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 FEBRUARY, 2006


Summary:

Item No: DAC001 - 06 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC001.01 - 06 - 6 WATERSIDE PARADE, PEAKHURST - ALTERATIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick)

DA 20050394

Item No: DAC001.02 - 06 - 67A YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick)
DA 20010978REV01

Item No: DAC001.03 - 06 - 11 HANNONS AVENUE, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS, AND ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Development Assessment Officer,

Mrs A Aversa-Morassut) DA 20050252

Item No: DAC001.04 - 06 - 17 LIME KILN ROAD, LUGARNO - TORRENS TITLE

SUBDIVISION INTO THREE LOTS
(Report by Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green and
Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young) DA 20050577

Item No: DAC001.05 - 06 - 30 LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO TWO LOTS AND RIGHT OF CARRIAGEWAY PARTLY ON ADJOINING PROPERTY
(Report by Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green and
Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young) DA 20050430

Item No: DAC001.06 - 06 - 56 MARINE DRIVE, OATLEY - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION
APPLICATION TO MODIFY CONSENT CONDITION
(Report by Planning Consultant, Mr D Broyd, of David Broyd Consulting Services Pty Ltd) DA 20040205REV01

Item No: DAC002 - 06 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC002.01 - 06 - 38 SCOTT STREET, MORTDALE - UNAUTHORISED
OUTBUILDING TO REAR OF PREMISES
(Report by Environmental Health and Building Surveyor,

Mr M Alexander) 05/1081, DA 20010154

Item No: DAC003 - 06 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
(Report by Director - Policy, Planning and Environment, Ms R Tyne)

Item No: DAC003.01 - 06 - 112 DORA STREET, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Development Assessment Officer, Mrs A Aversa-Morrasut)

DA 20030852REV02

Item No: DAC003.02 - 06 - 18 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO AMEND CONSENT CONDITIONS
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Ms D Fellows)

DA 20030198REV01

Item No: DAC003.03 - 06 - 66 BERONGA AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 82A

REVIEW OF DETERMINATION
(Report by Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young)

DA 20050057

Item No: DAC003.04 - 06 - 193 GLOUCESTER ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS - ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Consulting Development Assessment Officer,

Mr Y Watt) DA 20050520

Item No: DAC003.05 - 06 - 61 BOTANY STREET, CARLTON - CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE GARAGE AND STOREROOM
(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick)

DA 20050558




___________________________________________________________________________
Meeting No. 1 to be held on 1/02/2006


25th January, 2006


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 Civic Centre, Hurstville, on WEDNESDAY 1ST FEBRUARY, 2006, at 7.00p.m for consideration of the business mentioned hereunder.


Yours faithfully,





GENERAL MANAGER
B U S I N E S S:


6.00 p.m. Dinner

7.00 p.m. 1. Apologies

2. Disclosure of Interest

3. Confirmation of Minutes of Committee Meeting held on 7/12/2005 4. Consideration of reports submitted by the:
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP: QUORUM: 7

Full Council




Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.01 - 06

6 WATERSIDE PARADE, PEAKHURST - ALTERATIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE

APPLICANT

Mr S G Taylor and Ms J Holt

PROPOSAL

Alterations and additions to existing 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 S G Taylor and Ms J Holt

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$100,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Letter of objection received

REPORT AUTHORS

Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick

FILE NO

DA 20050394


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

2. The proposal complies with the Code for Single Dwelling Houses with the exception of window location.

3. One (1) letter of objection has been received.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The application proposes to provide a two storey addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling house, excavate below part of the north elevation to provide a cinema area, provide a new porch, entry stairway to the ground floor and an elevated timber deck, and provide internal stairs, laundry, store room and other minor works associated with the overall design.


BACKGROUND

The existing two (2) storey dwelling house appears to have been a single storey brick dwelling house which has had a timber frame tile roof, first floor addition added.

Most of the nearby development occurred in the mid seventy’s era and this structure is typical of that period.

Vehicle access is provided to the corner site both from Waterside Parade and Bayview Road.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

This property is an irregular five (5) sided property with an area of 644.2sqm situated on the south eastern corner of the junction of Bayview Road and Waterside Parade.

Adjoining the property to the east is a single storey dwelling house and to the rear a two (2) storey dwelling house.

The subject site falls from the rear to the Waterside Parade frontage.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 2 – Residential and is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No 58 - Dual Occupancy and Dwelling Houses

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Draft Plan.
Draft Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Draft Plan.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

There are no other matters prescribed by the Regulations.

3. Development Control Plans

Code for Single Dwelling Houses

Code for Single Dwelling HousesStandardProposedComplies
Site area644.2sqm
Width of siteIrregular but required to meet envelope standard
Clause 3.3.2EnvelopeTo meet standardYes
Landscape area55%>60%Yes
Height9m max8.6mYes
Building alignment4.5m4.5m and 9.5mYes
Solar access in mid winter4hrs sunlight from 9.00am-3.00pm4hrs sunlightYes
PrivacyWindows not to be opposite windows of adjoining property if less than 9mDoes not meet this standardNo (1)

(1) Privacy

The non complying windows can are proposed on the eastern side of the new lounge and are within 4.5m of the adjoining dwelling house windows. It is proposed that these windows are to be non-transparent or glass blocks for privacy, as shown on plan number A612/3, dated 1 June 2005. Therefore they will have no privacy impact on the adjoining dwelling house.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

No adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposal.

Built Environment

Privacy – the design does create some loss of privacy which will be addressed in the recommendation.

Additional overshadowing occurs to the rear yard area of the property to the east. However, Council’s standards are complied with.

Social Impact

There is no impact.

Economic Impact

There is no impact.

Suitability of the Site

The proposal is suitable for the site. It is not identified as being flood, bushfire or acid sulphate affected, nor is it heritage or contaminated.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

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 from the owner located on the east of the site.

Roof Design

The two (2) storey addition on the eastern elevation does not conform to the local dominant design of hip roof.

Comment: While the statement is correct the proposal does comply with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and the impact on the adjoining property is a matter of individual choice.

Height

The height at the eastern elevation will be 13.5m exceeding Council’s maximum of 9m.

Comment: The height of the existing structure is 8.6m and of the eastern addition 6.2m to the natural ground level where Council’s Code measures from. With the excavation for the cinema the overall height from the ridge to the cinema floor level is 9.6m with 900mm being below ground level.

Number of Storeys

The building contains three (3) storeys of habitable rooms.

Comment: Because of the excavation a third habitable level will be created without an increase in overall height. Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses caters for this design in Section 3.3.5.

Overshadowing

The existing house overshadows the rear yard of the adjoining property.

Comment: The proposed additions will have only a minor increase in overshadowing. This together with the existing overshadowing complies easily with Council’s standard requirement of at least four (4) hours of sunshine upon the private open space.

Windows

The first floor lounge windows are within 9m of neighbouring windows and not offset.

Comment: This is correct however will be conditioned to be constructed of fixed obscure glass so as to comply with Council’s Code prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Fence

The fence of the eastern side of the subject property is 2.8m in height.

Comment: Apparently this fence has been in existence for seven (7) years. It is not referred to in the application and is not relevant to this decision.


CONCLUSION

The application for the two (2) storey additions attached to the eastern side of the existing dwelling house with the exception of the overlooking east facing windows comply with Council’s standards.

The excavation beneath the existing structure to create the new cinema room, part of the rumpus and new laundry does not increase the height of the existing structure above natural ground level.

The east facing windows of the lounge room, although within 9m of adjoining dwelling house, will be constructed of fixed obscure glass which will alleviate any privacy concerns from the adjoining dwelling house and comply with the objectives of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application 20050394 for the alterations and additions on Lot 40, DP 211604 and known as 6 Waterside Parade, Peakhurst, subject to the attached conditions:

1. Standard conditions of development consent.

2. The east facing windows of the new lounge room are to be of fixed obscure glass. Details are to be shown with the Construction Certificate.

3. Plans

Plan noDate Description Drawn by
A612/1 - A612/11 as amended1 Jun 05Elevations, site and floor plans, sections, shadowsAbrecon Designs and House Plans

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Lee)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.02 - 06

67A YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION

APPLICANT

Dina Papadopoulos

PROPOSAL

Section 96 modification to application

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 Papadopoulos

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house under construction

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Nil

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Application seeks to modify a condition imposed by DAC

REPORT AUTHORS

Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick

FILE NO

DA 20010978REV01


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The Section 96 application seeks approval to modify one (1) condition from the development consent, which required a 1.7m high privacy screen to be erected on the northern end of the rear balcony at both levels. The applicant wishes to delete the reference to a screen required for the first floor balcony.

2. The original development consent was granted by the Development Assessment Committee subject to conditions on 3 April 2002.

3. One (1) objection was received in relation to this Section 96 modification.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks the modification of Condition 7(a) which requires a 1.7m high fixed privacy screen to the northern end of the rear first floor balcony.

The condition referred to is reproduced in full as follows:

The ground floor balcony has been suitably screened and this Section 96 modification is only for a change to the screening of the first floor balcony.


BACKGROUND

The original application was referred to the Development Assessment Committee for non compliance with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and the receipt of six (6) letters of objection.

Council’s approval required eight (8) amendments to the submitted plans prior to the release of the Construction Certificate, Condition 7(a) being one of those conditions.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Yarran Road directly opposite the intersection of Yarran Road and Southern Street.

The site is a very irregular battleaxe, which has a difference in level of approximately 8 metres measured from the entry to the site through the right of carriageway to the rear boundary on the railway corridor.

The streetscape in Yarran Road is generally of one (1) and two (2) storey dwellings with split levels designs featuring two (2) and three (3) storeys when viewed from the rear.

The objector property contains an old style two (2) storey timber framed dwelling with the lounge dinning area and rear timber deck facing east overlooking Georges River and is situated on the north side of the applicants two (2) storey dwelling and is the property affected by any change to the Condition 7(a).


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 2 – Residential and is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No 58 - Dual Occupancy and Dwelling Houses

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Draft Plan.

Draft Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The proposal complies with the objectives of the Draft Plan.

3. Development Control Plans

As the proposal is seeking for modification of a consent condition, it is not required to be re-assessed under the Code for Single Dwelling Houses. The particular condition in question relates to privacy impact, not a numerical requirement of any Code or Development Control Plan.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

This proposal has no additional impact.

Built Environment

The reason for imposing the condition for fixed privacy screens was to appease the objector's concerns about privacy. This is still a valid issue for this application.

Social Impact

This proposal has no additional impact.

Economic Impact

This proposal has no additional impact.

Suitability of the Site

This proposal has no additional impact.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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.

Loss of Privacy to the lounge, dining, living area, kitchen and yard area from the first floor north facing rear balcony

The originally submitted plans showed a 6m wide east facing balcony off the master bedroom with a north elevation width of 4.1m.

It was the north elevation that the adjoining property owners complained of which resulted in Council’s condition to require the installation of a 1.7m high privacy screen.

During the course of construction a solid brick screen of approximately 2.2m high was provided to half of this north elevation for the first floor balcony with a transparent glass balustrade to the remainder.

The current Section 96 application seeks to amend condition 7(a) so that the newly constructed north elevation remains with the transparent glass balustrade for approximately half of the elevation.

Comment: The objector’s concern that over viewing into their living room, deck and yard areas still exists and are well justified even if the viewing area has been reduced by 2m in width.

To comply with condition 7(a) in full would mean a relatively small loss of side view to the applicant whilst providing the objector with permanent privacy from overviewing from this elevated balcony. Although it is a balcony from a bedroom, it is a large usable balcony which does view directly into the dining area of the adjoining residents. The imposition of side screening to the balcony will have little impact on the residents of 67A Yarran Road.


CONCLUSION

It could be claimed by the applicant that the balcony is off the master bedroom and is generally accepted as a room of little use during daylight hours with the chance of privacy loss minimal.

However, to comply with Council’s conditions would be a small imposition upon the applicant but would improve the amenity of the objectors.

It should also be noted that the applicants agreed in writing in a letter to Council received on 12 February 2002 to provide the privacy screens confirming that the screens were a good idea.


RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, consent be refused for the application to modify the requirements of condition 7(a) of development consent 20010798 on Lot B, DP 412074 and known as 67A Yarran Road, Oatley.

The requirements of Condition 7(a) of the original consent are to be implemented in full.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.
(Moved Clr J Morris/Seconded Clr W Pickering)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.03 - 06

11 HANNONS AVENUE, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS, AND ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE

APPLICANT

Richard Coulthard and Wooin Kang

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing outbuildings, and alterations and additions
to existing dwelling house

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings,
Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development
Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency, Development Control Plan No 28 - Swimming Pools and Spas

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Richard and Debby Coulthard

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house and outbuildings

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$120,000.00 (corrected to $288,036.00)

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Non compliance with Code for Single Dwelling Houses

REPORT AUTHORS

Development Assessment Officer, Mrs A Aversa-Morassut

FILE NO

DA 20050252


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The proposed development involves demolition of existing outbuilding and alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising additions to the existing ground floor and first floor addition.

2. With the exception of a minor encroachment to the building envelope, the proposed development complies with all relevant environmental planning instruments and policies.

3. The application was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17 – Neighbour Notification and Advertising and no submissions were received.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for demolition of existing sheds and alterations and additions to an existing single storey dwelling house. The proposed alterations and additions include:

Ground Floor

- The addition of a covered porch;
- Addition of new articulated front entry;
- Addition of a garage door to an existing open carport;
- New roof to existing carport;
- Demolition of internal walls and addition of stairs to new first floor;
- Addition of new laundry, kitchen, family room, ensuite;
- New rear deck (partly covered by new roof and sail structure to rear yard);
- Additional gross floor area of approximately 54.87sqm; and
- Replacement of paving with soft landscaping as detailed on the Site Analysis Plan (L-01)

First Floor

- Addition of three (3) bedrooms;
- Study;
- Bathroom;
- New roof over ground floor extension;
- Replacement of existing roof over part of existing ground floor; and
- Additional gross floor area of approximately 63.24sqm

The proposed development also involves the removal of five (5) trees which interfere with the building footprint. There is no proposed change to the vehicular access into the site.


BACKGROUND

There is no record of approval for the existing dwelling house; however the following building approvals were identified:

- 9 July 1982 Building Application No 527 – Concrete Pool
- 21 Nov 1980 Building Application No 1259 – All steel carport
- 31 July 1963 Building Application No 809/799 – Brick Additions

The background to the subject application is summarised below:

10 May 05 Application lodged with Council.

11 May 05 Application notified until 1 June 2005.

6 Sep 05 Applicant requested to provide correct survey plan.

17 Sep 05 Survey plan submitted. Assessment of application undertaken.

6 Oct 05 Applicant advised of non compliances and inaccurate plans need for re-design.

1 Dec 05 Amended plans submitted to Council. No need for re-notification.

12 Jan 05 Final assessment and site inspection undertaken.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is a rectangular standard shaped site with a frontage of 17.985m to Hannons Avenue and an area of 559.1sqm. The site is located on the southern and lower side of Hannons Avenue. Existing on the site is single storey dwelling house and carport. To the rear of the site are existing sheds, fenced swimming pool, and a pergola on a raised deck.

The site falls from the front of the site towards the rear. There is an existing 1.524m drainage easement which runs parallel to the rear of the existing site.

Adjoining the site to the east is a single storey dwelling house and two (2) storey dwelling house to the west. Located at the rear of the site are single storey and two (2) storey dwelling houses. The area is generally residential in character.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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 site is not located within a bushfire sensitive area.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

The land is zoned 2 – Residential. Dwelling houses are permissible with consent in the residential zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Clause 9 – Council policies

All relevant planning and design principles and policies have been considered as part of the assessment of this application.

Clause 11 – Minimum lot sizes for dwelling houses on land within Zone No.2

Pursuant to Clause 11(1), the subject site complies with the minimum allotment size of 450sqm and width of 15m.

Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposed development and has considered the removal of the proposed five (5) trees. A condition has been imposed requiring the replanting of two (2) indigenous or native trees.

Clause 15 – Services

Standard conditions for dwelling houses will require the new parts of the dwelling house to be connected to various services such a water, energy, gas, electricity and sewer.

Clause 19B –Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is not located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

Clause 22 – Excavation and Filling of Land

The finished floor level of the existing dwelling house is RL 36.70. The additions to the ground floor of the existing dwelling house are proposed to be located at RL 36.70 (laundry, kitchen and part of new living area) and RL 36.33 (family room and ensuite) respectively.

The existing natural ground level where the laundry and kitchen are proposed to be located is approximately RL 36.26. In order to achieve the proposed finished floor level, the land will have to be filled approximately 440mm. This fill is considered to be minor and is isolated to the footprint of the dwelling house only. A condition will be imposed to prohibit the filling of land between the external walls of the dwelling house and the side and rear boundaries.

Part 4 – Heritage Provisions

No heritage items on site and there are no heritage items within the vicinity of the development site.

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated. The site is currently used for residential purposes and is surrounded by properties occupied for the same purpose.

Council's records indicate a residential history only on this site.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment (Amendment No 1)

The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

CODE FOR SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES

The extent to which the proposed alterations and additions comply with the Code for Single Dwelling Houses are detailed and discussed below.

Code for Single Dwelling Houses
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Height
9m
8.455m
Yes
Maximum length of straight wall to street frontage
6m
4.3m
Yes
Side and Rear boundary setbacks
1 or 2 storeys – 900m
Excess of 900mm
Yes
Front setback
Development Areas B - 4.5m
4.5m
Yes
Side and rear setbacks for eaves and gutters
1 or 2 storeys – 675mm
975mm
Yes
For allotments in excess of 15.5m width
Building Envelope constructed at 45 degrees from a point 3.5m above any side or rear boundary
Side boundary

Rear boundary
No (1)

Yes
Encroachment on building envelope for first floor additions
May be permitted if: This will improve architectural quality to be consistent with IRDC; and

FSR does not exceed 0.45:1
Yes




0.38:1
Yes





Yes
Car parking and access
Existing dwellings – existing car parking
One(1) covered space and one(1) driveway space
Yes
Privacy
9m separation between habitable room windows on site and adjoining properties;

or

Windows must be offset by 1m or screened
Yes







Yes
Yes







Yes
Solar design and energy efficiency
Four (4) hours of sunshine upon private open space areas of adjacent dwellings between 9am and 3pm on 22 June
Yes
Yes
Height of front fences at the street boundary
1m or;

If higher than 1.8m – compliance with Fencing Adjacent to Public Roads Code
No new front, side or rear fences proposed
N/A
Height of side and rear fences
1.8m
As existing
N/A
Landscaped open space
Development Area B - 50%
53%
Yes
Impervious surfaces
20% of landscaped open space
16.9%
Yes
Soft landscaping
40% of landscaped open space
83%
Yes

(1) Building Envelope

The proposed first floor addition will result in a minor non compliance with the building envelope on the north and south elevation. A small section of the roof, eaves and part of the wall on the first floor north eastern corner of the dwelling house extends out of the building envelope by approximately 800mm.

As detailed in the shadow diagrams, the adjoining windows and rear yard of the residence on the eastern side boundary (13 Hannons Avenue) will have access to at least four (4) hours of winter sun which is more than sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses.

This minor encroachment is considered to be negligible and is supported in this case as the overall floor space ratio (FSR) is significantly under the maximum FSR permitted in residential zones and the overall design is consistent with the objectives of residential development for Development Area B under the Interim Residential Development Code.

CODE FOR THE ERECTION OF OUTBUILDINGS

Clause 6.5.1 – Carports and awnings

The proposed development involves the addition of a garage door and a new roof to the existing carport. The existing carport roof extends to the boundary of the property and the existing carport columns are located approximately 300mm from the side boundary.

The addition of the garage door to the carport will alter the carport from being an ‘open’ structure to an enclosed structure. As such, the following conditions have been imposed to ensure the carport complies with the Code for the Erection of Outbuildings and the Building Code of Australia.

1. The carport must be setback 900mm from the side boundary and the roof of the carport must be at least 675mm from the side boundary.

2. The roof cladding, ceiling lining and wall cladding must be constructed of non-combustible material.

3. The frame of the carport structure must be constructed of non-combustible material.

4. The roof space between the carport and the ground floor of the dwelling house must be divided at the junction with a wall clad in non-combustible material to retard the spread of fire from the carport to the dwelling.

5. The laundry window (W-03) must be deleted. The laundry window (W-03) must retain the same dimensions and proposed height above the finished floor level however be relocated to the west elevation. (Please note this will not impact on privacy of adjoining dwelling houses due to the location of the carport for that house.)

6. The door leading from the carport into the ground floor laundry must be fire rated and comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Clause 6.5.2 – Pergolas and Sunblinds

There are two (2) proposed triangular shade structures to be erected in the rear yard. These shade structures are located 1.6m and 5m respectively from the side and rear boundaries.

Clause 6.5.3 – Terraces, Landings, Steps and Ramps

This clause requires structures which are located above one (1) metre from natural ground level to be setback one (1) metre from any boundary or constructed of materials that have a fire resistance level of not less than 60/60/60 or other construction as required under the Building Code of Australia.

The proposed rear deck is located in excess of one (1) metre from any side or rear boundary so therefore the proposal complies.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2 – CAR PARKING

The extent to which the proposed development complies with Development Control Plan 2 – Car Parking is detailed and discussed below.

DCP 2 – Car ParkingStandardProposalComplies
Layout – Enclosed Space
AS/NZS 28901.1 2004 (3m x 5.4m)
3.2m x 5.5m
Yes (1)
Layout – Open Space
AS/NZS 28901.1 2004 (2.4m x 5.4m)
3m x 7.3m
Yes
Driveways gradient
1 in 5 (20%)
As existing
N/A
Driveway width
2.7m - 4.5m
As existing
N/A

(1) Layout – Enclosed Space

A condition has been imposed requiring the carport to be setback 900mm from the side boundary and at least 675mm for the roof of the carport from the side boundary. The imposition of this condition will not affect compliance of the minimum dimensions of the carport as required by the Australian Standard.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

DCP No. 18 – CPTED
Standard
Plan
Complies
FencingAllows natural surveillance to street
Yes
Yes
Blind CornersTo be avoided
Yes
Yes
Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillance
Yes
Yes
EntrancesClearly visible and not confusing
Yes
Yes
Site and Building Layout- Provide surveillance opportunities
- Building addresses street
- Habitable rooms are directed towards the front of the building
- Garages are not dominant
- Offset windows
Yes
Yes
Landscaping- Avoid dense medium height shrubs
- Allow spacing for low growing dense vegetation
- Low ground cover or high canopy trees around car parks and pathways
- Vegetation used as a barrier for unauthorised access
Yes
Yes
Lighting- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally
- Access/egress points illuminated
- No lightspill towards neighbours
- Hiding places illuminated
- Lighting is energy efficient
No details provided
To be conditioned
Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
- Entrances numbered
- Unit numbers provided at entry
Yes
Yes
Security- Main entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car park
N/A
N/A
OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownership
Yes
Yes

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

A NaTHERS Certificate achieving a total of four (4) stars was submitted as part of the application. Whilst the proposed wall insulation complies with the deemed to satisfy provisions of Clause 2.1 of Development Control Plan No 22, the ceiling insulation and hot water system fall short of the minimum deemed to satisfy requirements. As a consequence, the deemed to satisfy conditions of Development Control Plan No 22 have been conditioned.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 28 – SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS

The existing pool is a kidney shaped pool and the pool is secured by pool fencing. There is an existing fenced deck which adjoins the boundary of the south eastern corner of the site and adjoins the pool. There are no proposed changes to the location, size or fencing of the existing pool, pool fencing or deck.

A condition will be imposed to ensure that the fence is retained at all times - pre, during and post construction.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The site complies with the minimum amount of landscaped open space required and based on the Site Analysis Plan L-01 (Revision B, October 2005) will result in approximately 83% soft landscaping. This is proposed to be achieved via replacement of existing hard surfaces with turf. This is considered to be a significant improvement given that the existing amount of impervious surfaces exceeds the maximum 20% as permitted under the Code for Single Dwelling Houses. A condition will be imposed requiring the laying of turf prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Built Environment

With the exception of the minor encroachment on the building envelope, the proposed development complies with the design principles and objectives of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses.

There are no detrimental overshadowing impacts caused as a result of the proposed development.

Given the variation between the finished floor level of the ground floor extension and the natural ground level of the property on the western side boundary, a condition has been imposed requiring the applicant to erect a 500mm lattice above the existing side boundary fence for the length of the fence from the laundry to the kitchen, to minimise overlooking between the two (2) properties.

The concept stormwater plan involves the disposal of all roof waters to the existing stormwater drainage pipe located in the drainage easement at the rear of the property. Standard conditions for the disposal of stormwater have been imposed.

Social Impact

No detrimental social impacts have been identified as a consequence of this development.

Economic Impact

No detrimental social impacts have been identified as a consequence of this development.

Suitability of the Site

The site is currently used for residential purposes and the proposed alterations and additions are considered to be in keeping with the existing use. According to Council’s records, the site is not located within a bushfire sensitive area, is not affected by acid sulphate soils or flooding. There is a drainage easement which runs parallel to the rear boundary, however there are no proposed works to be undertaken over this area.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. No submissions were received during this period.

The amended plans were not renotified as they were considered to be of a lesser environmental impact than the original plans.

Land and Environment Court Principals

PDE Investments No.8 Pty Ltd – v- Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 355

Land and Environment Court Principle
Principle achieved
Comment
FSR and building envelope controls should work together and both controls and/or their objectives should be met.
Yes
Building envelope is determined by compliance with setback, landscape and height. Its purpose is to provide an envelope within which development may occur but not one which the development should necessarily fill.
Yes
Where maximum FSR results in a building that is smaller than the building envelope, it produces a building of lesser bulk and allows for articulation
Yes
The fact that the building envelope is larger than the FSR is not a reason to exceed the FSR. If it were, the FSR control would be unnecessary.
Yes

Council Referrals

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Council’s Environment Health and Building Surveyor has assessed the proposed development for general compliance with the Building Code of Australia. The Officer identified that the existing carport proposed to be enclosed by a garage door did not comply with the Building Code of Australia. Appropriate conditions have been imposed to ensure compliance with the Code for the Erection of Outbuildings and the Building Code of Australia.

No other objection was raised subject to standard conditions for dwelling houses.

Tree Management Officer

No objection was raised by Council's Tree Management Officer subject to a condition that for each tree removed, two (2) trees be replanted. Given that the proposed extension, existing pool and pool deck occupy the rear yard, it is considered that the imposition of this condition would be difficult to achieve. As such, the condition has been amended to require the replanting of two (2) indigenous or native species.

Senior Design Engineer

No objections or comments were raised as the existing driveway crossing is proposed to remain unchanged.


6. CONCLUSION

With the exception of the minor encroachment on the building envelope, the proposed development complies or has been conditioned to comply with all relevant instruments and policies. The proposal is supported as it achieves the zone objectives and objectives of the Code for Single Dwelling Houses.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application 20050252 for demolition of existing outbuildings and alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house on Lot 23, DP 27942 and known as 11 Hannons Avenue, Peakhurst, subject to the attached conditions:

1. Standard conditions for alterations and additions to dwelling houses.

2. Standard conditions for demolition including conditions relating to removal of asbestos.

3. Plans

Plan noDateDescriptionDrawn by
B-01 Issue BOct 05Ground floor planBoss Engineering Pty Ltd
B-02 Issue BOct 05First floor planBoss Engineering Pty Ltd
D-01 Issue BOct 05Section A-ABoss Engineering Pty Ltd
C-01 Issue BOct 05North and south elevationBoss Engineering Pty Ltd
C-02 Issue BOct 05East and west elevationBoss Engineering Pty Ltd
L-01 Issue BOct 05Site analysisBoss Engineering Pty Ltd
B-03 Issue BOct 05Roof planBoss Engineering Pty Ltd

4. The filling of land between the external walls of the dwelling house and any side or rear property boundary is strictly prohibited.

5. The following design changes are required to be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate:
6. Under no circumstances is the existing pool fence to be removed pre, during or post construction. Any alterations to the existing pool fence or access between the building and the pool will require the lodgement of a separate development application.

7. Two (2) native and/or indigenous trees, as recommended in Council's Tree Preservation Order, must be replanted on site prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The trees must have a mature height of at least 5m.

8. The proposed alterations and additions must comply with the following energy efficiency requirements:

9. The front porch of the dwelling house and rear yard is to be lit with sensor lighting in accordance with Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and any relevant Australian Standard relating to residential properties.

10. To minimise overlooking onto the adjoining property, a 500mm lattice must be erected above the side boundary fence between the subject site and the western side residential property (9 Hannons Avenue). The lattice is to be consistent in colour and finish to the existing fence and is to extend for a maximum distance of 5.5m commencing from the external enclosing wall of the ground floor laundry to the end of the kitchen. The lattice must be erected prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

11. All roof water, surface water and sub-surface water must be collected and discharged to the existing drainage system in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand AS/NZS 3500.3.2:1998 National plumbing and drainage Part 3.2: Stormwater drainage – Acceptable solutions. Details of the proposed drainage system must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

12. The trees to be retained (including any trees which overhang the subject property from adjoining properties) must be protected during the period of demolition, excavation, site preparation and construction, by the erection of a suitable barrier around the drip line of each tree. The barrier must be such to prevent damage to trees and their root system by the movement of vehicles, handling or storage of building materials, excavation, filling or the like. Details of the means of protection must be submitted to Council with the Construction Certificate, and be erected prior to any works commencing on-site.

13. The laying of turf must be finalised prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Turf must be replanted in accordance with Site Analysis Plan L-01 (Issue B, October 2005) with the exception of the inground pool and the path leading from the front property boundary to the front porch.

14. No approval is expressed or implied for any unauthorised building works carried out prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for Development Consent No 20050252.

15. The colours and finishes of the first floor addition must match the existing colours, finishes and building materials. Details to be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate.

16. Details of any external lighting proposed are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate and are to comply with provisions of Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report, subject to the deletion of Condition 16 regarding compliance with the provisions of Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design with regard to external lighting.
(Moved Clr W Pickering/Seconded Clr C Lee)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.04 - 06

17 LIME KILN ROAD, LUGARNO - TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION
INTO THREE LOTS

APPLICANT

Harrison Friedmann and Associates Pty Ltd

PROPOSAL

Torrens title subdivision into three lots

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control
Plan No 30 - Subdivision

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

ABH Holdings Pty Ltd, MA Harrison, FC Friedmann, P and DJ Harrison, GW and DL Lucas

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling house, garage and carport

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Estimated at $20,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Council requirement for Torrens title subdivision in Peakhurst
Ward to be referred

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green and
Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young

FILE NO

DA 20050577


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The application seeks Council approval to subdivide the existing lot into three lots. The access to the proposed rear two lots being via an access handle constructed along the northern boundary of the site.

2. The site contains forty seven (47) trees. It is proposed to retain twenty (20) trees including the most significant trees.

3. The proposed subdivision complies with the technical requirements specified in Council's Local Environmental Plan 1994, and Council's Development Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision.

4. No submissions received after the fourteen (14) day period of notification.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks Council approval to subdivide the existing lot into three (3) lots. The access to the proposed rear two (2) battleaxe lots being via an access handle constructed along the northern boundary of the site

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

Lot 101

Proposed Lot 101 is located at the front of the subject site and is irregular in shape. The street frontage is 24.8m with side depths of 25.83m and 25.67m and a rear width of 26.14m. This lot is approximately 651sqm in size.

This lot will have a full street frontage to Lime Kiln Road.

Lot 102

Proposed Lot 102 is a battleaxe allotment located in the centre of the subject site and has access to Lime Kiln Road via a proposed Right of Carriageway of 4m minimum in width and approximately 51.5m long through the access handle to proposed rear Lot 103. The proposed width of this lot is 26.14m with side boundaries of 25.81m.

This lot is 650.1sqm in size excluding the access handle area.

Lot 103

Proposed Lot 103 is a battleaxe allotment located at the rear of the subject site and has access to Lime Kiln Road via a proposed access handle of 4m minimum in width and approximately 51.5m long.

The proposed width of this Lot is 30.18m with side boundaries of 23.09m (these dimensions exclude the access handle). This lot is 650.5sqm in size excluding the access handle area.

The proposal indicates building footprints indicative for future dwellings and garages on the lot together with a turning bay area.

These details demonstrate that a dwelling can be erected on the site attempting to have minimal tree removal and vehicle access and egress can both be made in a forward direction in concept.

These footprints are indicative only and any proposal for the erection of a dwelling on each lot will be subject to separate development applications. It is a recommendation to this report that the building footprint on the middle allotment be modified to ensure retention of one (1) of the most significant trees.


BACKGROUND

The proposal was referred to relevant Council Officers. Concerns have been raised by Council’s Tree Management Officer, Senior Planning Officer and Senior Environmental Health and Building Officer regarding the number of trees on the site.

The applicant was requested to provide information for the application to be given its due consideration. The information requested is as follows:

1. The applicant should provide a building envelope for each lot to demonstrate it is feasible to locate a dwelling on each site in relation to the retention/removal of any trees on the site (see point No 2). These details should include parking provisions for a minimum of two (2) vehicles on each site and manoeuvrability of such vehicles to enter and exit the proposed Lot 102 and Lot 103 in a forward motion along the proposed access driveway.

2. This site contains a number of significant remnant, native and exotic trees.

The applicant should provide a tree survey, report and plan assessing individually any specimen on the site which is over three (3) metres in height and not a noxious weed. This is to be completed by a consulting arborist with the minimum qualification Level 5 Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture) in the AQF framework.

The report is to include a proposed tree retention and removal schedule. In direct reference to the schedule, the applicant/consulting arborist should provide evidence that habitable land parcels with sufficient building area can be provided without detriment to any retained trees.

Where removal of an established tree is proposed based on sound arboricultural reasoning, the applicant/consulting arborist is to demonstrate the way in which amenity will be restored in the form of replacement planting as part of that application.

The accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects should be amended to record the action and outcome of the survey and related reporting.

The information referred to above has been received by Council and is referred to in this report.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is a parallelogram shaped site with a frontage of 30.18m to Lime Kiln Road, a depth of 74.73m and an area of 2,231sqm.

The site is located on the eastern side of the street and slopes to the rear by approximately 9m.

Existing on the site is a dwelling house, garage and carport.

The site contains a number of trees being a mixture of planted exotics and Australian natives.

Adjoining the site to the north is a two storey brick residence and a two storey brick residence to the south. Located at the rear of the site are brick residences. The area is generally residential in character.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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


1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 2 - Residential, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is a permitted use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

The following specific provisions apply to the proposal:

Clause 11 Minimum lot sizes for dwelling houses on land within Zone No 2.
Clause 19B Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 as follows:

Clause 11(2) states that an allotment for the erection of a dwelling house within Zone No 2 must have a width of at least 15m.

Comment: All allotments comply.

Clause 11(3) states that the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house on land within Zone No 2 that is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area is 550sqm for the allotment at the front and 650sqm for the battleaxe allotment.

Comment: All allotments comply.

Clause 11(4) states that the width or area of any access corridor, accessway, right of carriageway or the like is not to be included in the calculation of the width or area of an allotment

Comment: The proposal complies.

Clause 19B(3) states that the minimum density requirement for the erection of more than one dwelling on land that is within Zone No 2 and within a foreshore scenic protection area is 500 square metres per dwelling

Comment: The proposal complies with this requirement.

Clause 19B(4) states the Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of any development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless it has considered the following:

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The proposal complies with the Draft Plan.

Any other matter prescribed by the Regulation

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision

The application has been assessed under the provisions of Development Control Plan No 30 – Subdivision as follows.

Standard
Comply
Comment
2.1 LOT SIZE
2.1.2 Residential Zone No. 2 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
a) The minimum allotment size for the creation of a new allotment within the foreshore scenic protection area is 550sqm, and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres. This applies to an allotment with full street frontage.
YES
Proposed front Lot 101
Area is 651sqm
Minimum width is 28.4m
b) The minimum battleaxe allotment size for a residential allotment in the foreshore scenic protection area is 650sqm, and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres
YES
Proposed rear Lot 102
Area is 650.1sqm. Width is 26.14m.
Proposed rear Lot 103
Area is 650.5sqm. Width is 30.18m.
c) The width or area of any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like is not to be included in the calculation of the width or area of an allotment.
YES
d) The minimum width of any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like shall be 3 metres if vehicular access is required to the battleaxe allotment.
YES
The right-of-carriageway is to be constructed on the site prior to the release of the linen plan by Council. This may be conditioned.
g) Where vehicular access cannot be obtained, car parking is to be provided in a suitable location within the subdivision in accordance with Council’s DCP No 2 – Car Parking
N/A
e) Where the topography of a site requires separate pedestrian access or is only accessible by the use of an inclinator, an accessway with a minimum width of 2 metres is to be provided
N/A
2.2.3 Residential Zone No. 2 - Access Driveways
(b) Where three or more residential allotments use an access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like:
i. a 6 metre wide, 150mm thick reinforced concrete driveway, capable of carrying a variety of service vehicles, including fire engines, is to be provided from the street alignment to the building area.
Alternatively, passing bays are to be provided at suitable locations; and
ii. a 12 metre diameter turning circle, or appropriately designed “hammer head” or “T-turn” to Council’s Traffic Engineers’ satisfaction, full concrete construction, is required at a location which will suit all allotments; and
iii. reciprocal right-of-way and easement for services should be shown; and
iv. any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like is to be constructed prior to the release of the linen plan by Council.
N/A
The subdivision proposes only one residential allotment to use the access.
Due to the nature of the site, the right-of-carriageway is to be constructed on the site prior to the release of the linen plan by Council. This may be conditioned.
(c) A maximum number of six (6) residential allotments can have access off an access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like
N/A
2.3 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
2.3.1 Service Supply
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
It will be necessary for an easement for services to be created over Lot 103 to benefit Lot 102.
2.3.2 Waste Storage Areas
YES
Sufficient area available. Appropriate conditions can be applied.
2.4 DRAINAGE
2.4.1 General
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
It will be necessary for an easement to drain water to be created over the property to the rear for the disposal of all storm waters from the site.
2.4.2 Overland Flow Paths
.
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
2.4.3 Flow of Run-off Across Property Boundaries
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
The necessary drainage shall be designed by a hydraulics consultant.
2.5 DRIVEWAYS AND CAR PARKING
2.5.1 Car Parking
Requirements for car parking are:
Dwelling house 1 space per 1 or 2 bedrooms
2 spaces for 3+ bedrooms
YES
Car spaces will be a provision with any application for the construction a new dwelling on any of the lots.
2.7 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
2.7.1 Heritage
YES
N/A
2.7.2 Contribution Rates
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
2.7.6 Site Management
YES
Water management plan can be required through conditions.

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with Development Control Plan No 30 – Subdivision.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The subject site contains some remnant vegetation and a mix of planted exotics and Australian natives. Several areas of the site have natural rock outcorps. Otherwise, the site has been distributed by lawn and garden areas, paths, driveways and buildings. Provided the right of way driveway is constructed as close as possible to natural ground level and the building footprint in Lot 102 is amended to preserve the most significant tree the site it is considered that the impacts of the natural environment will be acceptable.

Built Environment

No impacts likely.

The development proposes the subdivision of the property, demolition of the buildings and driveway/drainage works. Any future development for the erection of dwellings on the new allotments would be subject to appropriate controls.

Social Impact

No impacts likely.

Economic Impact

No impacts likely.

Suitability of the Site

The site is considered suitable for the proposal.

The access handle to the rear lot is on a maximum grade of 17% which is considered reasonable.

The site is not located in a bushfire prone zone, not affected by acid sulphate soils nor is it likely to be contaminated. The site is not considered flood liable.

Stormwater

No stormwater details have been submitted, however a condition of approval is attached requiring disposal via an easement through the property at the rear to the stormwater system in Illawong Street.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

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 objections were received regarding the proposal during the notification period

Council Referrals

Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Council’s Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has given the following advice on the proposal.

The following are matters that require consideration pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and from a building point of view it is recommended that:

(a) Council’s Traffic Engineer to check and comment on the ramp profile and turning bay of the proposed carriageway for compliance with AS 2890.1.

(b) The carriageway and associated retaining walls, easement for drainage and services must be constructed prior to release of the linen plans. A Construction Certificate application must be submitted for the proposed works.

(c) Approval for demolition of the dwelling, garage and carport must be subject to standard demolition conditions.

(d) The site is covered by a substantial number of mature trees that will most likely be removed to allow construction of future dwellings on each lot. The application should be referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer to determine whether any of the trees on site are regarded as significant, and must be retained. The applicant should then be requested to submit a conceptual architectural plan, to determine whether the dwellings can be constructed without loss of the significant trees.

(e) Application should be referred to a Development Assessment Officer to comment on suitability of a future dwelling on each of the subdivided lots.

Tree Management Officer

Council’s Tree Management Officer has commented as follows on the proposal.


Senior Town Planner

Council’s Senior Town Planner has submitted the following comments on the proposal.

* The proposal appears to comply with the minimum provisions under the Local Environmental Plan with regards to lot size.

* There are some reservations with the middle allotment and the number of trees to be removed.

* The application should be referred to Council’s Tree Management Officers for advice on what trees must be retained.

* Also the applicant should provide a building envelope for this lot showing that it is feasible to actually fit a house and parking on the lot plus keep any significant trees.

Design Engineer

Council’s Design Engineer has given the following advice.

* The vehicle crossing is to be constructed as per Council standard shape and specification.

* Access levels to be issued prior to Construction Certificate.

* Underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.

* Applicant to construct a suitably sized cut-off drain along the front boundary to prevent water from the footpath area entering the subject property

Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has given the following advice.

“The Traffic and Road Safety Assessment is made for DA577/05 (17 Lime Kiln Road, Lugarno) with reference to the following documents received on 8 November 2005:

This development has been assessed with reference to the following guidelines:

A. Outline of Proposal

The proposal is to divide the existing land into three (3) lots.

B. Access Driveway

The Statement of Environmental Effects states that the proposed access will be via a Right of Carriageway (ROW) for two (2) of the three (3) allotments. This ROW will be 4m at the frontage, tapering to 3.6m at Lot 103, furthermore the length of the driveway is 51m. Australian Standards states that a domestic driveway must have a minimum width of 3m, with passing opportunities to be provided at least every 30m on long driveways (greater than 30m).

As the proposed ROW will only service two (2) allotments, it is viewed that the traffic using the ROW will be minimal and thus would not require a passing bay in this instance.

AS2890.1 (2004) states that the maximum gradient of domestic driveways shall be 25%. Plans indicate that the proposed development will have maximum grade of 17% - this complies with Australian Standards.

C. Location of New Driveway

Plans indicate that the ROW via the Lime Kiln Road frontage. Location of driveway is adequate; however, the driveway layout and profile must be referred to Council’s Vehicular Crossing Engineer for approval.
6. CONCLUSION

* The application is to subdivide the existing allotment into three (3) allotments.
* The development is permissible in the zoning provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.
* The proposal is permissible with Council consent.
* The site is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.
* The proposal generally complies with the technical standards contained in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan in regards to minimum area and width.
* Council's Tree Management Officer concurs with the recommendations in the arborist's report.
* Council’s Design Engineer has commented that access levels should be issued prior to any Construction Certificate being issued.
* A 1.0 metre wide easement to drain water must be created over the property adjoining the boundary to allow the discharge of all roof and surface water from the subject site to drain to Illawong Road. The easement must be registered prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application 20050557 for the torrens title subdivision of Lot 10, DP 420895 and known as 17 Lime Kiln Road, Lugarno, into three (3) separate lots subject to the attached conditions:

1. Standard subdivision conditions as approved by Council.

2. Standard demolition conditions as approved by Council.

3. The natural rock formation on the site shall be retained and the ground levels in the vicinity of exposed rock formations shall be maintained.

4. The full length of the driveway and turning circle shall be constructed with minimum 150mm thick reinforced concrete and supported on piers where necessary as required by Arborist's report prepared by Tree Wise Man and dated December 2005.

5. A 1.0 metre wide easement to drain water must be created over the property adjoining the rear boundary to allow the discharge of all roof and surface water from the subject site to drain to Illawong Road. The easement must be registered prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

6. An access levels application shall be made to the Council to obtain footpath crossing levels before designing internal driveways and car parking. Evidence that the proposed development complies with Council's issued levels shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.7. An application for the issue of a Construction Certificate is to be lodged with Council together with engineering design plans for approval.

8. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practicing hydraulics engineer must be submitted to Council for approval. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade length, invert levels, etc, dimensions and types of drainage pits must be shown.9. The proposed drainage details shall include all proposed works through the easement and suitable provisions for the drainage of all the lots including the driveway surface waters and the storm waters from the front lot. 10. The plans are to also detail suitable provisions for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits) and all services are to be underground.

11. Four (4) copies of detailed engineering plans. The detailed plans may include, but are not limited to, the earthworks, road works, road pavements, road furnishings, stormwater drainage, landscaping and erosion control works.

12. Engineer's detail shall be submitted regarding the proposed construction of the driveway. These details shall show longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials, and shall be designed in accordance with Council's subdivision standards.

13. The drainage works, driveway construction and provision for all services shall be done by suitably qualified persons prior to the release of the linen plans from Council.

14. The vehicle crossing is to be constructed as per Council standard shape and specification.

15. Any underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.

16. The applicant to construct a suitably sized cut-off drain along the front boundary to prevent water from the footpath area entering the subject property

17. The demolition of the existing residence, garage and carport must be completed prior to the release of the linen plans.

18. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained and submitted to Council prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

19. The survey plan should create by Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act an Easement for the proposed garbage area and letter box area.

20. No approval is expressed or implied to the indicative footprint for the future dwelling. The future dwellings will be required to comply with separate development approval from Council.

21. Proposed Lot 101 shall be known as 17 Lime Kiln Road.
Proposed Lot 102 shall be known as 17A Lime Kiln Road.
Proposed Lot 103 shall be known as 17B Lime Kiln Road.

22. Payment of Section 94 contributions of:

Open Space
$16,338.00
Community Services
$10,890.00
Management
$808.06
Library – Infrastructure
$5,544.00
Library – Bookstock
$31.22

23. The recommendations contained in Arbortist's report Ref 1647, dated December 2005, prepared by Tree Wise Men Australia Pty Ltd shall be adhered to in the construction of the right of way driveway and preparation of the site for subdivision.

24. No approval is expressed or implied to the location of the building footprint on Lot 102. A revised footprint is to be submitted and agreed to by Council and the Arborist prior to approval of the Subdivision Certificate.

25. All trees denoted in the Arborist's report for retention shall be protected and preserved in accordance with the recommendation in the report.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be deferred for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors.

THAT adjoining residents be provided with a summary of the arborist's report regarding retention or removal of trees on the site, together with the report from Council's Tree Management Officer, in order that all residents are fully informed of the reasons for retention or removal of the trees on site.

THAT the wording of Conditions 23 and 25 concerning the arborist's report be clarified, ie identify the tree numbers to be retained or removed.

THAT, should the application be approved, a further condition be imposed requiring that a site arborist be employed to ensure adherence to Council's Tree Management Officer's requirements.

FURTHER THAT the applicant submit a revised footprint for Lot 102 as detailed in Condition 24 prior to further consideration of the application. Should this information not be provided prior to further consideration, then this condition shall become a deferred commencement condition which must be satisfied.
(Moved Clr J Morris/Seconded Clr C Hindi)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.05 - 06

30 LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION
OF LAND INTO TWO LOTS AND RIGHT OF CARRIAGEWAY PARTLY
ON ADJOINING PROPERTY

APPLICANT

Mr R Green

PROPOSAL

Torrens title subdivision of land into two lots and right of
carriageway partly on adjoining property

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development
Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Mrs Jeanette Green and Mrs Kathleen Murray

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling houses, garage, carport and inground pool

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

To be assessed at $35,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Three submissions received

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Advice, Mr P Green and
Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young

FILE NO

DA 20050430


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The application seeks Council approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. The access to the proposed rear lot being via a right of carriageway constructed partly on the adjoining property.

2. A development application has previously been approved for the subdivision of 30 Llewellyn Street (DA No 20040412, approved 3 March 2004). The proposed lot sizes in this current application are the same as the previously approved application, however the proposed access to the rear lot now crosses partially over the property adjoining to the north (28 Llewellyn Street).

3. The proposed subdivision complies with the technical requirements specified in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and Council's Development Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for the Torrens title subdivision of the existing site into two (2) allotments and right of carriageway partly on adjoining property to access the proposed rear allotment.

The proposed two (2) new allotments (upon 30 Llewellyn Street) are as follows:

Lot 1

Proposed Lot 1 is located at the front of the subject site and is rectangular in shape. The total street frontage is 19.8m (excluding the proposed right of carriageway) with side depths of 33.8m and a rear width of 17.115m (excluding the proposed 3m wide right of carriage way).This lot is approximately 597sqm in size excluding the proposed area of the right of carriageway.

This lot will have a street frontage to Llewellyn Street with access via an existing driveway along the southern boundary.

A right of carriageway 3m wide is proposed to traverse through this lot and partially through the property adjoining to the north to serve the proposed Lot 2 at the rear. This right of way is proposed partly within the adjoining property for a length of approximately 14m from the alignment of Llewellyn Street, so as to avoid the Eucalyptus tree in the front of the site, thence parallel and along the northern boundary of the lot to the boundary of proposed Lot 2.

The finished level of this proposed driveway will be physically approximately 0.7m above natural ground level at the front of the adjoining dwelling – No. 28, thence generally follows the natural surface to the boundary of proposed Lot 2

The proposed boundary of the right of carriageway runs partially through the northern wall of the existing dwelling by approximately 760mm. This part of the dwelling will have to be demolished to accommodate the right of way.

Lot 2

Proposed Lot 2 is a battleaxe allotment located at the rear of the subject site and has access to Llewellyn Street via a proposed right of carriage way 3m in width and approximately 34m long through the front proposed Lot 1 and partially through the property adjoining to the north.

The proposed width of this lot is 20.115m with side boundaries of 44.255m and 42.935 with a rear water frontage to Gungah Bay of approximately 20.12m. This lot is 877sqm in size.

The proposal indicates a building footprint for a two (2) storey dwelling and garage on this lot together with a turning bay area. These details demonstrate that a dwelling can be erected on the site and vehicle access and egress can both be made in a forward direction in concept.

The proposed levels of the turning bay area indicate that the finished level at the rear of this proposed driveway will be physically approximately 1.4m above natural ground level.

Existing Lot 34 (28 Llewellyn Street)

The existing allotment (28 Llewellyn Street) affected by the proposed right of carriageway is as follows:

* The total street frontage is 20.115m with side boundaries of 82.425m and 74.155m with a rear water frontage to Gungah Bay of approximately 20.12m. This lot is 1,614sqm in size.

* The portion of the proposed right of carriageway upon the lot is triangular in shape and located in the south east corner of the site. It is approximately 14m long and 2.7m wide at the alignment of Llewellyn Street with an approximate area of 19sqm.

* This lot will have a frontage of approximately 17.4m and an area of 1,595sqm exclusive of the proposed right of carriageway.


BACKGROUND

A development application has previously been approved for the subdivision of 30 Llewellyn Street (DA No 20040412, approved 3 March 2004).

The proposed lot sizes in this current application are the same as the previously approved application, however the proposed access to the rear lot now crosses partially over the property adjoining to the north (30 Llewellyn Street).

Due to the proposed new vehicular crossing being at a lower level than previously approved, the levels of the proposed driveway have been substantially reduced resulting in a reduction of the visual impact on the adjoining property 28 Llewellyn Street.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The portion of the site to be subdivided (30 Llewellyn Street) is a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 20.115m to Llewellyn Street and an area of 1,556.9sqm. The portion of the site affected by the proposed right of carriageway (28 Llewellyn Street) is an approximately rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 20.115m to Llewellyn Street and an area of 1,614sqm. The site is located on the western side of the street and is affected by a Foreshore Building Line of 15m from the mean high water mark.

Existing on the site are dwelling houses, a garage, carport and inground pool.

Adjoining the site to the south are dwelling houses and a weatherboard cottage on a previously approved battleaxe subdivision to the north. Located at the rear of the site is Gungah Bay foreshore where mangroves grow to the mean high water mark.

The area is generally residential in character. Several nearby properties have previously been subdivided into battleaxe type lots including the adjoining property to the south (32-32A Llewellyn Street).


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned Residential, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is a permitted use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

The following specific provisions apply to the proposal:

Clause 11 Minimum lot sizes for dwelling houses on land within Zone No 2.
Clause 19A Development in foreshore areas.
Clause 19B Foreshore scenic protection area.

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 as follows:

Clause 11(2) states that an allotment for the erection of a dwelling house within Zone No 2 must have a width of at least 15m.

Comment: All allotments comply.

Clause 11(3) states that the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house on land within Zone No 2 that is located within a foreshore scenic protection area is 550sqm for the allotment at the front and 650sqm for the battleaxe allotment.

Comment: Both allotments comply.

Clause 11(4) states that the width or area of any access corridor, accessway, right of carriageway or the like is not to be included in the calculation of the width or area of an allotment.

Comment: The proposal complies.

Clause 19A states that before granting consent to the development of land within or adjoining land within Zone No 7, the Council must be satisfied that:

Clause 19B(3) states that the minimum density requirement for the erection of more than one dwelling on land that is within Zone No 2 and within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area is 500 square metres per dwelling.

Comment: The proposal complies with this requirement.

Clause 19B(4) states the Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of any development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless it has considered the following:

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The relevant conservation issues and environmental issues have been addressed in the Acid Sulphate Management Plan and the recommended conditions by the Department of Natural Resources.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The proposal complies with the Draft Plan.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision

The application has been assessed under the provisions of Development Control Plan No 30 – Subdivision as follows.

Standard
Comply
Comment
2.1 LOT SIZE
2.1.2 Residential Zone No. 2 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
a) The minimum allotment size for the creation of a new allotment within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area is 550sqm, and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres. This applies to an allotment with full street frontage.
YES
Proposed front Lot 1
Total area is 679.9sqm (597sqm excluding the access handle).
Minimum width is 17.115m excluding the access handle.
(b) The minimum battleaxe allotment size for a residential allotment in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area is 650sqm, and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres.
YES
Proposed rear Lot 2
Area is 877sqm.
Width is 20.115m.
c) The width or area of any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like is not to be included in the calculation of the width or area of an allotment.
YES
d) The minimum width of any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like shall be 3 metres if vehicular access is required to the battleaxe allotment.
YES
The right-of-carriageway is to be constructed on the site prior to the release of the linen plan by Council. This may be conditioned.
(g) Where vehicular access cannot be obtained, car parking is to be provided in a suitable location within the subdivision in accordance with Council’s DCP No 2 – Car Parking.
N/A
(e) Where the topography of a site requires separate pedestrian access or is only accessible by the use of an inclinator, an accessway with a minimum width of 2 metres is to be provided.
N/A
2.2.3 Residential Zone No. 2 - Access Driveways
(b) Where three or more residential allotments use an access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like:
i. a 6 metre wide, 150mm thick reinforced concrete driveway, capable of carrying a variety of service vehicles, including fire engines, is to be provided from the street alignment to the building area.
Alternatively, passing bays are to be provided at suitable locations; and
ii. a 12 metre diameter turning circle, or appropriately designed “hammer head” or “T-turn” to Council’s Traffic Engineers’ satisfaction, full concrete construction, is required at a location which will suit all allotments; and
iii. reciprocal right-of-way and easement for services should be shown; and
iv. any access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like is to be constructed prior to the release of the linen plan by Council.
N/A
The subdivision proposes only one residential allotment to use the access.
Due to the nature of the site, the right-of-carriageway is to be constructed on the site prior to the release of the linen plan by Council. This may be conditioned.
c) A maximum number of six (6) residential allotments can have access off an access corridor, accessway, right-of-carriageway or the like.
N/A
2.3 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
2.3.1 Service Supply
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
It will be necessary for an easement for services to be created over Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2.
2.3.2 Waste Storage Areas
YES
Sufficient area available. Appropriate conditions can be applied.
2.4 DRAINAGE
2.4.1 General
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
It will be necessary for an easement to drain water to be created over Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1.
2.4.2 Overland Flow Paths
.
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
It will be necessary for an easement to drain water to be created over Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1.
2.4.3 Flow of Run-off Across Property Boundaries
YES
Appropriate conditions can be applied.
The necessary drainage shall be designed by a hydraulics consultant.
2.5 DRIVEWAYS AND CAR PARKING
2.5.1 Car Parking
Requirements for car parking are:
Dwelling house 1 space per 1 or 2 bedrooms
2 spaces for 3+ bedrooms
YES
Car spaces provided for on proposed plans.
2.7 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
2.7.1 Heritage
YES
N/A
2.7.2 Contribution Rates
YES
Appropriate conditions applied.
2.7.6 Site Management
YES
Site management plan is required through conditions.

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with the Development Control Plan No 30 – Subdivision.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The proposal was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officers in regards to the protection of any significant trees and the removal of any other trees on or outside the site for the construction of the access. The Tree Management Officers comments are included later in this report.

In addition the applicant has submitted an acid sulfate soil management plan with the application the recommendations of this report shall be included in the conditions of this consent in regards to any excavation required. The Department of Natural Resources has also suggested conditions for the purpose of safeguarding the foreshore and aquatic environment.

Built Environment

No impacts likely.

Social Impact

No impacts likely.

Economic Impact

No impacts likely.

Suitability of the Site

The site has been identified as potentially containing acid sulfate soil.

The applicant has submitted an acid sulfate soil management plan with the application. The recommendations of this report are included in the conditions of this consent in regards to any excavation required at the lower level of the site.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

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.

Objection from 15 Llewellyn Street, located across the road and to the north of the site.

Trees

The objector raises concerns that there are trees of significance on the site in particular the large angophora on the proposed rear Lot 2 and the bank of native flora along the street in the position of the proposed driveway.

Comment: The proposal was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officers in regards to the protection of any significant trees and the removal of any other trees on or outside the site for the construction of the access. The significant trees on the front and rear lots will be retained.

Nature of the Soil

The objector is concerned about the nature of the soil at the bottom of the site being flood prone wetland and containing acid sulfate soil potentially threatening the environment when disturbed.

Comment: The applicant has submitted an acid sulfate soil management plan with the application the recommendations of this report shall be included in the conditions of this consent in regards to any excavation required.

The proposal was also referred to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) being part of an integrated development on the foreshore. The Department has included as part of the conditions of consent special conditions to protect the foreshore environment. These special conditions are as follows:

a) Details of any stormwater outlet to the watercourse/foreshore are to be submitted to DNR for approval prior to the issue of permit. Any stormwater outlets to the watercourse should be designed, located and constructed to minimise any erosion or scour of the banks or bed of the watercourse/foreshore and the construction technique adopted is to ensure that disturbance to the banks soil and vegetation is kept to an absolute minimum. Stormwater outlets are to be of a soft engineering design and should address the requirements of the DNR guideline on Stormwater Outlet Structures to Streams (For pipes, culverts, drains and spillways – Version 1) (Attachment A).

b) Any area within 20 metres of the watercourse/foreshore that is disturbed by the construction of the stormwater pipeline and outlet is to be rehabilitated using local native plant species propagated from local genetic stock.

c) Prior to the issue of the Part 3A permit, agreement in writing from NSW Fisheries is required for the designs of all proposed works located within, or connecting, any protected waters.

Objection from 24 Llewellyn Street, located two (2) properties to the north of the site.

Trees

No objection is raised to the subdivision of the land but concerns are raised to the removal of trees and the illegal filling of the land.

Comment: Council’s Tree Management Officer has suggested a bond be placed on the two (2) significant trees on the site and this shall be included in conditions of any consent for the proposal.

The proposal does not include any filling of the land.

Objection from 36 Llewellyn Street, located three properties to the south of the site.

Trees

Concerns are raised about the protection of the two (2) significant trees on the site being a Eucalyptus haemastoma on lot 1 and the Angophora costata on Lot 2.The writer suggests that conditions be included to ensure no damage to these trees or root zones occur and bonds be placed on both these trees.

Comment: Council’s Tree Management Officer has suggested a bond be placed on these two (2) trees and this shall be included in conditions of any consent for the proposal.

Removal of Trees

Concerns are raised about the removal of trees and large shrubs on 28 Llewellyn Street and on the adjacent Council’s footpath area for the construction of the driveway.

Comment: Council’s Tree Management Officer has granted permission to remove the three (3) small native street trees and to pay Council to replace these trees

Council Referrals

Tree Management Officer

Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer has inspected the site and suggested the following:

a) Front Yard: Regarding trees on neighbouring property (No 28): No objection to removing two (2) Pittosporum and one (1) Crepe Myrtle in front of property as per DA 20050430 to allow driveway access.b) Front Yard: One (1) Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) tree on private property to be retained and protected. Driveway to be suspended between chainage points Ch 9.5 to Ch 15.8 as per your reckoning to minimise damage to root zone of tree.c) Side Yard: No objection to removing one (1) Camellia at side of house to allow driveway access.

d) Rear Yard: One (1) Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) tree on private property to be retained and protected. No disturbance to the root zone of the tree.

The Tree Management Officer also recommends placing security bonds upon the Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) in the front yard and the Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) in the rear yard.

A separate approval has also been granted by the Tree Preservation Officer to the removal of small street trees, one (1) Callistemon sp, one (1) Banksia sp and one (1) Eucalyptus sp at the applicant's cost including the planting of replacement trees.

Senior Design Engineer

Council’s Senior Design Engineer has commented as follows:
Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has submitted the following comments on the proposal:

"The traffic and road safety assessment is made for DA430/05 (30 Llewellyn Street, Oatley) with reference to the following documents received in August 2005:

1. Statement of Environmental Effects dated July 2005
2. J.P. Bates and Inwood drawing dated 6 March 2005.

This development has been assessed with reference to the following guidelines:

1. AS2890.1 (2004): Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking
2. Hurstville City Council DCP No. 2: Car Parking (Adopted August 1999)
3. RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002)

A. Outline of Proposal

The proposal is to divide the existing allotment into two (2) lots.

B. Driveway Dimensions

Drawings indicate that the new allotment will gain access via a separate driveway on the north eastern corner. The proposed driveway width is 3m and length is approximately 33m. Australian Standards states that a domestic driveway must have a minimum width of 3m. Furthermore, on long driveways (greater than 30m), passing opportunities must be provided at least every 30m.

It is viewed that due to the driveway being utilized by one (1) property, the width and length of the driveway complies with Council’s requirements.

AS2890.1 (2004) states that the maximum gradient of domestic driveways shall be 25%. Plans indicate that the proposed development will have a grade of less than 25% - this complies with Australian Standards.

C. Traffic Generation

The RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (1994) states that for dwelling houses, the following rates apply:

This is deemed to have a negligible impact on the local road network.

D. Location of New Driveway

Plans indicate that the proposed location of the new driveway will be via Llewellyn Street frontage. Location of driveway is adequate; however, the driveway layout and profile must be referred to Council’s Vehicular Crossing Engineer for approval.”

External Referrals

Department of Natural ResourcesDue to the proposed construction of the stormwater line to the rear of the site the proposal was referred to the Department as part of an integrated development adjoining a watercourse/foreshore.

The Department has no objections to the proposal in principle subject to the Department’s general terms of approval, including three special conditions, being included as part of conditions of any consent.

The department’s conditions are as follows:

a) These conditions apply only to the works granted on this site, under the subject Development Application.

b) Works are to be carried out in accordance with the plans presented to the Department of Natural Resources for the subject Development Application.

c) All works proposed must be designed, constructed and operated to minimise sedimentation, erosion and scour of the banks or bed of the watercourse/foreshore and to minimise adverse impacts on aquatic and riparian environments.

d) Erosion and sediment control measures are to be implemented prior to any works commencing at the site and must be maintained for as long as necessary after the completion of works, to prevent sediment and dirty water entering the watercourse/foreshore environment. These control measures are to be in accordance with the requirements of Council, or the determining authority, and best to follow management practices as outlined in the Landcom manual “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction – Volume 1” (4th Ed., 2004) - the “Blue Book”.

e) The Part 3A permit from the Department is issued for works on FREEHOLD land only. This Permit is null and void for any works on Crown Land.

f) Rehabilitation of the area in accordance with the Part 3A permit conditions or any direction from the Department is the responsibility of the permit holder and owner or occupier of the land.

g) If requested by the Department, work as executed survey plans of a professional standard and including information required by the Department shall be provided to the Department within fourteen (14) days of such request. (Note: the Department usually only invokes this condition in matters of contention).

h) If, in the opinion of a Departmental officer, any work is being carried out in such a manner that they may damage or detrimentally affect the watercourse or foreshore or its environment, or damage or interfere with any thing not authorised to be so affected, such work shall cease immediately upon oral or written direction of such officer.

i) If any Part 3A permit condition is breached, the Permit holder shall follow the Department’s directions to address the breach and shall rehabilitate the Site as directed by, and to the satisfaction of, the Department.

Special Conditions:

a) Details of any stormwater outlet to the watercourse/foreshore are to be submitted to DNR for approval prior to the issue of permit. Any stormwater outlets to the watercourse should be designed, located and constructed to minimise any erosion or scour of the banks or bed of the watercourse/foreshore and the construction technique adopted is to ensure that disturbance to the banks soil and vegetation is kept to an absolute minimum. Stormwater outlets are to be of a soft engineering design and should address the requirements of the DNR guideline on Stormwater Outlet Structures to Streams (For pipes, culverts, drains and spillways – Version 1) (Attachment A).

b) Any area within 20 metres of the watercourse/foreshore that is disturbed by the construction of the stormwater pipeline and outlet is to be rehabilitated using local native plant species propagated from local genetic stock.

c) Prior to the issue of the Part 3A permit, agreement in writing from NSW Fisheries is required for the designs of all proposed works located within, or connecting, any protected waters. 6. CONCLUSION

* The application is to subdivide the existing two (2) allotments into two (2) allotments.
* The development is permissible in the zoning provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.
* The proposal is permissible with Council consent.
* The site is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.
* The proposal generally complies with the technical standards contained in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan in regards to minimum area and width.
* Council’s Tree Management Officer identified two trees located on the site that should be retained and suggested a $10,000 bond to be placed to ensure the significant trees are protected during construction of the driveway.
* In addition the drive way is suspended where positioned within 3m of the tree in the front yard.
* The acid sulfate soil management plan submitted recommend certain procedures for undertaking any excavation works near the mean high water mark. These recommendations shall be included as conditions to any consent approval.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application 20050430 for the subdivision of the land into two (2) lots on Lots 33 and 34 DP 5510 and known as 28 and 30 Llewellyn Street., subject to the attached conditions:

1. Standard subdivision conditions as approved by Council.

2. Retain the Eucalyptus haemastona adjacent to the proposed driveway in the front of the site and that no excavation be done within 3m of the base edge of this tree.3. Retain the Angophoa costata on the proposed rear lot with no excavation within 2m of the base.4. A $10,000.00 bond on these trees to ensure their protection during construction. The bond to be released six (6) months after construction has been completed and on inspection of the tree.

5. The full length of the driveway shall be constructed with minimum 150mm thick reinforced concrete and minimum of 2.7m wide between inner face of kerbs. A section of this driveway shall be approximately a 6m long suspended slab from approximately 10m chainage through to 16m chainage, on piers, thus giving a 3m clearance of excavation from the Eucalyptus Haemastona.

6. Driveway to be designed in accordance with AS 2890 (1993) and constructed as part of the subdivision application. The maximum longitudinal gradient of the driveway shall be 25%.

7. The driveway shall be constructed with 150mm high kerbing, with a vehicle safety guard rail and a pedestrian handrail on both sides for its entire length. Reflectors shall be provided along each side of the drive and the surface shall be non-slip.

8. The vehicle access from the site onto Council’s carriageway shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Traffic Engineer. Details to be submitted at the time of design for the construction of the vehicle access to the rear allotment.

9. All stormwater from the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 1 as well as the driveway surface waters shall be drained through a suitably designed piped drainage system to Gungah Bay within a drainage easement created along the northern boundary of the subject site and deviated to avoid damage to the trees along that boundary.10. An application for the issue of a Construction Certificate is to be lodged with Council together with engineering design plans for approval.

11. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practicing hydraulics engineer must be submitted to Council for approval. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade length, invert levels, etc, dimensions and types of drainage pits must be shown.

12. The proposed drainage details shall include all proposed works through the easement and suitable provisions for the drainage of all the lots including the driveway surface waters and the storm waters from the existing dwelling and garage on the front lot.

13. The plans are to also detail suitable provisions for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits) and all services are to be underground.

14. Four (4) copies of detailed engineering plans. The detailed plans may include, but are not limited to, the earthworks, road works, road pavements, road furnishings, stormwater drainage, landscaping and erosion control works.

15. Engineer's detail shall be submitted regarding the proposed construction of the driveway. These details shall show longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials, and shall be designed in accordance with Council's subdivision standards.16. The drainage works, driveway construction and provision for all services shall be done by suitably qualified persons prior to the release of the linen plans from Council.

17. The Construction Certificate application shall also include demolition and building works that are proposed to be carried out to that part of the dwelling that encroaches over the carriageway. Such works must be completed prior to the release of the linen plans.

18. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained and submitted to Council prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

19. The subdivision plan shall create by Section 88B of The Conveyancing Act the following:

20. No approval is expressed or implied to the indicative footprint for the future dwelling. The future dwelling will be required to comply with the foreshore building line of 15m and be sited to comply with boundary setbacks and height requirements at the time approval is sought from Council.

21. The conditions of approval from the Department of Natural Resources shall be included as part of the conditions of this consent.

22. The recommendations of the submitted Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan shall be included as part of the conditions of this consent.

23. Proposed Lot 1 shall be known as 30 Llewellyn Street.
Proposed Lot 2 shall be known as 30A Llewellyn Street.

24. Payment of Section 94 contributions of:
25. Payment of an additional DA fee based on a cost of works for the driveway and part demolition of dwelling of $35,000.00.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report, subject to the following amendment to Condition 4:-

4. A $10,000.00 bond on each of the trees to ensure their protection during construction. The bond to be released six (6) months after construction has been completed and on inspection of the trees.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Lee)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC001.06 - 06

56 MARINE DRIVE, OATLEY - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION
APPLICATION TO MODIFY CONSENT CONDITION

APPLICANT

Mr G and Mrs B White

PROPOSAL

Section 96 modification application to modify consent condition

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development
Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Mr G and Mrs B White

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Two storey dwelling house, garage and boatshed

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Nil

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Objections received

REPORT AUTHORS

Planning Consultant, Mr D Broyd, of David Broyd Consulting
Services Pty Ltd

FILE NO

DA 20040205REV01


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This Section 96 Modification application seeking to amend the condition concerning parking provision for the approved two (2) lot subdivision at 56 Marine Drive, Oatley.

2. The report has been prepared by independent Planning Consultant - David Broyd (David Broyd Consulting Services Pty Ltd) because the applicant provides contracted services to Council as a golf professional.

3. Consent for the subdivision of one (1) lot at 56 Marine Drive into two (2) was issued on 12 October 2004 following decision at the Development Assessment Committee of 5 October 2004. One (1) consent condition requires the lodgement of a separate development application for the construction of the four (4) car parking spaces (two (2) spaces per lot) and for the construction to be completed prior to release of subdivision certificate.

4. The modification application seeks to confirm provision of the four (4) spaces (two (2) per lot) and secure the construction by Bank Guarantee rather than construct before issue of the Subdivision Certificate – with accompanying drawings for parking spaces rather than garages.

5. Means of achieving a modified approach to providing the car parking are recommended after the assessment of this application.


RECOMMENDATION

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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Development consent was issued for this two lot subdivision on 12 October 2004 following decision by the Development Assessment Committee on 5 October 2004.

The Consent included condition 8 as follows:
This is the condition which the applicant is seeking to modify.


BACKGROUND

Development consent was issued for this two lot subdivision on 12 October 2004 following decision by the Development Assessment Committee on 5 October 2004.

The Consent included condition 8 as follows:

8. A separate development application for the approval of the construction of the four car parking spaces at the front of the site shall be lodged with Council. This structure shall provide for two car spaces for each lot which together will have a clear width of 5.7m and a minimum length of 5.5m.This is the condition which the applicant is seeking to modify.

The application was originally considered at Council's Development Assessment Committee of 2 June 2004. The application was deferred at this meeting for Councillors inspection. The inspection took place on 9 June 2004. The application was then reconsidered at Council's Development Assessment committee of 7 July 2004 and subsequently approved subject to certain conditions.

Prior to the consent being issued for the development, the authors of late submissions to the proposal claimed that their issues were not considered in the report to Council. Also concerns were raised that a notice sign advertising the proposal was never erected outside the site over the notification period. Subsequently a decision was made to withhold the issue of consent for the development and renotify the proposal. The application was reported to the Development Assessment Committee of 5 October 2004 and approved.


REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – OCTOBER 2004

For the information of Councillors, the report to the Development Assessment Committee of 5 October 2004 is reproduced below.

BACKGROUND

This application was originally considered at Council's Development Assessment Committee of 2 June 2004.

The application was deferred at this meeting for Councillor inspection. The inspection took place on 9 June 2004.

The application was then reconsidered at Council's Development Assessment committee of 7 July 2004 and subsequently approved subject to certain conditions.

Prior to the consent being issued for the development, the authors of late submissions to the proposal claimed that their issues were not considered in the report to Council. Also concerns were raised that a notice sign advertising the proposal was never erected outside the site over the notification period.

Subsequently a decision was made to withhold the issue of consent for the development and renotify the proposal.


SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

The subject site is located on the western side of Marine Drive, Oatley at Jew Fish Point. The land has a street frontage to Marine Drive, a rear water frontage to the Georges River and is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The site is irregular in shape with an area of 1704.4sqm and has a street frontage of 11.93m to Marine Drive and a water frontage of 24.795m to the Georges River. The land falls steeply from the street to the river by approximately 39 metres.

The site is located in a typically residential area and currently contains a two storey dwelling house, a single garage located in front of the house together with a sandstone boat shed at the waterfront.

Many of the adjoining residences predominantly have garages built up on street level near the road alignment of Marine Drive as the steep topography of the site prevents vehicle access to the lower portions of allotments between Marine Drive and the river.

The adjoining property to the west of the subject site (54 Marine Drive) has previously been subdivided into a battle axe style lot which has an existing dwelling in a similar location to the suggested footprint for a dwelling on the lower lot should the subdivision be approved.


PROPOSAL

The application is to subdivide the existing site into two allotments. The existing site is irregular in shape with an area of 1704.4sqm and has a street frontage of 11.93m to Marine Drive and a water frontage of 24.795m to the Georges River. The land steeply falls from the street to the river by approximately 39 metres.

The proposed two allotments are as follows:

Lot 1

Lot 1 is located at the front of the existing site and has a street frontage to Marine Drive of 11.93m. The proposed eastern side boundary is 48m, the proposed western side boundary is 42m and the proposed southern rear common boundary is 17.1m in total. This lot is 632.4sqm in area.

This lot contains the two storey dwelling house (to be retained) and a single garage located in front of the dwelling house (to be demolished for the provision of the proposed four car spaces at the front of the site).

The proposed lot includes the creation of an easement for parking at the street front to accommodate a total of four (4) car spaces for the proposed two allotments. An easement for services and access one (1) metre wide is proposed to run along the western boundary of the site to enable pedestrian access to the existing sand stone path on the proposed rear lot.

Lot 2

Lot 2 is located at the rear of the existing site and has a total waterfrontage to the Georges River of 24.795m. It has a proposed northern common boundary of 17.1m, a proposed eastern side boundary of 52.89m and a proposed western side boundary of 57.04m. This lot is 1075sqm in area.

This lot currently contains a sandstone boat shed and terraced lawn areas.

Access to this lot will be limited to pedestrian via a one (1) metre wide easement for services and access created over the front proposed Lot 1 from the easement for car parking proposed to be created at street level.

The proposal indicates a building footprint of 15m x 18 m on this lot demonstrating a dwelling can be erected on the site clear of the existing foreshore building line.

A SEPP1 Objection has been lodged with the application, seeking Council to vary the development standard of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan to allow the subdivision.


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 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council.

Clause 11(2) of the Local Environmental Plan requires residential allotment sizes to have a minimum width of 15m.

Clause 11(3) requires the minimum allotment sizes that are located within a foreshore scenic protection area of 550sqm for the allotment at the front and 650sqm for the battleaxe allotment.

Clause 19A – development in foreshore areas.

Clause 19B – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

Council’s Subdivision Code

Council’s Subdivision Code requires an access strip for a garage at least 3.7m wide over a 6m length for parking if the rear lot is not negotiable by vehicle.


ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

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

Technical StandardsRequiredProposedCompliesVariation (%)
Front Lot (lot 1)
Site Area
550sqm
excluding any access easements
632.4sqm in total.
Approx 475sqm excluding easements
No13%
Front Lot (lot 1) Width15m 11.93m to 17.1mNoThe 15m width does not start until approx. 31m down the site, resulting in 69% of the site not meeting the minimum width requirements
Rear lot (lot 2)
Site Area
650sqm1075sqmYesNil
Rear lot (lot 2) Width15mMinimum 17.5mYesNil
Rear lot (lot 2) Access handle width (pedestrian access)No standard specified1m (pedestrian access only) N/A
There is no minimum requirement for pedestrian only access width
Nil
Rear lot 2 Access strip of land be provided sufficient for garage3.7m wide by 6m longTwo (2) car spaces totalling 5m wide by 5.5m longN/AProvided as an easement for parking over front lot 1

The proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum width requirements of the Local Environmental Plan in regards to the proposed front Lot 1. However, Lot 2 complies with the minimum width requirements.

In order for the front lot to comply with the minimum area requirements of 550sqm half the area of the proposed front right of carriageway and easement for parking could be reclassified as part of the front lot. The mid common boundary between the two lots could also be relocated further towards the river to attain additional site area into the front lot.

A triangular section of land on the eastern side of the rear of the proposed Lot 1 that appears to run along the edge of an existing retaining wall could be included into Lot 1 to achieve the minimum area required.

The applicant submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection to the non compliances with the Local Environmental Plan. This objection was based on five heads of consideration.

The applicant has stated that:

The applicant has also stated that:

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994

Clause 19A

Before granting consent to the development of land within or adjoining land within Zone No 7, the Council must be satisfied that:

a) it has appropriately considered the appearance of the development from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas;

b) the development will not cause any pollution or saltation of the waterway;

c) the development will not have any adverse effects on surrounding uses, marine habitats, wetland areas or flora and fauna habitats;

d) the development will not cause significant runoff, and will not result in inappropriate and excessive excavation or have an adverse effect on drainage patterns;

e) the development will not cause congestion of, or generate conflicts between, people using open space areas of the waterway (or both);

f) the development will not adversely affect the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of any heritage item, or any other building, work, area or place relating to the environmental heritage on or forming part of the land, or on or forming part of the surrounding land;

g) the development will not adversely affect the natural topography, any natural rock formations or significant vegetation located on or adjoining the land.

Clause 19B

4) The Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of any development on land to which this clause applies unless it has considered the following:


DIVISIONAL REFERRALS

Manager - Development Control

"This is a difficult subdivision of a large wedge shaped site which poses access and parking problems. The applicants have had a number of meetings with Council's officers to resolve these issues over the past two years. An original proposal was to do a joint venture with the owners of the adjoining vacant allotment but apparently that proposal could not be agreed to the satisfaction of both parties.

The current proposal involves the construction of a parking platform for four (4) cars at street level and thereafter stair access to the existing house and to the proposed rear allotment with easement burdening the front lot.

No particular objection is raised to the parking proposal, as this is the typical arrangement along Marine Drive and there is no alternative as four (4) car spaces should be provided for the two lots if the subdivision is to be allowed. The comments of the Traffic Engineer are supported and the width of the spaces must be increased. A suitable condition of consent is recommended.

The comments of the one (1) objector are noted. However, the proposal should not result in unreasonable impacts on that objector who is one allotment removed from the subject site. The intermediate allotment is already subdivided with a house occupying the rear battleaxe allotment."

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor for this area submitted the following advice:

Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has submitted the following comments on the proposal:

Council’s Tree Management Officer

Council’s Tree Management Officer for this area has inspected the site and comments as follows:


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

Access

The objector raises concerns that the proposed one (1) metre wide pedestrian access along the side of the existing house seems to be inadequate.

Comment: Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Subdivision Code does not set any minimum width for pedestrian access to an allotment if not negotiated by vehicle. Building materials and furniture will have to be delivered via the water frontage to the proposed rear lot. It is feasible for the right of pedestrian access to be increased in dimension to 1.3m with a widening at the rear of the proposed parking platform to accommodate the existing access steps.

Traffic and Parking

The objectors feel the development will increase the problem with parking in the area outside and near the subject site with an increase of traffic and public safety in the area.

Comment: The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer who states that the off-street parking is provided in accordance with Council’s requirements and the proposal has minimal impact on the local road network.

The minimum required dimensions for the proposed carports can be achieved as a condition of any approval for the proposal.

Council’s Subdivision Code effectively only requires one car space for 3.7m wide over a 6m length to be rear lots if the rear lot is not negotiable by vehicle. Sufficient area for car parking has been provided for this proposal.

Character of Area

The objector states that the area of Marine Drive is single dwellings per block and the creation of divided allotments would be out of character.

Comment: The adjoining property to the subject site (52 and 54 Marine Drive) has previously been subdivided into battleaxe style allotments not dissimilar to this proposal in 1962.

Loss of View

The objector raises concerns that with another house built closer to the Georges River on the proposed rear lot there will be a loss of view.

Comment: The construction of a dwelling on the proposed rear lot will require a separate development application to Council. The protection of the objector’s views may be considered during the assessment of any such application.

Precedent

The objector is concerned that by approving this proposal there would be a precedent set for future subdivision in the Jew Fish Point area.

Comment: The adjoining property to the subject site (52-54 Marine Drive) has previously been subdivided into a battleaxe style lot (approved in 1962) which has an existing dwelling in a similar location to the proposal.

Insufficient Width

The objector states the proposal has insufficient width resulting inadequate access for emergency services.

Comment: Many waterfront properties on steep sites have access via stairs, ramps and inclinators which would not allow emergency access by emergency vehicles to the front door. Access for Police, Fire and Ambulance personnel would be possible to both the existing and any future dwelling house on the proposed lots.

Bush Corridor for Wildlife

The objectors are concerned that the proposal will be a threat to the bush corridor along the Georges River foreshore providing a habitat for native animals.

Comment: Whilst there is a reasonable corridor of bush along the Marine Drive foreshore it will be interrupted when development takes place on the other battleaxe blocks when they are developed. It is to be noted that it is at present interrupted on several other blocks and there is no significant vegetation on the subject allotment.

Stormwater and Siltation

The objectors state that the stormwaters from the proposed development will cause increase runoff and siltation of the river.

Comment: There will be no increased run-off due to the subdivision of the land. The intensity of run-off in storms when future development occurs however, will be required to pass through a silt pit and screen before entering the river. Sediment control measures will be required during construction.

Heritage

The objectors are concerned that the proposal will destroy the stone masonry on the site that has significant heritage value.

Comment: The stone fence extends across the adjoining vacant allotment and was apparently constructed in the 1950's. Council's Heritage Consultant reported in 1998 that the fence is distinctive, and is a rare example of a sandstone fence in the Hurstville area. However, the fence does not fully meet the criteria as stipulated in the Heritage Office guidelines for Representativeness or Rarity. The Consultant recommends that all or part of the fence be retained on the basis of the perception of the importance of the fence by the local community. Unfortunately the fence cannot be retained if the consent is granted however, a photographic record should be made of the fence and garage.

River Access for Building

One objector states that the proposal will result in rubbish and debris entering the river as a consequence of building materials being delivered to the site via the waterway.

Comment: It is recommended that a silt pit and trash screen be installed to prevent debris entering the waterway. All materials delivered by barge would be suitably packaged for ease of lifting by a crane. It is considered that appropriate management of materials including waste materials will ensure that the waterway is not polluted.

Visual Cluttering of Viewscape

The objector is concerned about the viewscape by the proposal with the proliferation of garages at street level.

Comment: Marine Drive is characterised by garages along the street alignment.

Not in Public Interest

One objector claims the development is not in the public interest as a result of the issues raised.

Comment: Other precedent subdivisions have occurred in this section of Marine Drive. The readvertisement of the proposal ha not aroused wide spread opposition to the proposal.


SUMMARY

The development is permissible under the zoning provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.The proposal varies from the technical standards contained in the Local Environmental Plan and in Council’s Subdivision Code in regards to the minimum width of the proposed front Lot 1. The boundaries between the proposed Lots 1 and 2 can be adjusted on the final survey plan to comply with minimum area requirements.

A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted due to the non compliance.

The non-compliance with the width standard only relates to the portion of the existing allotment that accommodates the existing dwelling house to be retained .This proposal will have a minimal affect on the present situation of the current position of the dwelling.

The dimension of the proposed rear Lot 2 complies with Council’s requirements in regards to minimum area and width. Sufficient area for car parking has been provided for this proposal although the application varies from the requirements of Council’s Subdivision Code.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT, pursuant to the powers vested in Council by Section 80 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the Council, as consent authority, grant approval under DA 20040205 for Torrens Title subdivision on land known as 56 Marine Drive, Oatley, subject to the following conditions.

A. Council resolves to support the SEPP 1 objection and allow the departure from Clause 11(2) and 11(3) of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan.

B. 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 approval under DA 20040205 for torrens title subdivision on land known as 56 Marine Drive, Oatley, subject to the following conditions.

1. A separate development application for the approval of the construction of the four car parking spaces at the front of the site shall be lodged with Council. This structure shall provide for two car spaces for each lot which together will have a clear width of 5.7m and a minimum length of 5.5m.
8. The proposed dividing common boundary between proposed Lots 1 and 2 shall be adjusted on the final linen plan to provide additional site area in Lot 1 to compensate for the area of easements benefiting Lot 2.

The proposed Lot 1 shall be a minimum area of 550sqm.

The area of any Easements for Access, Right of Carriageway or Parking shall not be included in the calculation of the area for any proposed lot.

9. The final linen plan shall show the proposed front Right of Carriageway and Parking area divided approximately into two and reclassified as part of each respective lot.

The front parking area for each lot can then be included as site area in each individual lot.

10. A photographic record of the stone fence and garage at the front of the site shall be submitted to Council for historical/archive purposes.

The consent notice included the standard conditions and listed the conditions in the following order.

"CONSENT CONDITIONS

1. Act, Regulations and Environmental Planning Instruments Prevail – The current requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended (“the Act”), the Regulations thereunder (“the Regulation”), the Building Code of Australia (“the BCA”), Hurstville City Council’s (“the Council”) Local Environmental Plan, relevant development control plans and adopted codes prevail and shall be complied with in full otherwise than expressly varied by this consent.

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. Copy of said plans is attached to this consent.

SCHEDULE OF PLANSAND DETAILS
Drawing No.
Date
Description
Prepared by
CH3748.003Feb 2004Plan of Proposed Subdivision No. 56 Marine Drive, OatleyWilliam L. Backhouse Pty Ltd
Sketch Plan No. 105.02Proposed Car Parking for Site SubdivisionGeoffrey Le Sueur Architects

3. Open Space and Community Recreation – Pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the developer must pay to the Council a monetary contribution for open space and community recreation facilities.

4. Community Services and Facilities – Pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the developer must pay to the Council a monetary contribution for community services and facilities.

5. Management – Pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the developer must pay to the Council a monetary contribution for Section 94 planning and management.

6. Library and Information Services – Pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the developer must pay to the Council a monetary contribution for library and information services.

7. Indexing of Contributions – The amount of the contributions payable pursuant to Section 94 conditions must be paid prior to the release of the linen plan of subdivision and will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Consumer Price Index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If you seek to obtain the linen plan of subdivision more than three (3) months from the date of this consent you will need to contact Council to determine any variation in the contributions prior to payment. Failure to do so may result in incorrect cheque preparation, return of payment, and delay in obtaining your Subdivision Certificate.

8. A separate development application for the approval of the construction of the four car parking spaces at the front of the site shall be lodged with Council. This structure shall provide for two car spaces for each lot which together will have a clear width of 5.7m and a minimum length of 5.5m.

9. In order to certify that detailed construction plan and specifications are in accordance with the requirements of the development consent and Council standards, the applicant shall obtain a Construction Certificate prior to the commencement of any works.

10. All stormwaters from the existing front dwelling on the proposed front lot are piped to the Georges River through the proposed rear lot. An easement to drain water shall be created on the subdivision plan by section 88B of the Conveyancing Act to accommodate this pipe line.

A 600mm by 600mm Square grated surface inlet pit shall be installed in the existing pipe system and any future drainage system on the site.

This pit shall have a 300mm deep sump in the base and a RH3030 galvanised maximesh litter screen installed over the outlet.

11. Linen Plans of Survey, plus five (5) copies, prepared by a Registered Surveyor to be lodged with Council together with any accompanying 88B instrument, plus one (1) copy.

12. The proposed dividing common boundary between proposed lots 1 and 2 shall be adjusted on the final linen plan to provide additional site area in Lot 1 to compensate for the area of easements benefiting Lot 2.

13. The final linen plan shall show the proposed front Right of Carriageway and Parking area divided approximately into two and reclassified as part of each respective lot.

14. The subdivision plan shall create by Section 88B of The Conveyancing Act the following:

i) An easement for services and access generally 1.3 metre wide partially along the western boundary of proposed lot 1 from the front parking areas to the common boundary of proposed lots 1 and 2. This easement should be widened at the rear of the proposed parking area to accommodate the existing access steps and specific terms should be included in regards to any overhanging structures encroaching upon the site of the easement.

ii) An easement to drain water over the proposed rear lot 2 to allow all storm waters from the proposed front lot 1 to drain to the Georges River.

15. Any service or drainage line from one lot which passes or will pass through the other lot to have:

16. Utilities - Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of all utility authorities in respect to the services supplied by those authorities to the development. All services to any future dwellings erected on the site shall be underground.

17. Sydney Water – Access to water and waste water services

18. Payment of all outstanding fees as listed in the accompanying fee schedule is required prior to the release of the linen plan of subdivision.

19. A photographic record of the stone fence and garage at the front of the site shall be submitted to Council for historic/archive purposes.

20. An application for a Subdivision Certificate shall be lodged for the endorsement and release of the final Subdivision plans from Council after completion of all the abovementioned conditions.

21. The proposed Front Lot 1 shall be known as No.56 Marine Drive. The proposed Rear Lot 2 shall be known as No. 56A Marine Drive.

22. No approval is expressed or implied to the indicative footprint for the future dwelling. The future dwelling will be required to comply with boundary setbacks and height requirements at the time approval is sought from Council.
End of Consent Conditions"


REPORT ON MODIFICATION PROPOSAL

The proposal from the applicant is to modify Condition 8 to remove the requirement for a separate DA and the need to construct the car parking prior to subdivision certificate.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant’s supporting submission contends that:


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The proposed modification has been inspected and assessed under the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

The land is zoned - 2 Residential and the proposed modification can be approved in the zone and meets the zone objectives. The issues discussed in the original report pursuant to Clauses 19A and 19B remain as previously reported except that the amended plans indicate only a parking platform which will not obstruct views to the waterway from Marine Drive.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The site of the approved subdivision is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

There are no trees subject to the Order affected by this proposal.

Clause 22A – Acid Sulphate Soils

The site is not affected by acid sulphate soils.

Part 4 – Heritage Provisions

The sandstone garage was subject of submissions with the original application for protection because of asserted heritage value. This was fully considered as part of the original assessment and the existing garage is not listed as a heritage item. There are no heritage items located within the vicinity of the development site. This has been raised again in submissions in response to the advertising of the Section 96 application.

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 will apply to the demolition of the garage affected by the proposal.

Built Environment

The currently approved plans include sketch plans providing for the construction of garages for each of the created lots. The existing garage, while not a listed heritage item, has a sandstone construction and was raised in submissions to the original application as being worthy of being a heritage item. Streetscape impact is an important issue as is consideration of views from Marine Drive to the Georges River. While views from Marine Drive will be enhanced if garages are not constructed and open but covered car parking spaces are constructed as contained in drawings submitted with the Section 96 application. The projecting platform for the spaces is considered an undesirable urban design result and impact on the adjoining property to the south. However, if four (4) spaces are to be provided in accordance with the dimensions contained in the original consent condition, then such a structure is the only reasonable means of construction. The adjacent owner has not objected to the application or attached drawings.


REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty four (24) days (given the Christmas/New Year public holidays) from 20 December 2005 to 13 January 2006 in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Two (2) objections have been received.

One (1) from a resident of Marine Drive located to the south of the site, raises issues and objections as follows.

* Uncertainty from diagrams supplied with notification what parking structure layout meant, whether originally approved structures to remain and notification should have been clearer that application was not to build the structures within five (5) years – the notification was “false and misleading”.
* The application was not advertised by notice on site, on Council’s web site or in the newspaper.
* Concern about misleading information and the notification process given that when the DA was originally approved, “Council failed to record the correct number of objections received “ and the need to totally reconsider the application.
* Opposition to deferral of the building of the garages – parking is particularly limited in this section of Marine Drive and two (2) houses on the property and consequent parking demand will put untenable pressure on street parking, create considerable inconvenience to neighbours and create an unwanted precedent for future developments in the street.
* Separate sale and deferral of building the parking structure could lead to the two (2) owners not giving parking provision priority and falling into ongoing dispute;
* The parking structure could cost in excess of $200,000.00 and Council should not get into position of having to fight to get it built in the future.
* The original consent did not comply with regard to width of top block and this is another attempt to water down Council’s planning laws, creates another dangerous precedent and places residents in no man’s land about when parking will be provided.
* The original application is more than generous and should not be changed.

Comment: The notification went to adjoining property owners together with the drawings that showed the potential changes to car parking provision – garages to provision of spaces. Such notification was in accordance with Council policy that does not require posting on the web site or advertising in the local newspaper.

It is agreed that no concessions should be made on the car parking requirement given parking demand on Marine Drive and that Council needs to legally ensure that this happens in a timely manner without potential for dispute between owners.

The second objection from a resident in Oatley Park Avenue seeks retention of the sandstone garage and its formalisation as a heritage item.

Comment: This was dealt with during consideration of the original application and there is no formal heritage listing of the garage. While the original approval makes it untenable now to revisit the position and require retention of the garage, the recommendation does enable retention of the garage in the event of one (1) owner for both lots. Also retention can occur until an application is approved and subject of a Construction Certificate for a dwelling and car parking for Lot 2.

Council Referrals

Manager - Development AdviceThe Manger - Development Advice was consulted extensively in assessing the application and formulating the recommendation and amended conditions.
CONCLUSION

Discussions/negotiations have been held with the applicants and their planning consultant with the following outcomes.

It is concluded that the design of the raised platform is undesirable in urban design and visual impact terms but is inevitable due to the original consent and conditions to ensure adequate off street car parking.

The application to modify the Consent can be supported with significant variation to the terms put forward by the applicant. The recommended condition amendment is submitted to legally ensure retention of adequate car parking pending the construction of a dwelling on the created Lot 2 and the timely provision of two (2) car parking spaces founded on good design when such a dwelling is subject of an application and Construction Certificate.


RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, development consent 20040205 granted on 12 October 2004 for the Torrens title subdivision of Lots 172, DP 11934 and Lots 279 and 284, DP 752056 and known as 56 Marine Drive, Oatley, is amended in the following manner – subject to finalisation of wording based upon the advice of Council’s lawyer. (It is anticipated that this advice will be made available at the meeting at which this report is considered.)

1. By amending condition 8 to read:
2. Endorse retention of the other conditions contained in development consent 20040205.

3. It is further recommended that the applicant make payment to Council of the sum of $2,000.00 to cover the costs of Council's Legal Advisor in checking the draft wording for the proposed easements and covenants to be entered on the titles of the proposed lots. Unexpended moneys to be refunded to the applicant.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT authority be delegated to the General Manager to finalise the wording of conditions based upon advice from Council's legal advisors and based upon the recommended conditions included in the report.

FURTHER THAT an additional condition be imposed requiring that Lot 1 achieves a minimum site area of 550 square metres, which excludes any easements or right of way calculations.
(Moved Clr J Morris/Seconded Clr P Sansom)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC002.01 - 06

38 SCOTT STREET, MORTDALE - UNAUTHORISED
OUTBUILDING TO REAR OF PREMISES

APPLICANT

Tome Lasovski

PROPOSAL

Unauthorised outbuilding to rear of premises

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
Dwelling Houses, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings,
Development Control Plan No 14 - Exempt and Complying
Development

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Tome Lasovski

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Dwelling house under construction

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$18,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Unauthorised development and neighbour objections

REPORT AUTHORS

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor, Mr M Alexander

FILE NO

05/1081, DA 20010154


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The report relates to the unauthorised construction of a brick outbuilding to the rear of 38 Scott Street, Mortdale. The matter was previously referred to the Development Assessment Committee on 7 September 2005.

2. This report provides an assessment of the executed works with respect to the requirements of Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings, and Development Control Plan No 14 - Exempt and Complying Development.

3. Three (3) submissions were received during the neighbour notification period.


RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council allow the brick outbuilding, retaining wall and fill to remain, subject to alterations to the structures being carried out. The works to be subject to a sixty (60) day time frame and failure to carry out the works, resulting in the service of an Order.

FURTHER THAT, the owner of the premises be issued a Penalty Infringement Notice.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The owners of the property seek retrospective approval for the construction of an 8.5m x 4.5m brick outbuilding, fill to rear yard and a 450mm high brick retaining wall to the rear eastern boundary.

Council issued development consent plans indicated a 6.0m x 3.0m barbecue area comprising of a brick barbecue, a brick rear wall and an open awning structure. The built structure varies from this design significantly.


BACKGROUND

A site inspection carried out following a complaint lodged by the rear neighbour revealed a large outbuilding constructed to the north eastern corner of the site, without the prior consent of Council. A large amount of fill and newly constructed brick retaining wall to the rear boundary were also found.

The outbuilding is of brick and concrete construction, has sewer services and dimensions of 8500mm long x 4500mm wide x 3200mm high.

The amount of fill is estimated at approximately 450mm at worst case scenario (rear boundary). This area has not been provided with an appropriate drainage system.

A review of the approved development consent and construction certificate plans upon DA 20010154 revealed a "proposed barbecue" to the north eastern corner. The "proposed barbecue" was only shown upon the site plan and it measured 6000mm x 3000mm (by scale). The approved plans on file did not consist of any floor plan, elevations or engineering detail for the outbuilding.

As a result, a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, was issued for the demolition of the outbuilding. The owner's response was to submit an unauthorised works application to seek retrospective endorsement of the structure.

The report presented at the meeting of the Development Assessment Committee on 7 September 2005, recommended the demolition of the outbuilding and removal of the retaining wall and fill. Additionally it was recommended that Council institute legal proceedings and also advise the Principal Certifying Authority to not issue an Occupation Certificate until such time as all pending matters are resolved.

The recommendation presented to the Development Assessment Committee was adopted by Council.

Post Development Assessment Committee, Mr Lasovski presented to Council a stamped development plan indicating the approval of an outbuilding.

Previous to this newly presented information, Hurstville City Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (Speedy Approvals) were not aware of these architectural plans with the inclusion of the outbuilding. It would be safe to assume that Mr Lasovski provided Speedy Approvals, a copy of the architectural plans and not the stamped approval plans.

Despite the inconsistency between the Council and the client's stamped approved plans, Mr Lasovski has not in any case, complied with these plans. Mr Lasovski's stamped development plans indicate an outbuilding of dimensions 5000mm x 3500mm with a large portion of the barbecue area being an open awning where in fact the constructed building is an enclosed outbuilding with dimensions 8500mm x 4500mm. Additionally the magnitude of the impact caused is exacerbated by the fact the structure stands upon approximately 450mm of fill and stretches for a large portion of the rear boundary.

Mr Lasovski has since submitted to Council a survey indicating the rear yard levels to be up to a maximum of 250mm above the pre-existing levels. Landscaping plans submitted indicate compliance with the 50% landscape requirement.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 2 and is a residential use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

Development Control Plans

Code for Single Dwelling HousesStandardProposedComplies
Site Area760sqm
Site Dimensions17.68m x 42.98m/43.03m
Landscape Open Space50% (380sqm)50.1% (381.45sqm)Yes

Code for the Erection of OutbuildingsStandardProposedComplies
Setback900mm from allotment boundaries700mmNo (1)
Height3m top plate to natural ground level3.2m at rearNo (2)

DCP No 14 - Exempt and Complying DevelopmentStandardProposedComplies
Filling of landNo site filling or raising site levels greater than 200mm within 1.5m of a rear side or rear boundaryApproximately 400mm measured at boundaryNo (3)
(1) Setback

The Code for the Erection of Outbuildings prescribes a rear and side boundary setback requirement of 900mm.

With the resolution of Council the setback may be varied. Council will assess the proposal on its merits. In this particular instance, the length, height and positioning of the rear wall cannot justify a setback of only 700mm from the side and rear boundaries.

Note: The stamped Development Consent plans indicated a setback of 600mm but this was for a shorter length of 6.0m and was to be an open style structure to the side.

It is recommended that the roof pitch be altered so as to slope westwards, that is away from the rear boundary. It is also recommended that the ceiling be at the minimum of 2.1m for a non-habitable area. This will allow for an overall height of approximately 2.6m for the rear elevation.

(2) Height

The allowable height for outbuildings is 3m measured from top plate to natural ground level. The proposed height ranges from approximately 3.0m-3.2m from natural ground level.

The proposed height within close proximity to the rear boundary is considered excessive. The height is exacerbated when viewed from the rear neighbours' properties as these properties are slightly lower than the subject property.

With the reversing of the pitch and the reduction of the ceiling height to the minimum 2100mm it is considered that the design will be acceptable.

(3) Filling of Land

A retaining wall with an approximate height of 400mm has been constructed adjacent to the rear boundary. Fill has been placed up to the retaining wall so as to provide a level rear yard area. Although the works have not received Council consent in this instance it is considered that if approval was sought, it would have been forthcoming.

It is recommended the fill and retaining wall be approved subject to conditions addressing drainage, appearance and fencing.


REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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 from property owners to the rear in Breakwell Street.

The most impact created by the works is upon the property at 21 Breakwell Street. Concerns raised by this neighbour are similarly shared by the property owners either side at 19 and 23 Breakwell Street.

The primary concerns relate to a factory like structure that has been erected unlawfully and was intended to be a barbecue. Other concerns are the loss of sunlight, light reflection, overshadowing and the lack of consultation prior to its erection.

Concerns have also been expressed for the construction of the retaining wall and fill to the rear yard. The filling of the rear yard will lead to overviewing and loss of privacy and the retaining wall construction may result in drainage issues.

Comment: The concerns raised by the rear neighbours are concurred with. The height, bulk, length and positioning of the outbuilding is considered inappropriate. The neighbours at 21 and 23 Breakwell Street will experience loss of sunlight and overshadowing. The loss of amenity to the rear neighbours is considered unacceptable. The side and rear setbacks are not sufficient so as to alleviate these issues.

With design changes to the roof pitch reducing the height of the building at the rear, it is considered that the rear wall height will be acceptable when viewed from the rear neighbours' properties.

The raising of the rear yard level has resulted in a more significant transition between the subject and rear property. The existing 1800mm boundary fence is now only approximately 1400-1500mm when measured from the higher side. This will result in overviewing and loss of privacy to the rear neighbours.

The filling of the rear yard is not the ideal result for the amenity of the rear neighbours but is felt that with appropriate measures implemented, the concerns will be adequately addressed.

It is proposed to recommend the owner of the subject premises be made to finish the retaining wall in a workman like manner, provide adequate drainage and place a 1800mm dividing fence upon the wall, to the satisfaction of Council's Environmental Health and Building Surveyor.


SUMMARY

The matter of an unlawfully erected 8.5m x 4.6m brick outbuilding, 450mm retaining wall and fill was referred to the Development Assessment Committee on 7 September 2005. At this time, Council was aware of plans indicating a 6.0m x 3.0m "proposed" barbecue. The built structure is however an enclosed outbuilding with sewer services. Council's resolution was for the removal of the building, retaining wall and fill and to institute legal proceedings.

The owner of the premises then brought to Council's attention that his stamped Development Plans illustrated floor plans and elevations for a brick outbuilding. A review of Council's file revealed that the plans issued to Mr Lasovski were the "superseded" plans and were issued in error.

The Construction Certificate plans issued by the Private Principal Certifying Authority did not have this same detail.

Despite this, the structure is not as per the floor plans and elevations on the stamped Development Consent plans. The plans describe a 5.0m x 3.5m building where in fact the built structure is 8.5m x 4.5m.

In its current form, the height of the building creates unfair overshadowing and has a detrimental affect upon the amenity of the rear neighbours. The filling of the land results in the existing dividing fence being insufficient so as to protect the privacy of the rear neighbours.

It is recommended that council impose design changes so as to alleviate the concerns of the neighbours and deem the works acceptable.

The main changes involve the altering of the roof pitch to slope from front to rear, minimising the overall height of the building. It is also recommended the existing paling fence be removed, the retaining wall be finished as face brick or render and a new 1.8m fence be placed upon, all to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor.


CONCLUSION

The building works constructed vary from those of the consented plans. In the current form, the built structures are considered unacceptable.

With the implementation of design changes the concerns of the adjoining neighbours will be alleviated to a level considered acceptable.


RECOMMENDATION

1. The following works be carried out:

(a) The roof design be altered to slope to the rear top plate at a wall height of 2.1m (internal).

(b) No portion of the roofing, eave or gutter is to encroach beyond the boundaries of the subject property.

(c) The brick retaining wall to the eastern side boundary is to be rendered or finished in a face brick workman like manner to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor.

(d) The existing paling fence to the rear boundary be removed and replaced by new fencing placed upon the retaining wall. Height, style and colour, are to be to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor.

(e) Adequate drainage be provided to the retaining wall to the satisfaction of the District Environmental Health and Building Surveyor.

(f) Gain permission from the adjoining property owners prior to entering the premises.

2. The works be carried out within the period of the next sixty (60) days.

3. At completion of works, the owner submit a Section 149d Building Certificate application.

4. The owner of the premises be used with a Penalty Infringement Notice for carrying out building work not in accordance with Development Consent.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT a "Stop Work" Order be placed on the development and the matter be deferred for further investigation by the appropriate authority.

FURTHER THAT the applicant provide a current site survey to determine the correct boundaries.
(Moved Clr S McMahon/Seconded Clr C Minns)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC003.01 - 06

112 DORA STREET, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION
FOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DETACHED DUAL
OCCUPANCY

APPLICANT

Mr Robert Sciacca

PROPOSAL

Section 96 modification for alterations and additions to
detached dual occupancy

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 (as amended),
Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Fences
Adjacent to Public Roads Code

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Mr Robert Sciacca

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single storey dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$310,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Two (2) objection letters received and variation to height of
front fence

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young and
Development Assessment Officer, Mrs A Aversa-Morrasut

FILE NO

DA 20030852REV02


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The Section 96 modification involves a number of internal and external alterations to the approved dual occupancy to improve the form and scale of the development, make internal layouts more efficient and correct general drafting mistakes throughout the application plans.

2. The Land and Environment Court (LEC) approved the dual occupancy development on 2 May 2004 following Council's refusal of the application at its meeting on the 11 February 2004.

3. With the exception of the height of the fence, the proposed modifications comply with Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing and Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking.

4. The original and amended plans were publicly notified. A total of two (2) objections were received from the owner and resident of 10 Joan Street.

5. The application was deferred at Development Assessment Committee meeting of 7 December 2005 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors. The arranged inspection on 13 December 2005 did not take place due to time constriants. However, a further meeting was held between Manager - Development Control and the objector to explain the amendments and the development process.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


BACKGROUND

The application was deferred at Development Assessment Committee meeting of 7 December 2005 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors. The arranged inspection on 13 December 2005 did not take place due to time constriants. However, a further meeting was held between Manager - Development Control and the objector to explain the amendments and the development process.


For the information of Councillors, the report submitted to the previous Development Assessment Committee and Council meeting is reproduced below.

"DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The Section 96 modification seeks approval for a number of alterations and additions to the approved detached dual occupancy including:

General modifications involving both dwelling houses
*Addition of a new brick rendered fence with timber gates and timber in-fills ranging in height from 900mm -1500mm to Dora Street and Joan Street elevation;
* General errors identified have been corrected
* New 230mm cavity party wall hidden under tiled roof
* Uniform roof pitch of 30 degrees
* Relocation of a private sewer vent from its existing position on the front boundary
Dwelling House 1 – Frontage to Dora Street
Ground Floor
* Garage reduced in length and area by 2.97sqm providing additional courtyard area
* Deletion of two existing windows in garage and replace with two highlight windows on rear elevation. Add garage door to garage allow access to side passage
* Reduction of floor area associated with cloak space and stairwell
* Replace circular columns on front porch with square columns
* Replace two smaller windows in dining area with single larger window
* Planter box adjoining courtyard to altered from semi-circle to rectangular
* Deletion of planter box to Dora Street and replacement with garden beds
* Reduce size of kitchen window to Joan Street elevation
* Addition of 4.59sqm of paving off kitchen
* Minor alteration to garage and driveway levels to allow safer travel to internal spaces
* Provision of sliding gate to driveway entrance
* Alterations to the internal configuration of rooms
First Floor
* Reduction in ridge height from RL18.685 to RL18.30
* Balcony on Joan Street elevation to be reduced in area by 0.80sqm
* Stairwell reduced in area by .80sqm and window reduced in width and area by 1.32sqm
* Increase in main bedroom area by 1.62sqm
* South east window over void to be shifted 400mm to the left and reduced in size by 1.72sqm
* Bathroom windows to be reduced in size
* North East window in Bedroom 3 to be centred and increased in size by 1.02sqm
* Alterations to internal configuration of rooms
* New gable end detail to external façade
    Dwelling House 2 – Frontage to Joan Street
    Ground Floor
* Garage reduced in length and area by 6.08sqm and addition of sliding gate to approved driveway
* Three (3) existing windows in garage have been reduced by 0.26sqm per window
* New door access from garage into patio off dining area
* Dining room sliding door to be centred and reduced in size by 1.836sqm
* Replace two smaller windows in lounge with one single centred window larger by 1.10sqm
* New roof over ground floor patio resulting in an increase in roof area by 10.29sqm
* Laundry to have a covered landing and new feature column
* New patio off Bedroom four (4)/study to Joan Street elevation
* Window in shower to be reduced in size by 0.11sqm
* Staircase to be reduced in width and area by 2.20sqm
* Planter box adjoining courtyard to altered from semi-circle to rectangular
* New square column to front porch
* Levels of garage and courtyard have been altered from FL10.300 to RL10.250 for safer access to dining areas from these spaces
* Minor alterations to room configuration
* Northern elevation over lounge window to have sun shading device
First Floor
* Reduction in ridge height from RL 17.435 to RL 16.86
* Stair area reduced by 2.20sqm
      - Single dormer window to replace double dormer window over wet area windows
      - Internal alterations to room configuration
* Dormer window off bedroom 2 deleted
* Dormer window off main bedroom replaced with Patio on rear elevation
* Alterations to roof shape on Joan Street and rear elevation
* Eaves to be increased from 325mm to 600mm to provide better shading
* Parapet over stairs to be relocated over entry/porch

BACKGROUND

20 May 05 Section 96 application lodged with Council.

2 June 05 Letter send to applicant requesting additional information in relation to amended NaTHERs certificate.

17 June 05 Letter sent by ABSA Assessor in relation to NaTHERs Certificate.

24 June 05 Application referred to internal officers and application notified. One (1) letter of objection received from resident of 10 Joan Street

22 July 05 Referrals returned.

10 Aug 06 Site inspection undertaken.

11 Aug 05 Letter sent to applicant identifying errors on plans and issues with application.

12 Sep 05 Amended architectural plans and statement of environmental effects received.

5 Oct 05 Amended plans re-notified. One (1) letter of objection received from owner of 10 Joan Street Hurstville.

Nov 05 Final assessment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is a corner lot with a frontage of 13.715m to Dora Street and 38.71m secondary frontage to Joan Street. The site has a total area of 612sqm and is located on the northern side of the street. Existing on the site is a single storey brick cottage. There are three (3) large Tallwood Street Trees located on Council’s footpath adjoining the property on the Joan Street elevation.

Adjoining the site to the north east is 10 Joan Street, a single storey brick cottage. To the north west of the site adjoining the ‘rear’ elevation is 114 Dora Street, which comprises a single storey brick cottage and fibro garage. The area is generally residential in character.

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

As the application is a Section 96 modification it has been assessed against the relevant provisions under section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

1. Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Council may grant consent to a Section 96 modification if:

It is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact

The proposed modification is considered to be of minimal environmental impact and of a lesser impact than the approved development as determined by the Land and Environment Court. The proposed modifications involve;

It is satisfied that the development is substantially the same development

Council is satisfied that the development is substantially the same development.

It has notified the application in accordance with the regulations or development control plan and has considered any submissions

The application has been notified in accordance with Development Control Plan 17 and submissions received are considered and discussed in a later part of this report.

Matters under Section 79C(1) have been considered

Sections 2 -5 of this report consider the relevant matters under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned residential. “Dual Occupancy” development is permissible with development consent in the subject zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Clause 11A – Dual Occupancies

The minimum allotment size and frontage does not comply with Clause 11A, however the Land and Environment Court determined the application by approval.

The site is not located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA).

Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

Issues relating to trees have been assessed and conditioned as part of the original application. No further issues arise as a consequence of the Section 96 modification.

Clause 15 – Services

Issues relating to provision of services and utilities has been assessed and conditioned by the Land and Environment Court. No further issues arise as a consequence of the Section 96 modification.

Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

The only part of the section 96 modification which involves changes to excavation or filling of the approved development is the proposed reduction of the finished floor levels of the garages from RL10.300 to RL 10.250 to “comply with allowable driveway gradients and safer travel to internal spaces”.

This minor modification is considered to have a minimal impact on the environment and the overall development.

Clause 22A –Acid Sulphate Soils

The site is not affected by Acid Sulphate Soils.

Part 4 – Heritage Provisions

The site is not listed as a heritage item. There are no heritage items located within the vicinity of the development site.

Section 94 Contributions Plan

Section 94 Contributions were imposed as part of the assessment and determination of the original application.

The Section 96 modification does not involve any additional bedrooms or requirement for payment of Section 94 contributions.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is not located within the Georges River Catchment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and was zoned residential under the Hurstville Planning Scheme Ordinance. The site is occupied by a single dwelling house for residential purposes.

Given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated. According to Council’s records, the subject site has not been approved for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

3. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No.58) – Dual Occupancy

The proposed amendments to the approved development complies with the objectives of the draft local environmental plan.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition has been assessed and conditioned by the Land and Environment Court as part of the original application.

4. Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan 11 – Dual Occupancy Housing

Dual Occupancy Housing DCP No. 11 (Minimum Requirements)
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Minimum Site Area
630sqm
612sqm
No –approved by LEC
Minimum Width Allotment
15m
15.235
Approved by LEC
Option No. 5
(p 31 of DCP)
Detached
(Corner Site Only)
Detached
(Corner site)
Yes
Front Boundary Setback
4.5m
4.7m
Yes
Rear Boundary Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
Side Boundary Setback
2m from primary street frontage and 1.5m from all other boundaries
Primary – 2m
Others -1.5m
Yes
Yes
Lightwells
Size

Style
Minimum 1.5m x 3m

Uncovered at ground and first floor
N/A
N/A
Second Storey Rear Setback
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum Depth of Rear First Floor Balcony
2m
N/A
N/A
Maximum Floor Space Ratio
0.5:1
0.47:1
Yes
Maximum Height to Uppermost Ceiling
Front dwelling -6.8m
Rear dwelling – 5.5m
Front dwelling -5.66m
Rear dwelling – 3.98m
Yes
Yes
Internal Floor to Ceiling Heights
2.7m (min) – 3m (max)
Front dwelling – 2.7m
Rear dwelling – 2.7m
Yes
Yes
Maximum Ridge Height
Front dwelling – 9m
Rear dwelling – 7.5m
Front dwelling -8.5m
Rear dwelling – 6.66m
Yes
Yes
Recommended Roof Pitch
25-35 degrees
30 degrees
Yes
Car Parking
Garage + Driveway Space
Provided
Yes
Driveway
Minimum 3m wide per dwelling house
Front dwelling – 3m
Rear dwelling – 3.4m
Yes
Yes
Driveway
Minimum 1.5m from boundary
Front dwelling -2m
Rear dwelling – 1.5m
Yes
Yes
Minimum Garage Recess
300mm
Front dwelling – 1.2m
Rear dwelling – 3.5m
Yes
Yes
No. of Storeys
1 or 2 storey + 1 or 1 ½ storey
Front dwelling - 2 storey
Rear dwelling - 1 ½ storey
Yes

Yes
Principal Private Open Space
Minimum 4m x 5m
Front dwelling – 5.8m x 5m
Rear dwelling – 4m x 5m
Yes

Yes
Deep Soil Landscaping
Minimum 40% of Rear Yard
Front dwelling – 74.6%
Rear dwelling – 84%
Yes
Yes
Cut and Fill
Limited to Maximum 600mm
As approved by LEC
N/A
Solar Design and Energy Efficiency
Basix
Eg. NaTHERs lodged with original application
N/A
Overshadowing
Development living areas and private yards achieve minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June
Yes
Yes
Overshadowing
Windows of habitable rooms, solar collectors or private open space of adjoining properties must receive minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June
Yes
Yes
Outdoor Clothes Drying
One (1) for each dwelling house
No details provided
To be conditioned
Garbage Space
Minimum 3m x 1m per dwelling house
No details provided
To be conditioned
Storage Space
Minimum 6 cubic metres per dwelling house
Front dwelling – excess of 6 cubic metres
Rear dwelling – excess of 6 cubic metres
Yes
Fence Height
Front fence -1m
Side fence -1.8m
900mm-1300m
1500mm
No(1)
Yes

(1) The applicant is seeking a variation to the height of the front fence based on the following reasons;
The variation is not supported for the following reasons:

A condition will be imposed requiring the parts of the fence which are located forward of the building line of the front dwelling to be no higher than one (1) metre in height (as measured from natural ground level).

The condition of the timber fence which adjoins 10 Joan Street is in poor condition. A condition will also be imposed requiring the replacement of this timber fence with a 1.8m timber lapped and capped fence (suitably stained).

The location of the fence interferes with the location of three (3) sewer vents on the subject property. The applicant has advised these are private vents and are not owned by Sydney Water. Conditions will be imposed requiring the removal and relocation of these vents prior to construction of the fence.

A condition will be imposed to ensure the protection of Council’s street trees during construction of the new fence along the Joan Street elevation.

Fences Adjacent to Public Roads

The proposed front fence does not comply with this policy. As detailed above, conditions have been imposed which bring the fence into compliance with Development Control Plan 11 and the Fencing Code.

Development Control Plan 2 – Car Parking

Development Control Plan No.2 – Car Parking
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Parking requirement
One (1) garage & one (1) driveway space
One (1) garage & one (1) driveway space
Yes
Enclosed garage layout
Layout - 3m x 6m
Clear opening – 2.7m
Front dwelling
3m x 6.3m
Clear opening -2.7m

Rear dwelling
3.6m x 6.5m
Clear opening -2.7m
Yes



Yes
Driveway space
2.5x 5m
2.5m x 5m
Yes
Clearance from power pole
1m
Less than 1m
To be removed as per LEC decision
Driveway gradients
1:5 (20%)
No details provided
Conditioned by LEC
Driveway width
3m per dwelling
3m per dwelling
Yes

A condition will be imposed requiring the rear wall of the garage for dwelling one (1) to be a solid wall. The submitted plans detail a secondary roller shutter door which may be potentially used to drive vehicles through onto the courtyard. This would not be desirable as it would reduce the principal private open space.

Development Control Plan 15 – Contaminated Lands

As detailed earlier in this report, Council has considered whether the land is contaminated and is satisfied that the land is not contaminated.

Development Control Plan 18 – Crime prevention through Environmental Design

With the exception of the front fence, the proposed development achieves the performance criteria and design suggestions for residential development as detailed in Development Control Plan No. 18. Conditions have been imposed to bring the front fence into compliance with Council’s Development Control Plan No. 11 and fencing code.

Development Control Plan 22 – Energy Efficiency

A NatHERs Certificate was submitted with the original application. The applicant was asked to provide an amended NatHERs to support the Section 96 application. The ABSA Assessor responded by advising Council, an amended NatHERs was not required. Details provided below:

5. Impacts

Natural Environment

The amended Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Section 96 modification does not contain the proposed species of plants proposed to be planted as detailed on the Landscape Plan approved by the Land and Environment Court. As such, a condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to undertake planting as per the approved Landscape Plan. The ratio of hard to soft landscaping must be undertaken in accordance with the landscape plan (Drawing No.5A) submitted as part of the Section 96 application.

The proposed modifications will not result in a detrimental impact to the environment. Issues relating to stormwater disposal and retention of trees has been considered and conditioned by the Land and Environment Court.

Built Environment

The proposed modifications will result in an improvement to the built environment for the following reasons:

* Large windows have been reduced in size minimising impact on privacy for adjoining properties;
* Both dwellings will be reduced in height minimising the visual bulk of dwellings from the street and from adjoining properties;
* The roof pitch has been modified from 33 and 25 degrees to a uniform 30 degrees which creates a consistency between the roof and skyline of the two dwellings;
* Excessive size garages have been reduced to allow for more rear yard space for future residents;

For reasons outlined earlier in this report, the proposed height of the front fence is not supported. Conditions have been imposed which reduce the height of the front fence and improve the transition between private and public space.

There is no heritage or overshadowing issues arising from the development.

Social Impact

The proposed modifications are considered to have no social impacts.

Economic Impact

Two (2) objection letters were received from 10 Joan Street with the main issue of objection relating to loss of privacy. For reasons detailed later in this report, these objections are not supported. The proposed development is not considered to have a negative impact on property values of adjoining residential properties.

Suitability of the Site

The site is not located within a bushfire sensitive area, is not affected by Acid Sulphate Soils and is not considered to be contaminated. The land is zoned for residential purposes and the proposed modifications comply with Development Control Plan No. 11 – Dual Occupancy Housing. The site is suitable for the intended development and use.

6. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. The application was notified upon receipt of the application and again once amended plans had been received.

Two (2) objections were received from 10 Joan Street Hurstville which adjoins the subject site to the north east.

Reduction in privacy caused by windows on North East Elevation

The objector’s are concerned about the three (3) windows shown on the North East Elevation and the impact on privacy on the objector’s dwelling and their front porch area (fronts Joan Street).

Comment: The three (3) windows on the North East Elevation were approved by the Land and Environment Court on the 27 May 2004. The two (2) windows located on the ground floor are ventilation windows for the garage and the first floor window belongs to Bedroom No.2 within the rear dwelling. A garage is not considered to be a ‘habitable’ room and as such, the use of this building by residents would be minimal, thereby negating any potential ‘privacy’ impacts arising from use of this building. Bedrooms are usually occupied for passive activities and as such it is unlikely that privacy will be reduced for persons occupying 10 Joan Street.

The proposed modification involves a reduction in the size of the approved windows which would improve rather than reduce privacy for the adjoining residents of 10 Joan Street.

Reduction in privacy caused by single dormer window on rear elevation

The objector is concerned that the single dormer window on the Rear Elevation which is centrally located will enable overlooking into their rear yard.

Comment: The single dormer window has replaced two (2) dormer windows on the Rear Elevation which faces 114 Dora Street not 10 Joan Street. This dormer window is located approximately 9.5m in a southerly direction from the boundary of the objector’s property. This dormer window is considered to have minimal impacts on privacy on the objectors’ property for the following reasons:

It is considered that the overall changes to this elevation are considered to improve rather than diminish privacy.

Concern that building height has increased

The objector is concerned that overall building height has increased.

Comment: The top of ridge height for the front dwelling has been reduced from RL 18.685 to RL 18.30 and the top of ridge height for the rear dwelling has been reduced from RL 17.435 to RL 16.86. This objection is not supported.

Additional windows in garage for rear dwelling

The objector is concerned that additional windows have been added to the garage for the rear dwelling (dwelling 2).

Comment: No additional windows have been added to the garage. The approved windows have been reduced in size. This objection is not supported.

Concern about additional balconies off first floor for rear dwelling

The objector is concerned that additional balconies/patios have been added to the first floor of the rear dwelling which will overlook 114 Dora Street and 10 Joan Street.

Comment: No objections were received from the resident or owner of 114 Dora Street in relation to the Section 96 application.

The proposal involves the replacement of a dormer window with a 1m deep balcony off the main bedroom on the first floor of the rear dwelling (facing 114 Dora Street). This patio is located approximately 14.5m from the objector’s property boundary. Given the depth of the balcony it is considered highly unlikely that this space will be occupied for entertaining purposes or for long periods of time. Given the distance from the objector’s property it is considered unlikely that privacy will be significantly reduced as a consequence of the proposal.

Given the distance of approximately 6.5m from the proposed patio to the property boundary of 114 Dora Street and the location of the garage, the impact on privacy on the rear yard of 114 Dora Street is considered to negligible.

New roof over the patio adjoining the dining room of the rear dwelling

The objector is concerned that the new roof over the ground floor paved area will increase overshadowing.

Comment: The shadows from the proposed development fall to the street during mid winter. The objectors’ property is not affected at all by overshadowing.

Land and Environment Court Principles

Privacy 1 – Meriton Properties Management Pty Ltd and Karimbla Properties (No.3) Pty Ltd –v- Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 (2 July 2004) Senior Commissioner Dr John Roseth

PrinciplesStandard
Achieves principle
DensityPrivacy is proportional to density. At low densities there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its private open space will remain private.
Yes
SeparationIn a low density area, minimum separation as detailed in Residential Flat Design Code. Separation also involves vertical separation.
Yes
Use of roomsOverlooking from living area is more objectionable than overlooking from a bedroom where people spend less waking time.
Yes
Poor designOverlooking arising from poor design is not acceptable.
Yes
Living area of adjoining dwellingsThe living area of an adjoining dwelling should be given the highest level of protection
Yes
Window arrangementEffective way to protect privacy is by skewed arrangement of windows and use of devices
Not required – privacy not considered to be an issue

Privacy 2 – Super Studio –v- Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 91 (16 March 2004)

The theme from this principle is that the “acceptability of an impact depends not only on the extent of the impact but also on reasonableness of, and necessity for, the development that causes it”. The Land and Environment Court approved the dual occupancy development. The proposed section 96 modifications are considered to improve rather than enhance privacy issues.

Council Referrals

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor raised no objection to the proposed modification subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. The Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by the following plans with details prepared and certified by a qualified person demonstrating compliance with the BCA-2005, Volume Two:

2. The following information must be provided by a qualified practising structural engineer:

3. Occupation Certificate (class 1b to 9b inclusive) –The building shall not be occupied or used until an Occupation Certificate is issued by the Principal Certifying Authority together with all documentation required to be submitted to Council by conditions of this consent.

Design Engineer

Council’s Design Engineer has reviewed the proposed vehicular crossing and imposed conditions which have already been conditioned as part of the Land and Environment Court consent. As such, there is only one condition to be added:

Underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.External Referrals

7. CONCLUSION

The proposed modification complies with Development Control Plan No. 11 – Dual Occupancy Housing. The only non-compliance related to the height of the front fence which has been conditioned to comply. Two (2) objections were received, however for reasons outlined in this report are not supported. It is recommended that Council approve the Section 96 modification subject to the conditions included in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, development consent 20030852 determined by the Land and Environment Court on 27 May 2004 for a detached dual occupancy development on Lot 37 DP 13161 and known as 112 Dora Street is amended in the following manner:

A. By amending Condition 2 in the following manner:

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.

Schedule of plans and details
Drawing No.Drawing DateDescriptionPrepared by:
1A
29/8/05Ground Floor PlanJohn McKinney Architect Pty Ltd
2A
29/8/05Upper Floor PlanJohn McKinney Architect Pty Ltd
3A
29/8/05Elevations & SectionsJohn McKinney Architect Pty Ltd
4A
29/8/05ElevationsJohn McKinney Architect Pty Ltd
5A
29/8/05Site and Landscaping PlanJohn McKinney Architect Pty Ltd
B. By amending condition 53 to include the following plans and specifications to be prepared and endorsed by a suitably qualified practising structural engineer:

C. By inserting the following additional conditions:
APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report, subject to an additional condition requiring deletion of the ground floor patio and associated roof cover to Unit 2.
(Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr S Grekas)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC003.02 - 06

18 MILLETT STREET, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 96 MODIFICATION
TO AMEND CONSENT CONDITIONS

APPLICANT

Nick and Irene Moraitis

PROPOSAL

Section 96 modification to amend consent conditions

ZONING

Zone 2 - Residential

APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

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

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

Nick and Irene Moraitis

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Approved Child Care Centre

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

Nil

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Two objections received and non compliance with DCP's

REPORT AUTHORS

Development Assessment Officer, Ms D Fellows

FILE NO

DA 20030198REV01


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The Section 96 modification seeks consent to vary three conditions on the consent for an approved child care centre to increase the number of children, to extend the hours of operation and to delete the requirement for installation of lattice fencing for privacy.

2. Council’s Development Assessment Committee approved the original application on 1 October 2003 subject to conditions. The original application was deficient in car parking, and submission of a traffic report was requested in respect of the Section 96 application. A traffic and parking impact assessment was received in August 2005 and referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment and the application was referred to the Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee in October 2005.

3. The proposed modification to increase the number of children does not satisfy the parking requirements of Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking.

4. This Section 96 application was notified and advertised. In response, two (2) objections have been received.

5. The application was called from DAC Delegation to the February meeting.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval to modify three conditions on the original consent as follows.

Condition No. 10

Reason for request

The applicant seeks to modify Condition No. 10 to increase the number of children from 50 to 63. This increase includes increasing the number of places for children in the 0-2 year age group from four (4) to ten (10), with the number of carers for this group being increased from one (1) to two (2).

The number of children in the 2-3 year age group is proposed to be increased from sixteen (16) to twenty four (24), with the number of carers for this age group increased from two (2) to three (3).

The number of children in the age group of 3-6 year olds is intended to be reduced from thirty (30) to twenty nine (29), with the number of carers for this group remaining constant at three (3).

Two (2) additional staff are therefore also proposed, thereby increasing the staff from six (6) to eight (8).

The reason for the requested increases is to give the centre a balance in child numbers which the applicant claims is more appropriate to the community’s needs. The staff numbers have been increased relative to the number of children in accordance with Department of Community Services requirements.

In this regard, on 18 November 2005 the applicant has submitted a copy of plans endorsed by DOCS with the following accompanying statements:

No building alterations are proposed in conjunction with the proposed increase in children.

Condition No. 65

Reason for request

The applicant seeks to have this condition deleted from the consent as the ground levels within the site have been lowered and as a result, the height from ground level to the top of the new colourbond fence is already higher than the 1.8m fence.

Condition No. 71

Reason for request

The applicant is seeking to modify this condition to change the operating hours to 7.30am until 6.00pm, to allow the Centre to cater for working parents who finish work at 5.30pm.


BACKGROUND

10 May 2005 Section 96 application lodged with Council.

16 May 2005 Letter sent to applicant requesting the submission of additional information, including detailed plans.

2 Aug 2005 Additional amended detailed plans received.

31 Aug 2005 Internal referrals sent to Building Surveyor, Traffic Engineer and Children’s Services Officer. Referral comments received from Council’s Traffic Engineer on 29 September 2005, Building Surveyor on 5 September 2005 and Children’s Services Adviser.

2- 16 Sep 2005 Application initially notified and advertised on 2 September 2005.

14 – 28 Sep 2005 Application re-notified and re-advertised on 13 September 2005. Two (2) letters of objection received.

6 Oct 2005 Application considered at Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting.

6 Dec 2005 Final assessment.

13 Dec 2005 Site inspection undertaken.

22 Dec 2005 DAC Delegation report given to Councillors.

9 Jan 2006 Councillors Hindi and Sansom 'called' the item to the February Development Assessment Committee meeting.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 20.115m to Millett Street and an area of 981sqm. The site is located on the north eastern side of Millett Street, Hurstville, close to the corner of Pearl Street. The Child Care Centre is presently operated from two (2) separate existing buildings on the site. The single storey building located at the frontage to Millett Street is listed as a Heritage Item under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The smaller two (2) storey building at the rear has been recently constructed as part of the Child Care Centre.

The area immediately surrounding the site is residential in character. The site is adjoined by villa developments at both sides. The subject site is also in close proximity to the Hurstville Community Private Hospital and the Hurstville Central Business District.

Two (2) parking signs have been installed at the front of the subject property, limiting parking to fifteen (15) minutes maximum between 7.30am and 9.30am, and between 3.30pm and 5.30pm on weekdays.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

As the application is a Section 96 modification with potential environmental impact, it has been assessed against the relevant provisions of under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Council may grant consent to a Section 96 modification if:

The proposed modifications are not considered to have minimal environmental impact as the intensity of the existing development is proposed to be increased in terms of both numbers of children and hours of operation.

Council is satisfied that the proposed modifications would result in substantially the same form of Child Care Centre development as originally approved.

This form of consultation is not applicable to this proposal.

The application has been notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17 and submissions received are considered and discussed in a later part of this report.

Sections 2-5 of this report consider the relevant matters under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is within Residential Zone No 2 under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, as amended, and “Child Care Centres” are permissible in this zone with Council consent. As no additional building works are proposed in association with the modifications, the proposal does not raise issues in respect to the heritage conservation provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.

Clause 43(2)(b) of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 allows Council to exercise discretion when assessing car parking required to be provided on the site of a heritage item, however the provisions of this clause do not apply to the subject proposal as Council's parking requirements for Child Care Centres is based on numbers of staff and children and not on the floor space of the buildings on the site.

The proposed modifications are subject to the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 - Child Care Centre and Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The site is not located within the Georges River Catchment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no draft environmental planning instruments which are applicable.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

There are no other matters prescribed by the Regulations which are applicable to this proposal as no demolition or associated building works are being proposed.

3. Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres as tabulated and discussed below.

Child Care Centre DCP No 6
Standard
ProposalComplies
Minimum Site Area500sqm891sqmYes
Minimum Street Frontage13m20.115mYes
ParkingOne (1) space per two (2) staff

One (1) space per ten (10) children or part thereof

One (1) long term visitor space
3


Nil spaces on-site



Nil
No (1)


No (1)



No (1)
Visitor Drop-Off (drive through arrangement)60No (1)
Parking SetbackLocated behind front setback or 5.5m, whichever is greaterNoNo(1)
Indoor Play Area3.25sqm/child
> fifteen (15) children
251sqmYes
Outdoor Play AreaMinimum 7sqm/child418sqmNo(2)
VerandahIf not included in outdoor play area, minimum 1.25sqm per child74.61sqmNo(2)
Children toilets and hand basinsOne (1) per eight (8) children7.875No(3)
Staff ToiletsOne (1) per six (6) staff2Yes
Staff ShowerIf greater than 29 children requires one (1) Staff Shower1Yes
Staff RoomMinimum 16sqm, with additional 2sqm/staff member for over six (6) staff7.35sqmNo(4)
OfficeRequiredOffice providedYes
Cot RoomOne cot per child under 2 years of age

Maximum five (5) cots/room
6 cots and 4 mini beds



4 cots
No(5)



Yes
Nappy Change AreaSeparate from bottle preparation areaSeparate bottle preparation area providedYes
Hours of OperationMaximum 7.30am -6.00pm7.30am – 6.00pmYes
Colorbond FenceNot PermittedNot proposedYes
DOC’s Maximum Group Sizes0-2yrs – maximum ten (10) children
2-3yrs – maximum sixteen (16) children
3-5yrs – maximum twenty (20) children
10

24


29
Yes

No(6)


No(6)
DOCS Staff Sizes0-2yrs – One (1) staff per five (5) children
2-3yrs – One (1) staff per eight (8) children
3-5yrs – One (1) staff per ten (10) children
2


3


3
Yes


Yes


Yes

(1) Car Parking, Visitor Drop and Parking Setback

The proposed modifications seek to increase both the number of children and the number of staff, thereby increasing the intensity of the Child Care Centre without providing any additional car parking.

The existing Child Care Centre as approved was not required to provide a drive-through arrangement for the drop off and pick up of children as required under Council’s Child Care Centre and Car Parking Development Control Plans due to the heritage significance of the building on the site.

As evidenced by the above table, the modified proposal is deficient in respect to car parking for both staff and children. Two (2) additional staff are proposed, generating a requirement for an additional car parking space, and the increase in children proposed from 50 to 63, requires an extra two (2) spaces. No additional parking has been provided beyond the three (3) car spaces on site for staff as approved for the existing centre.

Furthermore, no arrangements for visitor drop off have been provided, and the staff car parking provided has not been setback behind the front building line as required. However, as the existing parking is as approved originally, no planning objection is raised to the setback encroachment.

The non-provision of additional parking in conjunction with the proposed increase in the capacity of the Child Care Centre is of significant concern.

(2) Outdoor Play Area and Verandah

Outdoor play space is required to be provided at a minimum rate of 7sqm per child under Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres. The modified proposal is deficient by 23sqm, which equates to approximately three (3) children not receiving the required amount of outdoor play area. The original application did comply with this requirement and the subject modification however does not comply.

The modified proposal is also deficient in terms of the amount of verandah space per child.

(3) Children Toilets and Hand Basins

Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 requires one toilet and hand basin to be provided per eight (8) children. The proposal is marginally deficient as no further toilet facilities have been proposed to cater for the additional children.

(4) Staff Room

A staff room with an area of at least 20sqm is required to be provided under Development Control Plan No 6, and although a small staff room is provided, it does not satisfy the numerical requirements of Development Control Plan No 6.

(5) Cot Room

Development Control Plan No 6 requires one (1) cot to be provided for each child under 2 years of age, therefore requiring a total of ten (10) cots to be provided on the premises. The applicant proposes to provide six (6) cots and four (4) mini beds. This is considered acceptable as DOCS require cots to be provided for babies up to 1 year old, and therefore mini beds are allowed for 1-2 year olds. The applicant has indicated that six (6) cost will be available for the 0-1 year olds as required. There is concern however that there is only space available for the accommodation of four (4) cots within the designated cot room and the mini beds and additional required cots will have to be stored elsewhere on the premises, including within the adjacent playroom area.

(6) DOCS Maximum Group Sizes

As shown in the above table, the modified proposal does not satisfy the DOCS requirements for maximum children group sizes for 2-3 year olds and 3-5 year olds as contained in Development Control Plan No 6, however the correspondence from DOCS shows that approval from DOCS has been issued for car of up to sixty three (63) children at this centre based on building and playground space.

Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking

Council’s Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking specifies that short term drop off and pick up spaces are required at the rate of one (1) space per ten (10) children. The proposal does not comply as there is no drop off and set down area on the site and none is proposed. This matter was considered during the assessment of the original development application and it was considered that a drop off and pick up area could not be provided due to the heritage and topographical constraints of the site. Three (3) on-site spaces were approved, and the use of two (2) spaces on the street in front of the property with associated signposting for use as short term (15 minute) parking between 7.30am and 9.30am and between 3.30pm and 5.30pm on weekdays.

Development Control Plan No 2 also requires one (1) space per two (2) staff, thereby requiring four (4) spaces for the now proposed eight (8) staff, and one (1) long term visitor space. As discussed, the modified proposal will not satisfy this requirement.

The applicant’s submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment report attempts to justify the non-provision of additional parking facilities on the site by reason of the location of the existing buildings and structures and likely impact on the heritage fabric of the property. These points are acknowledged, particularly the fact that the original assessment considered that a drive through arrangement would be detrimental to the heritage significance of the property, however conditions limiting the capacity of the centre were imposed to safeguard the intensity of the centre and prevent overdevelopment of the property, and the proposed increases in numbers of children and staff without provision of further parking cannot be supported.

The applicant has also prepared a parking survey which was undertaken in Millett Street in the areas adjacent to the proposed centre, and this survey and the further contents of the applicant’s Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment were referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer and the Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee for consideration as discussed below.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The proposed modifications will not cause any detrimental impact on the natural environment.

Built Environment

Deletion of the 400mm lattice panelling above the boundary fencing will have negligible impact on the neighbouring properties due to the lowering of the ground levels and height of the existing new fencing.

Social Impact

It is acknowledged that there is a need within the community for the provision of child care facilities, particularly within the 0-2 year age group, however the deficiencies in parking and associated traffic impacts are not seen to justify the proposed increase in numbers of children.

Economic Impact

The proposed modifications are considered to have little impact on surrounding property values.

Suitability of the Site

The subject site is not considered suitable to accommodate any further increase in the capacity of the Child Care Centre by reason of existing constraints, including the heritage significance of the front building and as the site topography is not conducive to the provision of an on-site drop off/ pick up area.


5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. The application was notified after receipt and re-notified upon correction of the proposed hours of operation.

Two (2) objections were received from 1/16 and 2/16 Millett Street, Hurstville, located to the southeast of the site. These submissions raised the following concerns.

(i) Objection from 1/16 Millett Street, Hurstville

Proposed Hours of Operation

The Child Care Centre is currently open between 7.30am to 5.30pm all weekdays, and residents are entitled to some quiet time and low traffic during daylight hours. If the centre is open until 6pm there will be no daylight hours left for neighbouring resident’s children to play outside safely in winter.

Comment: This concern is acknowledged as the proposed extension in hours will reduce the amount of daylight hours when the centre is not in operation.

Traffic Generation and Safety

Millett Street does not have streetlights on both sides of the street and safety and visibility of vehicles and people associated with the increased hours of the Child Care Centre will be of concern. Additional children will mean more traffic movement in the immediate vicinity of the site with safety implications.

Comment: This concern is also acknowledged and the referral comments received both from Council’s Traffic Engineer and the Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee support this concern.

(ii) Objection from 2/16 Millett Street, Hurstville

Increase in Noise

This resident works nightshifts and consequently needs to sleep during the daytime. Windows from this villa face onto the Child Care Centre and noise reaches this adjoining property easily. Increased hours of operation and numbers of children will exacerbate this existing problem.

Comment: This concern is also acknowledged as the proposed increased capacity of the Child Care Centre would result in increased impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

Increased Traffic and Safety Risk

There will be an increase in traffic in this dimly lit street if the centre is allowed to extend its hours and numbers of children.

Comment: As discussed, it is noted that there is potential for safety problems due to increased traffic and pedestrian movements in Millett Street outside the site due to inadequate parking facilities being available.

Council Referrals

Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed this modified proposal in respect to traffic and road safety and has advised as follows.

Children Services Coordinator

Council’s Children Services Coordinator has commented on the proposed modifications and has concerns in regard to the following.

Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has advised that the proposal has been examined for general compliance with the Building Code of Australia has raised no objection to the proposed modifications to conditions of consent.

Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee

The subject Section 96 modification application was referred to the Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee for consideration as recommended by Council’s Traffic Engineer.

The Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee considered this application at its meeting held on 6 October, 2005, and at the meeting Committee Members discussed the existing development and the provision of off-street parking. Members concurred that the proposed increase in the number of children within the centre would compound the existing demand for on-street parking as there is no provision to include further off-street parking as part of the Section 96 modification.

The following recommendation was made.


6. CONCLUSION

The subject modifications propose to increase the intensity of this Child Care Centre in terms of numbers of children and staff and hours of operation without providing any additional on-site car parking facilities.

Council’s Traffic Engineer and Traffic Advisory Committee have expressed concerns regarding the deficiency in car parking and assessment has shown the proposal to be inadequate in respect to further requirements within Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres including outdoor play space, staffroom size and cot provision. Council’s Children’s Service Coordinator has also raised concerns regarding these matters.

The subject conditions were imposed on the original development consent specifically to limit the intensity of the Child Care Centre due to concerns regarding lack of parking on the site and impact on the heritage item on the site.

Therefore, given the non-compliances with Council’s parking and traffic requirements, the proposed increase in intensity is seen to be an overdevelopment of the property with potential traffic safety risks and amenity impact and cannot be supported. Accordingly, the Section 96 application is recommended for refusal for the reasons as set out below.


RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, the Council refuses to amend development consent No. 20030198 granted on 4 November 2003 for alterations and additions to Heritage Item to be used as a Child Care Centre on Lot 22 DP 14092 and known as 18 Millett Street, Hurstville, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not provide any additional off-street parking and the insufficient parking provision and resultant increase in intensity of development on the site has potential to result in traffic safety impacts.

2. The proposal does not comply with the car parking space requirements for Child Care Centres when assessed under the table to Clause 2.1.1(d) of Council’s Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking.

3. The proposal does not comply with Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres, in particular:
4. The proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents.

5. The proposed modifications are considered to be an overdevelopment of the site with potential detrimental impact on the existing heritage item.

6. The proposed modifications are not in the public interest.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION


THAT the application be deferred for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors.
(Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr C Wong)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC003.03 - 06

66 BERONGA AVENUE, HURSTVILLE - SECTION 82A REVIEW
OF DETERMINATION

APPLICANT

Sam Bazzi

PROPOSAL

Section 82A review of determination

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

M and S Bazzi

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$510,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Decision required by Councillors

REPORT AUTHORS

Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young

FILE NO

DA 20050057


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The consent granted is for a two (2) storey dwelling with basement parking and a swimming pool.

2. Consent was granted at the Development Assessment Committee meeting on 1 June 2005 when the rear roof terrace was deleted.

3. The proposal complies with the relevant Local Environmental Plan and Code for Single Dwelling Houses. Council has no formalised policy on the use of flat roof areas.

4. One (1) submission was received from a neighbour in Croydon Road.

5. This application was referred to the February Development Assessment Committee from the December DAC Delegations.


RECOMMENDATION


THAT the application for review be determined in the applicant’s favour subject to further conditions as stated in the report.

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application and plans describe a two storey dwelling house with swimming pool in the rear yard. The plans indicate a flat roof deck to the rear of the dwelling with stair access. Condition 1 of the first schedule requires that:

The applicant now requests that this condition in the first schedule be deleted and amended plans be approved with wide planter boxes and privacy screen to eliminate unreasonable overlooking into adjoining properties.


BACKGROUND

The application was lodged on 9 February 2005 and was notified to seventeen (17) neighbouring properties. One (1) objection was received and referred to Councillors on 3 March 2005. The objection expressed concern regarding privacy, height and loss of investment potential for the objectors rented property.

The proposal was considered at the Development Assessment Committee on 1 June 2005 the application was again considered when it was approved subject to the condition referred to above.

An application pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requesting a Review of Determination was received by Council on 6 September 2005. This application was again re-notified as minor amendments had been made to the plans. One (1) objection letter was again received (not from the same person as previously). This submission cited privacy and noise as being concerns.

This report was 'called' from the December DAC Delegation meeting by Councillor Hindi.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The allotment is located on the north western side of Beronga Avenue and its north eastern side boundary adjoins the rear fences of three properties in Croydon Road.

The roof of the two (2) storey building is shown to be a terrace bounded on each side and at the rear with a garden bed 1.2m wide to reduce overlooking into neighbouring properties. The plans demonstrate satisfactory view angles to neighbouring properties because the border garden beds prevent persons on the roof looking down to ground level for a distance of about 13.5m away.

The front portion of the dwelling will have a pitched roof which will better harmonise with the existing streetscape.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development was originally found to comply with Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and was recommended with the condition:

The relevant submissions by the applicant in favour of his application are quoted below.

The planter boxes on the perimeter of the roof terrace have been increased to 1200mm overall width. It is recommended however hat the safety handrail to the terrace be setback 1500mm from the roof edge which will further increase the privacy to the adjoining properties. The deleted condition regarding the implementation and maintenance of roof top planting should also be reinstated if consent is granted.

There are no issues related to any Local Environmental Plan requirements and the only relevant issue to consider with reference to Development Control Plan or Code requirements is that of audio and visual privacy. It is considered that the wider planter box and balustrade setback 1.5m from the roof perimeter will satisfy this concern by one (1) only neighbour.

The proposal satisfies the built environment criteria as it will not unreasonably impact upon neighbours in terms of overshadowing or privacy and with the pitched roof to the front of the building there is reasonable compatibility in the streetscape.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, the determination of development consent 20050057 granted on 1 June 2005 for the construction of a two storey dwelling house on Lot 18, DP 12621 and known as 66 Beronga Avenue, Hurstville, be reviewed by the deletion of Condition 1 in Schedule 1 and the addition of the following conditions.

2. a) The planter boxes to the roof edge shall be a minimum of 1200mm wide and 675mm deep and shall be planted out with low maintenance shrubs with an automatic watering system.

2. b) The balustrade shall be erected 1500mm inside the roof perimeter so as to further reduce overlooking from persons standing on the roof deck.

2. c) Evidence shall be submitted to Council demonstrating the 40% energy saving provisions required by BASIX and also the tank and pump installation required to demonstrate the 40% water savings by BASIX.

* * * * *

APPENDIX



COMMITTEE'S DECISION

THAT the application for review be deferred for consideration at a Councillor workshop of a policy decision on floor space ratio with regard to rooftop terraces.
(Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr J Morris)

Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


DAC003.04 - 06

193 GLOUCESTER ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS - ALTERATIONS TO
SINGLE DWELLING HOUSE

APPLICANT

J F Building Consultants Pty Ltd

PROPOSAL

Alterations to single dwelling house

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 David Dan Wei Huang and Mrs Nai Jai Wu

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$11,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Non compliance with Code

REPORT AUTHORS

Consulting Development Assessment Officer, Mr Y Watt

FILE NO

DA 20050520


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1. The application is for the existing rear patio to be enclosed with fibro sheeting walls and new roof.

2. Under the provision of Hurstville Local environmental Plan 1994 (as amended), the alterations are permissible on this land.

3. Council’s neighbour notification of the proposed development generated no submissions.

4. This report was referred from the December DAC Delegations.


RECOMMENDATION


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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application is seeking Council’s consent to enclose the existing rear patio with fibro sheeting walls and new roof.


BACKGROUND

Additional information was requested by Council, specifically in relation site cover and landscaping calculations.

This report was 'called' from the December DAC Delegation meeting by Councillor Hindi.

The owners of the subject property have confirmed that the rear patio area already existed when they purchased the property in November 1998. The owners have provided a statutory declaration to confirming this.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is located on the western side of Gloucester Road. The property has a frontage of 12.19 metres and a depth of 53.19 metres with a total site area approximately 646.31sqm. The site is relatively flat and the immediate surrounding streetscape consists of single and two storey dwelling houses of varying age and architectural styles.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

The land is zoned 2 Residential and is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Local Environmental Plan 1994 (Amendment 58)

Draft Amendment 58 inserts objectives relating to the development of both dwelling houses and dual occupancies. The Draft Plan is with the Minister awaiting gazettal. The proposal complies with the Draft Plan.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

There are no matters in the Regulations applying to this development.

3. Development Control Plans

Single Dwelling House Code

Code for Single
Dwelling Houses
Standard
Proposal
Complies
Site Area646.31sqm
Frontage12.19m
3.3.1 Height and Side Setback9 metre maximum above natural ground level.
    The side walls of the extension must not be less than 900mm from the boundary line.
    3.3m maximum above natural ground level.

    1.62m from southern boundary line.
    Yes




    Yes
    3.6 PrivacyWindows to habitable rooms are offset 1m from edge of opposite window and suitably separated by 3m to ensure visual and acoustic privacy.A suitable offset is proposed. No impact.
    Yes


    3.7 Solar access in mid winterMinimal overshadowing of neighbouring private open space or windows to habitable rooms.
      Allow at least 4 hours of sunlight to adjoining private open space areas between (9am-3pm, 22 June).
      No significant impact.




      Adjoining properties will receive the required amount of sunlight.
      Yes






      Yes
      3.8 Front FenceNo additional fence proposed
      N/A
      3.9 LandscapingArea B – minimum 50% of the total site area must be provided for landscaped open area260.56sqm or 40% of total site area available for landscaped open area
      No(1)


      The proposal does not meet the requirements set out in Clause 3.9 of Council’s Single Dwelling House Code.

      (1) Landscaping

      The total site area available for landscaping is 260.56sqm or 40%. The proposal is 10% short of the minimum 50% for Area B. However, the proposal does not add to the existing site coverage. The rear patio area already exists and appears to have been in its current location for some years. Therefore, on its merits the proposal should still be approved.

      4. Impacts

      Natural Environment

      The design of the proposed development is considered to be satisfactory and as such, it is not expected to have any adverse impact upon the surrounding natural environment.

      Built Environment

      The proposed development is unlikely to contribute to the creation of a desirable streetscape and future character of the locality in terms of its bulk, scale and aesthetic design. As such, the proposal is not expected to have any adverse impact upon the surrounding built environment.

      Social Impact

      The proposal is for a permissible use and is unlikely to give rise to any social impact in its locality.

      Economic Impact

      The proposed development is considered to be appropriate and is unlikely to give rise to any economic impact.

      Suitability of the Site

      There are no matters that would prevent the residential use of the site.


      5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

      This application was submitted to Council on 27 September 2005 and was placed on neighbour notification for fourteen (14) days from 5 October 2005 until 19 October 2005. The neighbour notification process generated no submissions


      6. CONCLUSION

      The proposed development is appropriately located within Zone 2 under the relevant provision of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development, except for Clause 3.9 of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

      Having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory and for this reason, the development may be approved subject to conditions attached.


      RECOMMENDATION

      THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application 20050520 for alterations to a single dwelling house on Lot 66, DP 14614 and known as 193 Gloucester Road, Beverly Hills, subject to the attached conditions:

      1. Standard conditions for alterations/extensions.

      2. Approved Plans
      * * * * *

      APPENDIX



      COMMITTEE'S DECISION


      THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
      (Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr C Wong)

      Meeting Date: 01/02/2006


      DAC003.05 - 06

      61 BOTANY STREET, CARLTON - CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE GARAGE AND STOREROOM

      APPLICANT

      Mr and Mrs Gatsos

      PROPOSAL

      Construction of a double garage and storeroom

      ZONING

      Zone 2 - Residential

      APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

      Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for Single
      Dwelling Houses, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings

      HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


      OWNERS

      Mr and Mrs Gatsos

      EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

      Single dwelling house

      COST OF DEVELOPMENT

      $50,000.00

      REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

      Non compliance with Outbuilding Code

      REPORT AUTHORS

      Development Assessment Officer, Mr B Hick

      FILE NO

      DA 20050558


      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


      1. The application seeks approval to construct a double garage and storeroom.

      2. All properties in this street have rear lane access.

      3. The application fails by 500mm to meet the 3m height requirement from the natural ground level to the top plate.

      4. No submissions were received.


      RECOMMENDATION


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

      ___________________________________________________________________________

      REPORT DETAIL


      DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

      The application seeks approval for the construction of a garage/store room with an area of 75.74sqm, a maximum ridge height of 5m and wall height from natural ground level to top plate of 3.5m. The structure is to stand 900mm clear of Cronulla Lane which services the rear of the subject property.


      BACKGROUND

      The proposed garage structure is designed to replace an older structure of similar area which is in urgent need of repair.

      To comply with Clause 6.3 of Council’s Code for the Erection of Outbuildings the applicant has provided a letter outlining the need to provide accommodation for a small bus which accommodate from 12-21 persons, parking for one (1) car and a storage area with some amenities.

      The 3m height of the bus and the existing natural ground fall dictates the minimum height to the top plate on the south west elevation as shown on the plan would be 3.5m. The applicant seeks Council’s approval of this variation.


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

      The site is a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 12.19m to Botany Street and an area of 490sqm. The site is located on the south western high side of the street. Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house and garage facing Cronulla Lane.

      Adjoining the site to the east is a two (2) storey dwelling house and single storey dwelling house to the west. Located at the rear of the site is an access lane. The area is generally a mixture of new and older dwelling houses.


      COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

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

      1. Environmental Planning Instruments

      Hurstville Local Environmental Plan

      The land is zoned 2 – Residential and is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

      State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

      The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

      Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

      2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

      Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No 58 - Dual Occupancy and Single Dwelling Houses

      The proposal complies with the objectives of the Draft Plan.

      Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

      There are no matters prescribed by the Regulations.

      3. Development Control Plans

      Code for the Erection of Outbuildings and Code for Single Dwelling Houses

      Code for the Erection of Outbuildings and Code for Single Dwelling HousesRequiredProposedComplies
      Site area (dwelling house)490sqm
      Landscape area50%51%Yes
      Max. site cover0.5:10.48:1Yes
      Height3m from top plate to natural ground level3.5mNo (1)
      Size of garageOver 80sqm to be referred to DAC75.74sqmYes
      Compliance with Building Code of Australia900mm setback or 90/90/90 wall90/90/90 wallYes

      (1) Height

      Part 6.6 of the Code for the Erection of Outbuildings advises that applications for outbuildings in excess of 3m in height from the natural ground level to the top plate shall be accompanied by a letter satisfying the reasons for the increase. This letter has been provided and is reproduced below.

      4. Impacts

      Natural Environment

      The proposed work will not affect the natural environment.

      Built Environment

      The addition of a new garage structure to replace the existing dilapidated structure will be a benefit to the area.

      Social Impact

      No adverse impact.

      Economic Impact

      No adverse impact.

      Suitability of the Site

      The site is considered suitable for this development. It is not affected by acid sulphate, flooding, fire, or contamination.


      5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

      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 objections have been received.


      6. CONCLUSION

      Height restrictions of 3m as measured from natural ground level to the top plate are generally applied. The Code also states applications exceeding this height shall be accompanied by a letter of justification for the additional height.

      This garage when viewed from Cronulla Lane is to stand on a 900mm alignment and will comply with Council’s Code for overall height and would benefit the streetscape of the lane and provide additional parking.

      The garage would not be visible from Botany Street because of the existing dwelling house – it is this elevation which exceeds Council’s height standard of 3m. When viewed from Cronulla Lane the proposal complies with Council's 3m height limit.

      The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the area or the streetscape.


      RECOMMENDATION

      THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants development consent to Development Application 20050558 for the construction of a double garage and storeroom on Lot 35 DP 604386 and known as 61 Botany Street, Carlton, subject to the attached conditions:

      1. Standard conditions of development for an outbuilding.

      2. Plans.

      Plan NoDateDescriptionDrawn by
      1/2 and 2/2Sep 05Site plan and elevations
      -

      * * * * *

      APPENDIX



      COMMITTEE'S DECISION


      THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
      (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr S McMahon)