours to open space area4 hours to part open space areaNo (2)
Privacy and windows1m off set or screenedBalcony at rear screenedYes

(1) Maximum Width of Garage

The garage car parking spaces will occupy 61% of the site frontage width. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives for car parking and access as the site is narrow with a width of 10.06m and the provision of car parking spaces side by side within the garage will provide adequate, convenient and safe parking for residents.

(2) Solar Access

The dwelling house will provide four (4) hours of sunshine upon part of the private open space of the adjacent dwelling house between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives for solar design and energy efficiency as the orientation of the site casts the majority of the shadow over part of the private open space area at 12.00noon and 3.00pm and the proposed two storey dwelling house will be subject to the first floor ceiling level not exceeding RL67.75 to minimise its impact on the adjacent dwelling house.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Eight (8) 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 to the proposal were submitted.


SUMMARY

The dwelling house is considered to comply with the relevant objectives of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses. The development is a satisfactory design and is of acceptable impact to the surrounding properties.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, approve development consent under DA 20030369 for the construction of a new two storey dwelling house with garage on land known as Lot 149, DP 1956, 135 Dora Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions.

1. Standard conditions adopted by Council for Single Dwelling Houses.

2. 1.8m high privacy screens shall be provided to the ends of the rear first floor balcony.

3. The garage car parking spaces shall have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 5.5m.

4. The first floor ceiling level shall not exceed RL67.75."


* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and additional condition limiting the driveway footpath crossing to a maximum width of 4m.
(Moved Clr M Lynch/Seconded Clr S Nasser)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.08 - 03

239 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE AND ERECTION OF A TWO
STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE

APPLICANT

Do Cao Nguyen

PROPOSAL

Demolition of Existing Dwelling House and Erection of a
Two Storey Dwelling House with Garage

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Development Area B

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Mr E and Mrs M Daccour

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single Dwelling House

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$210,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Variation to Code

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G
Champion

FILE NO

DA 20030500


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage.

2. The proposal complies with the general controls of Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses except for car parking and energy efficiency.

3. No letters of objection were received.

4. The application was deferred at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting held on 3 September 2003 for consultation with Ward and interested Councillors and for legal advice.

5. Legal advice has been obtained and has been circulated to all Councillors.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and additional condition limiting the driveway footpath crossing to a maximum width of 4m.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

This matter was considered by the Development Assessment Committee at its meeting held on 3 September 2003 when it was resolved:

"THAT the application be deferred for consultation and advice with Ward and interested Councillors and obtain advice from Council's Solicitors and Council's Director - :Policy, Planning and Environment regarding approval for single storey dwellings only on the site.

FURTHER THAT the issue of single storey dwellings and minimum size allotments be referred to a future workshop."

Legal advice has been received from Council's Solicitors confirming that it would be unlikely that Council could adopt restrictive requirements to require only single storey in residentially zoned land or, successfully defend such a requirement in the Land and Environment Court. A copy of this advice has been circulated to all Councillors.

Opportunity has been taken to discuss with the applicant the reduction of the driveway width at the front of the premises. In this regard the relocation of the footpath vehicle crossing and its limitation to 4m in width has been agreed and is suggested as an additional condition of consent.


The original report is reproduced below for the information of Councillors.

"SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site is located between Warrick Street and Stoney Creek Road on the south western side of Carrington Avenue. The site has an area of 402.7sqm and a width of 10.06m. The land fall is towards the rear. The site is surrounded by dwelling houses.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a two storey dwelling house with a double garage of cement rendered brick work and a tile roof. The garage is incorporated into the design of the dwelling house and will be setback 6.0m from the Carrington Avenue frontage. The dwelling house will have minimum side boundary setbacks of 0.9m at ground floor and 1.5m at first floor level. The dwelling house will consist mainly of living areas at ground floor level and bedrooms at first floor level.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The site is zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The proposal has also been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) - 'Matters for Consideration' of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and a summary of compliance with the technical requirements follows.

Code for Single Dwelling HousesRequiredProposedComplies
Site area402.7sqm
Frontage10.06m
Clause 3.3.3Setbacks min 1.5m and 0.9m0.9m and 1.5mYes
Building line4.5m6.0mYes
Height9m8.7mYes
Landscape area50%60%Yes
Car parking2 car spaces2 car spacesYes
Garage width40%58%No (1)
Solar access4 hours to open space area4 hours to part open space areaNo (2)
Privacy and windows1m off set or screenedBalcony at rear screenedYes

(1) Maximum Width of Garage

The garage car parking spaces will occupy 58% of the site frontage width. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives for car parking and access as the site is narrow with a width of 10.06m and the provision of car parking spaces side by side within the garage will provide adequate, convenient and safe parking for residents.

(2) Solar Access

The dwelling house will provide four (4) hours of sunshine upon part of the private open space of the adjacent dwelling house between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives for solar design and energy efficiency as the orientation of the site casts the majority of the shadow over part of the private open space area at 12.00noon and 3.00pm and the proposed two storey dwelling house will be subject to the first floor ceiling level not exceeding RL14.75 to minimise its impact on the adjacent dwelling house.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Tree Preservation Officer

The application was referred to Council's Tree Preservation Officer and no objection was raised to the removal of a street tree out the front of the site.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Eight (8) 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 to the proposal were submitted.


SUMMARY

The dwelling house is considered to comply with the relevant objectives of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses. The development is a satisfactory design and is of acceptable impact to the surrounding properties.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, approve development consent under DA 20030500 for the construction of a two storey dwelling house with garage on land known as Lot 62, DP 3406, 239 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions.

1. Standard conditions adopted by Council for Single Dwelling Houses.

2. 1.8m high privacy screens shall be provided to the sides of the rear verandah and balcony areas.

3. The first floor ceiling level shall not exceed RL14.75."

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and additional condition limiting the driveway footpath crossing to a maximum width of 4m.
(Moved Clr M Lynch/Seconded Clr S Nasser)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC022.09 - 03

48 CALOOLA CRESCENT, BEVERLY HILLS - ERECTION OF TWO
STOREY DWELLING HOUSE WITH GARAGE

APPLICANT

Henry Zhang

PROPOSAL

Erection of Two Storey Dwelling House with Garage

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Development Area B

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Zhen Quan Zhou

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single Dwelling House

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$200,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Variation to the Code

REPORT AUTHORS

Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr G Siambis

FILE NO

DA 20030576


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks to construct a two (2) storey dwelling house with double garage.

2. The proposal complies with the general controls of Council's Single Dwelling Code except for Clause 3.3.2 - Building Envelope.

3. No letters of objection were received.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site is located between Kooemba and Tallawalla Street on the eastern side of Caloola Crescent. The site has an overall area of 718.7sqm with a frontage width of 19.571m. The site has varying dimensions along its boundary lines and has a land fall across the site and to the rear. The site is surrounded by dwelling houses of single dwelling development.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to construct a two (2) storey dwelling house with a double garage of cement render point finish and tile roof. The garage is incorporated into the design as a contained garage and will observe a building line setback of 4.5m from the Caloola Crescent frontage. The dwelling house will have varying side boundary setbacks due to the irregular site shape with the south side boundary at 1.7m from garage wall and 2.45m from the external wall of the living areas of the dwelling. The north side boundary will support setbacks of a minimum 1.55m opening out to 2.7m at the rear of the dwelling.

The dwelling house will contain mainly living areas at ground level and bedrooms with allocated lounge area at first floor level.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The proposal is permissible in the zoning provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and generally complies with the requirements of the Hurstville City Council Code for Single Dwelling Houses.

The proposal has also been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) – ‘Matters for Consideration’ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and a summary of compliance with the technical requirements follows.

Code for Single Dwelling HousesStandardProposedComplies
Site area718.7sqm
Frontage 19.571m
Clause 3.3.2 (Building envelope)Building envelope for new dwellings shall be designed at 45 degrees from a point 3.5m above any side or rear boundary line.North elevation (rear) – proposed RL30.45, required RL30.2, from natural ground level RL24.00. Building envelope exceeded by 250mm at rear north elevation.
South elevation (rear) – proposed RL30.45, required RL29.95, from natural ground level RL24.00. Building envelope exceeded by 500mm at rear south elevation.
No (1)








No (1)
Building line4.5m4.5mYes
Height9m8.83mYes
Landscape area50%53.5%Yes
Car parking and access2 car spaces required

Max width –
garage 40%
driveway 40%
2 car spaces proposed


31.6%
35.7%
Yes



Yes
Yes
Front fence1m
1.8m with approval
1.6m in height with min 50% transparent openingsYes
Solar access4hrs to habitable areas
4hrs to private open space
Min 4hrs available to adjoining building habitable windows. Majority of private open space will continue to receive 4hrs sunlight.Yes



Yes
Privacy and windows1m offset to adjoining window locations and/or screening treatment providedFirst floor rear balcony to be screened. Ground floor balcony at staircase to be screened.Yes

(1) Building Envelope

The application was originally submitted with side setbacks closer to the southern boundary line. The design at that stage was outside the building envelope parameters. The applicant then sought to shift the proposal 500mm across to the northern boundary line to its current side setback to help reduce building envelope encroachment and decrease shadow cast on the adjoining land and building. The applicant considered a two tier floor level but had concerns with the roof configuration and construction. Due to the natural slope of the site from front to rear (overall difference of 1.8m), it is difficult for the design to fall within the guidelines of the building envelope. It is considered that the design proposed now meets the objectives of Council’s Single Dwelling Code in terms of form, style and good relationship between neighbouring property buildings and satisfies other requirements such as solar access impacts and privacy concerns, and therefore the application is supported even with the minor breach of the envelope. Lowering the floor levels would also have the disadvantage of not allowing drainage by gravity to the street gutter of all roof waters.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Tree Preservation Officer

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Preservation Officer in relation to the existing tree at the rear. The referral comments have been considered as part of the report.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Eight (8) 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 to the proposal were submitted.


SUMMARY

The dwelling is considered to comply with the relevant objectives of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses. The development is a satisfactory design and is of acceptable impact to the surrounding properties.

The subject proposal is therefore recommended to the Council for approval subject to standard conditions adopted by Council for this category of development and the additional conditions listed in the recommendation.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, approve development consent under DA 20030576 for the construction of a two storey dwelling house with contained garage on land known as Lot 692, DP 13496, 48 Caloola Crescent, Beverly Hills, subject to the following conditions.

1. Standard conditions adopted by Council for Single Dwelling Houses.

2. The following additional conditions.

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
(Moved Clr S Nasser/Seconded Clr M Lynch)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC023.01 - 03

91 BONDS ROAD, PEAKHURST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF THREE (3) DWELLINGS

APPLICANT

N, Y & M Zreik

PROPOSAL

Construction of a Multi Unit Development comprising Three (3) Dwellings

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

N, Y & M Zreik

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling House

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$424,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Non compliance with IRDC and resident objections

REPORT AUTHORS

Town Planner, Mr J Erken

FILE NO

DA 20030206


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application is for the construction of a multi unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings.

2. The application has been assessed under the Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC), Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, and Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency.

3. Three (3) objections were received against the application.

4. The proposed development has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development is considered appropriate for the subject site.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is located on the north eastern side of Bonds Road, Peakhurst. A single storey brick dwelling house with a tiled roof is currently located on the property. The existing dwelling house is in a reasonable condition.

The subject site has a 15.25 metre frontage to Bonds Road, with a depth of 67.52 metres generating a site area of 995sqm. The site falls to the street having a fall of approximately 7 metres from the rear boundary to the front boundary.

The subject site is surrounded by residential uses. To the north west the site is adjoined by a multi unit development containing seven (7) dwellings. To the south east the site adjoins a multi unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings. The subject site is located in close proximity to Peakhurst Public School.


PROPOSAL

The development application seeks approval to construct three (3) dwellings on the subject site.

The front dwelling is to be a two storey dwelling above a basement garage. This dwelling is to contain four (4) bedrooms, living area, study, dining area, bathroom, laundry and kitchen. Dwelling 2 is proposed as a part 1/part 2 storey dwelling, comprising of two (2) bedrooms, family/dining area, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and a double garage. The rear dwelling is proposed as a single storey dwelling containing three (3) bedrooms, family/dining area, laundry, bathroom, kitchen and a double garage.

Each dwelling is provided with a north facing courtyard of a reasonable size and shape. Dwellings 2 and 3 are provided with vehicular access off a common driveway, while Dwelling 1 has separate driveway access.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE (IRDC)

The proposed use is permissible in the zone and meets the requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code. A compliance table is listed below.

IRDC 1995 CONTROLS
STANDARD
PROPOSAL
COMPLIES
Density (site area/unit)
315sqm
331sqm
Yes
Landscaped Open Space
50%
50%
Yes
Front Site Height Maximum
9 m
7.138m
Yes
Rear Site Height Maximum
6 m
6.53m
No (1)
Front Site Storeys Maximum
2
2
Yes
Rear Site Storeys Maximum
1
Part 2/Part 1
No (1)
Minimum Private Open Space
* Less than 3 bedroom
* More than 3 bedroom
50sqm (unit 2)

60sqm (units 1 & 3)
Unit 1 – 82sqm
Unit 2 – 60.4sqm
Unit 3 – 110sqm
Yes
Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
* Less than 3 bedroom
* More than 3 Bedroom
4m x 5m (unit 2)

4m x 6m (units 1 & 3)
Unit 1 – 4m x 10m

Unit 2 – 4m x 6m

Unit 3 – 5m x 10m
Yes
Front Boundary Setbacks
4.5m
4.0m
No (2)
Rear Boundary Setbacks
Building Envelope
Complies
Yes
Minimum Street Frontage
15m
15.25m
Yes
Minimum Side Boundary Setback
* Single Storey
* Two Storey
1.35m
2m
0.95m (min)
2.3m (min)
No (3)
Yes
Parking Requirements
5
6
Yes

The proposed development complies with the majority of the technical standards contained in the Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) with the exception of the number of storeys/height, front boundary setback and side boundary setback.

(1) Number of Storeys/Height

As identified above, the proposed development varies from the maximum height/number of storeys permitted under the IRDC. The variation occurs in Dwelling 2 which is a part 1/part 2 storey dwelling with a maximum height of 6.53 metres.

The proposed height is considered appropriate given the site constraints and the surrounding development. The subject site is reasonably long (67.52m) with a significant slope from rear to front. The site also has a cross fall from north to south.

The villas to the north of the subject site are reasonably elevated above natural ground level. The floor levels have been approved at a height greater than 1 metre above natural ground level, creating what is in essence a two storey building. To the south, the site is adjoined by a multi unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings. Due to the sites cross fall these dwellings are set well below the existing fence line.

The two storey portion of Dwelling 2 has been proposed to correspond with the height of the neighbouring dwellings at 87-89 Bonds Road. While a technical variation from the IRDC the proposed height is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

* Dwelling 2 has a maximum height of 6.53 metres, hence the variation is considered reasonably minor.
* The two storey portion is for a limited section of the dwelling only, catering for the provision of a bedroom.
* Dwelling 2 is a two bedroom dwelling, and thus the variation does not lead to the provision of a dwelling with high residential intensity (i.e. 3 or 4 bedrooms).
* The proposed variation does not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy or overshadowing.

Given the above, the proposed variation is considered appropriate. While Dwelling 2 could be redesigned to be a single storey dwelling only, this would result in a reduced level of landscaping. The difficulty in complying with Council landscaping requirement is not due to the oversized nature of the dwellings, but rather the reasonably narrow width and long depth of the subject property.

Given that the proposed variation to maximum height and storeys of Dwelling 2 does not result in a reduced residential amenity for the adjoining dwellings, the variation is supported.

(2) Front Boundary Setback

The IRDC requires a minimum front setback of 4.5 metres for this form of development. The proposed development has a minimum front setback of 4.0 metres, and thus does not technically comply with the prescribed requirements.

The applicant argues that the front setback proposed is in line with the existing neighbours, and is thus considered appropriate.

While the proposed development has a minimum front setback of 4.0 metres, the majority of the dwelling complies with the prescribed setback of 4.5m. The variation is due to the splayed nature of the site's frontage. While the building has been stepped to correspond with the splayed nature of this frontage, two corners of the building encroach on the minimum side boundary setback by up to 500mm.

Having said this, the proposed development is considered to respect the front boundary setback evident in this section of Bonds Road.

Given the minor nature of the proposed variation, and given the existing alignment of buildings in this section of Bonds Road, the proposed variation is considered acceptable.

(3) Side Boundary Setback

The IRDC specifies a minimum side boundary setback of 1.35m for single storey development and 2 metres for two storey development.

The proposed development complies with these requirements, with the exception of the side boundary setback proposed for the garage of Dwelling 3.

This garage is located 950mm off the southern boundary. The wall in question is 6.2 metres in length and contains no windows. The proposed alignment of this wall will not have any impact on the neighbouring residences and as such this minor variation is supported.

Driveways

The Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) states that: “Driveways, access lanes and car parking spaces must not occupy more than 40% of the frontage where the total frontage of the street is 20 metres or less.”

With the proposed development two driveway crossovers are proposed. Dwelling 1 has a private driveway located at the northern end of the site, while Dwelling 2 and 3 share a common driveway located on the southern side of the property.

The two driveways occupy 43% of the frontage, exceeding Code requirements. While varying from the IRDC, the proposed driveways are considered appropriate for the following reasons:

* Due to the significant slope of the property it is very difficult to provide parking for Dwelling 1 accessed off the common driveway located on the southern side of the property.
* The neighbouring multi unit development at 93 Bonds Road has been approved and developed in a similar layout to the proposed development.
* The proposed development is considered to respect the street frontage. The landscaping and design proposed is considered to screen the parking proposed ensuring it does not dominate the streetscape.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 2 – CAR PARKING

The requirements of Development Control Plan No. 2 – Car Parking have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The development satisfies the car parking and driveway gradient requirements specified under this Development Control Plan.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

The following is a detailed assessment against the objectives and design criteria specified in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Development Control Plan.

Fencing

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “The fence design should maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street, and minimise the opportunities for intruders to hide.”

The front fence proposed is of masonry construction with a maximum height of 1.2 - 1.4 metres. The proposed fence does not inhibit natural surveillance of the street, nor does it provide an opportunity for intruders to hide.

Blind Corners

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Avoid blind corners in pathways, stairwells, hallways and car parks.”

The use of blind corners has been minimised in the designing of the proposed development.

Communal/Public Areas

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Provide natural surveillance for communal and public areas.”

The proposed development provides for natural surveillance for communal and public areas. For instance, the living area of Dwelling 1 provides casual surveillance over Bonds Road. Dwellings 2 and 3 have living room widows facing the internal driveway, providing natural surveillance.

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the performance criteria for maximising natural surveillance over public/communal areas.

Entrances

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Provide entries that are clearly visible and avoid confusion.”

The entrances to the proposed development are clearly defined and are considered to satisfy the performance criteria prescribed in the Development Control Plan.

Site and Building Layout

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Allow natural observation from the street to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street, and between dwellings.”

As identified above, the proposed development is considered to allow natural observation from the street (and/or internal driveway) to the dwelling and from the dwelling to the street (and/or internal driveway).

Landscaping

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Avoid landscaping which obstructs casual surveillance and allows intruders to hide.”

The landscaping proposed as part of this application is considered appropriate. The landscaping does not obstruct natural surveillance, nor does it provide a location for intruders to hide.

Lighting

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Ensure lighting does not produce glare or dark shadows.”

Given the nature of the proposed development, with its lack of communal spaces, external lighting is not considered essential. It is considered appropriate that sensor lights be installed at the entry to each dwelling to provide illumination for residents/visitors, and restrict opportunities for crime.

A condition of consent has been proposed requiring the installation of such lighting.

Building Identification

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Ensure dwellings are clearly identified by street number to prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find the dwelling.”

A condition of consent is proposed requiring street numbering to be provided at the street frontage to ensure the dwellings are clearly identifiable.

Security

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Provide an appropriate level of security for individual dwellings and communal areas to reduce opportunity for unauthorised access.”

The fencing proposed around the building and the natural surveillance encumbered in the design of the development is considered to provide an appropriate level of security.

Ownership

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Design dwellings and communal areas to provide a sense of ownership.”

The proposed development provides a clear impression of ownership. Where possible, common areas have been minimised to allow for the formation of private courtyards which will be cared for by individual owners.

The minimal communal areas, coupled with the clearly defined boundaries (created by fencing and landscaping) provides a clear sense of ownership, and is considered to satisfy the performance criteria outlined in Development Control Plan 18.

Maintenance

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: “Create the impression that the place is well looked after and well “cared for”. “

The building and fencing is to be finished in face brickwork which will minimise the opportunity for vandalism, such as graffiti.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Council's Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency requires the submission of a NatHERS Certificate identifying that the proposed dwellings achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of 3.5 stars.

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS Certificate for each dwelling identifying compliance with the above. However, in the course of the assessment of this development, several design changes have been made. As such, it is proposed as a condition of consent that the applicant obtain a further NatHERS Certificate identifying that the amended development meets the minimum 3.5 star requirement.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager, Development Advice

The Manager, Development Advice raises no objection to issuing development approval subject to standard conditions relating to stormwater and vehicle access being included.

Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has inspected the site and plans and raises no objection to the proposed development.


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.

Three (3) objections were received during the notification period raising the following concerns.

Side Boundary Setback

The objector states that “the boundary distance of the front townhouse is 1.5 metres, which is not the minimum requirement of 2m as stated in the relevant regulations.”

Comment: The IRDC specifies a setback of 1.35m for single storey development and a 2m setback for two storey development. The IRDC also specifies a building envelope to control the bulk and scale of any development.

While the ground floor is set 1.5 metres from the northern boundary, the second storey is set 2.3m from this boundary. Furthermore, the proposed development complies with the building envelope as described by the IRDC. As such, the proposed setbacks are considered appropriate and comply with Council requirements.

Overshadowing

The objector raises concern about the possible overshadowing impact of the proposed development.

Comment: The objector lives in a villa at 87-89 Bonds Road, Peakhurst. This property is to the north of the subject site. The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams that indicate that the proposed development will have no shadow impact on this property.

Privacy

The neighbour raises concern about the possibility of overviewing created by windows proposed on the northern elevation of Dwelling 1.

Comment: The proposed development is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the neighbouring residences. The applicant has attempted to minimise the possibility of direct overviewing by locating windows away from the side elevations. For instance there are only three (3) windows proposed on the northern elevation of Dwelling 1 being a bedroom window, bathroom window and hallway window.

As such, the proposed development is not considered to result in an unacceptable level of overviewing.

Road Safety

Two (2) objectors raise concern about traffic on Bonds Road, and the increase in on-street parking resulting from the proposed development.

The objectors suggest that the increased on-street parking makes it more difficult for residents to enter and leave these sites safely.

The objectors suggest that multi unit development should not be allowed on Bonds Road.

Under Council's Planning Controls the subject development is permissible with the consent of Council. The design of the proposed development satisfies the vehicular access and car parking controls specified in the IRDC. Council has approved similar multi unit developments on the adjoining properties (87-89 Bonds Road and 93 Bonds Road), and the proposed development is considered reasonable.

Overdevelopment

Two (2) objectors raise concern about the level of development in the area suggesting the area surrounding Bonds Road is overdeveloped. As identified in the above assessment the proposed development complies with the density provisions contained in the IRDC. The proposed development also generally complies with the technical requirements and objectives contained in the IRDC, and as such the proposed development is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.


SUMMARY

The development has been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended). The development meets the requirements of Section 79C(1).

The development is permissible under the zoning provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The design of the development is considered to generally satisfy the objectives and technical standards of the relevant Council Codes.

The application is recommended for approval.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030206 for the construction a multi unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings on land known as Lot 4, DP 342465, 91 Bonds Road, Peakhurst, subject to the following conditions.

1. The standard conditions adopted by Council for medium density development.

2. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

Open Space$9,887.00
Community Services$5,217.00
Management$384.89
Drainage Amplification$2,368.10
Library - Infrastructure$2,657.00
Library – Bookstock$15.02

3. Additional conditions specified as follows:

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be deferred for Ward and interested Councillors site inspection.
(Moved Clr S McMahon/Seconded Clr M Frawley)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC023.02 - 03

1 STATION STREET, MORTDALE - ERECTION OF A THREE
STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING COMPRISING OF THREE
DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING

APPLICANT

Harry Sakr and Robert Saidi

PROPOSAL

Erection of a Three Storey Residential Flat Building Comprising
of Three Dwellings with Associated Car Parking

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car
Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan
No 22 - Energy Efficiency

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Harry Sakr and Robert Saidi

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single storey dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$400,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

One objection received and non compliances

REPORT AUTHORS

Town Planner, Mr J Erken

FILE NO

DA 20030462


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The development application seeks approval for the erection of a three storey residential flat building (three units) with associated car parking.

2. The application has been assessed under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Development Control Plan No 22 – Energy Efficiency.

3. The subject site is an isolated site. The property is isolated between a recently constructed mixed development to the north east and a residential flat building to the south west.

4. One (1) objection was received against the original application. The applicant was requested to make design changes, and the amended plans were re-notified. No objections were received during the re-notification of the application.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Station Street, close to the corner of Morts Road. The site is a single parcel of land, being Lot 7, Section 1 in DP 3181, 1 Station Street, Mortdale.

The subject site has a 10.06 metre frontage to Station Street, with a depth of approximately 36.775 metres, creating an area of 370sqm.

The subject site is an isolated allotment. To the north east, the site adjoins a three (3) storey mixed development which is close to completion. To the south west the site adjoins a four (4) storey residential flat building.

The site is located adjacent to the Mortdale Town Centre. The isolated nature of the site, coupled with the different zonings surrounding the site, create a unique circumstance.


PROPOSAL

The development application seeks approval to erect a part 2/part 3 storey residential flat building comprising of three (3) dwellings with associated car parking. At the front of the site, the building comprises of a parking level, with two levels containing two dwellings above. At the rear of the site a part two/part three storey unit is proposed.

Each dwelling is to contain three (3) bedrooms, a living/dining area, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and is allocated a double (tandem) garage. A balcony is provided for the front two units, while the unit at the rear is provided with a private courtyard.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The site is zoned 2 - Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1994. The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council.

The application is subject to the requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Development Control Plan No 22 – Energy Efficiency.

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE 1995

The land is within Residential Zone No 2 under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and multi-unit development is permissible with Council consent.

The land is subject to the provisions of the Interim Residential Development Code 1995 (IRDC) and is within Development Area "D". A table of the technical standards and the compliance of the development is detailed below.

    IRDC 1995 Controls
Standard
Proposed
Complies
Density
(site area/unit)
105sqm
123sqm
Yes
Landscaped Open Space
45%
24%
No (1)
Height Maximum
12m
9.8m
Yes
Storeys Maximum
3
Part 2/Part 3
Yes
Attached Dwellings
Yes
Yes
Yes
Minimum Private Open Space (balcony)
12sqm
14.7sqm (min)
Yes
Boundary Setbacks
Street (primary) 6.0m
Rear 6.0m
Side Setback 4.0-7.0m
1.1m – 4m
6m
0m – 3m
No (2)
Yes
No (2)
Minimum Street Frontage
24m
10.06m
No (3)
Parking Requirements:
Residents
Visitors
6 Resident
0 Visitor
6 Resident
0 Visitor
Yes
Yes
As illustrated above, the proposed development generally complies with the technical requirements contained in the Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC). However, due to the isolated nature of the site, the proposed development does not comply with the minimum landscaped open space, front and side boundary setbacks, and minimum block width as specified under the IRDC.

(1) Landscaped Open Space

As identified above, the proposed development varies from the minimum landscaping requirement specified by the IRDC. This variation is directly related to the isolated and undersized nature of the property.The isolated nature of the site, coupled with the surrounding development, mitigates against the provision of basement car parking.

As the adjoining development at 47-51 Morts Road is a mixed development on a commercially zoned parcel, no setback is provided from the Station Street alignment. However, the neighbouring residential flat building at 3-9 Station Street has a front setback of approximately 9 metres. As such, in designing the subject building the applicant has attempted to step the building to respect the building alignments of the two neighbouring buildings. For this reason, the proposed development has a front boundary setback which varies from 1m - 4m. As the development has a limited front setback, it is impossible to provide a basement car park. It is also considered more appropriate to provide parking at grade to allow maximum vision for vehicles entering and leaving the parking level given the sites location adjacent to the Mortdale Shopping Centre.

As such, the parking level is provided at ground level. The need to provide sufficient parking and manoeuvring areas makes it impossible for the applicant to provide 45% landscaping as defined by the Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC)

While the landscaping proposed is well under the 45% prescribed in the IRDC, the level of landscaping is considered appropriate given the isolated situation (adjacent to commercially zoned property) of the site.

(2) Setbacks and Building Envelope

The proposed development does not conform with Council's building envelope, which is a 45 degree plane drawn toward the centre of the site from a point 1.5m above the side and rear boundaries. The narrow nature of the site makes it impossible for a reasonable width 3 storey proposal to comply with the building envelope formed by the IRDC controls or the minimum side boundary setbacks.

The IRDC sets a 4.0m side boundary setback for two storey buildings in area “D”. The development proposes side boundary setbacks which vary from 0m to 3.02m. Any windows located closer than 3m from the boundary are to be fire rated glass blocks.

The variation to side boundary setback is the direct result of the narrow nature of the site.

Similar to above, the setbacks proposed are supported based on the isolated nature of the site and its unique character. The isolated nature of the site, coupled with the need to provide sufficient car parking a manoeuvring areas, requires the building with a zero lot line.

Further, the mixed use development at 47-51 Morts Road has been constructed to a height of 3 storeys with no setback to the common boundary with the subject site. For this reason, the proposed building abuts the existing blank wall of the neighbouring dwelling.

On the south western side, at the front of the site, the building has also been constructed to the boundary to permit the construction of north facing living areas which provide casual surveillance over the street. The lack of setback off this boundary is also supported based on the surrounding development. The neighbouring residential flat building at 3-9 Station Street has a setback of greater than 9 metres from this boundary at this point. There is also extensive landscaping in the north eastern corner of 3-9 Station Street which will screen the blank wall proposed on the boundary.

The building has been articulated on the south western elevation with a 3 metre deep terrace proposed. This articulation gives relief to the facade, reducing the overshadowing impact of the proposed development. The setback also allows the provision of unprotected openable windows, as the setback complies with the minimum setback permitted under the Building Code of Australia. As pedestrian access is proposed onto the terrace, the applicant has provided a 1 metre deep planter box, which will provide screening from the neighbouring residential flat building.

At the rear of the site, the building has been set 1 metre off both side boundaries. At this point the building height is reduced from 3 to 2 storeys.

While the proposed side setbacks are well below that required by Council, the development will not lead to a reduction in privacy, and will not lead to an excessive level of overshadowing.

(3) Minimum Street FrontageThe site in question is an isolated site surrounded by residential flat and mixed use developments. The site has a street frontage of 10.06m. The IRDC sets a minimum street frontage of 24m. Given the fact that the site is isolated and is situated between three and four storey mixed use and residential flat buildings the reduced street frontage is considered acceptable. The only alternative would be for the site to be developed as a single dwelling, which would be contrary to intent of Area D and incongruous with the streetscape.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKINGThe proposed car park and driveway area has been assessed under the Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking. The number of parking spaces and manoeuvrability within the car parking area complies with the requirements of this Development Control Plan.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

The following is a detailed assessment against the objectives and design criteria specified in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Development Control Plan.

Fencing

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘The fence design should maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street, and minimise the opportunities for intruders to hide.’

No front fence is proposed with the subject development. The side and rear boundaries will be fenced with 1.8 metre lapped and capped or colorbond fencing where required. The design of the building does not provide intruders opportunities to hide, and natural surveillance of the street is encouraged with living room windows and balconies providing views over Station Street.

Blind Corners

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid blind corners in pathways, stairwells, hallways and car parks.’

The use of blind corners has been minimised in the design of the proposed development.

Communal/Public Areas

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide natural surveillance for communal and public areas.’

As identified above, living room windows and balconies are proposed on the front elevation of the proposed building providing surveillance over Station Street.

Entrances

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide entries that are clearly visible and avoid confusion.’

All three units are accessed via a common stairwell proposed at the front of the building. The entrance is well defined and visible from Station Street.

Site and Building Layout

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Allow natural observation from the street to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street, and between dwellings.’

As identified above, the proposed development is considered to allow natural observation from the street to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street.

Landscaping

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid landscaping which obstructs casual surveillance and allows intruders to hide.’

Given the lack of a substantial front setback, very little landscaping is proposed at the front of the site. As such, there are limited opportunities for intruders to hide, and natural surveillance of the street is not obstructed.

Lighting

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure lighting does not produce glare or dark shadows.’

Given the lack of communal areas, external lighting is not considered essential for the proposed development.

Building Identification

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure dwellings are clearly identified by street number to prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find the dwelling.’

A condition of consent is proposed requiring street and unit numbering to be provided at the street frontage to ensure dwellings are clearly identifiable.

Security

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide an appropriate level of security for individual dwellings and communal areas to reduce opportunity for unauthorised access.’

The fencing proposed around the building and the natural surveillance encumbered in the design of the development is considered to provide an appropriate level of security.

The following measures are also considered necessary to provide an appropriate level of security:

* a security grill to be provided to the vehicular access to the car park.* a security and intercom system to be provided at the entrance of the residential flat building.

Ownership

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Design Dwellings and communal areas to provide a sense of ownership.’

The proposed development provides a clear impression of ownership.

The minimal communal areas, coupled with the clearly defined boundaries (created by fencing and landscaping) provides a clear sense of ownership, and is considered to satisfy the performance criteria outlined in Development Control Plan 18.

Maintenance

The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Create the impression that the place is well looked after and well “cared for”. ‘

The proposed development is to be finished in face brick, which will minimise the opportunity for vandalism, such as graffiti.The development has been designed to maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street. The design minimises the opportunity for crime or vandalism and is therefore deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Development Control Plan.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Council’s Development Control Plan No 22 – Energy Efficiency requires the submission of a NatHERS Certificate identifying that the proposed dwellings achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of 3.5 stars.

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS Certificate for each dwelling identifying compliance with the above.

SEPP NO 65 – DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 applies to Residential Flat Buildings with a height of three (3) or more storeys and a density of four (4) or more dwellings.

As the proposed development is for the construction of three (3) dwellings only, the proposed development is not affected by SEPP 65.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager - Development Advice

The Manager raises no objections to issuing development approval subject to appropriate conditions for stormwater and vehicle access being included.

Transportation Analyst

Council’s Transport Analyst raises no objection to the proposed development. The driveway width at the street boundary is considered appropriate, and the geometric layout of the proposed car parking is also appropriate.

Manager, Environmental Services

The Manager raises no objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the storage of waste and recycling containers.

Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer advises that there are no significant trees on the subject site.

Health and Building Surveyor

The Health and Building Surveyor raises no objection to the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Adjoining residents were notified on two occasions by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal.

When the application was originally notified, one (1) letter of objection was received. Having considered the issues raised by the objector, the applicant was requested to make amendments to the proposed development. The amended plans were re-notified and no submissions were received during the re-notification period.

Having said this, the issues raised by the objectors original submission are outlined below.

Overshadowing

The objector’s property is located at 43 Morts Road, which is located to the north east of the subject site. The objector raises concern about the overshadowing impact that will result from the proposed development.

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams with the subject application. As the objector’s property is located to the north east of the subject site, the proposed development will not result in any overshadowing of the objector’s property.

Property Isolation

The objector raises concern about his property being “boxed in” with developments surrounding his property. The objector’s property is located on Morts Road, adjacent to commercially zoned properties and residentially zoned properties that permit the construction of three storey residential flat buildings. The zoning of the objector’s property permits construction of a three storey residential flat building.

The proposed development is not considered to “box in” the objectors property. The proposed development has in fact been redesigned to minimise the impact on the objector's property.

The originally proposed building was three storeys, with no setback proposed for the ground floor off the rear boundary of the objector’s property. The plans have since been amended to reduce to height of the building at the rear to two (2) storeys, with a setback of 1 metre of the objector’s rear boundary.

The amended plans are considered to have minimal impact on the objector’s property, and will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or overshadowing.

Devaluation

The neighbour objects to the proposed development based on the impact it may have on the market value of their property. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will lead to a devaluation for surrounding properties, and regardless this is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Non-compliances with Council’s Codes

The objector raises concern about the manner in which the proposed development varies from Council’s Codes. These variations have been dealt with in the main body of the report.

Privacy

The neighbour raises concern about a possible loss of privacy resulting from the proposed development. The proposed development will not result in any overviewing of the neighbour’s property. There are no windows or balconies proposed which will allow direct overlooking into the objector’s property. As such, the proposed development is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.


SUMMARY

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The development meets the requirements of Section 79C(1).

The design and building footprint for the development is considered appropriate given the isolated nature of the site, and its context, being adjacent to a mixed residential/commercial development recently completed on the corner of Station Street and Morts Road.

The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding and the development in the locality generally.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030462 for the erection of a three storey residential flat building on land known as Lot 7, DP 3181, 1 Station Street, Mortdale subject to the following conditions.

1. The standard conditions adopted by Council for residential flat buildings.

2. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

Open Space
$11,123.00
Community Services
$6,313.00
Management
$465.56
Library – Infrastructure
$3,215.00
Library – Bookstock
$18.18
Drainage Amplification
$880.60

3. Additional conditions specified as follows:

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be deferred for Ward and interested Councillors site inspection.
(Moved Clr S McMahon/Seconded Clr M Frawley)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC023.03 - 03

8 ROSEBERY STREET, PENSHURST - SECTION 96 APPLICATION
TO MODIFY CONSENT FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO
THE REAR DWELLING OF AN APPROVED DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT

APPLICANT

Michael Hanna

PROPOSAL

Section 96 Application to Modify Consent for Alterations
and Additions to the Rear of an Approved Dual Occupancy
Development

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Detached Dual
Occupancy Housing Policy

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Michael Hanna

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Detached Dual Occupancy

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Nil

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

One (1) Objection Received

REPORT AUTHORS

Senior Town Planner - Ms T Christy

FILE NO

DA 19960119 (AD 62/03)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application proposes alterations and additions to an approved detached dual occupancy development at 8 Rosebery Street, Penshurst. The proposed alterations and additions have already occurred and the applicant is seeking a retrospective approval for these works.

2. One (1) neighbour objection was received.

3. The Development Assessment Committee resolved to defer the proposal for Councillor inspection.

4. The inspection took place on 15 September 2003.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

The application was considered and deferred for inspection at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting of 3 September 2003.

The property was inspected on 15 September 2003.

For the assistance of Councillors, the original report is attached.

"BACKGROUND

The original application for this property was lodged 18 April 1996 and was notified to adjoining owners from 13 May 1996 to 27 May 1996 during which time two objections were received. Amended plans were received which more closely complied with the Interim Residential Development Code. These were approved by Council at the Development, Health and Planning Committee on 25 September 1996.

The Construction Certificate (CC 100/01) was approved, with amendments conditioned under Development Consent 19960119 on 10 April 2001. Subsequently Council received an application for subdivision (Development Application 19960123) on the 19 April 1996. Council approved the Torrens title subdivision on 18 October 1996. This Torrens title application was not acted on and the consent lapsed on 18 October 1998.

A Council inspection of the development site on 8 July 2003 revealed that the dwelling under construction was not being erected in accordance with the approved Development Consent and Construction Certificate. The applicant was advised in writing on the 9 July 2003 by Council’s building inspector that a Section 96 application must be submitted to seek permission for the unapproved building works.


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The allotment is located on the eastern side of Rosebery Street on the corner of Hawk Street on a large rectangular block of 835.15 square metres. The site has a significant fall to the rear and a western aspect. The property comprises a detached dual occupancy development. The dual occupancy unit with the frontage to Rosebery Street is the original dwelling house, which has been retained on the site. The dual occupancy unit with a frontage on Hawk Street is a one to one and a half storey brick building with a tiled roof. This dual occupancy unit is currently under construction.

The original dwelling house on the Rosebery Street frontage, retained as part of the detached dual occupancy development, has fallen into a state of disrepair

The site is located in a residential zone comprising a mix of single and double storey single dwelling houses and dual occupancies. The existing dual occupancy site is located between two single storey dwellings. Hawk Street is a generally quiet, easily accessible residential street with good on-street parking.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The Section 96 application proposes to modify the original consent by way of design changes. These comprise:

· Replacing the hip roof on the western side of the dual occupancy to a gable roof,
· Replacing the two small windows in the southern ground floor bathroom with one large window,
· Replacing highlight windows in bedrooms two and three (east facing) to larger clear glass windows,
· Replacing the window in the upstairs bathroom(north facing) with a larger window,
· Rendered brick columns added to the front entry/porch area,
· Rendered brick columns added to the southern facing balcony,
· Arc windows added to the gable above the southern facing balcony and above the front entry/porch area,
· Removal of fibro trimming on the front of the gable over the southern facing balcony,
· Removal of two north facing windows and a sliding door, replaced with a larger sliding door.

It should be noted that these design changes have already been completed, contrary to the approved plans.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council’s Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy also applies to the development. This policy was adopted by Council on 28 November 2001 and applies to development applications involving alterations and additions to detached dual occupancies not approved under Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

A table of the technical standards and the compliance of this development is detailed below.

Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Rear of site second storey addition
No
N/A
N/A
FSR
0.5:1
0.4:1
Yes
Minimum side setback
1.5m
1.5m
Yes
Minimum Front Setback (Front Dwelling)
5.5m
N/A
N/A

As can be seen from the table above, the development proposal generally complies with the requirements of Council's Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy. Two of the standards of the policy are indicated as not applicable. These are discussed below.

Rear of Site Second Storey Addition

The Section 96 Application does not seek to increase the height of the approved dual occupancy. As the original development was approved as a one and a half storey building, the height requirements of Council’s Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy are not deemed to apply in this case. The Council approved height of the dual occupancy was Reduced Level 52.4. A survey undertaken by J P Bates and Inwood Pty Ltd found that the roof ridge of the gable immediately above the garage and balcony adjoining bedrooms 1 and 2 is at Reduced Level 52.38 on plan datum.

Minimum Front Setback (Front Dwelling)

Council’s Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy calls for a 5.5m front setback for the front dwelling. This is not considered to be applicable in this instance as the existing dwelling house, with front setbacks less than 5.5m, was retained under the original approval.

Reference is also made to the fact that the proposed alterations and additions have already been completed, contrary to the approved plans. It is noted that this application seeks permission for existing works.

Each of the proposed Section 96 changes are discussed below.

Proposed Gable Roof on Western Elevation

A gable roof has been constructed rather than the approved hip roof. This change does not result in any variation to the height of the approved development and is not envisioned to adversely impact on the neighbours.

Southern Ground Floor Bathroom

Two small windows were approved in this bathroom. These windows have been deleted and replaced with one large window. This window is indicated to be of obscure glass. This change will not impact adversely on neighbours.

East Facing Bedroom Windows

The original plans were approved with highlight windows to bedrooms 2 and 3 on the eastern side of the development. These windows have been enlarged, which allows overlooking of the neighbouring property at 2 Hawk Street. A written submission from the neighbours at 2 Hawk Street has stressed that they have no objections to these windows.

North Second Storey Bathroom

Two small highlight windows in this bathroom have been replaced with a larger obscure glass window. The introduction of a larger window with obscure glass will not impact adversely on the privacy of the northern neighbour.

Rendered Brick Columns

The original columns to the front porch/entry have been given a rendered finish. The approved southern balconies over the garages were approved as cantilevered balconies with no column support. Brick, cement rendered columns have been introduced on this balcony to match those introduced on the porch/entry. This change is cosmetic in nature and is considered to be of no negative impact to surrounding neighbour amenity.

Sliding Door

A sliding door and two highlight windows have been replaced by one large sliding glass door on the single storey western elevation. This change does not result in any loss of amenity to the neighbouring property.

Gable Over Balcony

The fibro trimming to the gable above the front balcony has been removed and replaced with an arc shaped glass window. A matching window of smaller dimensions has also been incorporated into the gable above the porch/entry. This window is proposed to have fixed louvres to create a feature in the gable. No attic is proposed in the roof form, as such this window will have no impact on the privacy of adjacent neighbours in Hawk Street.

The gable is supported by the front balcony columns and projects from the main roof form. The gable is attached to the main roof form 500mm higher than in the approved plans. However, this gable is 150mm lower than the main roof pitch (RL52.38) which is 200mm less than the height the original development was approved at. This results in a slightly bulkier gable which is below the approved height of the development. The overshadowing impact of this on neighbours on the other side of the street is not considered to be unreasonable and no objections have been received in regard to overshadowing.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

No divisional referrals were necessary for this application.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was received raising the following objections.

Notification

The neighbour has indicated that the amended plans approved at the Development, Health and Planning Committee on 25 September 1996 were not renotified to adjoining neighbours.

Comment: At the time the amended plans were lodged, it was not Council’s policy to renotify amended plans to neighbours where the amended plans were considered to comply with Council requirements. However, the report that was considered by Council did consider the two initial objections raised by neighbours.

Further, this report addresses the changes applied for under the Section 96 Modification only.

Preservation of Council’s Street Trees

The neighbour requested that Council’s bottlebrush street trees be retained as part of the original approval and has repeated this request for the Section 96 Application.

Comment: The proposal as approved does not indicate that any street tree is to be removed and no approval been granted to do so. As all the trees are over 3 metres in height, a tree removal application must be made to Council seeking permission for their removal.

Inaccurate Plans

The neighbour has isolated various inaccuracies in the Section 96 Plans. A request has been made that accurate plans be submitted.

Comment: The applicant’s written submission has indicated all the changes to the original approval sought under the Section 96 application. Written requests for more detailed and accurate plans have resulted in amended plans being received by Council on 21 August 2003. These plans were not renotified.

Neighbour Requests

The neighbour has requested that a surveyor appointed by Hurstville Council ascertain the ridge height of the roof ridge and top of the front gable. Further that the railing balustrades of the front balconies be of opaque glass and that the two arc windows have opaque glass and a decorative grill of wood or metal.

Comment: The applicant has provided survey data from a registered surveyor confirming the gable height at Reduced Level 52.38 (AHD), 20mm below the approved height. It is unnecessary for an additional survey to be undertaken.

The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to neighbour requests. The outcome of this was the submission of amended plans clearly indicating the changes that have already been made. The applicant also submitted a letter indicating the type of fixed lourves to be inserted into both circular gable windows and has specified that the front balcony railings are to be of wrought iron balustrades complying with the Building Code of Australia.


SUMMARY

The application complies with Council's Detached Dual Occupancy Housing Policy and is considered to comply with the provisions of the relevant Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). All neighbour objections have been addressed on their merits but do not warrant that the application be refused.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the powers vested in Council under Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030220 (AD 62/03) for alterations and additions to rear dwelling of an approved dual occupancy development on land known as Lot 5, DP 12173, 8 Rosebery Street, Penshurst.

Consent is granted subject to the following amendment to Condition 1 of the consent:

1. Approved plans - The development shall be implemented in accordance with the original details and the amended details set out on the application form supporting information received with the original and amended application and the schedule of plans and details below except as amended by the conditions of this consent.

Drawing No.Drawing DateDescriptionPrepared by:
96-002 A1 of 2 Issue DReceived 17 Jul 03Site plan, floor plan and south elevationOsmo & Assoc. Pty Ltd
96-002 A2 of 2 Issue CReceived 17 Jul 03Elevations and sectionsOsmo & Assoc. Pty Ltd

Please note:

a) This consent operates from the date of the original determination, ie 27 September 1996, except as qualified by Section 93 of the Act.

b) This development consent will lapse unless acted upon within two (2) years from the date of the original determination, except as qualified by Section 99 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

c) Appeal to Land & Environment Court: Pursuant to Section 96(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 you may appeal to the Land & Environment Court should you be dissatisfied with Council's determination. The appeal must be made within twelve (12) months of the date of this determination."

* * * * *


APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and the additional following conditions.

1. That the arc window added to the gable above the southern facing balcony be of obscure or frosted glass.

2. That the arc window above the front entry/porch area to be of obscure or frosted glass.

3. That the railing balustrades of the front balconies be of obscure glass or of other non see-through construction.

4. That the Bottlebrush street trees be preserved and protected during the building works.

FURTHER THAT the builder be finded for carrying out building works not in conformity with the development consent.
(Moved Clr M Frawley/Seconded Clr S McMahon)

Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


DAC023.04 - 03

443-453 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS - REPLACE
EXISTING TWIN CINEMA WITH A TEN (10) CINEMA AND
RETAIL COMPLEX WITH OPEN AIR PLAZA

APPLICANT

United Leisure Investments

PROPOSAL

Replace Existing Twin Cinema with a Ten (10) Cinema
and Retail Complex with Open Air Plaza

ZONING

Zone 3(c) - Business Centre

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, SEPP 1,
SEPP 11 - Traffic Generating Developments, Development
Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan
No 12 - Beverly Hills, Development Control Plan No 17 -
Neighbour Notification and Advertising of Development
Proposals, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 19 - Access and Mobility

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

D & G Tsagias

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Twin cinema complex

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$8,000,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Cost of proposal and objections received

REPORT AUTHORS

Senior Town Planner, Ms T Christy

FILE NO

DA 20020252


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The amended proposal is for a ten (10) cinema complex, a small theatrette for sit-down meals, retail and an open-air plaza on the ground floor, 212 car spaces in a basement layout.

2. This proposal has been deferred from a previous Development Assessment Committee meeting due to on-site parking and traffic issues.

3. The proposal is an Integrated Development with Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) due to the location of an open water channel. General terms of approval must be granted by DIPNR prior to Council determining the application. These have been received and if the application is approved will be included in the consent.

4. Seventeen (17) submissions were received in relation to this proposal.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be granted an integrated development consent in accordance with the conditions included in the report and the general terms of approval by DIPNR.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

08.04.02 - Original application for a mixed cinema/retail complex was lodged with Council. This included eight (8) cinemas (seating for 1800 patrons) and basement parking for sixty (60) car spaces. (Additional parking was proposed on another site in Edgbaston Road). As this application was linked with a Council-owned property in Edgbaston Road this proposal and the DA for the Council owned site were referred to a planning consultant for assessment.

18.12.02 - Original application was deferred at Council meeting "to enable the applicant to prepare a suitable proposal to address the shortfall in the on-site parking provision and traffic problems in the adjoining streets and lanes".

Mid June 03 - Amended plans submitted to Council for a ten (10) cinema and retail complex with 205 car parking spaces. Also, the total floor space ratio had slightly increased to 1.62:1, in lieu of the original 1.4:1. The ground floor level has also been raised due to a flood study identifying the need to not hinder overflow paths from the adjoining stormwater channel.

22.07.03 - Basement plans were further amended and an additional 7 car spaces added. Hence a total of 212 car spaces have been provided on-site.

This report will assess the amendments made to the proposal particularly in relation to the parking and traffic problems originally identified.

To re-acquaint Councillors the previous report prepared by the planning consultant has been reproduced further in this report. The issues discussed in that previous report are still valid for this proposal.


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The site comprises No’s 443-453 King Georges Rd, Beverly Hills with a total site area of 2815.2sqm and contains a frontage to King Georges Road exceeding 60m.

The site is described in more detail in the original report reproduced below.


PROPOSAL

The proposal has changed from the original submitted in that it now incorporates a ten cinema complex above a retail-shopping arcade.

Ground Floor
The open-air pedestrian plaza is still proposed on the northern edge of the site linking King Georges Road to Hampden Lane. The open-air pedestrian plaza occupies 859sqm of the ground floor level including 122.5sqm provided for pedestrians as a 2.5m wide colonnade to the King Georges road frontage.

The building is setback 3m from Hampden Lane to improve manoeuvring and sight lines between vehicles and pedestrians in that area. The ground floor coverage has been reduced due to this setback, but the floor space included in the floor space ratio calculations has increased from 1193.3sqm to 1433.6sqm. The retail shop gross floor area has increased from 1049sqm to 1118sqm.

The ground floor will still incorporate ATMs, escape stairs, toilets, lifts, a public arcade, public thoroughfares, a loading/unloading area, machinery and plant rooms, storage spaces, and garbage store, as with the original application. This ground floor has been raised so as not to hinder any overland flow paths of stormwater from the adjoining drainage channel.

Basement
Four (4) levels of basement parking are proposed to accommodate a total of 212 car spaces. Originally 60 spaces were provided on site.

Overall
The overall floor space has increased to 4573sqm. This increase is primarily due to minor layout changes on the ground floor and additional retail gross floor area. The other levels are similar to the original proposal with the exception that it now includes 10 cinemas and a theatrette for sit down meals. No movies will be shown in this theatrette, it may only show trailers.

The plans show that the total number of seats in the cinema has increased by 12, ie a total of 1812. However, the applicant has stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects and in a later letter that it is to stay the same as the original proposal, ie 1800 seats in total. The proposal will be conditioned accordingly.

The height of the building is generally 14.4m to the top of the parapet, with some minor features of the elevation extending 1m above the parapet. The air conditioning plant room is a further 3.6m high at the highest point. This is situated in the middle of the building and will not be visible from the streets. This height is consistent with the original proposal.


STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The amended development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The original report addresses the statutory requirements that are relevant to this proposal. However, the amended proposal has been re-assessed against the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994

Clause 13 (2A) states that the maximum floor space ratio overall is 2:1, and the maximum floor space ratio for the exclusively non-residential component is 1:1.

The amended floor space ratio is 1.62:1. As with the original proposal this exceeds that specified in Hurstville Council’s Local Environmental Plan, hence the original assessment of the SEPP 1 objection, as outlined in Scott Carver's original planning report to Council is still valid.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

A total of 300 car spaces are required for the cinema component (ie 1 per 6 seats). As argued in the original report the increased demand placed by the proposed cinema was 175 parking spaces, after taking into account the credit for the existing twin cinema.

The amended retail area has increased to 1118sqm (an increase of 8.6sqm), thus resulting in a need of 67 car spaces, as opposed to 66 in the original proposal. It was originally argued that an adequate level of parking for the retail component of the development is 30 spaces due to the ‘overlap’ of on-site uses. This argument is still applicable for the amended plans.

Therefore, a total of 205 (being 175 + 30) new parking spaces are required for the development.

The amended plans provide for 212 spaces all up, thus it complies with the requirements in the original report.


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Health and Building Surveyor

No objections were raised to the proposal in general; however, some concern was raised with the head height of the basement under the goods lift area at the rear and also, the location of the spaces for disabled persons. These should be located in close proximity to the lifts and comply with the Building Code of Australia provisions, ie 1 space per 50 or part thereof.

It was also noted that the loading bay is within close proximity to residential flat buildings on the opposite side of the laneway. Therefore, appropriate times for loading should be enforced.

Manager - Development Advice

Council’s Manager - Development Advice raised no objection to the proposal in principle and requested a number of conditions of consent be imposed upon the development, relating to on-site detention, complying with DIPNR and Sydney Water in relation to the stormwater canal, retaining overflow paths and other standard drainage conditions.

Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee

The Traffic Advisory Committee advised they had no objections to the proposal and made the following comments:

i) That the Traffic Committee raised no objection to the proposed basement parking layout and vehicular access driveway to the proposed Development Application 252/02
ii) That the proposed on-site parking provision of 212 spaces exceeds the minimum requirement of 205 spaces which was set by the independent assessor in 2002.
iii) That should DA/252-02 be approved that a condition of development consent be the installation of a variable message parking sign at the intersection of Edgbaston Road and Hampden Lane, that electronically indicates the number of car spaces available in the cinema car park.”

It was also stated that the implementation of a one-way traffic system (southbound) on Hampden Lane from Edgbaston Road to Stoney Creek Road and one-way traffic system (westbound) on the unnamed lane between Hampden Lane and Hampden Street, would help the movement of traffic in the immediate area particularly in the vicinity of the cinema.

It must be stressed that this traffic movement system has been approved for a six (6) month trial basis, independent of this development application.

Transportation Analyst

The comments of the Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee are endorsed as well as the location of the 2 existing bus shelters being unlikely to impact on the proposed disabled ramp and pedestrian staircase. However, should one or both shelters require relocation, the cost will be borne by the applicant.

Manager - Environmental Services

No objections were raised to the proposal in relation to the provision of waste storage facilities. As the proposal is a commercial one, the developer may utilise the services of a private contractor for waste disposal purpose, or use Council’s Waste Contractor. Either way, appropriate conditions are to be placed on any approval in relation to the location and size of the storage bins, and the provision of a Waste Management Plan to Council incorporating all requirements in respect of the provision of these Waste Storage Facilities prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

Access Committee

The Access Committee considered the amended plans at its meeting on 23 July 2003 and provided the additional comments:

Parking/Movement - Current designated spaces for disabled parking should be nearer to elevators, preferred pedestrian pathways should be marked, and the gradient of the ramp entrance from the laneway must comply. It was also stated that a second elevator should be provided or a ramp between first and second levels. A second elevator is not required under the provisions of the Building Code of Australia and a ramp cannot be achieved between these levels and still comply with the minimum gradient without being impractical.

Toilets - Is it possible to provide baby change table (minimum) or parent’s room (preferred)? Also, can the unisex toilet doors be power-operated or slide opening? The applicant has said that they will look into this. Further, all toilet doors must comply with Building Code of Australia.

General - Provision of disabled seating in the cinemas is very good! What security measures are provided for, particularly in the parking area? (This will be required at the Construction Certificate stage).

Overall the 'development is a wonderful opportunity to develop an area of excellence that will be a family-friendly venue with optimal access to facilities for all patrons.'


EXTERNAL REFERRALS

NSW Police

The amended plans were referred to the NSW Police for comment, as were the original plans. The site is still considered a significant crime risk area. Below are additional comments received in relation to the amended plans. Council should refer to the original report for all comments received. The recommendations provided by the NSW Police have been incorporated as conditions of consent, should the application be approved. These include:

- Consideration should be given to relocating the toilets on the ground level away from the utility corridor.
- The ATM should also be relocated away from this area.
- The main access door to the rear loading dock should be kept closed and locked at all times as it cannot be monitored.
- Consideration should be given to having glass-viewing points within the fire entry/egress doors and transparent barriers should be installed around the fire exit areas and elevator areas within the car parks to reduce opportunities for concealment behind these locations.
- Lighting should be designed to reduce glare and vandalism.
- The walls and ceilings of the car parks should be painted a light colour to increase reflectivity.
- A CCTV system should be installed, with cameras strategically located at entry/egress points, the rear loading dock, the car parks, utilities corridors and cashiers offices.
- The walls at the rear of the development should be either constructed of or treated with vandal resistant materials to reduce opportunities for crime.
- A maintenance policy should be established in respect of removal of rubbish, graffiti and maintenance of lighting and equipment.
- Consideration should be given to the installation of vehicle barriers such as boom gate at the entry/egress points of the car park.
- The loading dock area should be secured with a barrier such as a roller shutter or gate to restrict access via this area.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR)

As the subject site is within 40m of a watercourse (drainage channel), it is an ‘Integrated Development’, and as such requires the general terms of approval from DIPNR prior to Council determining it. This is in accordance with Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948.

DIPNR advised that they do not generally support the covering of a watercourse whether they are natural or concrete lines. However, given the nature of the site and the fact that the watercourse is covered in sections immediately upstream and downstream the Department is willing to allow the covering of this section of channel in this case due to the opportunity for environmental enhancement on another watercourse.

At the Council Meeting dated 27 August 2003, Council agreed:

This watercourse is a degraded natural watercourse which can be rehabilitated by the applicant as compensation for covering the watercourse on the subject site.

Appropriate conditions of consent are to be imposed, should this application be approved.


PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

Nearby residents and previous objectors were notified by letter of the first set of amended plans and further notified of the additional parking spaces, and given fourteen (14) days each time in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal.

Seventeen (17) objections were received in relation to the amended plans, the issues raised are discussed below. (Originally 380 submissions were received in opposition to this development and 628 submissions were received in favour of the application. The number was much higher because it included the proposed residential development at Edgbaston Road.)

Some of the objections raised have been covered in the original report to Council and this is noted where applicable.

1. The number of cinemas is excessive given the lack of parking. It will create an unsafe environment and attract "hoons" to the area.

Comment: Although the number of cinemas has increased from eight (8) to ten (10), the total number of seating has remained the same as what was originally proposed, ie 1800. The amended plans have provided additional parking to cope with this number of seating and the proposal is now considered appropriate. In relation to the unsafe environment, the report from the NSW Police discusses these issues and provides recommendations to address most concerns. The proposal for combined retail/cinema use is considered appropriate for the zoning and site.

2. The laneway is too small to handle two (2) way traffic and this proposal will only exacerbate the problems.

Comment: Council has already agreed to trial a one (1) way system for the Hampden Lane at the rear of the cinema site, as it is recognised that this lane is too small for two (2) way traffic. This will improve the traffic situation in the immediate area.

3. Is this proposal really "amended", given the extra cinemas and basement parking?

Comment: The proposal is substantially the same development, in that it is the same height and bulk and is for the same use and number of seating. Therefore it can be determined as "amended plans" under the same application number.

4. Was the application publicly advertised?

Comment: The application was publicly advertised on Thursday 31 July 2003, notifying residents of the 212 car parking spaces and giving fourteen (14) days for any submissions.

5. The issues of parking and traffic management have still not been addressed.

Comment: These have been addressed in this report and the original report.

6. There are too many cinemas in the vicinity.

Comment: The applicant has conducted an economic study of the area and nearby cinemas and believes that there is a market for this site to accommodate additional cinemas. This has also been addressed in the original report.

7. Concerns in relation to the noise levels on nearby residents.

Comment: This is a valid concern. The building will need to be constructed such that the cinema noises have no impact on those nearby residents. Also, the loading hours will need to be limited and this will be a condition of consent. These hours will be restricted to between 7am and 7pm, Monday to Saturdays only.

8. The flood analysis should be taken seriously.

Comment: The proposal has been designed such that it will accommodate the overload flow of stormwater through to site for the 1:100 year flood event. It is proposed to provide open grates at the alignments of the lane and King Georges Road above the existing stormwater canal to allow the overland flow to pass below the level of th eground floor slab and continue through onto King Georges Road. This will not impact on the underground parking, and further detailed designs are required at the Construction Certificate, to the approval of Sydney Water and DIPNR.

9. The development is not permitted under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. It is inconsistent with the floor space ratio and relies on a SEPP No. 1 Objection to standards for its approval. The height of the proposal exceeds the height limit.

Comment: This has been addressed in the original report to Council.

10. The building scale and bulk is out of character with the existing or likely future development in Beverly Hills.

Comment: The proposal will be the same bulk as a four (4) storey building, as explained in the original report to Council. This is what is permitted in the Beverly Hills area along King Georges Road, and over time is likely to be built. Therefore it is consistent with the future vision for this section of Beverly Hills.

11. The proposal will create an overshadowing problem for the residential units at the rear.

Comment: This is a valid concern. Unfortunately, this section of King Georges Road is zoned for a commercial use and is permitted to build to a four (4) storey height. As the site is east of the neighbouring residential units, any multi-storey development on this site will impact on those residents.

12. Not all previous objectors were notified of the amended proposal.

Comment: This was initially the case, as there were so many objector letters a decision was made to notify each household as opposed to each person. Afterwards, Council received a number of complaints, so additional letters were sent out to each person who had previously objected.

13. There is no specific details relating to the proposed hours of operation of the cinemas.

Comment: The applicant has advised that the cinemas will retain the same hours as currently operate. These are 9am till midnight, 7 days a week.

14. Inadequate information relating to the potential economic impacts of the proposal has been submitted.

Comment: This was discussed in the original report before Council. As an annexure to that, the applicant states, "the detailed comments in relation to the economic impact of the proposal on other cinema complexes and the criticism of the methodology of the economic assessment do not show that any other cinema facility available to the public is placed in jeopardy. In addition the assessment of JHD Advisers includes the proposed 12-cinema complex not yet approved/built at Roselands. This is not considered appropriate."


As originally stated, this report deals with the amended plans. For Council’s information, the original report prepared by Scott Carver, which dealt with the original proposal, has been re-iterated below.

“Scott Carver Urban Planning
D E V E L O P M E N T A P P L I C A T I O N A S S E S S M E N T

443-453 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS
P R O P O S E D C I N E M A & L E I S U R E C E N T R E

Prepared for
Hurstville City Council
November 2002

Job No. 02090
4 4 3 - 4 5 3 K i n g G e o r g e s R o a d , B e v e r l y H i l l s
C i n e m a L e i s u r e C e n t r e
D E V E L O P M E N T A P P L I C A T I O N A S S E S S M E N T – D A 2 5 2 / 0 2

1 INTRODUCTION
A development application has been submitted to Hurstville City Council by United Leisure Investments, seeking consent for the development of an eight-cinema complex at 443-453 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills, incorporating the following components:

· Demolition of the existing buildings on the subject site,
· Seating for 1800 patrons,
· Complimentary retail premises,
· Sheltered public open plaza,
· Secure undercover parking for 60 cars, and
· Associated services and loading facilities.

The subject development has been assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), having regard to relevant state and local policies and plans, the impact of the development on the existing surround built form and character of the area, and the public benefit derived from the proposal.

This report has been prepared by Scott Carver Urban Planning for Hurstville City Council. Council has commissioned this independent assessment in accordance with the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s guidelines for Council owned properties, as this application is related to a development application lodged for land at 2 & 2A and 409 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills of which Hurstville City Council is the owner.

2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Description of Site and Locality

The subject site is located at 443-453 King Georges Road, within the town centre of Beverly Hills. The site presently includes the twin cinema complex containing 750 seats, a vacant Pizza Hut restaurant and a vacant bank building. The site also includes an open Sydney Water stormwater channel, which is proposed to be built over. The site has a total area of 2815.2sqm and contains a frontage to King Georges Road exceeding 60 metres.

The property is legally known as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 506683, Lots 2 and 3 in DP 215934 and Lot 42, Section B in DP 3315. The site is presently under-utilised, incorporating a number of disused commercial buildings and informal car parking.

The four main portions of the subject site incorporate: -

· 443 King Georges Road, at the northern extremity of the subject site, which is currently a Sydney Water owned stormwater channel and car park. The stormwater channel, at present, provides drainage for the surrounding residential areas. The car park allows parking for six spaces. There are no structures on the site.

· 445 King Georges Road is currently a closed single-storey Pizza Hut restaurant with a 3m setback fronting the main road. The building totals 220.3sqm in floor space, has rear access to Hampden Lane and adequate space for 12 car spaces.

· 447 King Georges Road is currently a closed two-storey bank with a floor space totalling 175.2sqm and zero setback. Rear access is available and parking is available for 10 cars.

· 449-453 King Georges Road is the current cinema complex. Accompanying the cinema are three retail shops with two of these shops presently unoccupied. The cinema is at present, a two-screen complex with seating for 750 people. The setback off the street is nil and the total height of the current building is 12m across the entirety of the street frontage. Car parking with access from the rear totals 15 spaces.

2.2 The Surrounding Area & Adjoining Land Uses

The subject site is located on the western side of the Beverly Hills commercial strip. The peak operating time of the commercial strip is in the evening, revolving around entertainment provided by the existing cinema and restaurants.

The subject site addresses King Georges Road to the east, which is a six lane arterial road with restricted parking and carrying a high proportion of north-south traffic through the Sydney metropolitan area. To the rear of the site is an informal parking area accessed from Hampden Lane. An at-grade, signalised pedestrian crossing of King Georges Road is located immediately in front of the existing cinema which provides a pedestrian connection to the eastern side of the commercial strip.

The site immediately adjoining the northern boundary of the proposed development site contains the Beverly Hills Hotel and a drive through bottle shop. The adjoining site to the south of the subject site contains a single storey building with a restaurant. Further west of Hampden Lane is a residential precinct, characterised by medium density developments primarily three storeys in height.

The Beverly Hills centre enjoys a high level of accessibility by public transport, particularly from Beverly Hills railway station, which is well served by frequent train services. This is complemented by bus services connecting Beverly Hills with Hurstville, Strathfield and Roselands.

3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

It is proposed to construct and operate an eight-cinema complex above a retail shopping arcade on the subject site. An open air pedestrian plaza is proposed on the northern edge of the site that will link King Georges Road to Hampden Lane.

In addition, a basement level is proposed to be incorporated, facilitating vehicular access from Hampden Lane in order to accommodate car parking for 60 cars.

It is proposed that the development contain a gross floor space of 8382.3sqm, contained within the basement, ground floor, first floor and the cinema level. Disabled access will be afforded to all parts of the building.

3.1.1 Basement Level

The basement level of the development is proposed to incorporate sixty car spaces with access from Hampden Lane. Of the sixty spaces, there is provision for two disabled spaces. The gross floor space of the basement level is 1951sqm which is excluded from
floor space ratio calculations.

3.1.2 Ground Floor

The ground floor is proposed to contain a retail area, incorporating a gross floor area of 1049sqm. The ground floor will also incorporate ATMs, escape stairs, toilets and lifts. Additional uses proposed for the ground floor include; a public arcade, public thoroughfares, a loading/unloading area, machinery and plant rooms and storage spaces including garbage store and external walls.

The gross floor area of the ground floor is proposed to be 1871.5sqm of which 678.2sqm can be excluded from floor space to be included within floor space ratio calculations.

3.1.3 First Floor

The first floor is proposed to contain the foyer, auditorium and associated components of the cinema operation such as the ticket counter and candy bar. In addition, storage will be provided in areas containing less than 2.1 metres of ceiling height. The first floor will also contain the lower portions of the cinemas.

The gross floor area of the first floor will be 2462.6sqm of which the storage areas account for 575.16sqm and can be excluded from floor space to be included within floor space ratio calculations.

3.1.4 Cinema Level

The cinema level will ultimately house the upper portions of the cinemas and associated stairs and lifts. The gross floor space of the cinema level is 1102.7sqm, all of which is to be included within floor space ratio calculations. In addition, a Bio Box level and air conditioner plant room are to be incorporated into the levels above the cinema levels.

3.1.5 Open Space

The proposed open air pedestrian plaza will occupy 476.2sqm of the ground floor level with a further 122.5sqm provided for pedestrians as a 2.5 metre wide colonnade to the King Georges Road frontage. A total of 27% of the site area is proposed to be incorporated as recreational public space.

4 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
4.1 Regional Context

Beverly Hills is a middle ring suburb located about three kilometres from the Hurstville CBD and fifteen kilometres south west of the Sydney CBD. The Beverly Hills town centre is a traditional strip centre with a predominance of restaurants and cafes fronting the main arterial, King Georges Road. Also located in Beverly Hills is the Beverly Hills Twin Cinema, one of a declining number of street front cinemas in the Sydney region.

Beverly Hills is identified under Council’s planning framework as a secondary centre with nearby Hurstville being a regional centre. Consequently, the functioning of commercial and retail facilities within Beverly Hills is quite different to that of a regional centre such as Hurstville.

In terms of cinema screens, an additional six cinema screens would increase the number of screens within the City of Hurstville and surrounding local government areas from 24 to 30, with nearby cinemas located at Kogarah, Bankstown and Hurstville. It has been estimated that six additional screens within the region may decrease the potential population per screen by approximately 20%.

4.2 Local Context

The streetscape of Beverly Hills is characterised by a predominance of after hours commercial premises, primarily in the form of restaurants. In addition, uses such as real estate agents and specialty shops combine to form the Beverly Hills centre which is essentially a “commercial strip”.

The existing Beverly Hills Twin Cinema addressing King Georges Road, is a major drawcard for visitors to Beverly Hills and assists significantly in an economic sense to the viability of the town centre. Further expansion of the town centre is largely constrained by the East Hills railway line to the north, Stoney Creek Road to the south and the dissection of the town centre by the highly trafficked King Georges Road.

The redevelopment of the cinema complex may provide the catalyst required for the regeneration of the Beverly Hills strip commercial centre and will significantly complement the existing commercial operations.

4.3 Urban Design Overview

Urban design comments were prepared by Scott Carver Urban Design and relate to the overall design of the proposed cinema building and associated site.

The cinema building is well suited to its site and will provide a positive public amenity in the heart of the Beverly Hills commercial centre. Public car parking is proposed to be located on a single basement level, across the majority of the site. The entrance to the car park makes good use of Hampden Lane.

The pedestrian entry and foyer are located at street level. The Sydney Water drainage channel runs along the northern boundary of the subject site, and is clear of built elements. The utilisation of the drainage channel (by being built over) provides a good pedestrian link between King Georges Road and Hampden Lane.

Relief in the facade has been achieved by a surface mounted structure, including decoration and signage. This articulation is adequate. The Hampden Lane elevation however, requires increased detailing of the facade in order to promote an attractive rear lane access to the building. A condition of consent has been imposed on the development to this effect.

The overall bulk of the building is modest for its location, being at the lowest point of King Georges Road and providing a positive reinforcement of the street alignment and frontage. However, very little contextual information has been provided, particularly showing elevations in their context.

Conclusion

Conceptually, the proposed development is appropriate to its regional and local context. The design of the development is complementary to the surrounding retail and entertainment environment. Further, it is recognised that the Beverly Hills cinema complex is a vital component of the commercial strip centre. The future economic and social vitality of the Beverly Hills centre will be largely influenced by its continued operation.

The proposed size of the cinema may seem to be more appropriately located in a regional centre. However, a review of cinema localities across the Sydney metropolitan area reveals a disparate pattern with regional centres dominated by the major cinema operators, with independent operators located within a range of smaller centres.

Given the higher accessibility of the Beverly Hills centre by public transport and lack of evidence that the proposal will undermine the functioning of nearby regional centres, it is considered that the proposal is suited to its locational context.

5 SUBMISSIONS

The development application was publicly exhibited throughout the local media and at the offices of Hurstville City Council from 14 June 2002 to 15 July 2002. During this period a large number of submissions were received in relation to the development proposal. The development application received a small number of individual letters of support and 380 pro-forma letters of objection.

An additional 618 pro-forma submissions were received in support of the cinema development, in conjunction with the proposed mixed-use development of the Edgbaston Road Council owned car park site (DA 253/02).

It should be noted that many of the submissions received did not specifically relate to the proposed cinema development. The subject development application was advertised in conjunction with DA 253/02, being the proposed mixed-use development of the Edgbaston Road Council owned car park. As such, a large number of submissions received were in reference to all three of the following proposals:

a) The proposed rezoning of the Edgbaston Road car park site,

b) The proposed mixed-use development of the Edgbaston Road car park site, and

c) The proposed cinema and leisure centre development.

In addition, a further 640 letters and a 1367 signature petition were received by Council in support of the above proposals. However, these submissions were signed prior to the formal exhibition period of the development application. These submissions cannot be considered in determining this application as the signatories did not have the liberty of viewing the submitted formal development applications. To do so may invalidate Council’s determination of the application.

However, it may be acknowledged from a review of these submissions that the existing cinema enjoys significant community support.

In summary, 628 submissions received during the joint advertisement period contained reference to this development application and were in support of the proposal. Conversely, 380 submissions received contained reference to this development application and were in opposition.

A summary of the main issues contained within the submissions to the development application are documented below.

5.1 In support of proposal

Within the individual letters of support, the following points were raised:

· The proposal will provide both social and economic benefits to Beverly Hills,

· Redevelopment of the cinema will provide a suitable vision for the future of Beverly Hills,

· Beverly Hills is ideally sited to become a consolidated entertainment precinct,

· The redevelopment of the cinema would increase the viability of many commercial businesses adjoining King Georges Road, particularly restaurants,

· There would be a perceived beautification of Beverly Hills.

In addition, 618 pro-forma letters were received supporting the development proposal and were in the following format:

‘We wish to acknowledge our support for the proposal currently being assessed by Hurstville Council, to expand the existing cinemas, and the mixed development on Edgbaston Road, with 5 levels of parking, supermarket and residential units’.

Comments to submissions of support

It is acknowledged that the redevelopment and expansion of the Beverly Hills cinema centre would provide both social and economic benefits to the community. The consolidation of Beverly Hills into an entertainment precinct is supported on planning grounds, particularly as a means of ensuring its viability and thereby ensuring utilisation of the centre’s public investment and accessibility by public transport. However, the centre should not remain limited to entertainment facilities.

The majority of submissions received were ‘pro-forma’ with minimal detail received in terms of the proposed cinema expansion. The pro-forma submissions also referred to DA 253/02 and it can be assumed that the vast majority of signatories believed that the expansion of the cinema would only be possible should the Edgbaston Road car park be re-developed in the manner proposed.

In conclusion, the support received for the expansion of the cinema site was overwhelming, reflecting how highly valued the facility is to the community. However, the exact nature of support of the development application as submitted and attention to the details of the proposal is uncertain.

5.2 Objections to the proposal

The majority of the approximately 380 letters of objection to the development application were based on opposition to the Edgbaston Road development application rather than specifically to the cinema development application. However, a number of submissions did raise valid objections to the proposed cinema re-development. A summary of the submissions received and comments to the submissions are provided below:

Physical attributes

· The proposal is a gross over-development of a relatively small site.

· The facade treatments are insufficient.

· What is to happen to proposals for open space between the demolished Pizza Hut and Bennelong Hotel?

· The proposed signage and advertising is obtrusive.

· Privacy afforded to nearby units during the construction phase will be insufficient.
· Increased noise will occur.

The physical attributes of the proposed development and the subject site have been assessed both on planning and urban design grounds. Appropriate detail has been proposed for the cinema development, which will contribute positively to the public domain of Beverly Hills. The impact that the proposed development may have on the surrounding environment is further explained in Section 7.2 of this report. Where relevant, conditions of consent have been imposed on the development.

Traffic

· The development will add to traffic congestion, therefore disrupting Hampden Lane and its ability to carry two-way traffic and at intersections.

· The King Georges Road/Edgbaston Road intersection will be severely affected.

A traffic and parking review of the proposed development was undertaken by Masson Wilson Twiney Traffic and Transport Consultants. The review provided specific recommendations for traffic and parking management which are summarised in Section 6.2.1 of this report.

Car parking

· Parking proposals are grossly insufficient.

· Should be established with equivalent parking provisions.

· The parking that is proposed to be associated with the concurrent DA is too far away from the cinema site and considering movies finish late, there is a level of security and safety to take into account.

· Cinema car parking times will conflict with other car parking eg during holidays.

· On street parking will be restricted.

· Disabled parking is only in proportion to the total number of parking spaces at the cinema site.

The traffic and parking arrangements have been considered independently of DA 253/02 (Edgbaston Road car park). Specific recommendations for car parking have been provided within Section 6.2.1 of this report. It is essential that adequate parking facilities be provided for the development prior to the commencement of development consent (see recommendation).

Access

· Hampden Lane is poor in terms of access and consequently the laneway should be turned into a pedestrian thoroughfare.

· There are minimal pedestrian linkages between Edgbaston Road and Hampden Lane.

· Trucks cause significant problems on Hampden Lane.

Refer to above comments.

Existing character

· The area is already well serviced by cinemas.

· The proposal will create a “George Street, Sydney” situation, bringing undesirable activity, especially at night.

· The proposal will detract from the character of Beverly Hills and potentially become a Hurstville look-a-like.

· Development will be at the cost of public amenity.

· Increased crime and vandalism will result from the development.

· The cinema is not necessarily required if the extra residents generated by the proposed 14-storey complex does not eventuate.

It is envisaged that the proposed development will complement the existing character of the Beverly Hills centre. The existing cinema is an integral part of the character of Beverly Hills and its entertainment function. Furthermore, the contemporary design of the proposed cinema will enhance the streetscape of King Georges Road.

A condition of consent has been imposed on the development requiring that the wall plain of the cinema building addressing the rear lane is to incorporate wall paneling and articulation elements as shown on north and west facades. In addition, a number of conditions of development consent have been imposed on the development to maximise the safety and security of the operation of the cinema.

Miscellaneous

· The proposal is in direct conflict with the interests of Westfield.

· Roselands (with expansion proposals to 11 cinemas) and Hurstville are both examples that question the justification of expanding the current Beverly Hills cinema.

· The cinema attracts different clientele to that of the restaurants.

· An eight cinema complex belongs in a mega-cinema complex such as Westfield Shoppingtown rather than in Beverly Hills.

· The public didn’t ask for a bigger cinema.

· The stormwater channel may be affected during construction works.

· A four cinema complex seems more logical.

· The proposal may act as a precedent for future unsavoury developments.

· Will aid in excessive commercialisation of the low-density area.

· Residents have been led to believe prior to recent elections at State/Local level that the area between the cinema and the Bennelong Hotel would be developed as open green space after the removal of the old Pizza Hut and covering of the existing stormwater channel.

These issues are addressed in other comments to submissions and within Section 7.2 of this report.

Developer tactics

· The financial arrangements between Council and the developer should be made public.

· The claim that the cinema will close down unless expansion occurs is false and misleading.

· The development proposal should not be reliant on any other DA.

· The hand-mailed petitions are false, whether deliberately or not. People also signed petitions based on lack of knowledge or when given self-serving statements with no evidence of guarantee.

It is acknowledged that development applications should not be reliant upon one another and hence both applications received by United Leisure Investments have been assessed independently of one another. Comments in relation to ‘developer tactics’ are outside the scope of the development assessment process.

Community Feeling

· The price of tickets to the cinema will increase.

· The patronage does not justify an expansion

· The reasonably priced convenient cinema is currently sufficient.

· A previous cinema upgrade has seen minimal changes in patronage numbers.

The issues raised by members of the community have all been taken into consideration throughout the assessment of this development proposal.

Planning Matters

· Existing use rights is questionable because retail and commercial operations are proposed.

· There is concern regarding the blank wall of the cinema that will face Hampden Lane.

· Overshadowing of residential flat buildings to the west of the site may occur.

· Gross floor area and floor space ratios are in direct conflict with Hurstville LEP 1994, and

· SEPP 1 is inadequate in overcoming the FSR change.

· The subject site is located within 40m of a watercourse and should require DLWC licences. The development is therefore integrated development and will require a resubmitted development application.

· The economic impact assessment is flawed and is based on highly questionable assumptions.

· The proposal is inconsistent with the Beverly Hills DCP.

· Loss of amenity in terms of ventilation, ability to catch breezes etc. may result.

· The development is not in the public interest.

· Will mean increased nightlife and associated noise etc.

· May act as a precedent for future ‘such’ developments.

· It is not in keeping with current existing developments.

· The FSR is flawed as it does not include storage space.

The development application has been assessed under the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. In particular, the matters for consideration specified within Section 79C of the Act have been applied to the proposal. The issues raised by members of the community have been taken into consideration throughout the assessment of this development proposal.

Otherwise, existing use rights is not relevant to the proposal, the variation of the FSR standard is reasonable and an appropriate use of SEPP 1 while the cinema is considered to be consistent with the draft Beverly Hills DCP. However, it appears that the proposal is integrated development, requiring referral to the Department of Land and Water Conservation under Section 91(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

General Comments to objections

The significant number of written objections to the development proposal, as opposed to pro-forma letters of support, demonstrate the contentious nature of this development proposal.

Furthermore, comments to the objections have been addressed by the following methods:

· Assessment of the development proposal against all relevant State and Council planning instruments and policies, and

· Assessment of the development proposal against the matters for consideration provided within Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

A detailed explanation of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant State and Council planning instruments and policies is provided within Section 7 of this report.

5.3 Objection on Economic Grounds
5.3.1 Ingham Planning

Ingham Planning were commissioned on behalf of Westfield Hurstville to undertake the preparation of a letter of objection in relation to DA No. 252/02 concerning the development of the cinema complex and in addition, the rezoning proposal and mixed use development associated with DA No. 253/02.

Planning Matters

· The development applications (DA 252/02 and 253/02) cannot be assessed in relation to one another, especially because of the lack of consideration of the context of the development with the rest of Beverly Hills and the role that Beverly Hills plays within Hurstville LGA.

· A strategic planning review should be undertaken to establish the role of Beverly Hills with Hurstville before further consideration occurs.

· The proposed development is unprecedented outside of sub-regional centres. Beverly Hills is not a sub-regional centre.

The development application for the cinema (DA 252/02) has been assessed independently of the proposed mixed-use development (DA 253/02) submitted by United Leisure Investments. The specific planning merits of the proposal have been the primary consideration in the assessment of this development proposal.

Floor Space Ratio

· The proposed FSR of 1.49 for the cinema site is excessive in relation to provisions of 1:1.

A SEPP 1 objection formed part of the development application, requesting that the non-residential component of the prescribed floor space ratio of 0.5:1 be reduced to nil and subsequently, the entire permissible floor space ratio accommodate nonresidential use.

The SEPP 1 objection is not unreasonable, especially considering that the overall maximum floor space ratio will not be breached. The existing cinema complex contains no residential component and the two uses are generally not compatible.

Commission of Inquiry

· Council’s financial interests may be favoured because of the magnitude of the development. A Commission of Inquiry is recommended.

Outside the scope of the development assessment process.

General

· The proposed cinema is not suited to the suburban locality of Beverly Hills.

· The development application for the cinema is not appropriate as a separate application, considering the likelihood that the application will not proceed.

· There is an abundance of cinemas in the locality (separate EIA submitted to Council).

The cinema proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 3(c) General Business zone of Hurstville LEP 1994. The presence of other cinemas in the region should not exclude such a proposal unless the proposal will lead to a significant reduction in the overall facilities afforded to the regional population. The economic impact assessment provided within the development application demonstrated that the overall effect the proposal would have on existing cinema operations in the region would not be such as to warrant refusal.

Draft SEPP 66

· Draft SEPP 66 lists regional centres such as Hurstville as suitable for such developments. Beverly Hills is not listed as suitable.

The guidelines to the draft SEPP “The Right Place for Business and Services” state that; ‘Wherever possible, entertainment and leisure facilities should collocate with other uses in accessible centres. Locating cinemas within shopping canters shares parking. However, other locations within mixed-use centres are also suitable and allow for competition’.

The submission incorrectly implies that this policy document sets out a hierarchy of centres in which certain facilities must be located. However, the policy specifically refers to networks of centres with varying levels of public transport accessibility rather than centre hierarchies (a term not used in the policy) in recognition that simple hierarchies rarely exist in practice in large cities.

Instead, the policy focuses on the support of centres in general in achieving more sustainable transport, protection of community investment and the fostering of competition to achieve economic efficiencies.

The site for the proposed cinema is highly accessible to a variety of transport modes and will be located within an existing commercial centre with existing community investment in infrastructure and an entertainment base that can be consolidated for additional economic benefits. It is considered that the location of the cinema is consistent with the provisions of the draft State policy.

5.3.2 JHD Advisors

JHD Advisors were commissioned on behalf of Greater Union Cinemas to undertake the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and subsequent letter of objection in relation to DA No. 252/02 concerning the expansion of the existing cinema complex at Beverly Hills. The relevant objections to the proposed development are as follows: -

Inadequate Methodology and Assumptions

The assumptions of current cinema visitation patterns established within the report were poorly conceived, including the application of the National Average Turnover per Screen, which should not be considered as an industry average.

The assumed industry average is inappropriate for the said development as are the cinema operator capture rates, which are subjective and poorly reflect usage patterns. Similarly, assumptions for existing cinema performances and real growth are incorrect.

Overall, the following assumptions of are either incorrect or flawed and subsequently affect the legality of the calculations: -

· Cinema visitation patterns

· National average turnover per screen

· Industry average

· Cinema operator capture rates

· Performance of existing cinemas

· Real growth

The submission only questioned the methodology and assumptions provided within the submitted economic impact assessment. Final calculations were not challenged and more importantly no alternative analysis or conclusions were provided.

Insufficient consideration of locational merits

Questionable location of the proposed cinema away from the profitable and accessible location of a sub-regional or regional shopping centre.

See above comments in relation to draft SEPP 66.

Superficial Trade Area Analysis

The definition of the trade area of the proposed cinema (being a 7km radius) does not ‘explicitly’ provide a definition of boundary, or in a systematic or transparent way. Rather, assumptions of the estimated proportion of each LGA that would fall within the trade area. ABS Collector Districts and SLAs would be more useful in this instance.

While the methodology used by the applicant’s consultant in determining trade areas may be open to question, no alternative analysis or conclusions were offered.

No Analysis of Need and Demand

The statistical analysis of Box Office Receipts and turnover are substantially over-valued as they are based on Industry Averages and the assumption that because of a higher head of population per screens in the area, then there will be a higher than average attendance. This represents a lack of analysis of the need and demand for a proposed cinema.

The report also lacks an analysis of a demographic profile. The expectation that all the cinemas trade at the national average is also flawed and unrealistic. No assessment of likely demand was undertaken.

See above comment. However, it is not considered necessary for a development proposal to prove its need or demand in order to gain approval although an exception may be appropriate if significant adverse impacts are likely.

Inappropriate Impact Assumptions

The expectation that the additional turnover will come about through the extra screens using the population distribution is “a dubious and unsubstantiated methodology” because it cannot be assumed that it will resemble the usage patterns. The lack of the demand analysis and the flawed assumptions makes an inaccurate impact assessment.

Further, the cinema capture rates are significantly higher and impacts lower than are realistically expected because the report did not use actual Box Office Receipts. Consequently, the impact of the additional six screens on Bankstown is under-estimated, largely because of the use of estimates of operator capture rates and not actual Box Office Receipts. This is important to remember because Bankstown cinema under performs.

The capture rates used are questionable as is the claim that impacts will be absorbed over time. The expectation that higher per capita attendance will absorb the impacts should not really be considered.

See above comments on methodology.

Conclusion on Submission.

The economic impact assessment provided within the development application demonstrated that the overall effect the proposal would have on existing cinema operations in the region would be reasonable. Despite questions raised as to the methodologies of the analysis in support of the proposal, no alternative analysis or conclusions have been offered.

The mere fact that an expanded commercial operation will compete with existing operations is not in itself a relevant planning consideration unless facilities available to the community are placed in jeopardy. “Facilities” used in this context has a broad meaning and includes public infrastructure, access to services, convenience and the like.

This is an important principle of planning law established by the High Court. (See Stephen J, paragraph 17, Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gatidis (1979) 140 CLR 675 as cited in the State policy document “The Right Place for Business and Services”).

Accordingly, unless the expanded cinema leads to the reduction or closure of other cinemas and this in turn, by itself or as a result of other consequences, was considered to be a loss of “facility” to the community, then the additional competition provided by the proposed cinema is not a matter relevant to Council’s determination of the application. No such potential effect has been demonstrated.

6 REFERRALS

The development application was referred to relevant sections of Hurstville City Council and externally for comment. The comments received and responses to the comments are provided below: -

6.1 Internal Referrals
6.1.1 Manager Health & Building

Council’s Health and Building Department provided the following comments in reference to the development proposal:

a) Motor vehicle parking spaces for people with disabilities shall be located in close proximity to lifts.

A condition of consent has been imposed on the development stating that a parking management plan must be provided to Council’s satisfaction prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The parking management plan will be required to address the issue of disabled parking provision and siting.

b) Full compliance with the BCA 1996 is required.

Incorporated as a condition of consent.

6.1.2 Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer requested a number of conditions of consent be imposed upon the development.

All standard conditions required for the development are included as conditions of consent.

6.1.3 Traffic Engineer

Refer to comments provided by the RTA, Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee. See Section 6.2.3 of this report for further details.

6.1.4 Access Committee

The Access Committee considered the above development applications at its meeting on 14 May 2002 and provided the following comments:

a) That consideration be given to increasing the number of disabled parking spaces (primarily to accommodate patrons wishing to visit the cinema). The number of on-site disabled car parking spaces should be increased to accommodate higher levels of accessibility to the cinemas.

A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development stating that development consent is deferred until such time as the parking for the use of cinema patrons is secured to the satisfaction of Council. In addition, the parking management plan must provide for additional disabled parking on the cinema site.

b) That the design of the ATM be such as to be accessible by persons in wheelchairs.

A condition of consent has been imposed to this effect.

c) That consideration be given to relocating the designated wheelchair positions in the cinemas further away from the screen and that each such position be provided with a fixed/removable seat adjacent for accompanying persons.

This issue should be considered at the construction certificate stage.

An access audit was submitted in conjunction with the development application. Refer to Section 7.2.2 of this report for further details.

6.1.5 Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Officer stated that there are no significant trees in this location.

Noted.

6.1.6 Manager - Environment

Council’s Environment Department provided the following comments in reference to the development proposal:

a) Due to the insufficient information provided regarding waste management within the facility, the applicant is required to submit a Waste Management Plan prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development requiring the provision of a Waste Management Plan.

6.1.7 Traffic Committee

At its meeting of 3 July 2002, considerable discussion took place regarding the various issues for the Committee which relate to on-site parking, proposed traffic generation and proposed changes to particular intersections such as the Edgbaston Road/King Georges Road intersection.

The Traffic Committee accordingly made the following comments:

a) Vehicular access to the cinema is proposed via a two-way access driveway onto Hampden Lane. Although the geometric layout and driveway access is satisfactory, the Traffic Committee raised particular concern with the traffic generation which will increase in Hampden Lane, which could create problems with two-way traffic flow in Hampden Lane should the development proceed.

The independent traffic assessment recommended that due to the significant increase in potential traffic flow resulting from the proposed development, that consideration be made to making Hampden Lane one-way. This issue is to be incorporated into the traffic management plan required as a condition of the deferred development consent.

6.2 External Referrals
6.2.1 Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC)

Advice from DLWC has outlined that the development application is integrated development as it is located within the designated 40m of a waterway, being the stormwater channel. Council should not determine the development application until such time as the development application has been referred to DLWC.

Any recommendations or conditions of consent provided by DLWC will be applied to the development application as required.

6.2.2 Masson Wilson Twiney (Transport & Traffic Consultants)

Masson Wilson Twiney were commissioned as part of the independent development assessment process to review the traffic and parking aspects of the proposed cinema complex development. It should be noted that the comments provided assess both DA 252/02 and DA 253/02 in a combined approach. The following comments were provided:

a) There will be an overall shortfall of 145 parking spaces should the cinema development proceed (and the 110 spaces in the Edgbaston Road car park remained available). The proposed level of parking for the cinema proposal falls well short of the requirements under Council’s code.

A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development stating that development consent is deferred until such time as the parking for the exclusive use of cinema patrons is secured to the satisfaction of Council.

b) In peak periods, the demand for parking in the vicinity of the cinema would be extremely high, necessitating adequate parking facilities to be provided.

As per comment for point (a).

c) A cinema car park of 60 spaces is likely to fill quickly and subsequently has the potential to generate significant numbers of drivers needing to U-turn in Hampden Lane to search for alternative car parking.

As per comment for point (a).

d) Strategically it would be better for cinema patron parking (apart from disabled/staff parking) to be consolidated into one main public car park rather than split into two sites as in the current proposal.

As stated above, parking for the exclusive use of cinema patrons is to be secured prior to the issue of a development consent. Disabled parking must be suitably located within the parking scheme and must be adequately addressed within the parking management plan.

e) If a 60 space car park is retained on this site it suggests a need for:

- Clear car park full signage including an advanced sign at Edgbaston
Road,

- Making Hampden Lane one-way.

The issue of car parking and vehicle access is paramount and must be adequately addressed prior to development consent being issued.

6.2.3 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)

Under the provisions of SEPP 11, the development proposal was referred to the RTA for comment. The Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee considered the development proposal at its meeting on 1 May 2002. The committee raised no specific objections to the development proposal, subject to Council giving consideration to the following issues:

a) Although the geometric layout and driveway access to the cinema site is satisfactory, the Traffic Committee raised particular concern with the traffic generation which will increase in Hampden Lane, which could create problems with two-way traffic flow in Hampden Lane, should the development proceed.

A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development stating that development consent is deferred until such time as the parking for the exclusive use of cinema patrons is secured to the satisfaction of Council.

b) All redundant driveways on King Georges Road are to be removed and kerb and gutter reinstated to match existing.

This requirement has been addressed as a condition of development consent.

c) All regulatory signposting/roadworks associated with the proposed development is to be at no cost to the RTA.

This requirement has been addressed as a condition of development consent.

6.2.4 Urban Design Review Panel

The Urban Design Review Panel considered the designs for both the Edgbaston Road car park (DA 253/02) and cinema (DA 252/02) proposals, however its comments were limited to DA 253/02.


6.2.5 NSW Police

On May 17, 2002 a Safer by Design Evaluation was conducted on the proposed development of the cinema complex at 443-453 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills. The following issues were raised and the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations provided have been incorporated as conditions of development consent.

a) The area in which the development is proposed is considered to be a ‘hotspot’ for a number of crime categories, including stolen motor vehicles, stealing from motor vehicles and malicious damage (graffiti). The risk rating for this project has been identified as a Significant Crime Risk.

In addition, there are very few surveillance opportunities within the complex after hours and also of the entry/exit point to the car park, the car park area itself, loading docks and rear walls of the building. As the complex is situated within a significant risk area, surveillance in and around the complex should be a major consideration to monitor people who may be involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour.

b) As the area has been identified as a significant crime risk, lighting levels particularly for pedestrian areas and the car park areas need to meet Australian Standards for that level of risk.

c) A number of areas are proposed where there is no transition between public and private space, which causes concern in respect of malicious damage (graffiti).

d) It is essential that a maintenance plan, which projects a positive image of the organisation, is established.

e) There are some concerns regarding some areas on the external parts of the development which may be targeted as congregation areas, particularly on the northern side of the building. It is important that treatments be implemented to reduce the opportunities for these activities.

f) There are concerns as to how access to the car parking areas is to be controlled as motor vehicle theft is common in this area.

Generally, the design, definition and designation of the complex is reasonably clear and support its intended function apart from the areas on the northern side of the building. The boundary of the property is reasonably well defined.

The Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations provided within the Safer by Design Evaluation have been incorporated as conditions of development consent.

7 ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979
7.1 Statutory Considerations
7.1.1 SEPP 1 Development Standards

This State policy allows Councils to approve development proposals that do not comply with a set standard where it is shown to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

A SEPP 1 objection was provided by the applicant requesting to vary the floor space ratio standard prescribed within Clause 13(2A) of Hurstville LEP 1994. Clause 13(2A) specifies that;

a) The maximum floor space ratio overall is 2:1, and

b) The maximum floor space ratio for the exclusively non-residential component is 1:1

The proposed variation to the floor space ratio is as follows:

Maximum floor space ratioRequiredProposed
Overall2:11.486:1
Non-residential component1:11.486:1
Residential component1:1Nil

It is noted that there is no proposal to vary the overall maximum floor space ratio of 2:1, the variation is in the form of the residential and non-residential components of the proposal.

It is considered reasonable to vary the floor space ratio development standard for this development application for the following reasons:

· Residential development over a cinema complex is not a realistic development option. Residential use is not compatible with the operation of a cinema.

· The overall maximum floor space is intended to apply to strip shops with a standard residential component above retail or commercial premises and not a major entertainment facility.

· The bulk of the proposed building is compatible to a building with a retail and residential component.

It is considered that varying the development standard prescribed within Clause 13(2A) to accommodate a varied floor space ratio is acceptable in this case.

7.1.2 SEPP 11 Traffic Generating Developments

This State policy applies to certain developments which are deemed to be traffic generating developments as specified within the policy. The policy establishes the Roads and Traffic Authority as the sole traffic management authority to be consulted and ensures it is given the opportunity to make a representation to Council before Council determines a development application.

Council referred the development application to the RTA and received comments which are summarised in Section 6.2.2 of this report.

7.1.3 Draft SEPP 66 Integration of Land Use and Transport

This draft State policy aims to ensure that urban structure, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts help achieve the following planning objectives;

a) Improve accessibility to housing, employment and services by walking, cycling and public transport,

b) Improve the choice of transport and reduce the dependence of cars for travel purposes,

c) Moderate growth in the demand for travel and the distances travelled, especially by car,

d) Support the efficient and viable operation of public transport services,

e) Provide for the efficient movement of freight.

The proposed development is generally compatible with the objectives of draft SEPP 66 and its supporting policy documents in that it supports the principles of travel demand management and is located in a centre with existing infrastructure and good accessibility to public transport.

Clause 9 of the policy provides a number of heads of consideration that the consent authority must take into consideration before granting approval to a development application. The heads of consideration are addressed in the table below:

Heads of considerationCommentCompliance
Does the development further the aims & objectives (see above) of the SEPP.The proposed cinema leisure centre is located in close proximity to public transport routes, being the railway and bus routes. Further, the cinema will reduce the reliance on private car usage as it is to be located in an existing commercial centre and nearby to residential precincts.
ü
(e) Incorporation of travel demand management mechanisms and features that will minimise the demand for travel and the use of cars including:
    i) An urban form and structure that encourages walking, cycling and public transport use;
    The implementation of a contemporary cinema in an established commercial centre utilises existing infrastructure, such as footpaths and public transport routes. Further, the consolidation of entertainment type facilities in the Beverly Hills centre reduces the reliance on motor vehicles due to the significant overlap in patronage.
    ü
    ii) Parking requirements designed to discourage car use in areas with good public transport access;As the proposal stands, the provision of car parking is inadequate. Although a high degree of public transport is available in the vicinity, an increase in car parking facilities is essential.
    ü
    The proposed level of car parking is insufficient.
    iii) Provision of adequate trip-end facilities for cyclists such as secure bicycle storage;The requirement for a parking management plan as part of the deferred commencement should include the provision for such facilities.
    ü
    v) Employment or floor space densities in commercial or employment areas that reflect the accessibility of the area by suitable public transport services and facilities;Beverly Hills contains a relatively high level of accessibility and presently houses a twin cinema complex. The proposal for eight cinemas is feasible, if the appropriate level of car parking is provided in accordance with the deferred development consent.
    ü

    Location of Entertainment and Leisure Facilities

    The Integrated Land Use and Transport Policy Package corresponding to draft SEPP 66 provides locational criteria that development proposals for entertainment and leisure facilities are to be assessed against. The locational criteria are included below with a subsequent comment:

    · Wherever possible, entertainment and leisure facilities should collocate with other uses in accessible centre. Locating cinemas within shopping centres shares parking. However, other locations within mixed use centres are also suitable and allow for competition.

    The proposed cinema development is to be located within the heart of the Beverly Hills commercial centre, complementing its existing entertainment facilities. The subject site is suitable for the expansion of the cinema as it will create further economic benefits to the Beverly Hills centre and is accessible by a number of transport nodes.

    · Unless exceptional circumstances prevail, cinema-based entertainment facilities should not be located on freestanding sites.

    The cinema is not proposed for a freestanding site and is to be located centrally within the Beverly Hills commercial centre.

    7.1.4 Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994

    The subject site is zoned 3(c) Business Centre Zone under Hurstville LEP 1994.

    The proposed commercial uses of the subject site are permissible with development consent. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives
    of the LEP.

    Objectives of the 3(c) Business Centre Zone

    The objectives of the 3(c) zone are:

    · to maintain a commercial and retail focus for larger scale commercial precincts;

    · to allow residential development in mixed use buildings, with non-residential uses on at least the ground level and residential uses above, so as to promote the vitality of business centres; and

    · to provide opportunities for associated development such as parking, service industries and the like.

    The proposed development is compatible with objectives (a) and (c) of the 3(c) zone. The proposal is at odds with objective (b) to the extent of the variation from the floor space ratio controls prescribed in Clause 13(2A) of the LEP and is considered to be justified in the circumstances.

    Explanation of this particular variation is provided within Section 7.1.1 of this report.

    Clause 13 Floor Space Ratios

    Clause 13(2A) of the LEP prescribes the maximum floor space ratio of a development in the 3(c) Business Centre Zone as 1.5:1. This incorporates a ratio of 1:1 for the nonresidential component and 0.5:1 for the residential component.

    The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 1.486:1, consistent with the overall floor space ratio provisions of the Hurstville LEP. However, the terms of the floor space ratio in relation to a residential component are not satisfied. This departure is supported as described in 7.1.1 of this report.

    7.1.5 Development Control Plan No. 2 Car Parking

    Hurstville DCP No. 2 outlines the requirements for car parking within residential and mixed-use developments.

    The proposed development will provide for 60 car parking spaces via a basement level car park. The car park will be accessed via Hampden Lane and is proposed to include pedestrian access, disabled access and a loading dock to service shops.

    The following table demonstrates the level of parking provision and the proposal’s compliance with DCP 2 with reference to the independent assessment of traffic and parking by Masson Wilson Twiney at Appendix 1.

    Car Parking Compliance Table

    StandardRequirementProposalComplianceComment
    Cinema

    Greater of 1 per 10sqm or 1 per 6 seats
    300 spaces for 1800 cinema seats 60 on site spaces
    ×

    (See comment)
    It is acknowledged that a twin cinema presently operates on the site, containing 750 seats with a provision of 15 parking spaces with the remaining demand satisfied off-site. Taking this into account, the total amount of additional cinema seats generating demand for parking spaces is 1050.
      The increased demand placed by the proposed cinema is 175 parking spaces. The proposed retail component of the development requires an additional 30 parking spaces.
        Therefore, a total of 205 new parking spaces are required for the development.
        Retail/Shops

        6 per 100sqm GLFA
        66 spaces for 1109.4sqmNil on site
        ×
        The deficit in parking for the retail component of the proposal is 66 spaces. However, an adequate level of parking for the retail component of the development is 30 spaces due to the ‘overlap’ of on-site uses.
        Total Parking366 spaces60 on site
        spaces
        ×
        The increased demand placed by the proposed cinema is 205 parking spaces. If the development supplies 60 on-site spaces then there is a need for an additional 145 parking spaces to be available (over and above that parking available in the Edgbaston Road car park and elsewhere) for cinema patrons at the required peak time.
        Disabled Parking

        2% of total spaces
        7 spaces2 spaces
        ×
        It is not acceptable that only 2 disabled spaces will be provided on site. Even if off site parking will be implemented to supplement the proposed on-site level proposed, disabled parking must be located on site for access purposes.

        It is acknowledged that a discount in car parking is warranted for this development proposal due to the fact that the 750 seat cinema presently operates under Council approval with its parking demand satisfied on-street and by the public car park at Edgbaston Road.

        The increase in demand for car parking may be calculated as follows:

        - 1800-750 seats @ 1 space per 6 seats = 175 spaces

        - Cinema retail demand = 30 spaces

        - Total increase in demand = 205 spaces

        Therefore, if the development supplies 60 on-site parking spaces then there is a need for an additional 145 spaces to be available (over and above that parking available in the Edgbaston Road car park) for cinema patrons at the required peak time.

        7.1.6 Development Control Plan No. 12 Beverly Hills

        Hurstville DCP No. 12 - Beverly Hills applies to the entirety of the subject site at 343-353 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills.

        Section 3 of the Beverly Hills DCP lists objectives that are intended to create a “garden suburb with a high quality commercial and retail centre catering for the needs of the local community and visitors.” The proposed development is assessed against the objectives below:

        · Create a memorable identity for King Georges Road as the focus of Beverly Hills;

        The proposed development will assist in creating a memorable identity for Beverly Hills. The cinema building is well suited to its site and will provide a positive image in the heart of the Beverly Hills commercial centre.

        · Strengthen the quality of Beverly Hills open space systems, including public open space in the Centre and parks along drainage lines;

        The provision of public space will promote an active public thoroughfare between King Georges Road and Hampden Lane. The public space will be built over the Sydney Water drainage channel, thus rationalising this urban space within the Beverly Hills centre.

        · Retain and enhance Beverly Hills’ subdivision pattern;

        The proposed development will be sited on a consolidation of commercial centre lots and will not detrimentally affect the subdivision pattern of the town centre.

        · Protect and enhance the landscape quality of Beverly Hills in both the public and private domain;

        The moderate level of landscaped space on the site will support the landscape quality of Beverly Hills. The secure nature of open space proposed for the site will enhance the safety and security of the development and the public domain generally.

        · Provide appropriate development control principles and guidelines for the future development of Beverly Hills, ensuring a high standard of architectural, environmental and landscape quality;

        The proposed cinema and ancillary commercial development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Beverly Hills centre. The proposal will contribute positively to the commercial setting of Beverly Hills and will also set a precedent in terms of architectural design for the relatively dilapidated commercial strip.

        · Ensure that new development is compatible with the existing built form and streetscape;

        The proposed development exceeds the recommended maximum height limit of 4 storeys for the Beverly Hills centre, however, as outlined in the summary to this section, the variation in height is justified due to the purpose-built and complementary nature of the cinema leisure centre. In addition, the proposal is designed to be of a human scale and will significantly increase the amenity of the surrounding environment.

        · Integrate principles of environmental sustainability in the design of both the public and private domain of Beverly Hills.

        The principles of environmental sustainability are difficult to implement for cinema developments. A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development stating that it must comply with the Building Code of Australia’s requirements for energy efficiency.

        In addition, a 3 metre land dedication to Council has been provided between the rear of the proposed cinema building and Hampden Lane. This dedication is in compliance with controls for lots on the western side of King Georges Road.

        Potential Non-compliance (height)

        DCP 12 provides for 4-storey development along King Georges Road which incorporates the subject site. Commercial storeys have a maximum floor to ceiling height of 3.6m, whereas residential storeys are set at a maximum of 3m, with a maximum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m.

        No maximum storey height is specified for commercial development but adopting the floor/ceiling thickness allowance of 0.3m for residential development would result in a maximum storey height of 3.9m for commercial floors.

        The proposed cinema leisure centre is a purpose-built building and contains 3 storeys. However, the ground floor is proposed to be occupied primarily by retail while the remainding floors are split levels housing the necessary heights and volumes for cinemas. The proposed building’s height including a 2.4m parapet but excluding plant is 15.6m from ground level.

        If the proposed built form was to house 4 storeys of commercial, its maximum RL permitted by the DCP would be 15.6m (3.9m x 4 storeys). Therefore, the proposed building height is equal to the maximum potential under the DCP and therefore may be considered as complying with the DCP height controls given the above interpretation.

        It is likely that the cinema would be taller than an adjoining mixed-use building developed in accordance with the DCP height controls. However, this height variation would be minimal and in keeping with both the subtle stepping of building heights which is a desirable feature of traditional “main street” commercial strips and the inevitable consequence of variations in the nature and mix of uses within future buildings developed under the DCP controls.

        Otherwise, any minor variation from the height controls for the cinema is considered acceptable because of its purpose built nature, its low setting in the Beverley Hills centre and its general consistency with the desired future built form for the centre as expressed by the DCP. Any lowering of the building would jeopardise the ability to house retailing on the ground floor to the detriment of street activity and supervision of the public domain.

        Summary

        In terms of the overall design principles established by the DCP for the commercial centre of King Georges Road, the development: -

        - is of an appropriate scale and mass and is consistent with the existing and planned residential and commercial character of the area;

        - strengthens the open space systems throughout Beverly Hills, primarily by the provision of an active and secure thoroughfare linking King Georges Road with Hampden Lane; and

        - promotes an active street frontage to King Georges Road, subsequently enhancing the public domain and the overall vitality of the centre.

        7.1.7 Development Control Plan No. 18 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

        This development control plan provides guidelines in helping to reduce the potential for crime and to create urban environments where not only the real risk of crime is reduced, but also the perceived risk and fear of crime is diminished.

        The proposal to redevelop the cinema generally complies with the objectives of DCP 18. The following table demonstrates the level of compliance of the proposed development with DCP 18.

        StandardRequirementProposalCompliance
        FencingMaximisation of surveillanceNo fencing is proposed to the open-air plaza, which in turn will maximise surveillance.
        ü
        Blind CornersAvoidance of blind cornersBlind corners are to be minimised and where they do occur, mirrors will be installed to increase safety and security. A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development to this effect.
        ü
        Public AreasProvide natural surveillanceFeatures such as glazing of the main stairwell, retail tenants overlooking public areas and the inclusion of public seating within the open-air plaza.
        ü
        EntrancesClear & visible entrancesThe proposed entrance to the cinema, shops and arcade are clearly defined and in highly visible locations.
        ü
        LandscapingAvoid landscaping which may allow intruders to hide.It is proposed to limit landscaping to single palm species in the public domain. This form of landscaping presents minimal opportunities for intruders to hide.
        ü
        LightingLighting should promote surveillanceAll areas to be frequented by pedestrians and patrons will be adequately lit. A condition of consent addresses this issue.
        ü
        Building IdentificationAll buildings are to be clearly identifiedThe proposal provides for contemporary building identification as viewed from both King Georges Road and Hampden Lane.
        ü
        SecurityProvision of securityAll entrances to the subject site are to be well secured when the building is closed. It is proposed to install CCTV cameras for monitoring.
        ü
        OwnershipPresent impression that site is cared for.The site will function 7 days per week from 8am to 1am. When the site is not operational it will be adequately secured.
        ü
        MaintenanceReduce opportunities for vandalismThe materials to be used are proposed to be hardwearing and will reduce the opportunities for vandalism
        ü
        Public FacilitiesLocate in high activity areasAll public facilities are to be located in highly visible places; eg. ATMs and toilets.
        ü
        ShopfrontsAllow natural surveillanceAll shopfronts are proposed to front the public domain.
        ü
        Building MaterialsReduce opportunities for intruder accessIt is expected that high quality materials will be used for the development.
        ü
        Hours of OperationAdequate security for extended hoursSee comment for security.
        ü

        7.1.8 Development Control Plan No. 19 Access and Mobility

        This development control plan recognises the need for greater consideration of physical access and mobility provision. The DCP aims to promote developments which create appropriate levels of access and mobility throughout the City of Hurstville.

        The proposed development generally provides adequate access for able and disabled persons in accordance with DCP 19. A notable exception is the proposed provision of disabled parking, the full extent of which is required to be provided on site. Refer to Section 7.1.4 of this report for further details.

        The detailed design criteria prescribed within the DCP will be assessed at the construction certificate phase of the development.

        7.2 The Likely Impacts of the Development
        7.2.1 Context and Setting

        The Beverly Hills Town Centre is small in relation to the surrounding regional centres of Bankstown and Hurstville and as such is considered a secondary centre. The predominant use of commercial premises addressing King Georges Road are restaurants and cafes which in most cases do not trade until late in the afternoon and early evening. This creates a generally subdued atmosphere on the street during the day due to the lack of pedestrian movements.

        The expansion of the existing cinema would provide indirect benefits to the town centre of Beverly Hills, both socially and economically. It is anticipated that should the cinema re-development proceed, Beverly Hills would become an increasingly vibrant centre.

        The potential impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the cinema development are considered to be minimal. Overshadowing of surrounding sites will affect a small number of residents adjoining Hampden Lane. However, the extent of overshadowing will be minimal and will allow adjoining residents to receive adequate levels of solar access during all periods of the year.

        Extensive overshadowing will affect adjoining retail outlets to the south of the subject site. However, there are no windows or useable open spaces on the sites within the affected area.

        The height of the proposed development will reach 15.6 metres above the footpath level, to the top of the parapet, with a small section of the roof reaching a further 2.4 metres in height to accommodate plant facilities. This height is in keeping with the proposed urban design of the Beverly Hills centre and although being a 3 storey building, is equivalent in height to 4 storeys.

        Due to the subject site being located at the lowest point of King Georges Road in the Beverly Hills centre, the height of the structure will not be dominating or detrimental to the overall scale of the commercial strip centre. It is considered that the proposed height of the development is appropriate for this location.

        7.2.2 Access, traffic and transport

        As part of the requirements of SEPP 11, the development application was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), who in turn provided comments which are found in Section 6.2.3 of this report.

        A traffic report for the proposed cinema complex was completed by Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes. The traffic report explained potential traffic flows, parking operations, access arrangements and internal circulation. The traffic report was prepared for both this particular development application and for the development proposal for Council’s car park at Edgbaston Road (DA 253/02).

        The submitted traffic report and the subsequent review of the traffic aspects of the proposed cinema complex development both acknowledge that on-site parking for the development is seriously lacking. However, the traffic report assumes that the necessary parking provision required for the development of the cinema complex can be achieved on the Edgbaston Road car parking site.

        This development application has been assessed independently of DA 253/02 and as such the traffic and parking requirements have been assessed in terms of this development application only. The shortfall in parking may be accommodated in a redevelopment of the Edgbaston Road car park or by other means.

        The car park within the proposed development provides for only 60 spaces, which will result in a low impact on surrounding traffic flows.

        In summary, the proposed development is deficient of 145 car parking spaces for the use of cinema patrons at the required peak times, which must be suitably addressed.

        7.2.3 Public Domain

        The redevelopment of the cinema site in Beverly Hills, as illustrated in the development application will significantly enhance the aesthetics of the public domain, particularly on King Georges Road. The proposed development will increase public recreational opportunities for Beverly Hills and in addition, will provide a pedestrian link between King Georges Road and Hampden Lane, which is presently under-utilised. The benefit in terms of urban design improvement to the public domain of King Georges Road will be significant.

        7.2.4 Utilities

        The site is presently served by all utility services, which can be readily extended to meet the requirements of the proposed development. Confirmation of utility service provision will be required from the service providers prior to the issue of the construction certificate. This has been addressed as a condition of development consent.

        The stormwater channel at 443 King Georges Road was purchased from Sydney Water and at present contains no buildings, yet is sealed in the form of an open channel. Sydney Water has agreed to the channel being covered by the development and its continuation of flow through the redeveloped site. The stormwater channel provides drainage for the predominantly residential catchment to the west of the site through to Wolli Creek. The stormwater channel will continue to operate in an effective manner providing no hindrance to the development of basement car parking at the proposed rate or higher rates.

        7.2.5 Waste

        Council’s Environment Department has stated that insufficient information has been provided in terms of waste management for the facility. A comprehensive Waste Management Plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of Council’s Environment Department, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. A condition of development consent has been imposed on the development to this effect.

        7.2.6 Energy

        Minimal detail has been provided by the applicant in terms of proposed measures to conserve energy. It is acknowledged that solar access will be afforded to the outdoor plaza within the development. The majority of the proposed development does not require high levels of solar access. The proposed development is to comply with the Building Code of Australia’s requirements for energy efficiency.

        7.2.7 Noise

        It is envisaged that the major noise sources which may potentially impact upon the proposal are from traffic entering and leaving the proposed basement car park, traffic on King Georges Road and from cinema patrons entering and exiting the cinemas. The most significant noise impact which may result from the proposed development is on the adjoining residential units to the west of Hampden Lane.

        Although it is proposed to only provide sixty on site parking spaces, this figure may realistically increase if suitable parking arrangements are not secured for the proposal elsewhere. Should an increase in parking be proposed for the subject site, a noise impact study would be required to be prepared to the satisfaction of Council.

        The Acoustic and Vibration Impact Assessment Report prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists made specific recommendations in terms of noise minimisation, which are addressed as conditions of development consent.

        7.2.8 Safety, security and crime prevention

        The NSW Police Service provided comments to the development application after undertaking a Safer by Design Evaluation of the proposal. The evaluation raised a number of areas where the proposal may be deficient in providing effective safety and security measures. Section 6.2.5 of this report specifies the safety and security issues raised in the development proposal. In order to remedy these potential issues, a number of recommendations were made by the NSW Police which have been included as conditions of development consent.

        7.2.9 Social Impact

        The development proposal would provide a positive social impact for the subject site, its immediate surrounds and the town centre of Beverly Hills.

        The proposed development will establish a retailing and entertainment facility that could assist further expansion of the Beverly Hills centre. It is envisaged that the development will create a more vibrant atmosphere for Beverly Hills and increase levels of social cohesion amongst groups which may presently be marginalised.

        Subject to the recommendations made through the Safer by Design Evaluation undertaken by the NSW Police, community and personal safety levels should be improved in the locality due to increased surveillance and rationalisation of the under-utilised site.

        7.2.10 Economic Impact

        Local Context

        At present, the Beverly Hills twin cinema can be viewed as the major attractor of patrons to the Beverly Hills centre. As such, an expansion of the cinema is likely to lead to both increased employment levels and economic growth for Beverly Hills.

        In addition, an increase in the number and variety of retail outlets within the centre may enhance the economic viability and competitiveness of the Beverly Hills centre. It is probable that the redevelopment of the cinema, in conjunction with retail facilities will be a catalyst for further development and diversification within the centre. The proposed expansion of the cinema will more than likely attract new cinema patrons, which in turn may provide positive effects for existing retail outlets within Beverly Hills.

        Regional Context

        The likely economic impact of the proposed development on a regional scale will primarily be on other cinema operators. An Economic Impact Statement prepared by Hill PDA Consulting in support of the application found that the Australian Cinema Industry has experienced significant growth in patronage since 1988, particularly in suburban locations.

        Further it was found that, should the cinema development be undertaken that the immediate adverse impact on existing cinema operators in the region would be equivalent to a 13% decline in market share, assuming that these cinemas were trading at the national average. It was also noted that it is more than likely that the cinemas within the region may be trading at up to 20% above the national average, considering the high ratio of population to cinema screens in the region.

        Significant objections were received on behalf of Greater Union Cinemas and Westfield Developments to the proposed cinema development at Beverly Hills and the methodology of the Hill PDA report. A summary of the main issues within these submissions and subsequent comments are provided within Section 5.3 of this report.

        7.2.11 Site design and internal design

        Overall, the development provides a beneficial advantage in terms of improving the visual aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Further comments in relation to site design and internal design are provided in Section 4.3 of this report.

        7.3 Suitability of the Site for the Development

        The proposed development provides for an appropriate entertainment facility on a presently under-utilised site. The site is surrounded by commercial operations which complement entertainment facilities. The site is located in the middle of the commercial strip of Beverly Hills, at the lowest point of King Georges Road.

        The subject site is highly accessible by both private and public transport routes and is in close proximity to residential precincts. The use of the site for a cinema and associated retail outlets is consistent with the nature of the King Georges Road commercial strip centre.

        The proposed development will contribute positively to the streetscape of King Georges Road as a four storey height limit is sought for this portion of the Beverly Hills centre.

        The subject site is well located in terms of public transport accessibility. The subject site is readily served by both rail and bus services. In addition, the site addresses King Georges Road and is in close proximity to Stoney Creek Road.

        The proposed development will not significantly affect any surrounding land uses and may provide a catalyst for further re-development of the Beverly Hills centre.

        7.4 The Public Interest

        The proposed development is in the interests of the public as it generally complies with the vision for the Beverly Hills commercial centre. The expansion and re-development of the presently under utilised site will capitalise on the entertainment and service nature of the centre and potentially provide the catalyst for the much needed re-development of the Beverly Hills centre.

        The proposal is in keeping with both State and Local Government planning guidelines as has been explained within this report. Consequently, numerous sectors of the community stand to benefit from such a development.

        7.5 Conclusion

        As outlined in this report, it is acknowledged that the proposed cinema development requires a slight amendment to floor space ratio requirements for it to proceed. In addition, the proposed development is reliant upon external factors to provide the required level of car parking.

        The development proposal was referred extensively to internal Council departments and external authorities and consultants for comment. Many recommendations were made in respect to the development which have been addressed within the report and/or included as conditions of development consent.

        After assessing the development proposal against the relevant State and Council planning instruments and policies it has been determined that the proposal generally complies with the majority of their objectives and controls. A notable exception is that of car parking. The proposal contains a deficit of 145 parking spaces which are required to be provided.

        The proposed cinema and retail development is suitably located and will provide a significant number of benefits to the Beverly Hills centre. Conditions of consent have been imposed on the development in order to address minor impacts the proposal may present.

        In balance, it is considered that this development proposal will be beneficial to Beverly Hills and, subject to the satisfaction of the car parking deficit, is supportable on planning grounds. This report recommends deferred commencement approval of the development proposal, subject to the satisfaction of the car parking deficit.”


        SUMMARY

        The proposal has been amended to address the issues of parking and traffic which were raised with the original design. It is believed that these issues have been addressed adequately with the additional parking spaces provided on-site and the changes to the traffic movements in and around the site.

        Overall, the proposal is considered a suitable development for its location. Although it requires an amendment to floor space ratio requirements for it to proceed, it will provide a significant number of benefits to the Beverly Hills Centre. The proposal is in keeping with both State and Local Government planning guidelines, it is well located in terms of public transport accessibility, it will not significantly affect any surrounding land uses and may provide a catalyst for further re-development of the Beverly Hills Centre.

        Therefore, recommendation is for approval for this Integrated Development Consent subject to appropriate conditions of consent.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20020252 for the construction of a cinema and retail complex with an open air plaza on land known as Lots 42 & 43, DP 3315, Lots 1 & 2, DP 506683, and Lots 2 & 3 DP 215934, 443-453 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills, subject to the following conditions.

        1) A Permit under Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 must be obtained from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

        Conditions which the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources requires to be imposed as part of this Integrated Development Consent are outlined in the general terms of conditions.

        2) Conditions imposed by Council as part of this Integrated Development Consent are:

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be granted an integrated development consent in accordance with the conditions included in the report and the general terms of approval by DIPNR, plus the following additional conditions.A. 1. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant is to submit a detailed Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP is to cover both the construction and demolition stages of the development of the site.

        The TMP is to show the route of construction/demolition vehicles to and from the site within the Hurstville Local Government Area. The TMP is to indicate estimated numbers of vehicle movements, standing bays, construction zones and set up positions for cranes and/or concrete pumping plant.

        No demolition/construction vehicles are permitted in Victoria Lane, Hampden Street or Melvin Streets.

        The TMP is to be administered and monitored by the site developer and regular two weekly reports submitted to Council of any incidents.

        The TMP is to form part of all sub contract agreements between the builder and sub-contractors and suppliers.

        2. A Traffic Controller is to be stationed during demolition/construction times directing traffic at the intersection of Hampden Lane and Victoria Lane.

        3. A photographic record of the cinema is to be submitted prior to its demolition.

        4. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, a communication strategy is to be submitted by the applicant that demonstrates the manner in which local residents will be kept informed of the site redevelopment and the nature and duration of the various stages of the work with contact telephone numbers for site foreman.

        5. Any damage caused to properties by the development of the site, is to be reinstated by the applicant in a timely manner. A written undertaking to this effect is to be given to Council by the builder prior to commencement of work.

        6. Safety conditions as required by NSW Police.

        7. The floor surfaces in the public areas of the site to be constructed in compliance with the Building Code of Australia and with the slip resistance classifications provided in AS/NZS 4586:1999 and HB 197:1999.

        B. The Traffic Committee is to monitor the traffic flow and one way traffic trial in Hampden Lane.

        C. The fees generated from hoarding and construction zone approvals are to be held in a specific account and applied to improvements in the Beverly Hills locality.
        (Moved Clr B Geigerl/Seconded Clr M Frawley)

        Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


        DAC024.01 - 03

        5 BOWMAN STREET, MORTDALE - ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED
        TWO STOREY DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE
        SUBDIVISION

        APPLICANT

        Leonie Broughton

        PROPOSAL

        Erection of an Attached Two Storey Dual Occupancy with
        Torrens Title Subdivision

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development
        Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Leonie Broughton

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Vacant allotment

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $400,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Two (2) objections received

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson

        FILE NO

        DA 20030508


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The proposal seeks the erection of an attached two storey dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision.

        2. The application complies in full with Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11 and meets with the requirements of the relevant Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

        3. Two (2) neighbour objections were received.

        4. The application proposes the removal of Council’s street tree, contrary to the recommendations of Council’s Tree Management Officer.


        RECOMMENDATION

        (A) THAT the application be approved provided Council agree to the removal of Council's street tree,

        OR

        (B) THAT the application be deferred for redesign allowing the retention of Council's street tree.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        BACKGROUND

        An application to demolish the existing dwelling house was lodged on 30 April 2003. This application was approved on 12 May 2003.


        SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

        The allotment is located on the eastern side of Bowman Street on a large rectangular block of 696.7 square metres. The site has a gradual fall to the rear and a western aspect.

        The site is located in a residential zone comprising a mix of single and double storey single dwelling houses and dual occupancies. The existing vacant allotment is located between a double storey dwelling and a single storey dwelling house. Bowman Street is a generally quiet, easily accessible residential street with good on-street parking.


        PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

        The two storey attached dual occupancy development is to comprise an entry, living, dining, laundry, kitchen, family, wc, bathroom, library and four (4) bedrooms one with an ensuite bathroom and walk in wardrobe. Each dwelling also has a single garage with a single hard stand space on the driveway in front of the garage.


        STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

        The proposal also satisfies the requirement of Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11.


        ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

        A table of the technical standards and the compliance of this development is detailed below.
        As can be seen from the table above, the development proposal complies in full with the requirements of Council's Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11.

        However, Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that Council’s Brushbox street tree must be retained. The applicant has not acted on Council’s request for a driveway and garage redesign, and a request for an arborist report has not been responded to regarding the removal of the tree. It is suggested that a redesign of the garages would allow dual driveways with an adequate 1.5m clearance from the street tree. This solution would require the garage of the proposed southern unit to be relocated to the outside of the development. Some pruning of the lower branches of the street tree would also be necessary.

        The application, as proposed, complies in full with the requirements of Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11 but proposes the removal of Council’s street tree contrary to the requests of Council’s Tree Management Officer. The request to retain this tree is supported as it can be demonstrated that a slight redesign of the proposal would result in a dual occupancy development that complies in full and retains the street tree.


        DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

        Manager - Development Advice

        The Manager, Development Advice has not objected to the principle of development subject to conditions.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council's Tree Management Officer has identified that Council’s Brushbox street tree must be retained. Council’s Tree Management Officer has inspected the site on two separate occasions, concluding both times that the tree is healthy and stable and forms part of the avenue planting. No other significant species have been identified on the property.


        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. Two (2) submissions were received raising the following objections.

        Privacy

        The neighbours to the south and to the rear have objected in terms of privacy from the rear first floor balcony.

        Comment: A condition of any approval will require that 1.6m high privacy screens of solid construction be installed to protect the privacy of adjacent neighbours. It is considered that the 19m rear setback of first floor balconies and the 21m rear setback of rear facing bedroom windows is sufficient enough to preserve the amenity of adjoining neighbours to the rear.

        Overshadowing

        The neighbour to the south has indicated that the proposed development will result in shadow being cast on their property.

        Comment: The proposed dual occupancy development will overshadow the property to the south. However the rear yard of the southern neighbour will receive a solar access in line with the requirements of the Development Control Plan.

        Loss of View

        The southern neighbour has indicated that the proposed dual occupancy is unreasonably longer than their dwelling house and will result in loss of views.

        Comment: The length of the proposed dual occupancy development meets with the requirements of Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan No 11 and it is not anticipated that the development will unreasonably restrict neighbour amenity.


        SUMMARY

        The application complies in full with Council's Code and complies in full with the provisions of the relevant Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). All relevant neighbour objections can be met by conditions of consent. However, the development proposes the removal of Council’s street tree against the recommendations of Council’s Tree Management Officer. The recommendation to retain the street tree is supported as the proposal can be redesigned to both retain the street tree and comply in full with Council’s Code.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, Council determine development consent under DA 20030508 for the erection of an attached two storey dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision on land known as Lot 76, DP 9020, 5 Bowman Street, Mortdale, as:

        (A) Approved subject to the following conditions.
        Open Space
        $38,932.00
        Community Services
        $21,661.00
        Management
        $1,597.57
        Drainage
        $9,278.90
        Library – Infrastructure
        $11,031.00
        Library – Bookstock
        $62.38
        OR

        (B) Deferred for redesign, for the following reason.

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report with correction to the Section 94 contributions.

        FURTHER THAT removal of Council's street tree be approved subject to the applicant making payment to Council for the planting of two replacement street trees.
        (Moved Clr S McMahon /Seconded Clr P Sansom)

        Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


        DAC024.02 - 03

        19 COLERIDGE STREET AND 2 PHILLIP STREET, RIVERWOOD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLINGS AND ERECTION OF A
        THREE STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT

        APPLICANT

        Art Tech Design

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of Existing Dwellings and Erection of a Three
        Storey Residential Flat Building with Basement

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, SEPP No 65,
        Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control
        Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 -
        Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Development
        Control Plan No 19 - Access and Mobility, Development
        Control Plan No 22 - Energy and Efficiency

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Yuen Fong Li and Jia Hong Zhang

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Two Single Storey Dwelling Houses

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $980,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        One Objection Received and Non-Compliances

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Town Planner, Mr J Erken

        FILE NO

        DA 20030517


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application is for the demolition of the existing dwellings and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building (nine (9) units) with basement parking.

        2. The application has been assessed by the Design Review Panel and is supported.

        3. One (1) objection was received against the application.

        4. The application was deferred at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting on 3 September 2003 for further assessment under Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

        5. Additional comments and conditions have been suggested in the following additional assessment.

        6. It should be noted access to the reserve at the rear of Coleridge Street properties is available via the pedestrian access off Phillip Street.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        BACKGROUND

        Council considered this application for the construction of a residential flat building on the subject address at the Development Assessment Committee Meeting on 3 September 2003. The Council resolved:

        THAT the application be deferred for Council Officers further detailed consideration of the applicant’s compliance with Development Control Plan No.18 – Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.”


        ASSESSMENT UNDER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        The following is a detailed assessment against the objectives and design criteria specified in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Development Control Plan:

        Fencing

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘The fence design should maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street, and minimise the opportunities for intruders to hide.’

        It is proposed to fence the street boundaries of the subject site with a 1.6m high fence. The proposed fence is to have a lower solid masonry component being 800mm high with 1600mm high columns, allowing the inclusion of a further 800mm of vertical rows. The street fencing proposed is considered appropriate as it provides security, without inhibiting natural surveillance of the street.

        The side and rear boundaries, where the site adjoins the neighbouring residential flat building and the entrance to Council’s Reserve, will be fenced with 1.8m high lapped and capped and/or colorbond fencing. This fencing is considered appropriate as it provides security and appropriate privacy for the proposed dwellings.

        Blind Corners

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid blind corners in pathways, stairwells, hallways and car parks.’

        The use of blind corners has been minimised in the designing of the proposed development. All pathways in the communal areas are direct, with no barriers or blind corners proposed.

        Communal/Public Areas

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide natural surveillance for communal and public areas.’

        The proposed development is considered to satisfy this performance criteria. The proposed development provides for natural surveillance for communal and public areas. For instance, the dwellings proposed in Building 1 (located at northern end of the site) have living areas and balconies which face Coleridge Street and Phillip Street to ensure natural surveillance of the street. However, with Building 2 (located at the rear/southern end of the site) the proposed dwellings living areas and balconies provide surveillance over the Council Reserve. The living areas also provide natural surveillance over the entrance to the reserve, which is also considered appropriate.

        In designing the proposed development the applicant has provided an internal path which provides access to the Park/Reserve. In doing so, the applicant has attempted to maximise the usage of the Council Reserve, which is considered appropriate, and will further reduce the opportunities for crime.

        The proposed development is considered to satisfy the performance criteria for maximising natural surveillance over public/communal areas.

        Entrances

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide entries that are clearly visible and avoid confusion.’

        There are two entrances into the proposed development. Building 1 (at the front of the site) is provided with pedestrian access off Phillip Street. The entrance is well defined with the fencing proposed, and is set approximately three (3) metres from the street boundary. The entrance is therefore clearly visible and accessible. Building 2 (located at the rear of the site) is provided with pedestrian access proposed on the southern elevation. While the entrance is set approximately fifteen (15) metres from the street boundary, the entry and access path is well defined and visible from Phillip Street. The entry path provides a direct path of travel, with no blind corners to ensure pedestrian safety.

        The entrances to the proposed development are considered to satisfy the performance criteria prescribed in the Development Control Plan.

        Site and Building Layout

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Allow natural observation from the street to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street, and between dwellings.’

        As identified above, the proposed development is considered to allow natural observation from the street/Council Reserve to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street/Council Reserve.

        Landscaping

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid landscaping which obstructs casual surveillance and allows intruders to hide.’

        A Landscape Plan has been submitted as part of the Development Application. The landscaping proposed is considered appropriate, and will not obstruct casual surveillance, nor will it allow intruders to hide. Shrubs are proposed at ground level to provide an appropriate level of privacy for the ground level units. These shrubs will act as a barrier to deter unauthorised access.

        The landscaping proposed is deemed to satisfy the performance criteria specified under the Development Control Plan.

        Lighting

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure lighting does not produce glare or dark shadows.’

        A condition of consent is proposed to require lighting is to be installed for the pathways and communal areas of the development.

        Building Identification

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure dwellings are clearly identified by street number to prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find the dwelling.’

        As previously mentioned, the proposed development has clearly defined entrances, which are readily identifiable from Phillip Street. A condition of consent is proposed requiring street and unit numbering to be provided at the street frontage, to ensure dwellings are clearly identifiable.

        Security

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide an appropriate level of security for individual dwellings and communal areas to reduce opportunity for unauthorised access.’

        The fencing proposed around the building and the natural surveillance encumbered in the design of the development is considered to provide an appropriate level of security.

        As the site adjoins a Council Reserve, additional measures are considered appropriate to minimise unauthorised access from this reserve. As previously identified, the applicant will install 1.8m high lapped and capped and/or colorbond fencing along these boundaries. It is not considered appropriate to require higher fencing, as this will reduce the ability of providing natural surveillance over this space. As a communal drying yard is proposed in this rear corner of the site, there exists the possibility of an intruder entering the site from this location. The dwellings proposed in Building 2 overlook this drying yard, however to maximise the opportunity for natural surveillance over this area, a condition is proposed requiring the drying yard to be floored with gravel. The use of gravel in this location will alert residents of undesirable people accessing this area. It is also considered appropriate that sensor lights be installed in this location to further discourage the intrusion of undesirable people, and an appropriate condition has also been included in the recommendation.

        The following measures are also considered necessary to provide an appropriate level of security:

        * a security grill to be provided to the vehicular access to the car park.* a security and intercom system to be provided to the entrance to the residential flat building.

        Ownership

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Design Dwellings and communal areas to provide a sense of ownership.’

        The proposed development provides a clear impression of ownership. Where possible, common areas have been minimised, to allow for the formation of private courtyards which will be cared for by individual owners. These courtyards have been separated by the use of fencing and landscaping.

        The minimal communal areas, coupled with the clearly defined boundaries (created by fencing and landscaping) provides a clear sense of ownership, and is considered to satisfy the performance criteria outlined in Development Control Plan No 18.

        Maintenance

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Create the impression that the place is well looked after and well “cared for”.’

        To ensure that the proposed development is appropriately maintained, the following condition is proposed: the proposal should maintain face brick work for the walls and fences, as opposed to a rendered surface, as it is less likely to be attacked by graffiti, or alternatively the use of anti graffiti paints is encouraged.
        To re-acquaint Councillors with the subject application, the original report submitted to the Development Assessment Committee Meeting on 3 September 2003 is reproduced below:

        "SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

        The site is located on the southern side of Coleridge Street between Belmore Road and Nettleton Street. The site comprises of lots 4 and 13 in DP 35640.

        The site has an area of 1,007sqm with a frontage of 44 metres to Phillip Street and 10.67 metres to Coleridge Street. The site is “L” shaped in configuration due to it being isolated amongst two adjoining residential flat buildings. The site is generally flat, having a slight fall toward Coleridge Street.

        The subject site is surrounded by residential flat buildings, with a three storey flat building adjoining the site to its east and south. To the south east the subject site adjoins a Council Reserve.

        The site is in close proximity to the Riverwood Town Centre and the East Hills Railway Corridor.


        PROPOSAL

        The development application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling houses and the construction of a three storey residential flat building with basement car parking. The residential flat building is to contain 6 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units, with a basement car park for 18 vehicles.

        As the site is “L” shaped, the development comprises of two main building elements, linked by a common basement.


        STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

        The site is Zoned 2 - Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1994. The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council.

        The application is subject to the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No. 2 – Car Parking, Development, Control Plan No. 19 – Access and Mobility, Development Control Plan No. 18 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Development Control Plan No. 22 – Energy Efficiency.

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


        ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

        SEPP NO. 65 – DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTThis policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development throughout NSW. It recognises that the design quality of residential flats is of state significance due to the economic, environmental, cultural and social benefits of high quality design.

        The SEPP requires a Design Review Panel to give independent design advice to the consent authority on a development application for a residential flat building. The application was discussed at the Design Review Panel on 5 June 2003. The Panel had the following comments.

        GENERALLY

        It is considered by the Panel that Council should be flexible with regard to the 6 metre setback to the street boundaries given the nature of the site. It is considered that a reduction in the required setback will allow the applicant to design a much better proposal that could also improve the access to the rear parkland.

        1. Context

        The site is of a dog legged form on the corner of Coleridge and Philip Streets Riverwood. On both sides of this property there are 3 storey residential flat buildings. Immediately to the south there is a public pathway giving access to parkland at the rear of the site. The properties on the opposite side of Coleridge Street are incorporated in the draft DCP for Riverwood which the Panel has previously reported on.

        2. Scale

        The scale is considered to be appropriate.

        3. Built Form

        The present built form of two separate buildings is considered to be cumbersome, especially the closeness of the two corners of the buildings. Given flexibility to the setback required will provide many more options for the built form.

        4. Density

        The density is considered to be appropriate.

        5. Resource, energy and water efficiency

        Not an issue at this stage although some units could have better solar access.

        6. Landscape

        It is considered that there is considerable room for improvement in this regard.

        The units at the ground floor level would be improved by having courtyard/private garden areas. By moving the smaller building towards Phillip Street there is an opportunity to have a large common landscaped area adjacent to the parkland. This open area would also improve the outlook to the adjacent units on Coleridge Street. This open area should be linked by well designed pathways to the units.

        Also the public pathway to the parkland could be improved by having sympathetic landscaping adjacent to it such as an avenue of trees to give it visual prominence.

        7. Amenity

        Generally acceptable however more units could have better solar access and better planning of the units might reduce the extent of long corridors in some of the units.

        Very good that all kitchens and bathrooms are located on external walls.

        8. Safety and Security

        This would be improved by having private gardens to the ground floor units and also direct entry through these gardens to the ground floor units. Whilst it is considered appropriate to have landscaping to embellish the public pathway, it is also considered that there might be discreet fencing such as a metal picket fence within a planting area to separate the private and public domains and keep out ‘unwanted individuals’.

        9. Social Dimensions

        The site has the potential to have extremely good social dimensions given the extent of open space and solar access possible.

        10. Aesthetics

        At this stage considered to be appropriate. Further consideration to be given to the location of shading devices and balconies to the units would improve the proposal.

        Recommendation

        That Council allow the applicant to be flexible with the setbacks so as to be able to design a better built form. It is considered that the smaller rear block be brought closer to Phillip Street and perhaps be joined directly to the larger building to create a dog-leg shaped building. There is also an opportunity to ‘indent’ the form of the building more to create better balcony space and permit better solar access to living areas."

        Comment: The applicant considered the above comments from the Design Review Panel and made appropriate changes to the development to conform with the above. The buildings, which were previously two distinct elements, have been linked at the southern end of the site to provide a large area of open space adjacent to the Council Reserve. Furthermore, a pedestrian link through the site has been provided to the Council Reserve.

        The setbacks off Phillip Street were reduced to create a larger separation between the proposed building and the neighbouring residential flat building at 17 Coleridge Street. The applicant has also made amendments to the roof form and facade of the proposed to improve the presentation to both street frontages.

        As the amendments recommended by the Panel have been undertaken, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the Design Review Panel/SEPP 65.

        INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE 1995

        The land is within Residential Zone No. 2 under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and multi-unit development is permissible with Council consent.

        The land is subject to the provisions of the Interim Residential Development Code 1995 (IRDC) and is within Development area "D". A table of the technical standards and the compliance of the development is detailed below.

          IRDC 1995 Controls
        Standard
        Proposed
        Complies
        Density
        (site area/unit)
        105sqm
        (9.6 units)
        112sqm
        (9 units)
        Yes
        Landscaped Open Space
        45%
        55%
        Yes
        Height Maximum
        12m
        10.3m (max)
        Yes
        Storeys Maximum
        3
        3
        Yes
        Attached Dwellings
        Yes
        Yes
        Yes
        Minimum Private Open Space (balcony)
        12sqm
        >16sqm
        Yes
        Boundary Setbacks
        Street (primary) 6.0m
        Street (secondary) 6.0m
        Rear 6.0m
        Side Setback 4.0-7.0m
        6.5m
        2.7m–4.4m
        6.0m
        1.5m-6m
        Yes
        No(1)
        Yes
        No(1)
        Minimum Street Frontage
        24m
        Street frontage 10.67m, block width 17m
        No(2)
        Parking Requirements
        Residents
        Visitors
        15 Resident

        3 Visitor
        15 Resident

        3 Visitor
        Yes

        Yes
        Basement Level Projection
        1.0m max.
        Complies
        Yes

        As illustrated above, the proposed development generally complies with the technical requirements contained in the Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC). However, due to the isolated nature of the site, the proposed development does not comply with the minimum street frontage and side setbacks specified under the IRDC.

        (1) Setbacks and Building Envelope

        As identified in the above table the proposed development varies from the side setback/building envelope specified under the IRDC. The applicant makes the following submission in support of the proposed variation:

        As identified above, the proposed development varies from the side boundary and secondary street setbacks permitted under the IRDC.

        The variations are isolated to certain sections of the proposed development. For instance, the northern (front) section of building has a reduced setback to Phillip Street. The IRDC requires a 6 metre secondary street setback, whereas, the proposed development has a secondary street setback ranging from 2.77m to 4.4m. The reduced secondary street setback is proposed to provide an appropriate setback off the eastern boundary. By providing a reduced secondary street setback, the setbacks proposed off the eastern boundary comply with Council requirements, protecting the privacy and residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings at 17 Coleridge Street.

        The southern (rear) building element proposes variations to the minimum side boundary setback permitted under Council’s Codes. The reduced setbacks are directly related to the isolated and reduced width of the subject allotment. While varying from the minimum boundary setbacks permitted under the IRDC, the applicant has provided a satisfactory separation between buildings, ensuring appropriate privacy and residential amenity for the proposed dwellings as well as the existing neighbouring dwellings.

        Given the isolated nature of the site and the minimal impact the reduced boundary setbacks will have on the residential amenity enjoyed by neighbours, the proposed setbacks are considered appropriate.

        (2) Minimum Street Frontage

        As identified in the above table, the subject site varies from the minimum street frontage control contained in the IRDC. The applicant has made the following submission in support of the proposed variation:

        As illustrated above, the non compliance with the minimum street frontage permitted under the IRDC is directly related to the isolated nature of the site. As the neighbouring properties have been developed, there is no opportunity for further site amalgamation.

        Having said this, the site is a corner allotment, and therefore has the benefit of a secondary street frontage. Despite the reduced site width, the applicant has designed a building which generally complies with Council’s controls, with some minor variations to side boundary setbacks.

        Given the isolated nature of the site, the variation to minimum street frontage is considered appropriate.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 2 – CAR PARKING

        The basement car park and driveway area has been assessed under the Development Control Plan. The number of parking spaces complies with the requirements of the Development Control Plan and a condition will be placed on the consent to ensure that the dimensions of the parking spaces and the driveway grade comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 19 - ACCESS AND MOBILITY

        This Code requires one (1) adaptable dwelling to be provided in the development and a parking space for each of these dwellings to be in accordance to AS1428.2. An adaptable unit has been provided in the development. The unit is located on the ground floor and a disabled car parking space has been provided at ground level. Pedestrian access to the subject unit is provided by way of a disabled ramp accessed from Phillip Street.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        The development has been designed to maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street. The design minimises the opportunity for crime or vandalism and is therefore deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Development Control Plan.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        Council’s Development Control Plan No. 22 – Energy Efficiency requires the submission of a NatHERS Certificate identifying that the proposed dwellings achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of 3.5 stars.

        The applicant has submitted a NatHERS Certificate for each dwelling identifying compliance with the above.


        DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

        Manager - Development Advice

        The Manager raises no objections to issuing development approval subject to appropriate conditions for stormwater and vehicle access being included.

        Transportation Analyst

        Council’s Transport Analyst raises no objection to the proposed development. The driveway width at the street boundary is considered appropriate, and the geometric layout of the basement is also appropriate.

        Tree Preservation Officer

        Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has recommended the retention of the Council street tree located on Coleridge Street.

        Unfortunately, due to the irregular nature of the subject site, the only possible location of the basement entry is at the north eastern corner of the site. Given Council’s Transport Analyst requires an increased width for the driveway at the boundary, to provide adequate site distances for pedestrian safety, the street tree will need to be removed. Given there is no alternative location for the driveway, the tree's removal is considered appropriate.


        PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

        Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal.

        One (1) submission was received from a resident residing in the neighbouring residential flat building at 17 Coleridge Street. The resident raises some concern about loss of privacy resulting from the proposed development. The objector’s building is located reasonably close to the boundary, having a setback of approximately 3 metres off the common boundary. The proposed development has attempted to respect the location of this building, by proposing an increased setback off the common boundary. As such, the setback off the eastern (common) boundary is 5.2 metres, which is greater than the 4 metres required under the IRDC. Furthermore, the applicant has located the majority of living room windows to the north (Coleridge Street) and west (Phillip Street) to reduce the possibility of overlooking. However, the applicant has proposed two living room windows on the eastern elevation. While the windows are not essential, they assist in providing a more attractive elevation. The windows in question are relatively small and are not considered to result in an unacceptable impact on neighbour’s privacy.

        The neighbour also objects to a portion of balcony proposed on the eastern side of unit 7. The balcony is generated by the need to provide an increased side boundary setbacks (7 metres) for the upper level of the residential flat building. The section of balcony in question is not directly accessed off the main living areas, and it is unlikely to be heavily utilised. Unit 7 has an expansive balcony at the front of the site, which has a greater depth, has a northern (street) orientation, and is accessed of the main living area. As such, the subject section of balcony in question is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact on neighbour’s privacy.


        SUMMARY

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The development meets the requirements of Section 79C(1).

        The design and building footprint for the development satisfies all of the objectives and the majority of the technical requirements of Council Codes.

        The proposed development has been considered by the Design Review Panel, and is considered appropriate. The design of the development will add interest to the streetscape, provide dwellings with good amenity, without detracting from the amenity of the adjoining residential flat buildings.

        The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding and the development in the locality generally."


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030517 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and outbuildings and construction of a three storey residential flat building with basement parking on land known as Lots 4 and 13 in DP 35640, 19 Coleridge Street and 2 Phillip Street, Riverwood, subject to the following conditions.

        1. The standard conditions adopted by Council for residential flat buildings.

        2. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

        Open Space
        $38,935.00
        Community Services
        $20,792.00
        Management
        $1,533.79
        Library - Infrastructure
        $10,588.00
        Library - Bookstock
        $59.88
        Drainage Amplification
        $2,396.66
        3. Engineering conditions.

        4. Additional conditions specified as follows:

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report and a further condition requiring an open style picket fence of a dark colour to allow surveillance along the adjacent laneway from the Phillip Street frontage to the point of the building stairwell.
        (Moved Clr S McMahon /Seconded Clr P Sansom)

        Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


        DAC024.03 - 03

        9A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - ERECTION OF A PART 2/
        PART 3 STOREY DWELLING HOUSE

        APPLICANT

        Mr and Mrs Kosteski

        PROPOSAL

        Erection of a Part 2/Part 3 Storey Dwelling House

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
        Dwelling Houses

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Mr and Mrs Kosteski

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Vacant

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $250,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Neighbour Objections and Non-Compliance with Code for
        Single Dwelling Houses

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Manager - Development Assessment, Mr P Thomas

        FILE NO

        DA 20030546


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The proposal is for the erection of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house on the vacant site.

        2. A development application for a dwelling house was refused by the Development Assessment Committee on 4 June 2003.

        3. The application attracted four (4) letters of objection.

        4. The proposal does not fully comply with Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        BACKGROUND

        A development application was refused by the Development Assessment Committee at its meeting of 4 June 2003 for the erection of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house.

        The application was refused for the following reasons:

        1. The development does not meet the objectives and several of the prescriptive requirements of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses.

        2. The building as proposed has an unreasonable overshadowing impact on the private open space and swimming pool of premises 12 Boorara Avenue.

        3. The building as proposed has unreasonable privacy impacts upon adjoining premises.


        SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

        The site is located on the eastern side of Llewellyn Street between Mimosa Street and Victory Road. The site is a rear battleaxe allotment created by the subdivision of 9 Llewellyn Street.

        The site has a three (3) metre wide access handle and an area of 560sqm (excluding the access handle). The allotment has dimensions of 20.115m to the eastern boundary and 27.84m to the northern (side) boundary.

        The site has a fall of approximately 4.4m from the north eastern corner to the south western corner of the site where the access handle begins.

        Adjoining development consists of two and part three storey dwelling houses. To the south of the site is the swimming pool and private open space of 12 Boorara Avenue.


        PROPOSAL

        The proposal seeks the erection of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house. The building seeks to take advantage of the topography of the site and provide a garage/storage area at basement level with the remainder of the house contained in the two (2) floors above. As portion of the basement garage extends more than one (1) metre out of the ground the building is part three (3) storey.

        The building is of masonry rendered construction with a flat roof/parapet design.


        STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


        ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

        A summary of compliance with the minimum standards of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses is addressed below:

        Code for Single Dwelling HousesRequiredProposedComplies
        Site widthBattle axe site 20.115m
        Site area560sqm (excluding access handle)
        Clause 3.3.2Building envelopeBuilding envelopeNo (1)
        Landscaped area55%>55%Yes
        Height9m 7.8mYes
        Side boundary setbacks1.5m>1.5mYes
        Front boundary setback4.5mN/AYes
        Car parking2 spaces2 spacesYes
        (1) Clause 3.3.2

        The site width of the property is 20.115m accordingly, Clause 3.3.2 of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses applies.

        The proposed dwelling house breaches the building envelope marginally on the southern side of the building. This means that the setback from the southern boundary, whilst complying with the 1.5m setback minimum does not meet the setback requirement of the envelope. The deviation is minor, however, given that the impact on overshadowing is to the property to the south, it is suggested that the building be shifted slightly towards the northern boundary with no impact on the other properties. This will be included as a condition of Consent. This will relate to the walls of the building to ceiling height only as an eave/parapet may encroach into the envelope by up to 450mm.


        DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

        Tree Preservation Officer

        Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has inspected the site and has raised no objection to the removal of trees from the site.


        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. Four (4) objections to the proposal were received. Reasons for objection included:

        Loss of Trees

        As indicated above, Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has inspected the trees on the site and indicated that they may be removed. The site will be required to be landscaped and appropriate replacement vegetation can be planted.

        Loss of Privacy

        The dwelling house is orientated towards the west or towards Llewellyn Street. The main decks and main living areas are orientated in this direction. The owner of 11 Llewellyn Street has objected on the grounds of loss of privacy to their rear yard. Given the subject site, overlooking to some neighbours cannot be avoided. In relation to this, the building is setback three (3) metres from this property and given the site restrictions, including a drainage easement along the southern boundary of the property, privacy planting would not be feasible.The building proposes a balcony off Bedroom 2 that will overlook the yard area of 7 Llewellyn Street. Overlooking from battleaxe allotments can arise as an issue in relation to neighbours' amenity. In relation to 7 Llewellyn Street, the applicant has indicated that they have had discussions with the owner of this property and that they were negotiating an outcome.The balcony is proposed two (2) metres wide and is 2.495m from the boundary. It is suggested to reduce the impact that the balcony be reduced in width to one (1) metre and will then be more of a Juliet type. This will allow the opening of the sliding doors, but restrict use and therefore overlooking opportunities.The erection of a privacy screen along the northern edge is not feasible as this is the main frontage and aspect for the balcony. A privacy screen should however be erected on the eastern end of the balcony which will assist in privacy to No 10 Boorara Avenue.

        The roof of the building is not proposed to be trafficable and there is no access to the roof.

        In relation to a window in Bedroom 3 that faces onto the pool at 12 Boorara Avenue, it is suggested that the window be redesigned to be fixed and obscure glass at the bottom and clear and openable above. This will require a mid transom in the window at a height of 1650mm above floor level. This will meet the applicant’s requirements for light and ventilation and the neighbours concerns in relation to privacy. It would appear that other windows referred to in the objector’s submission are actually on the front elevation of the property and not the side as interpreted from the plans.

        Height, Bulk and Design

        The building is a two (2) storey dwelling house over a basement garage/storage area. The result of portion of the basement exceeding one (1) metre out of the ground results in the building being part three (3) storey.

        The building is of a contemporary design featuring a flat roof. The building is not considered to be of excessive height or bulk and fits (conditionally) within Council’s building envelope for the site. There are a variety of building styles in the area, both traditional and contemporary.

        As the building is subject to a building envelope control, there is no floor space ratio requirement.

        Overshadowing

        The shadow diagrams indicate overshadowing will occur to the properties to the south and east. Portion of the rear yard of 11 Llewellyn Street will be overshadowed in the morning up until late morning. For the remainder of the day the property will not be affected. 12 Boorara Avenue has a swimming pool near the boundary with the subject site. The pool will be overshadowed in midwinter from morning till early afternoon, and the property to the rear, No 10 Boorara Avenue will be overshadowed in mid-late afternoon.

        In relation to the above, the applicant has designed the building with a flat roof that reduces the height of the building and amount of overshadowing cast, also, the building is setback well from all boundaries which further reduces the impact of overshadowing.

        It is suggested that the resulting overshadowing will result with any two (2) storey structure on the site.


        SUMMARY

        Following the refusal of the previous application, the dwelling house in the current proposal has been reduced in height and size to comply with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses. Conditions of consent are suggested which will render the building in compliance with the building envelope controls.

        Given the urban setting of the development, and that the site is currently vacant, some loss of privacy and overshadowing will result to adjoining sites.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent to the Development Application 20030024 for the erection of a part 2/3 dwelling house on land known as Lot 2, DP 1043016, 9A Llewellyn Street, Oatley subject to the following conditions:

        1. The balcony to the northern side of the building off Bedroom 2, is to be reduced in width to a maximum of one (1) metre extending from the wall. A privacy screen to a height of 1.6m is to be erected along the eastern end of the balcony.

        2. The window in the southern wall to Bedroom 3 is to be redesigned to incorporate a mid transom at a height of 1650mm above floor level. The bottom section of the window is to be fixed and of obscure glass and the top section may be clear glass and openable.

        3. The building is to be setback to comply with the building envelope controls of Clause 3.2.2 of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling House. (In this regard the setback shall be increased to 3200mm from the southern side boundary for the portion of the top most storey (family room).)

        4. The standard adopted conditions for dwelling houses.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

        FURTHER THAT the Banksia tree in the rear yard is to be retained.
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr S McMahon)

        Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


        DAC024.04 - 03

        3A MYALL STREET, OATLEY - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
        DWELLING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-UNIT
        DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF THREE (3) DWELLINGS

        APPLICANT

        Christopher Camenzuli

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of Existing Dwelling House and Construction of a Multi-
        Unit Development Comprising of Three (3) Dwellings

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Interim Residential Development code, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car
        Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention
        through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Christopher and Danielle Camenzuli

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single Dwelling House

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $360,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Resident Objection

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Town Planner, Mr J Erken

        FILE NO

        DA 20030410


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application is for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a multi-unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings.

        2. The application has been assessed under the Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency.

        3. The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Development Control Plan and one (1) objection was received against the application.

        4. The proposed development has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development is considered appropriate for the subject site.



        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

        The subject site is located on the eastern side of Myall Street, Oatley. A single storey brick dwelling house with a tiled roof and associated outbuildings is currently located on the property. The existing dwelling house is in a reasonable condition.

        The site has a 20.115m frontage to Myall Street, with a depth of 50.29m generating a site area of 1011sqm. The subject site is relatively flat having a gentle fall to the street.

        The subject site is surrounded by residential uses. To the north the site is adjoined by a single dwelling house, while to the south the site adjoins a multi-unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings.


        PROPOSAL

        The Development Application seeks approval to demolish the existing dwelling house and associated outbuildings and construct three (3) dwellings on the subject site.

        The front (western) dwelling is to be a two storey townhouse, with the two single storey villas to the rear. All three dwellings are accessed off a single drive located on the southern side of the property, however, the garage of Dwelling 1 faces Myall Street.

        Each dwelling is a living/dining area, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and 2, 3 or 4 bedrooms.

        Each dwelling is provided with a north facing courtyard of a reasonable size and shape.


        ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

        INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE

        The proposed use is permissible in the zone and meets the requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code. A compliance table is listed below.

        Development Area A

        IRDC 1995 CONTROLS
        STANDARD
        PROPOSAL
        COMPLIANCE
        Density (site area/unit)
        315sqm
        337sqm
        Yes
        Landscaped Open Space
        55%
        55%
        Yes
        Front Site Height Maximum
        9 m
        Unit 1 - 7m
        Yes
        Rear Site Height Maximum
        6 m
        Unit 2 – 4.85m
        Unit 3 – 4.4m
        Yes
        Front Site Storeys Maximum
        2
        2
        Yes
        Rear Site Storeys Maximum
        1
        1
        Yes
        Minimum Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        80sqm (unit 2)

        100sqm (units 1 & 3)
        Unit 2 – 129.5sqm

        Unit 1 – 128sqm
        Unit 3 – 138sqm
        Yes

        Yes
        Yes
        Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 Bedroom
        5m x 5m (unit 2)

        5m x 6m (units 1 & 3)
        5m x 10m

        Unit 1- 5m x 6m
        Unit 3 – 6m x 12m
        Yes

        Yes
        Yes
        Front Boundary Setbacks
        4.5m
        4.5m
        Yes
        Rear Boundary Setbacks
        Building Envelope
        Complies
        Yes
        Minimum Street Frontage
        15m
        20.115m
        Yes
        Minimum Side Boundary Setback
        * Single Storey
        * Two Storey
        1.35m
        2m
        1.35 (min)
        2.385 (min)
        Yes
        Yes
        Parking Requirements
        5
        5
        Yes

        As illustrated above, the proposed development complies with the all of the technical standards contained in the Interim Residential Development Code.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        The requirements of Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The development satisfies the car parking and driveway gradient requirements specified under this Development Control Plan.

        It is considered appropriate that the driveway be widened at the street frontage to allow for safer and more convenient manoeuvring of vehicles. A condition of consent is proposed to this extent. Because the widening of the driveway will affect the total level of landscaping, the condition also requires a reduction in the size of Villa 2 to compensate for this loss of landscaping.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        The following is a detailed assessment against the objectives and design criteria specified in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Development Control Plan.

        Fencing

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘The fence design should maximise natural surveillance from the street to the building and from the building to the street, and minimise the opportunities for intruders to hide.’

        The proposed front fence has a height of 1.5m. The fence is made of a 600mm high masonry fence with a 900mm high picket infill above. The proposed fence does not inhibit natural surveillance of the street, nor does it provide an opportunity for intruders to hide.

        Blind Corners

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid blind corners in pathways, stairwells, hallways and car parks.’

        The use of blind corners has been minimised in the designing of the proposed development.

        Communal/Public Areas

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide natural surveillance for communal and public areas.’

        The proposed development provides for natural surveillance for communal and public areas. For instance, the living area of dwelling 1 provides casual surveillance over Myall Street. Dwellings 2 and 3 have living room widows facing the internal driveway, allowing natural surveillance.

        The proposed development is considered to satisfy the performance criteria for maximising natural surveillance over public/communal areas.

        Entrances

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide entries that are clearly visible and avoid confusion.’

        The entrances to the proposed development are clearly defined and are considered to satisfy the performance criteria prescribed in the Development Control Plan.

        Site and Building Layout

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Allow natural observation from the street to the dwelling, from the dwelling to the street, and between dwellings.’

        As identified above, the proposed development is considered to allow natural observation from the street (and/or internal driveway) to the dwelling and from the dwelling to the street (and/or internal driveway).

        Landscaping

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Avoid landscaping which obstructs casual surveillance and allows intruders to hide.’

        The landscaping proposed as part of this application is considered appropriate. The landscaping does not obstruct natural surveillance, nor does it provide a location for intruders to hide.

        Lighting

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure lighting does not produce glare or dark shadows.’

        Given the nature of the proposed development, with its lack of communal spaces, external lighting is not considered essential. It is considered appropriate that sensor lights be installed at the entry to each dwelling to provide illumination for residents/visitors, and restrict opportunities for crime.

        A conditions of consent has been proposed requiring the installation of such lighting.


        Building Identification

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Ensure dwellings are clearly identified by street number to prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find the dwelling.’

        A condition of consent is proposed requiring street numbering to be provided at the street frontage, to ensure the dwellings are clearly identifiable.

        Security

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Provide and appropriate level of security for individual dwellings and communal areas to reduce opportunity for unauthorised access.’

        The fencing proposed around the building and the natural surveillance encumbered in the design of the development is considered to provide an appropriate level of security.

        Ownership

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Design Dwellings and communal areas to provide a sense of ownership.’

        The proposed development provides a clear impression of ownership. Where possible, common areas have been minimised, to allow for the formation of private courtyards which will be cared for by individual owners.

        The minimal communal areas, coupled with the clearly defined boundaries (created by fencing and landscaping) provides a clear sense of ownership, and is considered to satisfy the performance criteria outlined in Development Control Plan No 18.

        Maintenance

        The Development Control Plan states the following performance criteria: ‘Create the impression that the place is well looked after and well “cared for”.’

        The proposed development is to be of masonry construction, allowing for easy maintenance.


        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        Council’s Development Control Plan No 22 – Energy Efficiency requires the submission of a NatHERS Certificate identifying that the proposed dwellings achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of 3.5 stars.

        The applicant has submitted a NatHERS Certificate for each dwelling identifying compliance with the above.


        DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

        Manager, Development Advice

        The Manager, Development Advice raises no objection to issuing development approval subject to standard conditions relating to stormwater and vehicle access being included.

        Tree Preservation Officer

        Councils’ Tree Preservation Officer has inspected the site and plans and raises no objection to the proposed development. The Tree Preservation Officer raises no objection to the removal of the Acer negundo and mulberry trees in the rear right side of property or the pine trees in the front yard.

        The Tree Preservation Officer however requires the retention of the Jacaranda Tree (as per plan) located in the rear left had corner of the site, with no construction within 2.5m of its trunk.


        PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

        Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal.

        One (1) objection was received during the notification period raising the following concerns:

        Trees

        The neighbour at Villa 3 of No 5 Myall Street objects to the removal of a large tree located in the rear (south eastern) corner of the subject site.

        As identified in the above report, Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has inspected the site and raises no objection to the subject trees removal. In fact, the only tree the Tree Preservation Officer requested to be retained is the Jacaranda Tree located on the north eastern corner of the property.

        Furthermore, the aspect of the site would make the retention of this tree very difficult. The applicant proposes to locate the driveway on the southern side of the property and to provide a north facing courtyard, the applicant proposes Villa 3 adjacent to the southern boundary. This is the form of development encouraged under the Interim Residential Development Control.

        In a telephone conversation with the objector, some concern was also raised with regard to the appearance of the proposed Villa 3 from the objector’s property. While it can be recognised that the loss of this tree will reduce the outlook from the objector’s courtyard, a non-significant tree on a neighbour’s property cannot be required to be retained to preserve another neighbour’s outlook. The proposed development complies with all of the technical standards contained in the Interim Residential Development Code. Furthermore, the proposed Villa 3 is quite low, with a maximum height of 4.4m, well below the 6m specified under the Interim Residential Development Code. The dwelling complies with the side boundary setback control, and being the southern boundary, the minimum setback is supported. The roof form of the proposed Villa 3 is well articulated, and is not considered obtrusive.

        As such, the removal of the tree is considered reasonable.


        SUMMARY

        The development has been assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended). The development meets the requirements of Section 79C(1).

        The development is permissible under the zoning provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The design of the development is considered to satisfy the objectives and technical standards of the relevant Council Codes.

        The application is recommended for approval.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the Council, as consent authority, grant development consent under DA 20030410 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction a multi-unit development comprising of three (3) dwellings on land known as Lot 22, Sec 15, DP 4513, 3A Myall Street, Oatley.

        1. The standard conditions adopted by Council for medium density development.

        2. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

        Open Space
        $9,887.00
        Community Services
        $5,217.00
        Management
        $384.89
        Drainage Amplification
        $2,406.18
        Library – Infrastructure
        $2,657.00
        Library – Bookstock Acquisition
        $15.02

        3. Additional conditions specified as follows:

        a) Sensor lights are to be installed at the entrance to each dwelling, to provide for a safe environment for residents and visitors.

        b) A street number is to be provided on the front fence to clearly identify the subject site.

        c) The applicant is to submit to Council, and Council is to approve a Schedule of Finishes prior to the release of any Construction Certificate.

        d) The proposed driveway is to be widened at the front of the site (as marked in red on the approved plans) to allow for safer and more convenient movement of vehicles. The driveway crossover should have a width of 4.5m - 5m. To ensure the level of landscaping is maintained, Bedroom 2 of Villa 2 is to be reduced in size, as marked in red on the approved plans.

        e) Construction over Sydney Water’s sewer main that traverses the rear of the site shall be done with the consent and requirements/conditions of Sydney Water. Evidence that Sydney Water has consented to the proposed works is to be submitted with any Construction Certificate Application.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr J Morris)

        Meeting Date: 01/10/2003


        DAC024.05 - 03

        88A, 88 & 90 BELMORE ROAD, PEAKHURST - ERECTION OF
        TEN (10) SINGLE STOREY VILLAS

        APPLICANT

        Ian McKenzie

        PROPOSAL

        Erection of Ten (10) Single Storey Villas

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Interim Residential Development Code, Hurstville Local
        Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 -
        Car Parking

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Ian McKenzie

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Two (2) Single Dwelling Houses

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $1,500,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        One (1) Neighbour Objection

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson

        FILE NO

        DA 20030590


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application seeks permission to erect ten (10) single storey villas at 88, 88A and 90 Belmore Road, Peakhurst.

        2. The application complies in full with Council's Interim Residential Development Code and attempts to address the requirements of the relevant Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

        3. One (1) neighbour objection was received in relation to the proposed removal of trees to make way for the proposed development. Consideration of Council's Tree Preservation Officer's report and this objection has isolated valid issues that the proposal has failed to address.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT Council determine whether approval should be given to the removal of trees as requested by the applicant having regard for the concessions in dwelling density made by the applicant.

        Should Council concur with the requested removal of trees the application be approved subject to the conditions included in the recommendation.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

        The three allotments, 88, 88A and 90, are located on the eastern side of Belmore Road and comprise a large irregular shaped block, of 3898.8sqm. The site has a cross fall to the north and a slight fall to the street. The site has a western aspect.

        The site is located in a residential zone comprising a mix of single and double storey single dwelling houses, villas and townhouses and dual occupancies. The two existing single storey dwelling houses at the street frontage are located between a single storey dwelling and a villa development. The remaining single storey dwelling house at No 88A is to the rear of the development and is a battleaxe block. Belmore Road has quiet to medium traffic levels and is generally an easily accessible residential street with good on-street parking. As the site is located directly opposite Peakhurst Public School, traffic volumes increase directly before and after school operating hours.

        The site supports seventy one (71) large native trees which in the main populate the rear of the site. The majority of these trees are native Turpentine (Syncarpia Glomulifera) trees, which are indigenous to the area and form part of the remnant forest in the Hurstville area. The site also supports other large native trees including White Stringy Barks (Eucalyptus Globoidea) and Grey Gums.


        PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

        The proposed development is for nine (9) three bedroom villas and one (1) two bedroom villa, all of single storey construction. Each villa is to comprise an entry, family, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and living/dining area with ensuite bathrooms for the master bedroom of each villa. Eight (8) villas have standard double garages, one (1) villa has a stacked double garage and the two (2) bedroom villa has a single garage. Three (3) visitor spaces are provided on site.


        STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

        The proposal also satisfies the requirement of Council’s Interim Residential Development Control Plan.


        ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

        A table of the technical standards and the compliance of this development is detailed below.
        As can be seen from the table, above, the development proposal complies in full with the requirements of Council’s Interim Residential Development Code.

        An assessment with relation to the proposed development under Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) follows below. Amongst other factors, the Act indicates that consideration must be given to context and setting - including scenic and landscape features, flora and fauna - including remnant vegetation, whether or not the design is sensitive to environmental conditions and the sites attributes and the existence of significant trees, scenic or landscape features. It is considered that under the Act, Council is required to give careful consideration to the removal of trees on a site of this nature.

        Due to the context of the site, consideration must be given to the number and significance of the existing trees on the site. The proposed development will require the removal of a significant number of trees from the property. Of the seventy one (71) native established trees on site, eleven (11) are proposed to be retained. Included in the trees listed for removal is the most significant tree on the site, a Eucalyptus Globoidea (White Stringy Bark) which is of sound health and has been isolated as a significant tree for retention by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer. Overall the loss of a significant proportion of native trees from the site which is not supported by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer, and also the most significant tree on site is not to be retained.

        The applicant has submitted an arborist’s report which provides a tree analysis and comments. The analysis for the most significant tree on site, indicated on the plan as Tree No 1 (as identified by both Council’s Tree Preservation Officer and the arborist employed by the applicant) is reproduced below. These arguments have been forwarded by the arborists employed by the applicant in support of the removal of this tree:
        In conclusion the report prepared by the arborists employed by the applicant recommends:

        Comment: In response to these arguments, it should firstly be noted that both Council’s Tree Preservation Officer and the arborist employed by the applicant have agreed that the White Stringy Bark, indicated on the plans as Tree Number 1, is the most significant tree on site. At 22m in height with an overall girth of 600mm the tree is a significant neighbourhood canopy tree.

        The arborist for the applicant has indicated that “every effort should be taken to retain this tree” but believes on balance “the long term retention is not practical.” This indicates that the development, in its current form does not allow the retention of this tree and redesign to accommodate the tree may be impractical due to design constraints in maintaining a 6.0m radius PRZ protection area.

        From this report it is concluded that to retain the tree in the long term, no excavation within a 6.0m radius of the tree should be permitted. While the arborist has argued that this is not practical in terms of the proposed development, Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has strongly recommended that this tree be retained and protected and therefore that amended plans be put forward.

        Should the tree be retained, significant redesign would be necessary, which may not be of the design quality as currently proposed. Alternatively, development in the south eastern corner of the site may not be an option at all, which may necessitate the sale of this portion of land to a neighbouring property.

        Should the tree be removed, a development which complies in full with Council’s Code and provides a good design would be achieved. However, a significant canopy tree would be lost to the locality.

        In relation to the built form, the development seeks ten (10) single storey villas on a site with a density for twelve (12). The applicant argues that this is a trade off that Council should consider.

        As such the recommendation for this application is to be in two parts due to what is considered to be a significant issue in relation to the proposed removal of Tree Number 1.


        DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

        Manager - Development Advice

        The Manager - Development Advice has indicated that drainage and subdivision conditions are to be satisfied to Council’s satisfaction prior to the release of any Construction Certificate.

        Tree Preservation Officer

        Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has indicated that “after viewing the site five (5) times, identifying desirable and undesirable trees, I can confidently state that the following trees, in my opinion, should be retained.” These trees are referred to on the landscape and site plan as tree numbers 1, 8, 24, 27, 43, 44, 54, 56, 63, 65 and 71 respectively.

        Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has also stressed that, of these 71 trees, tree number 1, a White Stringy Bark is the most significant tree on the site and must be retained. Of the Turpentine trees listed for retention, Tree 56 is considered to be the best specimen at the front of the site and it is stressed that this definitely must be retained.

        As such, it is evident that Council’s Tree Preservation Officer does not support the application, as the tree identified as the most significant tree on the site is proposed to be removed.

        Manager - Environmental Services

        Council’s Manager - Environmental Services has indicated that each unit is to be provided with a 120 litre mobile garbage bin for domestic waste, a 240 litre mobile garbage bin for domestic recycling and one 240 litre mobile garbage bin for green waste.


        PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT

        Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was received raising the following objections.

        Tree Removal

        The neighbour has argued that the proposed development requires the “removal of 60 trees, the retention of only 9 trees and 1 tree undecided.” The neighbour argues that the “excessive removal of native trees must surely be in direct conflict with this tree preservation order.” The neighbour has also indicated that “an area of 70 trees must support a certain amount of native fauna. I believe Council should be aware of this.”

        Comment: Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has indicated that eleven (11) of the seventy one (71) trees on site must be retained. The trees listed for retention are those considered by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer to be the most significant on the site and worthy of retention. The plans of the proposed development indicate that the most significant tree on site as identified by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer is to be removed. As such, the submission is considered to be of relevance as it concurs with the opinion of Council’s Tree Preservation Officer.

        Amended plans were submitted on 16 September 2003 which altered the driveway and shifted Unit No 2 further towards the boundary in order to preserve tree No 56. This amended set of plans has not been re-notified.


        SUMMARY

        The application complies in full with Council's Interim Residential Development Code however, the recommendation of Council’s Tree Preservation Officer must be carefully considered by Council. The applicant submits that the retention of certain trees would disadvantage future residents. It is also to be noted that a reduced site density is being requested in an effort to save trees.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT, should Council be disposed to agree to the removal of trees as nominated by the applicant, then development consent under DA 20030590 be granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling houses and the erection of a ten (10) villa development with Strata title subdivision, on land known as Lot 1, DP 569516 and Lot 2, Sec B, DP 418727 and Lot 2, DP 569516, 88, 88A and 90 Belmore Road, subject to the following conditions.1. The standard conditions adopted by Council for villa development.2. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:
        3. The trees listed for retention on the plans are to be retained and protected by substantial measures, including the protection and fencing off of the primary root zone in order to ensure their survival during demolition and building works. No storage of any materials or excavation is to take place within the Primary Root Zone (PRZ) of the trees listed for retention. The PRZ is to be a section fenced off at a 2m radius from the tree or 10 x the girth of the tree whichever is greater. This is with the exception of the tree on site known as tree number 56 located at the front of the site next to the proposed driveway where a new driveway may be erected in the place of the existing driveway provided the new driveway is at the same Reduced Level (AHD) as the existing driveway, and that no additional excavation is to occur adjacent to this tree. The laying of the driveway adjacent to this tree (within the PRZ) is to take place under the supervision of a professional Arborist. 4. The front fence of the development is to provide for a footing design that ensures that any major root of a tree is not disturbed during the excavation of these footings. Footings and drainage trenches are to be excavated in the presence of a qualified arborist.5. A professional arborist is to be employed during the excavation of the site for the laying of slabs adjacent to trees listed for retention to ensure that excavation does not damage the roots of those trees. Hand digging and alternate slab design is to be used as a method to ensure the protection of these trees.

        6. The developer must submit details of the proposed method of stormwater disposal to Council prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate. These details shall show the construction of a streamlined concrete junction pit with the inlet pipe from the subject site at an entry angle of a minimum of 45 degrees to Council’s pipeline with a heavy duty circular concrete lid and surround. This pit shall be constructed to Council’s Engineering departments requirements and entirely at the applicant’s expense. Excavation for this pit and pipeline to connect to Council’s pipeline shall not occur within 2m radius or 10 x trunk girth radius (whichever is greater) of the trees listed for retention.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be deferred for Ward and interested Councillors inspection.
        (Moved Clr J Morris/Seconded Clr S McMahon)