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 NOVEMBER, 2006


Summary:


Item No: DAC028 - 06 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARDItem No: DAC028.01 - 06 5-7 CLARENDON ROAD, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF A CHILD CARE CENTREItem No: DAC028.02 - 06 62 BLACKBUTT AVENUE, LUGARNO - REAR PATIO AWNING TO THE FIRST FLOORItem No: DAC028.03 - 06 28 FREEMAN AVENUE, OATLEY - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONItem No: DAC028.04 - 06 21 BOATWRIGHT AVENUE, LUGARNO - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISIONItem No: DAC028.05 - 06 3 HILLCROSS STREET, LUGARNO - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONItem No: DAC028.06 - 06 14 MARSDEN CRESCENT, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE VILLA HOMESItem No: DAC029 - 06 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARDItem No: DAC029.01 - 06 27 QUEENSBURY ROAD, PENSHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING AND FRONT FENCE ON A DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY SITEItem No: DAC029.02 - 06 57-59 MOUNTVIEW AVENUE, BEVERLY HILLS - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF THREE TOWNHOUSES AND TWO VILLAS WITH STRATA TITLE SUBDIVISIONItem No: DAC029.03 - 06 43A PENSHURST STREET, PENSHURST - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONItem No: DAC029.04 - 06 6-8 CHAMBERLAIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSES AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO X TWO STOREY TOWNHOUSES AND TWO SINGLE STOREY VILLAS WITH BASEMENT CAR PARKINGItem No: DAC029.05 - 06 24 DELVES STREET, MORTDALE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISIONItem No: DAC030 - 06 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARDItem No: DAC030.01 - 06 72 BRISTOL ROAD, HURSTVILLE - UNAUTHORISED BUILDING WORKS - ERECTION OF OUTBUILDING


___________________________________________________________________________
Meeting No. 10 to be held on 1/11/2006





HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL

CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE 2220

25 October 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 NOVEMBER, 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 4/10/2006 4. Consideration of reports submitted by the:
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP: QUORUM: 7

Full Council


Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


DAC028.01 - 06

5-7 CLARENDON ROAD, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF A CHILD CARE CENTRE

APPLICANT

Grapulin Design Consultants Pty Ltd

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a Child Care Centre

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, Development Control Plan No 19 - Access and Mobility, Development Control Plan No 23 - Advertising and Signage

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


OWNERS

R and B Funovski and Hurstville City Council

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Single dwelling house and vacant land

COST OF DEVELOPMENT

$330,000.00

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Council is part owner of the land, five objections received and non compliance with DCP 6

REPORT AUTHORS

Senior Town Planner, Ms L Locke, Consulting Planner, Mr W Long of Longitude Planning Pty Ltd and Development Assessment Officer, Ms H Atkinson

FILE NO

DA 20060105


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The proposal is for the demolition of the dwelling house and garage on 7 Clarendon Road and the erection of a single storey Child Care Centre for twenty eight (28) children on 5-7 Clarendon Road, Peakhurst.

2. Portion of this land referred to as 5 Clarendon Road is residual land from the creation of David Place and is in Council ownership.

3. The proposal complies with the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan, but does not fully meet the requirements of Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres. A condition of consent is recommended to reduce the number of children by two (2), from twenty eight (28) to twenty six (26) children to achieve compliance with the minimum indoor play space and outdoor play area requirements of Development Control Plan No 6.

4. Five (5) objections and a petition containing twenty two (22) signatures were received to the proposal.

5. The application was deferred from the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 4 October 2006 for a written report on drainage issues in the area by Council's engineers, an updated feasibility study on Child Care Centres in the area be provided, and that a report be provided on a claim by the objecting neighbour that LPG cylinders are to be installed next door to the proposed Child Care Centre and concerns about safety.


RECOMMENDATION

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

___________________________________________________________________________

REPORT DETAIL

BACKGROUND

The application was deferred from the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 4 October 2006 for a written report on drainage issues in the area by Council's engineers, an updated feasibility study on Child Care Centres in the area be provided, and that a report be provided on a claim by the objecting neighbour that LPG cylinders are to be installed next door to the proposed Child Care Centre and concerns about safety.

Council's Engineers have prepared a flood summary report for the site and have advised that the site would be clear of flooding at least up to 1 in 100 years flood recurrence interval probability.

The applicant has provided an updated feasibility study that includes four (4) additional centres that had opened since the original feasibility study was submitted with the development application. The updated feasibility study demonstrates there is a demand for Child Care in the area and that of the four (4) new centres there are only a few places left until they are completely full.

Council Officers have spoken to a neighbour property owner who raised the concerns in relation to the LPG cylinders. Council has no record of any application for the installation of LPG cylinders. In any case, if the cylinders were for normal residential use, eg BBQ, heating, then no consent is required and it is considered that it would pose a low public safety risk.


For the information of Councillors, please find the previous report following.

"DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for the demolition of the dwelling house and garage located on 7 Clarendon Road and the erection of a single storey Child Care Centre on property 5-7 Clarendon Road. The Centre is to cater for twenty eight (28) children between 2 and 5 years, and employ four (4) staff. The hours proposed are 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday. Six (6) on-site parking spaces are proposed including one (1) accessible space.

The building proposed is single storey and located in the south west (rear) corner of the site. The parking area is provided between the building, which is setback over 14m from the frontage, and Clarendon Road. It has a separate entry and exit from Clarendon Road for vehicles to safely pass through the site. The children’s outdoor play area is proposed on the eastern side of the building fronting onto David Place.


BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 19 October 2005 resolved to grant owner’s consent to the lodging of the development application.

The application was submitted on 18 March 2006.

Following the preliminary assessment of the application and comments raised by Council’s Children’s Services Coordinator, amended plans were submitted to Council on 7 June 2006. Given the nature of the amendments, in that they are in direct response to the matters raised by Council Officers and seek to improve compliance with Council’s requirements and that there will be no additional impact on neighbours, the amended plans were not renotified.

In summary the amended plans include a minor increase in indoor play area, increase in size of children’s toilets, reconfiguration of staff amenities, inclusion of accessible toilet facilities, relocation of office and kitchen to the front of the building and new entry foyer, change to the arrangement of the playground area and disabled access ramp on the east side of the building and an increase in size of the accessible parking space.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is a regular shaped site with a frontage of 19.81m (excluding splay) to Clarendon Road, and 25.458m to David Place. The site has a 3m splay at the corner of David Place and Clarendon Road. The site has an overall area of 645sqm. The site is located on the southern side of the street and on the south western corner of the intersection with David Place. Existing on the site is a dwelling house and detached garage.

The site comprises two (2) allotments, Lot 4 DP 240393 (and known as 5 Clarendon Road), which is the Council owned residual land resulting from the creation of David Place and Lot 2 DP 356744 (and known as 7 Clarendon Road) which is privately owned and the location of the dwelling house and garage.

Adjoining the site to the south and west are single storey dwelling houses. Located to the east across David Place is a single storey dwelling house. David Place comprises a number of single and double storey dwelling houses. Clarendon Road in this section has a wide central road reserve. Across the road reserve are two (2) storey dwelling houses, a drainage reserve and vacant land. The area is residential in character.

The site has a fall from east to west of around a metre and a similar cross fall from rear (south) to front (north).

Clarendon Road is classed as a “local road”.


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 Child Care Centres are a permissible use in the zone with development consent. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Clause 13 – Floor Space Ratio

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 requires that the maximum floor space ratio for non-residential buildings in the residential zone not exceed 0.5:1. The proposal has a floor area of 193.4sqm and site area of 645sqm resulting in a floor space ratio of 0.29:1 which complies with this requirement.

Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

The proposal has been assessed against Council’s Tree Preservation Order. There are no substantial trees on the site. The Tree Management Officer’s comments are contained in the relevant referral section of this report.

Clause 15 – Services

Standard conditions for Child Care Centre development include the requirement for service provision in relation to water, energy, gas and telecommunications.

Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

Some minor excavation is proposed in the south eastern portion of the site affected by the building. This is due to the various cross falls in the site and is not considered excessive. The modification in land level will not have an impact on neighbouring properties. A condition will require an engineering design be submitted for the retaining wall where it exceeds 600mm. This is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Clause 22A – Acid Sulphate Soils

The site is not in an area 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.

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 has a long history of residential use and therefore it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft amendments to Council Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care have been prepared and were adopted for public examination by Council February 2006. The draft amendments have not yet been exhibited and therefore are not required to be considered under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

DRAFT GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

The proposal complies with the requirements of 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 the existing buildings on the site.

Building Code of Australia

Building Code of Australia requirements relating to Fire Services/Equipment and access and egress are discussed in the Council Referrals section of this report.

3. Development Control Plans

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

Development Control Plan 2 – Car Parking is applicable to this application. For the proposed Child Care Centre, the following on site car parking is required to be provided on site.

Spaces Required (on site)
Requirement
Provided
Complies
1 space per 10 children
3
3
Yes
1 space per 2 staff
2
2
Yes
1 long term visitor / Disabled (3.8m x 6m)
1
1
3.8m x 6.0m
Yes
Open Spaces
2.5m x 5.5m
2.5m x 5.5m
Yes
Driveway width
3m each
3m
Yes
Exit and Entrance movements
Forward direction
Forward direction
Yes
Separate entry/ exit points
Separate
Separate
Yes

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal will comply with the relevant controls of Development Control Plan No 2.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 6 – CHILD CARE CENTRES

Locational Criteria requirements in relation to Child Care Centres are as follows.

Locational criteria requirements
Standard
Proposal
Complies
General preference· Close to community focal points



· Meets minimum site requirements
    · No steep sites or sites on main road
    · The site is located in close proximity to Riverwood Shopping Centre and a number of schools.

    · Yes

    · Not on a main road, site not steep
    Yes





    Yes


    Yes
    Demographic analysis· Demographic analysis must be submitted· Provided
    Yes
    Distribution of other child care centres· Analysis of existing Child Care Centres submitted
    · Reference to Child Care Centres within 5km of the proposed centre
    · Provided
      · Provided
      Yes

      Yes
      Industry trends· Analysis of industry trends to be submitted· Provided
      Yes
      Proximity to undesirable or hazardous features· Site must be at least 300m away from main roads, telecommunications towers, large over-head power lines, industrial areas

      · Approval will not be given to sites which are less than 55m from LPG above ground gas tank or tanker unloading position

      · Analysis of existing and/or potential site contamination
      · Site away from undesirable / hazardous features.


      · Not in close proximity to any LPG or gas unloading positions


      · Site used only for residential, no previous contamination
      Yes





      Yes





      Yes

      Specific technical requirements relating to Child Care Centres are as follow.

      Child Care Centre DCP No. 6
      Standard
      Proposal
      Complies
      Minimum Site Area500sqm645sqm
      Yes
      Minimum Street Frontage13m19.81m
      Yes
      Location on Main RoadNot permittedNot on main road
      Yes
      Height9m5.6m
      Yes
      Front Setback5.5m 14.8m
      Yes
      Solar DesignMinimum 3 hours sunlight between 9am-3pm for adjoining private open space, habitable rooms and solar collectorsYes
      Yes
      SafetyVisual links between indoor and outdoor spacesProvided
      Yes
      Vehicular AccessSeparate entry and exit pointsSeparate entry and exit points
      Yes
      Parking – Location Must be provided behind the required front boundary setback or a minimum of 5.5m, whichever is greater.2 spaces forward of building line or 1 space forward of 5.5m front setback
      No (1)
      Parking – No of Spaces
      One (1) space per two (2) staff
      One (1) space per ten (10) children or part thereof
      One (1) long term visitor space

      Staff = 2
      Children = 3

      Long term visitor = 1
      6 spaces provided
      Yes
      Bike Racks2 requiredCan be conditioned
      Yes
      Disabled AccessMaximum Grade 1:14Provided
      Yes
      Indoor Play Area
      3.5sqm/child
      28 children = 98sqm93.76sqm
      No (2)
      Outdoor Play Area
      7sqm/child
      28 children = 196sqm184.2sqm
      No (3)
      Veranda
      If not included in outdoor play area, minimum 1.25sqm per child
      35sqmPortion included in play area
      Yes
      Children toilets and hand basins One (1) per eight (8) children = 44 provided
      Yes
      Staff ToiletsOne (1) per six (6) staff = 11 provided
      Yes
      Disabled ToiletOne (1) 1 provided
      Yes (4)
      Staff ShowerIf greater than 29 children requires one (1) Staff ShowerStaff shower not proposed
      N/A
      Bathroom SizeMinimum 12sqm, with 2.5sqm for each additional toilet required above three (3) toilets14.4sqm
      Yes
      Staff RoomMinimum 16sqm16sqm
      Yes
      OfficeTwo desks etcProvided
      Yes
      StorageMinimum 8sqm/playroom = 16sqm16sqm
      Yes
      GarbageMinimum 3m x 1mCan be conditioned
      Yes
      CraftOne (1) sink separate from food preparation areaYes
      Yes
      Food Preparation AreaSeparate designated areaYes
      Yes
      Hours of OperationMaximum 7.30am-6.00pm7.30am-6.00pm
      Yes
      Play EquipmentMin. 3m from adjoining residential boundarySandpit 3m from residential boundary
      Yes
      Colorbond FenceNot Permitted1.8m lapped timber fence
      Yes
      DOC’s Maximum Group Sizes2-3yrs – maximum sixteen (16) children

      3-5yrs – maximum twenty (20) children
      2-3yrs – 8 children in group

      3-5 years – 2 groups of 10
      Yes
      DOC’s Staff Sizes2-3yrs – One (1) staff per eight (8) children

      3-5yrs – One (1) staff per ten (10) children
      8 x 2-3yrs – 1 staff

      20 x 3-5years = 2 staff
      Yes

      (1) Parking – Location

      The parking area is provided at the front of the development and is setback 2.265m from the front boundary. This means that one (1) space is located within the 5.5m setback. Given the number of spaces requires, it is considered that the provision of the 2.265m landscape strip is adequate and will satisfactorily screen the parking from the street.

      (2) Indoor Play Area

      Based on the requirements of Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres proposals should provide a minimum of 3.5sqm per child. In this case 98sqm of internal space is required. The amended proposal is 4.2sqm deficient in relation to indoor space for the care of twenty eight (28) children. To comply with Council’s requirements the number of children would need to be reduced by two (2) children to a maximum of twenty six (26) children.

      The proposal nevertheless, complies with the DOCS Regulation of one (1) child per 3.25sqm.

      (3) Outdoor Play Area

      Based on the requirements of Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres proposals should provide a minimum of 7sqm per child therefore 196sqm of outdoor play space is required in order to comply. The proposal includes 184.2sqm, a deficiency of 11.8sqm. If the number of children was reduced by two (2) children to a maximum of twenty six (26) children to comply with the Development Control Plan requirement for indoor space, then the minimum outdoor space area would also be met.

      (4) Disabled Toilet

      The staff WC will serve as an accessible toilet and is of a size that is capable of complying with the access requirements of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.

      Relationship to Adjoining Properties

      The applicant has located the Centre in the south western corner of the site and there are no window or door openings in these elevations to neighbouring residential properties.

      The play area has been located as far as possible from the immediately adjoining neighbours, and is located in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to David Place. The indoor play areas also open onto this outdoor space. The property immediately adjoining to the south is screened from the play area by the enclosed carport on their site and the rear wall of the Centre.

      Being single storey, the proposed building will not result in an adverse impact on sunlight access to neighbouring sites.

      The location of the two (2) air conditioning units within the side setback on the western side of the building should be relocated so that they are a minimum of 3m from any boundary of an adjoining residential property. This is discussed further under the Heating and Cooling Section of this report.

      Building Detail

      The building will be single storey and of residential proportions, reflecting the dwelling house scale of residential development in the locality. A mixture of full length sliding glass doors and windows are provided in the development. A condition is included requiring all glazing in areas accessible by children to comply with AS1288.

      Conditions will require compliance with the location of handles and opening/hinging of external doors in accordance with the Development Control Plan.

      The applicant has submitted a colour schedule, which shows the building to be of light coloured textured brick external walls with concrete roof tiles in a colour called “leaf green”. Stencil paving within the property is a light terracotta colour. The materials and colour pallet are considered compatible with the residential area.

      A landscape strip 2.265 metres wide is proposed at the front of the property to soften the appearance of the parking area proposed at the front of the building.

      DESIGN AND SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS

      Indoor Play Area

      Refer to Development Control Plan No 6 table above.

      Outdoor Spaces

      Refer to Development Control Plan No 6 table above.

      Development Control Plan No 6 also states that ‘outdoor space is to receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight during the centres operating hours’. The outdoor play area is considered to receive minimum 2 hours sunlight throughout the day.

      The outdoor play space is north and east facing and will receive adequate sunlight to comply with Council’s requirements and is located adjacent to the eastern and northern walls of the Centre, allowing good surveillance opportunities. The lawn space is in excess of the 15m suggested in the Development Control Plan. The area at the rear of the building is isolated from the play area.

      Shading is proposed to 40sqm of the outdoor space. To comply with the Council requirement of 50% of the area being shaded additional shade areas are required. To reduce the need for shading the applicant has proposed to limit the number of children in the outdoor space at any time. This is not supported and it is suggested that this requirement be maintained and 50% of the outdoor space be provided by the provision of a permanent shade structure over the soft fall area and the sand pit. An appropriate condition is recommended.

      Signage

      Signage is required to identify the building and the use. The applicant has not provided any details of signage as part of this application. Signs are limited to providing essential information only and are to be visible but not obtrusive. A separate development application will need to be lodged to deal with this issue, or an appropriately worded condition.

      Entry and Security Requirements

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

      The entry point is located at the front of the building off the car park and directly supervised by the office. Outdoor play areas are isolated from the entrance by fencing. A condition will require appropriate child proof locking devices. A condition is included to ensure that the configuration of the fence and entry gate will comply with the disabled access requirements and the relevant requirements of AS1428.

      It is considered that the proposal addresses these requirements satisfactorily.

      SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

      Laundries

      Development Control Plan No 6 requires that laundries are desirable in Child Care Centres, and should be a minimum of 10sqm when provided. The proposed laundry provided is 2.6sqm in area. The applicant acknowledges this and outlines in their submission that a contracted laundry service is to be provided to compensate for the small laundry that should accommodate limited daily laundering. A condition will require this be incorporated into the Management Plan of the Centre.

      Heating and Cooling Equipment

      Heating and cooling is provided by way of air conditioning. It is noted that the units are located outside the western wall of the building close to the boundary with 9 Clarendon Road. It is suggested to avoid future conflict arising from noise issued these should be located a minimum of 3m from any adjoining boundary with a residential property. A condition requiring this relocation is incorporated into the conditions.

      VISUAL PRIVACY AND ACOUSTIC AMENITY

      Visual Privacy

      Play equipment it to be located at least 3m from any boundary with a residential property; in this case it would be the common boundary with 15 David Place.

      The sand pit has been relocated away from this boundary and there will be no play equipment within 3m of the boundary and in any event the play area adjoins the driveway and parking area of the adjoining property.

      In relation to the orientation of windows from the Centre towards neighbouring properties, there are no windows proposed in the side elevations facing 15 David Place and 9 Clarendon Road. All openings are in the front elevation towards Clarendon Road and the side elevation onto the outdoor play space and David Place.

      Acoustic Amenity

      The applicant has submitted a noise assessment of the proposal, prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy. As a result of their examination of the proposal, and studies undertaken at the site, a number of recommendations have been made.

      RecommendationsFor traffic noise, the following are recommended in the Development Control Plan.

      * Internal noise levels must not exceed 48dB(A), and

      * Outdoor Noise Levels should not generally exceed a range of 55-60dB(A) measured 1.5m above the ground in the centre of the outdoor play area.

      The site is located in a relatively quiet residential area and meets the above requirements.

      Fencing

      Fencing proposed to the rear and side boundaries and lapped timber fences 1.8m high. The fencing of the play areas along David Place and Clarendon Road are to be in accordance with the Acoustic Report, which required the erection of an acoustic screen in addition to the boundary fencing.

      A condition will require the remainder of the internal fencing of the children’s play areas to be in accordance with 2.7.3 of the Development Control Plan. Minimum fence heights to this area are 1.2m.

      DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 19 – ACCESS AND MOBILITY

      Development Control Plan No 19 requires that ‘Child Care Centres’ are required to provide access in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.2. Access in accordance with AS1428.2 is required to a principal entrance and to public areas in developments.

      In accordance with Development Control Plan No 19, the building is accessible and complies with the requirements.

      DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 23 – ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE

      At this stage the applicant has not provided details of signage and this will require a further application to Council.

      4. Impacts

      Natural Environment

      There are no major trees on the site affected by the proposal. Council’s Tree Management Officer has considered the existing vegetation on the site and given the limited opportunity for additional substantial planting has suggested an upgrading, by way of additional planting the road reserve/island in front of the site. There are no threatened species identified on the site.

      Built Environment

      The building proposed is of a domestic scale and will fit well into the streetscape. The main variation is the location of the required parking area in the front of the development. This is screened partly by vegetation proposed along the Clarendon Road frontage. The applicant has addressed privacy issues by limiting openings in side walls that adjoin neighbouring residential properties and the building is to be single storey to minimise overshadowing. There are no heritage issues related to the site or proposal.

      The applicant has submitted a Traffic report in support of the proposal. The report indicates the following.

      Social Impact

      The proposal will result in the loss of a dwelling house from the housing stock. The dwelling house is currently being advertised for lease. The proposal provides an additional service into the community. The use is permitted in the residential zone.

      Economic Impact

      The proposal will generate employment within the locality as it is designed to operate with four (4) staff members. It is not considered that any existing facilities in the area will be placed in jeopardy, as there appears to be a demand for Child Care places in the Council area. The applicant has submitted a Feasibility Study, which has considered demand for Child Care in the area. In essence the Study indicated that for 2005 of the eleven (11) Centres surveyed, there were no full time spaces available and for 2006 (this study was conducted October 2005) nearly all the Centres were full.

      Suitability of the Site

      The site is of suitable width, area and slope for the proposed development. The proposed Child Care Centre is located close to Riverwood Town Centre and is considered a suitable location.


      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. Five (5) letters of objection and a petition were received in response to Council’s notification.

      Objections were received from 3 Clarendon Road, 13, 15, 34 and 38 David Place, all located within the vicinity of the proposal. A petition containing twenty two (22) signatures was also received. All of the signatories gave addresses in the vicinity of the proposed development.

      The following issues were raised.

      Increase in traffic and highway safety

      The proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the area particularly at drop off and pick up times. Drivers will experience difficulty in vision on the corner of David Place and Clarendon Road.

      Comment: Parking to meet Council’s requirements has been provided in the development with a parking area and on-site drop-off and pick-up area. The area has separate access points to allow for forward movement of vehicles through the site.

      The Council Traffic Engineer has considered the traffic aspect of the proposal, as has Council’s Traffic Committee. The report submitted by the applicant in relation to traffic also indicates that the traffic situation will remain satisfactory. The Centre has two (2) main peaks, at drop off in the morning and pick up in the afternoon. These will stagger as not all children are picked up and dropped off at the same time. The picking up of children at other times while the Centre is operating can only reduce any traffic movements during peak times.

      The development provides no vehicular access onto David Place. As such, it is not intended that this be a drop off for the Centre. The separation from the main Clarendon Road thoroughfare and the cul-de-sac design of the Clarendon Road, with unrestricted parking on both sides of the road will also allow vehicles to park on street and safely manoeuvre in this section of Clarendon Road. It is not likely that vehicles will need to enter and park in David Place given the abundance of parking available in this part of Clarendon Road and the onsite parking that is proposed.

      The splay corner at the intersection of Clarendon and David Place is to remain and this will ensure vehicle visibility.

      Suitability of David Place

      The location is not considered appropriate and represents an intrusion of a commercial use into the residential area and will result in a loss of amenity. The Child Care Centre should be located near schools or incorporated into schools.

      Comment: There are a number of non-residential uses that are permitted in residential zones by Council’s Local Environmental Plan. Child Care Centres are one such use.

      Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres comments that the Centres should be close to, or adjacent to community focal points such as local shopping centres, parklands, school and the like. The Centre is located close to such facilities. It does not require that they be co-located.

      The issue of amenity to the residential area is one, which is addressed throughout this report and reflected in the suggested conditions.

      Decrease in property values

      The proposed Child Care Centre will reduce the value of neighbouring residential properties.

      Comment: Council does not comment on property values.

      Increase in garbage

      The proposed Child Care Centre will result in an increase in garbage in the vicinity.

      Comment: There has been no evidence submitted to substantiate such a concern.

      Storage shed location

      The location of the proposed storage shed will have a negative impact on the street scene.

      Comment: The storage shed is located on the corner of the site within the children’s play area. Whilst it is likely to be screened by landscaping and fencing a more appropriate location for the storage shed would be the south end of the play area adjoining the boundary and the garage at 5 David Place. A condition is included in the recommended conditions.

      No requirement for such a facility

      There is no requirement for the proposed Child Care Centre within David Place and Clarendon Road and the proposal has no immediate benefit to the area. The proposal will result in an oversupply and there are currently vacancies at nearby Jenny’s Kindergarten.

      Comment: The applicant has submitted a Feasibility Study of the Centre, which reflects a demand for Child Care. Notwithstanding that the existing demographic in David Place is not one, which would utilise a Child Care Centre, such facilities are provided for the community as a whole.

      Size of site

      It is considered that the site is too small for the construction of a Child Care Centre.

      Comment: The site area exceeds the minimum requirements for Child Care Centres as stipulated in Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres. It is recommended that the maximum number of children should be reduced by two (2) to twenty six (26) to comply with the indoor play area and outdoor play space requirements of Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres.

      Council Referrals

      Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

      Council’s Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has considered the proposal and has advised that the proposal may be considered for approval subject to standard conditions and the following additional conditions.

      Tree Management Officer

      Council’s Tree Management Officer considered the proposal and has advised that the removal of the ficus tree from the front yard of the property is acceptable. In addition, to the rear of the property, there are several large and small leaved privets. These are noxious weeds and need to be removed.

      In addition, the removal of one (1) lagerstroemia indica (crepe myrtle) and one (1) plumeria aeutifolia (frangipani) are also necessitated by the development and are considered to be acceptable.

      Due to minimal landscaping (and opportunity for landscaping) on the site, the Tree Management Officer suggests contributions in the form of twelve (12) advanced trees be planted in the road reserve strip.

      Traffic Engineer

      Council’s Traffic Engineer has considered the proposal and advised that Clarendon Road is classified as a local road under the Hurstville City Council Road Hierarchy. Recent traffic counts undertaken in Clarendon Road (in the vicinity of the proposed Child Care Centre) indicate that the Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) is one hundred and thirty four (134). The Traffic Engineer has advised that the proposal may be considered for approval subject to standard conditions and made the following comments.

      Comment: The accessible car parking space has been increased in width by 0.2m in the mended plans.

      Traffic Advisory Committee

      Council's Traffic Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal at its meeting held on 4 May 2006, and provided the following comments.
      Children Services Adviser

      Council’s Children Services Adviser has considered the proposal and has provided the following comments.

      Comment: It is recommended that the maximum number of children be reduced from twenty eight (28) to twenty six (26) in view of the shortfall in indoor area and outdoor play area. Conditions are recommended to require permanent shade structures over the soft fall area and the sand pit.

      The plans have otherwise been amended to address the size of rooms and facilities and other matters are addressed by appropriate conditions of development consent.
      6. CONCLUSION

      The application for a Child Care Centre is considered to comply with the relevant Section 79C heads of consideration of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). The proposal is considered to satisfy a majority of Council’s requirements and can be conditioned where required to comply in full with the relevant Development Control Plans as outlined in this report.

      It is considered that in view of the departure from the minimum indoor play area and outdoor play areas that the maximum number of children be reduced by two (2) from twenty eight (28) to twenty six (26) in order to achieve compliance with the minimum requirements of Hurstville Development Control Plan No 6 - Child Care Centres. The original plans have otherwise been amended to increase room sizes and to incorporate appropriate facilities.

      Following a detailed assessment of the amended proposal, it is considered that the application is appropriate and subject to conditions of consent, it is therefore recommended for approval.


      RECOMMENDATION

      THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060105 for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a Child Care Centre on Lot 4 DP 240393 and Lot 2 DP 356744 and known as 5-7 Clarendon Road, Peakhurst, subject to the following conditions:

      A. Arrangements between Hurstville City Council as the owner of Lot 4 DP 240393 and the owners of Lot 2 DP 356744 must be entered into as set out in Council's letter dated 5 August 2004 to R and B Funovski to the satisfaction of both parties within a period of six (6) months from the date of the issue of the notice of consent.

      Written evidence of compliance with the above requirement shall be submitted to Council's Manager - Development Assessment. Upon the receipt of this written evidence a letter confirming that the consent is operational and that a Construction Certificate may be issued will be forwarded to the applicant.

      1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for Child Care Centres. Excluding the following conditions:- OC1 (b), (d)–(g), (i), (k)–(l), (o)–(t) and (i)–(iii);
      2. Standard conditions imposed by Council for Demolition: Include only: DE1

      3. Plans

      PlanDateDescription Drawn By
      01-06June 2006Site PlanArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group
      02-06June 2006Site AnalysisArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group
      03-06June 2006Ground Floor PlanArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group
      04-06June 2006Roof PlanArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group
      05-06June 2006Elevations and SectionArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group
      06-06June 2006Concept Landscape PlanArnold Grapulin Bello Design Group

      4. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

      5. Car Parking – The provision of one (1) space per four (4) staff, one (1) space per ten (10) registered children’s places including one (1) long term space in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres. Such spaces, manoeuvring areas, driveways and vehicular crossings are to be suitably constructed, sealed to provide a surface of concrete or bitumen, signposted, clearly linemarked, and drained to Councils specification.

      6. Sydney Water – The approved plans must be submitted to Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au see ‘Your Business’ then Building and Developing then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92;

      7. Prior to the occupation the applicant is to provide Council with a copy of the relevant Department of Community Services License. Furthermore, the Centre is to be limited to the number of children permitted under the Development Consent and Department of Community Services License.;

      8. The approved Child Care Centre is to operate between the hours of 7.30am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday. The Centre is not to operate on weekends or public holidays.

      9. No more than twenty six (26) children aged 2-5 years may attend or be registered to attend the Centre. No more than four (4) staff members are permitted to be employed at the Centre. Should staffing levels be required to be changed by Department of Community Services requirements, a Section 96 application is to be lodged with Council.

      10. The Centre is to be licensed by the Department of Community Services.

      11. The outdoor play area is to be provided with 50% shading in accordance with Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres, incorporating a permanent shade structure over the soft fall area and the sand pit.

      12. The staff room is to have a minimum floor area of 16sqm.

      13. The office layout is to be provided at Construction Certificate stage. The design is to facilitate observation of the access into the Centre.

      14. The staff toilet is to be fully accessible in accordance with AS1428.

      15. The Management Plan for the Centre to reflect the laundry service to be provided in lieu of the deficient laundry size in the Centre.

      16. Lockers are to be provided for each child; lockers are not to encroach upon the indoor play area, laundry, storage, bathroom or staff room areas are to be easily accessible to children.

      17. A nappy change bench and associated hand washing sink to be provided and maintained in the change room.

      18. The kitchen to be provided with a gate/door/barrier to prevent access by children.

      19. A gate/barrier/door is to be provided to the kitchen to restrict access by children.

      20. Two (2) bike racks to be provided on site, as per Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres.

      21. The storage shed is to be located at the south end of the play area.

      22. The air conditioning units being located a minimum of 3m from side boundaries with residential properties and not in the children’s outdoor play area.

      23. No consent is implied for advertising signs. This is to be subject to a separate application to Council.

      24. Adequate number of beds/sleeping mats with water proof covers and culturally appropriate forms of bedding for each child, who may wish or need to sleep on the premises on any one day is to be provided.

      25. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to and throughout the premises and to the outdoor play area, in accordance with the building Code of Australia and AS1428.1. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

      26. All glazing in areas accessible by the children to be in accordance with AS1288.

      27. All handles and opening/hinging of external doors to be in accordance with Development Control Plan No 6 – Child Care Centres. Child proof locks are to be provided on the exits from the outdoor play area.

      28. The applicant to provide a total of twelve (12) trees on the Clarendon Road reserve, at the front of the site in the front setback area and in the outdoor play area. The applicant is to discuss species selection and size with the Council’s Tree Management Officer.

      29. An engineering design being submitted with the Construction Certificate for any retaining walls exceeding 600mm in height.

      30. A garbage area with minimum dimensions of 3m x 1m wide is required to be provided. This is not to be located with the outdoor play area, not close to a residential property and is not to be accessible to children.

      31. Waste storage facilities shall be provided at the rate of 0.01-0.03 cubic metres per 100sqm of floor area per day.

      32. A Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to Council incorporating all requirements in respect of the provision of waste storage facilities prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

      33. The Centre is to be designed in accordance with the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy dated 8 December, 2005, in particular:

      Building

      34. Before any works start plans and specifications prepared and endorsed by a suitably qualified practising structural engineer, which detail the items listed hereunder, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.
      35. Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities must be provided to the premises in accordance with the requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1. Details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

      36. Noise levels emitted from any equipment or outdoor air conditioning compressing unit must not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise levels when measured at any point on the boundary of the site. A report prepared by an accredited acoustical engineer must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application certifying compliance with the above criteria.

      37. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following details, prepared and certificated by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:
      38. The floor plan must be provided with a minimum of two (2) exits that discharge to the street.

      Traffic Engineer

      39. All parking spaces must be clearly delineated and signed to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineer.

      40. Parking dimensions are to comply with Council’s Development Control Plan requirements.

      41. Entry and exit signs to be provided on driveway accesses.

      42. Applicant to illustrate driveway gradients in accordance with Council requirements. This is to be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

      43. All vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

      44. Signs to be erected restricting the speed limit to a maximum of 5km/hr together with pedestrian warning signage in the car park prior to the occupation of the premises.

      Crossing Engineer

      45. Crossings to be constructed as per Council’s standard shape and specification.

      46. Access levels to be issued by Council prior to Construction Certificate.

      47. Redundant crossing to be removed with kerb and guttering and turf to be reinstated.

      48. Power pole located within the construction area of the western crossing will require relocating; this is to be undertaken at the expense of the owner of 7 Clarendon Road.

      49. Underground services and access lids affected by the crossing being relocated/adjusted accordingly."

      * * * * *

      APPENDIX



      COMMITTEE'S DECISION

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

      Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


      DAC028.02 - 06

      62 BLACKBUTT AVENUE, LUGARNO - REAR PATIO AWNING TO THE FIRST FLOOR

      APPLICANT

      Sunscreen Carports and Awnings

      PROPOSAL

      Rear patio awning to the first floor

      ZONING

      Zone 2 - Residential

      APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

      Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings, Development Control Plan No 25 - Development in Bushfire Sensitive Areas

      HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


      OWNERS

      Ms Tracie Marie Hall

      EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

      Two storey dwelling house

      COST OF DEVELOPMENT

      $11,500.00

      REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

      One objection received

      REPORT AUTHORS

      Development Assessment Officer, Ms F Heretis

      FILE NO

      DA 20060361


      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      1. It is proposed to construct a steel/metal sheeting awning over the rear first floor verandah of the subject site.

      2. The subject site backs onto the Georges River.

      3. The proposal is subject to a merit assessment.

      4. One (1) objection was received in relation to the initial proposal and one objection from the same objector was received in relation to amended plans.


      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 erection of steel/metal sheeting 900mm high pitched, 9.9m long and 4.9m deep patio awning to be placed above the rear existing first floor verandah of the dwelling on site.

      The proposed awning is to be placed upon four (4) galvanised steel columns which are to be fixed to the end of the verandah at intervals of approximately three (3) metres. The proposed awning is to be constructed of roof sheeting.


      BACKGROUND

      1994 Additions to existing dwelling house on site approved by Council.

      28 Jul 06 Proposal submitted to Council

      7-21 Aug 06 Public notification of proposal

      5 Sep 06 Stop the clock (amended plans)

      14 Sep 06 Start the clock (amended plans provided)

      14-29 Sep 06 Renotification of amended plans


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

      The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with an irregularly shaped rear boundary. The site has a frontage of 10.66m to Blackbutt Avenue and an area of 458sqm. The site is located on the northern side of the street. Existing on the site is a split level two (2) storey residential dwelling house. The rear of the site fronts onto the Georges River. The site itself has a dramatic downwards slope from the entrance to the site on Blackbutt Avenue. The site is located within a bushfire ‘buffer zone’.

      Adjoining the site on either side are split level two (2) storey residential dwelling houses also on dramatic downward sloped land, with the rear of these dwellings fronting onto the Georges River. The area is generally residential in character.

      It is noted that the dwelling two (2) sites down from the subject site has a flat roofed rear patio awning cover.


      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 proposal has also been inspected, assessed and referred to the NSW Rural Bushfire Service, in respect of Section 79BA ‘Consultation and Development Consent - Certain Bush Fire Prone Land’, as per 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.

      Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

      No trees on site are proposed to be removed.

      Clause 19A – Development in Foreshore Areas

      The site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such Council must consider the requirements of this clause, as follows.

      Comment: The proposal was originally designed with a 1.7m high pitch to the awning. This resulted in partial blocking of the secondary side water views from the habitable rooms and rear verandah of the north eastern neighbour. In response to concerns regarding view loss to this neighbour, the applicant reduced the height of this pitch to 900mm. Despite the reduction in pitch, it is considered that the proposal will still partly impact upon the secondary water views of the north eastern neighbour. It is noted however that the north eastern neighbour is considered to retain their primary water views whereby the habitable rooms and rear verandah face directly onto the Georges River.

      The appearance of the development from adjacent foreshore areas is regarded to have been considered. It is however considered that a flat roof design however would provide for weather protection to the subject site, whilst maintaining the views of neighbours.

      Notwithstanding the above mentioned, the appearance of the proposal from the waterway is unlikely to result in any adverse impacts as it represents a lower pitch than the existing roofline on site.Comment: It is unlikely that the proposal will cause any pollution of salutation of the waterway. Stormwater from the downpipes is proposed to connect to the existing stormwater system on site.

      Comment: The development is unlikely to impact on surrounding habitats.

      Comment: The development will not result in any excavation on site. It is noted that an additional roof area (48.51sqm) is being proposed however it is not likely to result in any significant runoff or impact upon existing drainage patterns.
      Comment: The development is unlikely to result in congestion or generate conflict of the waterway.

      Comment: No items of heritage significance are listed in Council’s Local Environmental Plan in Blackbutt Avenue; as such it is extremely unlikely that the proposed development will have an impact on the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of any heritage item.

      Comment: The development does not propose to alter the natural topography, rock formations or vegetation on site.

      Clause 19B – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

      The site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and as such Council must consider the requirements of this clause, notably.
      Comment: Refer to 19A (a).Comment: As previously stated, the amended proposal is likely to result in a minor reduction of water views for the north eastern neighbour from the main habitable areas of their dwelling. This has been discussed in detail further in the report.Comment: The development does not propose to alter the natural topography, any rock formations or vegetation on site.Comment: The proposed materials are considered to be appropriate and compatible with the character of the locality and the landscaped open space on the site. The proposal will be conditioned in relation to the awning, to ensure that it is to be of a dark colour so as not to emit diffuse glare to neighbouring properties.Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

      No excavation or filling is proposed.

      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.

      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 requirements of 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.

      Building Code of Australia

      Building Code of Australia requirements relating to Fire Services/Equipment and Access and egress are discussed in the Council Referrals section of this report.

      3. Development Control Plans

      Code for the Erection of Outbuildings

      Council’s Code for the Erection of Outbuildings provides basic requirements in relation to awnings.

      RequirementStandardProposedComplies
      Side setbackMay extend to rear or side boundaries providing it will not impact upon amenity of neighbours and two or more sides of the structure are open and at least one third of its perimeter is open2.5m from side boundary

      Rear and western side are open
      Yes


      Yes
      MaterialsNon combustibleNon combustibleYes

      As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with the requirements.

      Development Control Plan No 25 – Development in Bushfire Sensitive Areas

      The site is located in a bushfire “buffer” area. As such the proposal has been considered in relation to Development Control Plan No 25 and has been referred to the Rural Fire Service for comment.

      The proposed awning is to be constructed from steel/metal sheeting and galvanised steel poles. The proposal will also be conditioned with the following to maximise protection to the site and surrounding sites in relation to bushfire.

      1. Any materials or devices used to stop leaves collecting in the gutters shall have a flammability index of not greater than five (5) when tested in accordance with AS1530.2.

      2. All materials shall be either non combustible or fire retardant treated timber.

      3. All eaves shall be enclosed, and the fascia or the gaps between the rafters shall be sealed.

      The proposal is considered to comply with this Development Control Plan.

      4. Impacts

      Natural Environment

      The proposal does not impact upon the natural environment.

      Built Environment

      The proposal is likely to impact upon part of the secondary water views of the neighbouring north eastern site. This has been discussed within the report. It is considered that an alternative flat roof design would achieve weather protection for the subject site whilst maintaining maximum water views for the neighbouring site. As such the proposal will be conditioned to ensure a flat roof is provided. In addition to this, the awning is to be conditioned to be of a dark colour so as not to emit diffuse glare to neighbouring properties.

      Social Impact

      Discussions in relation to a flat roof have been undertaken with the owner of the site. It is important to note that a flat roof is not the owners preference, this is largely due to the fact that this rear verandah is the primary private open space for the site, as the site does not have a rear yard due to the topography of the land and the steep slope of the rear of the site down to the waterway.

      The owner feels that a flat roof design would be rather restrictive as it would give more of a sense of the verandah being slightly enclosed as a 1.8m high privacy screen (4 x opaque glass panels) exists to the north eastern side of the verandah. In addition to this, it is felt that a flat roof would also limit and reduce the water views from the habitable rooms of this dwelling.

      Economic Impact

      No impact.

      Suitability of the Site

      The site is considered to be sensitive as it backs onto the Georges River, whereby water views are evident for the subject site and neighbouring properties. The provision of a patio awning is suitable, however is required to be designed appropriately in order to minimise the impact of view loss for neighbours.


      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 neighbour located to the north east of the site was received.

      VIEW LOSS

      The issue of view loss for the north eastern neighbour has been raised. This has been extensively discussed throughout the report. The proposal will be conditioned in order to provide for a flat roof design, to ensure that views for neighbours are maximised and weather protection for the subject site is still achieved.

      It is noted that there are general Land and Environment Court Planning Principles to be considered in relation to the issue of views. There is a four (4) step approach in assessing the matter of view loss, these steps are as follows and the proposal has been assessed in relation to these.

      Step 1 Nature of the views to be affected

      a) Water views are valued more highly than land views
      b) Iconic views are valued more highly than views without icons
      c) Whole views are valued more highly than partial views

      Comment: It is noted that the neighbour to the north east has 180 degree water views to the rear of their dwelling off their main habitable rooms and rear verandah. It is likely that the proposal would impact on the secondary views and partly reduce these views as a result of the proposal.

      Step 2 Consideration from what part of the property affected the views are obtained. Whether the view is obtained from a standing or sitting position.

      Comment: It is noted that the views to be affected are to the rear of the neighbouring site and views are obtained from both a sitting and standing position. The views are obtained from the first floor living/family/dining/kitchen of the neighbouring property as well as the rear verandah off these habitable areas.

      It is considered that as a result of the proposal the views are likely to be partly reduced from the current 180 degree span.

      Step 3 Extent of the impact (negligible, minor, moderate, severe, devastating). Views from living areas (including kitchen areas) are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas.

      Comment: It is considered that the proposal represents a minor to moderate impact upon the neighbouring views. These views as previously stated are enjoyed from the main habitable areas of the dwelling.

      Step 4 Reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all relevant planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where a development complies with the planning controls, the question is whether a more skilfully designed proposal could provide the same development potential whilst reducing the impact to neighbours.

      Comment: It is considered that the impact of the proposal could be further reduced by the provision of a flat roof design, which would provide weather protection for the applicant’s rear verandah and also maximise views to the north eastern neighbour.

      As such the proposal will be conditioned to ensure a flat roof is provided.

      Council Referrals

      Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

      Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has considered the proposal and advised that the proposal complies with the Building Code of Australia.

      External Referrals

      Rural Fire Service

      The proposal was referred to the RFS on 14 September 2006 as the site is located in a ‘buffer zone’. At the time of preparing this report no comment had been received.

      It is noted however that conditions in relation to bushfire protection are to be imposed. Details will be required to be provided at Construction Certificate stage.6. CONCLUSION

      It is noted that the proposal has resulted in concerns relating to the issue of view sharing and view loss in regards to water views. This matter has been outlined within the report and it is considered that this matter can be addressed by the provision of a flat roof design for the rear verandah of the subject site.

      A flat roof design with a dark colour will assist in diffusing glare emitted to neighbours, maximising views for neighbours and at the same time will provide weather protection for the verandah on the subject site.

      As such the proposal has been conditioned accordingly.


      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 20060361 for a rear patio awning to the first floor on Lot 6, DP 14215 and known as 62 Blackbutt Avenue, Lugarno subject to the attached conditions:

      1. The standard conditions imposed by Council for single dwelling houses. Excluding the following conditions:- OC1 (a)–(t), (i), (iii), (iv);
      2. Approved plans

      Plan noDateDescriptionDrawn by
      1Jul 06Site planSunscreen
      2Jul 06ElevationsSunscreen

      To Obtain a Construction Certificate

      3. OC8 - Design changes required - The following design changes are required and are to be incorporated into the plans to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.
      4. Fees and charges apply as shown in our current schedule of fees and charges based on the estimated cost of development shown on the development application.

      5. Any materials or devices use to stop leaves collecting in the gutters shall have a flammability index of not greater than five (5) when tested in accordance with AS1530.2. Details are to be provided at Construction Certificate stage.

      6. All materials shall be either non combustible or fire retardant treated timber. Details are to be provided at Construction Certificate stage.

      7. All eaves shall be enclosed, and the fascia or the gaps between the rafters shall be sealed. Details are to be provided at Construction Certificate stage.

      * * * * *

      APPENDIX



      COMMITTEE'S DECISION

      THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
      (Moved Clr W Pickering/Seconded Clr D Gillespie)

      Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


      DAC028.03 - 06

      28 FREEMAN AVENUE, OATLEY - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION

      APPLICANT

      Trident Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd

      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

      Allan and Lois Little

      EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

      Single dwelling house

      COST OF DEVELOPMENT

      $557,709.00

      REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

      Section 82A review of Council decision must be considered by Council

      REPORT AUTHORS

      Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson

      FILE NO

      DA 20060036


      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      1. The proposal seeks amendment of a condition of consent to permit the applicant to erect the rear balcony in line with Council’s adopted rear building alignment.

      2. The proposed development is consistent with Council’s relevant Codes.

      3. The original report is attached for the consideration of Council.

      4. One (1) submission was received in relation to the Section 82A Review. This submission has not raised any additional objections to the proposed development.


      RECOMMENDATION

      THAT the application be determined by Council.

      ___________________________________________________________________________

      REPORT DETAIL

      DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

      The application seeks approval for the rear balcony to be erected to the level of the established rear building alignment. The original consent conditioned the erection of a balcony adjacent to the rear façade of the dwelling house. As the rear building alignment is skewed, the applicant is seeking Council permission to erect this balcony to the level of the rear building line for the northern portion of the balcony.

      In consideration of this application, it is noted that should Council be of a mind to approve the application, Condition 12(a) shall be amended as follows:

      12. (a) The rear ground floor balcony may be erected so that the northern half is to be level with the Council established rear building alignment. This is for a length of 5.3m in accordance with plan number DA-02 prepared by Trident Homes, dated 18 November 2005, Issue A. The rear building alignment is to be indicated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate as a line drawn between two (2) points; the first point being a point 30 metres from the front (street) boundary on the northern property boundary, the second point being a point 28 metres from the front (street) boundary on the southern property boundary of land known as 28 Freeman Avenue, Oatley. No balcony or other building element may encroach on this alignment without the approval of Council.


      BACKGROUND

      The Section 82A Review was notified to adjoining neighbours and one (1) submission was received. The submission concludes by stating, “Whilst we would prefer the depth of the middle deck to be maintained at the line of the building below as required in the original Condition 8a (sic), we do not press our objection to the amendment currently before Council.” Also concern was raised to any "further amendments be(ing) sought further enlarging the area of the deck which would improve on our views and/or visual and aural privacy."

      Comment: Any further amendments would be the subject of an additional report.


      COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

      The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 82A “Review of Determination” of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

      Provisions under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

      Section 82A (4) states that Council may review a determination if:

      The request for review was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17.
      One (1) submission was received. The issues raised have been considered and are discussed in this report.Council is satisfied that the development is substantially the same development as that described in the original application.


      The original report to Council is attached below.

      "DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

      The application seeks approval for the erection of a part two (2), part three (3) storey single dwelling house comprising;

      Ground Floor Double garage, studio, study, laundry, w/c, kitchen, meals, living, family/dining room

      Lower Ground Floor Two (2) bedrooms, rumpus room and bathroom

      First Floor Two (2) bedrooms, one (1) with an ensuite bathroom and walk in wardrobe, bathroom and retreat.


      BACKGROUND

      The allotments comprising the even numbers of Freeman Avenue, or allotments on the western side of the street have rear boundaries backing onto Jew Fish Bay. As all properties enjoy views of the bay, Oatley Park and the Georges River, development of new dwelling houses in the area have a contentious history.

      A previous application at 24 Freeman Avenue (DA 20010430) for the erection of a single dwelling house was approved by Council at the Development Assessment Committee meeting held on 14 November 2001 and a motion was foreshadowed that a rear building alignment be established “by drawing a line from the rearmost point of dwellings at 20, 22, 26 and 28 Freeman Avenue Oatley” and “THAT this be adopted as a Policy of Council and included through the appropriate process in the Development Control Plan and Local Environmental Plan.”

      At a subsequent meeting of the Environment Committee on 27 February 2002 a report was prepared with a recommendation:

      It is noted that the Committee’s recommendation was adopted by Council and as such a Council Policy for a rear building alignment applies to Freeman Avenue. This varies from between 30m on the northern boundary and 28m on the southern boundary at a splayed angle. It is further noted that the policy is to be considered in the preparation of any future Foreshore draft Development Control Plan.


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

      The site is a “wedge” shaped allotment with a frontage of 15.145m to Freeman Avenue and an area of 860sqm. The site is located on the eastern side of the street and is located at the southern end of Freeman Avenue, which terminates in a cul-de-sac at Council’s reserve immediately to the south of the proposed development site. Adjoining properties predominately comprise two (2) storey single dwelling houses with a villa development evident further to the north on Freeman Avenue. It is also noted that adjoining properties at Numbers 12, 14, 24 and 26 have garages that seem to be forward of the front building alignment and 20 Freeman Avenue has a carport forward of the front building alignment.

      Existing development on the site comprises a part one (1), part two (2) storey single dwelling house with a detached carport at the front of the site.

      There is a significant fall on the site from the front to the rear with a fall of approximately 2 metres from the front of the site to the proposed rear building alignment and an overall fall on the site from the front property boundary to the rear property boundary of approximately 18m.

      The allotment has a rear boundary which adjoins Jew Fish Bay and the allotment and all neighbouring allotments on the western side of the street enjoy views of the bay, the Georges River and the adjacent Oatley Park. It is noted that the proposed development site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.


      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 is consistent with the zone objectives.

      Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

      Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection to the proposal.

      Clause 15 – Services

      Standard conditions for dwelling house development include the requirement for service provision in relation to water, energy, gas and telecommunications.

      Clause 19 – Foreshore Building Line

      As previously mentioned, the allotment adjoins Jew Fish Bay. Council has indicated that a fixed 15 metre building line from mean high water mark exists on the allotment. It is noted that the proposed development is well within the requirements of the 15 metre foreshore building alignment and as such complies with Clause 19 of the Local Environmental Plan.

      As previously indicated in the background section of this report, Council, at a meeting of the Environment Committee, resolved to adopt as a policy a rear building alignment for this and neighbouring allotments. It is noted that the Foreshore Building Line is not related to the rear building alignment indicated adopted as a policy of Council.

      Clause 19A – Development in Foreshore Areas

      The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection area and as such Council must consider the requirements of Clause 19 A - Development in Foreshore Areas.

      For the purpose of this Clause it is noted that the bulk and form of the proposed dwelling house is in character with adjacent development proposing a stepped two (2) storey arrangement with three (3) storeys resulting through the middle portion of the proposal due to the significant fall on the site. As such the appearance of the proposal from the adjacent Oatley Park and Jew Fish Bay will not be of a marked difference to existing developments in Freedman Avenue and other adjacent streets with allotments fronting or backing on to or adjoining Jew Fish Bay.

      It is unlikely that the proposed development will cause any pollution or saltation of the waterway and conditions of consent will be placed on any future development consent to insure this outcome is achieved.

      The proposal is unlikely to have an additional adverse impact on surrounding uses, marine habitats, wetland areas or flora and flora habitats in the adjacent Jew Fish Bay and it is likely that the existing habitats and geofluvial morphology that have survived in the area to the present will continue to do so unabated as a result of this development.

      The development will not have an adverse impact on runoff nor does the proposal involve significant excavation. It is noted that the proposed roof area is increasing, however it is not envisaged that this will result in significant additional runoff. It will be a condition of any future consent that the drainage of the site shall be in accordance with Council’s Engineering requirements for stormwater disposal in foreshore areas.

      It is also indicated that the drainage patterns on the allotment are not significantly altered as a result of the development as the development attempts to step the building design with the fall in the allotment. Further to this, Council will note that no filling between the building footprint and the side and rear boundaries will be permitted.

      The development does not propose to erect a boat ramp or similar so it is unlikely that the proposal will result in any congestion of the waterway. Further to this the allotment adjoins the Bay so there is no public open space between the water and the allotment where a conflict could occur.

      No items of heritage significance are listed in Council’s Local Environmental Plan in Freeman Avenue, as such it is extremely unlikely that the proposed development will have an impact on the historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of any heritage item of surrounding land.

      Further to this it is noted that the site is located on an allotment with a sandstone outcrop running across the site parallel to the Bay. It is noted that this is not impacted on by the development and the rock ledge is to be retained on site. In addition to this, no significant vegetation will be affected by the proposed development.

      Clause 19B – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

      As the site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Council must refer to additional requirements under the Local Environmental Plan when considering development in these areas. These points of reference are discussed below.

      The proposed development has a bulk and form that is in character with adjacent development and proposes a stepped two (2) storey arrangement with three (3) storeys resulting through the middle portion of the proposal due to the significant fall on the site. It is not considered that the appearance of the proposal from the adjacent Oatley Park and Jew Fish Bay will be of a marked difference to existing developments in Freeman Avenue and other adjacent streets with allotments fronting or backing on to or adjoining Jew Fish Bay. As such it is concluded that the view to the property from adjacent foreshore areas and the waterway when viewed in context with existing development will not be significantly different to the existing development on the site and on adjacent allotments.

      The proposed development must also be considered in relation to the possible impact on views from adjoining properties to the adjacent foreshore areas. For the purpose of this report, view sharing will be considered in relation to the Land and Environment Court Principles later in this report.

      As previously noted the development will not, or is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the natural environment, topography, rock formations, aquatic biota or significant vegetation in addition to any impacts already experienced.

      Finally it is considered that the design and materials selection for the proposed development is satisfactory and consistent with other foreshore developments in and around Jew Fish Bay. It is noted that the rear skillion type roof, which is proposed to be of colourbond construction, shall be conditioned to be of a colour that is low glare to prevent any adverse impacts on adjacent neighbours.

      Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

      The proposal seeks to provide for some cut and fill to provide for an even surface in which to lay the ground floor slab. It is noted that a stepped building form is provided in order to reduce the amount of cut and fill that is necessary on the allotment. The amount of cut and fill that is proposed will not impact on drainage patterns as the site still has a significant fall to the rear.

      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.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 is consistent with the draft abovementioned.

      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.

      Building Code of Australia

      Building Code of Australia requirements are discussed in the Council Referrals section of this report.

      3. Development Control Plans

      Single Dwelling House Code

      RequirementStandardProposedComplies
      Front SetbackMin. 4.5m2.5m minimumNo (1)
      Height9m8.706mYes
      <15.5m wide lot –Option Chosen 1.5m setback to entire first floor1.5m setback to entire buildingYes
      PrivacyWindows 9m separation or offset by 1mGround Floor
      All ground floor windows on the northern side are obscure glass windows where not at least 1m offset
        First Floor
        All windows are obscure except parent’s retreat which overlooks

        Lower Ground Floor
        All lower ground floor windows on the northern side are obscure glass windows where not at least 1m offset
        Yes – windows are obscured



        No (2)




        Yes
        Solar Design / Energy EfficiencyPrivate open space of adjoining buildings to receive minimum 4hrs sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 22 June

        Solar access to be preserved to adjoining solar collector
        Yes





        N/A
        Yes





        N/A
        Landscaped Open Space
        55% site

        Max. 20% impervious

        Min. 30% deep soil
        473sqm or 55% required


        20% impervious

        30% deep soil
        614sqm total or 71% landscaping

        <20% impervious

        >30% deep soil
        Yes


        Yes

        Yes
        Car Parking2 spaces2 spacesYes

        (1) Front Setback

        The proposed south eastern corner of the garage is proposed to have a minimum 2.4m setback from the front property boundary. It is noted that only the corner of the garage on the ground floor section of the development that proposes a variation. The rest of the garage is greater than minimum 4.5m setback. When viewed in context with the existing streetscape, the proposal is consistent with the adjacent neighbour at 26 Freeman Avenue and it is also noted that 12, 14, 20 and 4 Freeman Avenue all have garages or carports that vary the front building alignment requirements. When viewed in relation to the existing streetscape and when it is noted that the variation is caused by the substantial skew in the front boundary setback (where the opposite side of the garage has a 6.2m setback) it is considered that this variation may be supported.

        (2) Privacy

        The upper floor window in the parents retreat looks into the upper window of the adjacent neighbour. In order to gain compliance it is considered that this window may be obscured to a height of 1.5m to preserve neighbour amenity. It is further noted that the side laundry door impacts on privacy. This may also be conditioned to comply, with additional screening and steps changed.Clause 3.3.5 – Single Dwelling House Exceeding Two (2) Storeys

        The Single Dwelling House Code permits the erection of three (3) storey dwelling houses provided the three (3) storey dwelling house can fit within a 9m height limit where a the site experiences a significant fall. This Clause requires Council to take into account the likely effect of the proposal on other land and buildings.

        It is considered that the proposed dwelling is only three (3) storeys in the centre of the building, as the proposed dwelling has to respond to the site topography which comprises a significant fall to the rear. The design has responded to the topography by providing a stepped building design which results in a three (3) storey section through the centre of the building. The advantage of this design means that excessive excavation need not occur on the site.

        It is considered that the design complies with the intention of the Single Dwelling House Code in this regard.

        Freeman Avenue: Rear building Alignment Policy

        As previously mentioned the Council adopted a rear building alignment policy for dwellings on the western side of Freeman Avenue.

        The documented attachment referred to by the policy indicates the rear building alignment is to be established on 28 Freeman Avenue by providing distances as follows:

        * 30 metres from the street on the boundary between 28 and 26 Freeman Avenue
        * 28 metres from the street on the boundary between 28 Freeman Avenue and the adjoining Reserve.

        It is noted that the proposed face of the rear building façade on all levels complies with the required rear building alignment as documented by the memo and attachment that accompanied the original report. It is noted that the rear balcony on the ground floor extends beyond this building line, Council may impose a condition of consent that the balcony does not extend beyond the rear building alignment.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        As previously noted, the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the natural environment.

        Built Environment

        The proposed development is of a height and scale that is consistent with surrounding development and within the numerical requirements of Council’s adopted Codes and Policies.

        Social Impact

        In the case of the proposed development in relation to the contentious nature of previous developments in the street and in combination with objection letters received (irrespective of relevance in relation to planning considerations) it is likely that the development will have an impact on the immediate adjacent properties. However the proposal is consistent with Council's controls and planning schemes so overall it is considered appropriate.

        Economic Impact

        No economic impacts are foreseen. It is noted that Council cannot comment on potential property prices.

        Suitability of the Site

        The allotment is considered to be appropriate for residential development.


        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. Six (6) letters of objection were received in relation to the proposal. The applicant provided amended plans in an attempt to address the initial neighbour concerns. The amended plans were renotified to previous objectors for fourteen (14) days during which time five (5) objections were received. The following issues were raised during the objection period.

        Rear Building Alignment

        A majority of objecting neighbours have indicated that they wish to see the Council adopted rear building alignment maintained.

        Comment: All rear walls of the proposal comply with the requirements of the rear building alignment. The overhanging balcony will be conditioned to comply by reducing it to 1.6m in depth.

        Views over Roof

        The adjacent neighbours at 13 Freeman Avenue (across the road) have objected in relation to the loss of the views over the existing roof of 28 Freeman Avenue.

        Comment: Comments in relation to view loss have been provided above. It is further noted that limited views may still be preserved to the left of the adjacent power pole if some vegetation is pruned.

        Views South

        Comments in relation to view loss have been provided above.

        Comment: It is further noted that the rear building alignment that was introduced to limit obstruction of views to the north is to be achieved conditions of consent.

        Privacy

        The neighbour to the north has objected in terms of privacy in relation to north facing windows and the rear ground floor balcony.

        Comment: The plans indicate that the majority of northern facing windows are of obscure glass. Further it is to be a condition of consent that the depth of the rear balcony on the northern side be reduced to 1.6m to comply with the rear building alignment requirement.

        Roof Glare

        The neighbour to the south has objected in relation to glare from the colourbond roof over the rear lower ground floor.

        Comment: A condition of consent will require that this roof is of low glare.

        Council Referrals

        Building Assessment Officer

        Council’s Building Assessment Officer considered the proposal and raised no Building Code of Australia concerns.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection to the proposal.

        Manager - Development Advice

        Council’s Manager - Development Advice has not objected to the proposed development subject to conditions in relation to stormwater disposal.

        Land and Environment Court Practice Directions

        It is noted that the Local Environmental Plan has requirements for considering the impact of the development on views from surrounding properties. As such it is considered that the practice notes prepared for such occasions by the Land and Environment Court are relevant.

        The practice notes read as follows:

        In relation to the abovementioned practice direction published on the Land and Environment Court Website it is considered to be beneficial for the assessment to consider each point in turn in relation to the current proposal.

        The existing views from the allotments on the western side of Freeman Avenue or allotments to the north of the proposed development site are to the:-

        a) North: view through vegetation to the land water interface, Jew Fish Bay and further on to Oatley Park, views of moderate quality.
        b) North West and West: uninterrupted views of the land water interface on the eastern side of Jew Fish Bay, Jew Fish Bay, Oatley Park and sandy beach at Oatley Park, views of high quality.
        c) South West: view to Georges River and Jew Fish Bay Interface and the land interface at Peakhurst Heights, views of high quality.
        d) South: very partial view to the Freeman Avenue Reserve land/water interface, views of moderate quality.

        Allotments on the eastern side of Freeman Avenue are obscured by the majority of two (2) storey single dwelling houses on the western side of Freeman Avenue. However there are water glimpses over on either side of the pitched roof of the existing single storey section at the front of 28 Freeman Avenue where the land water interface is not visible on the eastern side of Jew Fish Bay but glimpses of the interface at Oatley Park/Peakhurst Heights is visible.

        In relation to the dwellings to the north of the proposed development, there is no impact on views to the north, north west or west and it is these views which are considered to be the most predominately or primary view.

        Dwelling houses to the north of the proposed development currently have secondary and impeded views of the reserve and land/water interface at the reserve. These views are impeded by the existing dwelling house at 28 Freeman Avenue. It is expected that the proposed dwelling will impede this view further. However all predominant and primary views will be maintained.

        For the properties adjoining the river, to the north of the development the highest quality views are experienced by looking directly to the rear of the allotment or over the rear yards of adjoining development. Existing moderate views over side boundaries towards the reserve in Freeman Avenue are secondary in consideration to the rear views and the Court recognises that the views over side boundaries are more difficult to protect. The proposed development would meet the Land and Environment Court Principles in that the predominant views are protected, and views over side boundaries from positions on rear ground floor patios are not protected due to the difficulty in preserving these views. It is noted however that all primary views from dwellings north of the proposed development are preserved from both ground and upper floors including outdoor entertainment areas in both standing and sitting positions.

        It is also noted that the proposed development complies with the numerical controls of the adopted code in relation to height, scale and bulk. As such it is considered that the view sharing for properties to the north of the development is reasonable.

        In relation to the property to the east of the proposed development on the adjacent side of the road, the majority of views are blocked out. Using the principles indicated above, the views are through existing mature trees on the allotment over the pitch of the single storey front section of the existing single dwelling house at 28 Freeman Avenue towards the water where distant views of the water and Oatley Park are achieved. It is noted that the majority of development on the eastern side of Freeman Avenue is two (2) storeys which is why more extensive views to the water are not enjoyed by all allotments on the eastern side of the street.

        A consideration of the view loss would be that a majority of the water views and a portion of the Oatley Park views would be impeded by the proposed development with some view of the land water interface on the southern side of Oatley Park still visible. These views are obtained from the elevated front entry verandah of the property. The predominant use of the verandah seems to be for an entry and the use of this area for entertainment purposes due to the fact that it is highly visible from the street may result in the space not being highly used, eg for barbeques etc. Despite any hypothesis regarding the imagined frequency of usage of this verandah it is noted that existing views through vegetation and over the roof of the existing dwelling will be obscured but views will not be lost entirely.

        The proposed height of the development will comply with the requirements of the Single Dwelling House Code and at 8.706m the roof pitch is almost 300mm lower than is permitted as a maximum. It would be unreasonable to prohibit the erection of a second storey in this event as it is permissible under the Code and the proposal complies with this control.

        In relation to the consideration of views under the Local Environmental Plan and in accordance with the practice directions of the Land and Environment Court it is concluded that the proposal is satisfactory and meets with the requirements of the Local Environmental Plan.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The proposed development is appropriately located within Zone 2 under the relevant provision of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.

        The proposal is located in a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area adjacent to Jew Fish Bay. As such the application was considered in relation to the relevant requirements of Council’s Local Environmental Plan and the relevant Practice Directions of the Land and Environment Court in relation to view sharing. In combination with relevant minor conditions of consent seeking that the rear ground floor balcony is limited to 1.6 metres in depth on the northern side of the development, the proposal meets these requirements.

        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 20060036 for the erection of a part two storey part three storey single dwelling house and on Lot 115, DP 11934 and known as 28 Freeman Avenue, Oatley, subject to the attached conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for single dwelling houses. Excluding the following:- OC1 (b)–(t), (ii), (iv);
        2. Plans

        Plan noDateDescriptionDrawn by
        22148ARec. 27 Apr 06Site PlanTrident Homes
        DA 02 ARec. 27 Apr 06Ground Floor PlanTrident Homes
        DA 03 ARec. 27 Apr 06First Floor PlanTrident Homes
        DA 04 ARec. 27 Apr 06Lower Ground Floor PlanTrident Homes
        DA 05 ARec. 27 Apr 06East/West ElevationTrident Homes
        DA 06 ARec. 27 Apr 06North ElevationTrident Homes
        DA 07 ARec. 27 Apr 06South ElevationTrident Homes
        DA 08 ARec. 27 Apr 06Section A ATrident Homes

        3. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        To Obtain a Construction Certificate

        4. DR 11 - Stormwater Drainage Plans

        5. ES2 - Details of the proposed soil erosion and sedimentation controls to be implemented on site must be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application. Under no circumstances may any works commence prior to these details being approved by the Principal Certifying Authority and the controls being in place on the site.

        6. All roof waters to be drained to kerb and gutter in Hillcross Street by a suitably designed dual pump out system, including the overflow from any rainwater tank.

        7. All other surface waters shall drain by gravity to a suitably designed absorption trench, this is to be located adjoining the western boundary of the site and is to be a minimum of 3m from the western and southern boundaries. On site filtration is permitted for ground surface waters only.

        8. OC8 – Design Changes
        Before Commencing the Development

        9. Sydney Water - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water's sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.
        10. SP1; SP6; DE 1; BC5; DE2; DE4.11. Adjoining crossing is to be restored with 130mm thick concrete and F62 steel fabric.

        12. Minimum 100mm cover over RHS under adjoining crossing.

        13. Internal driveways, entered from the footpath, shall be designed to conform with Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking. Regard shall be given to the cross fall, in longitudinal profile, of the footpath in the design of footpaths.

        14. Driveway Construction - a vehicular crossing shall be provided in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings. The work may be carried out by Council, after payment of a quotation, or by a private contractor, subject to Council approval. Underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.

        15. SP2; SP3.

        16. The side and rear boundaries of the site must be fenced to a height of 1.8 metres, for the portion of the fence which is behind the front building line. The size, materials and colours are to be agreed upon by neighbours and reference is to be given to the Dividing Fences Act. This fence is to be constructed prior to use of this development commences, and the cost of the fence is to be borne by the beneficiary of this consent.

        17. Certification by a hydraulics engineer is required prior to issue of Occupation Certificate.

        18. PN6; SP4; SP5; SP7

        19. PV7 - Residential parking requirements – two (2) on site resident car spaces are to be provided in accordance with the approved plans."


        RECOMMENDATION

        The original condition of consent shall be amended to read as follows:

        12. (a) The rear ground floor balcony may be erected so that the northern half is to be level with the Council established rear building alignment. This is for a length of 5.3m in accordance with plan number DA-02 prepared by Trident Homes, dated 18 November 2005, Issue A. The rear building alignment is to be indicated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate as a line drawn between two (2) points; the first point being a point 30 metres from the front (street) boundary on the northern property boundary, the second point being a point 28 metres from the front (street) boundary on the southern property boundary of land known as 28 Freeman Avenue, Oatley. No balcony or other building element may encroach on this alignment without the approval of Council.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the Section 82 application be approved, subject to the conditions included in the report and amended condition 12(a).
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr D Gillespie)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC028.04 - 06

        21 BOATWRIGHT AVENUE, LUGARNO - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION

        APPLICANT

        George Loupis

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of an attached dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 30 - Subdivision

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Mr and Mrs Tsenes

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $526,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Non compliance with DCP 11

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Ms F Heretis

        FILE NO

        DA 20060331


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. Demolition of existing dwelling house and associated outbuildings on site and erection of attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

        2. The site has a steep rock garden along the front boundary which rises over 2m in height.

        3. The proposal indicates a non compliance in relation to allotment width with Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted by the applicant.

        4. The proposal proposes several non compliances in relation to Development Control Plan No 11 – Dual Occupancy Housing.

        5. No submissions in relation to the proposal were received.


        RECOMMENDATION

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

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and associated structures on site and the erection and Torrens title subdivision of a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy with basement car parking (due to the slope of the land).

        Each dwelling is proposed to comprise;

        Basement Level Double garage with storage area and subfloor area for water tank storage and garbage bins.

        Ground Level Front deck, lounge, dining, toilet, storage cupboard, open plan kitchen and family room with rear patio.

        First Floor Level Front verandah, master bedroom with ensuite, two (2) rear facing bedrooms with 2m deep verandah including a 1m deep planter box, bathroom, and linen closet.

        The proposal provides shared vehicular access from Boatwright Avenue with an 800mm wide landscaped garden bed running down the middle. Clothes drying areas to the rear of each dwelling are provided, rear private open space set among two (2) levels for each dwelling and a 2000 litre water tank proposed to be stored in a subfloor area within the basement for each dwelling. Storage is also provided for each dwelling.

        The dwelling entrance from Dwelling 1 is located at the front of the building, with the entrance to Dwelling 2 being located at the side of Dwelling 2. It is noted that landscaped rock outcrops will be retained along the front of the site.


        BACKGROUND

        10 Jul 06 Proposal submitted to Council

        27 Jul–10 Aug 06 Public Notification and referrals undertaken

        Aug-Sep 06 Referrals returned and final assessment undertaken


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is almost rectangular in shape, with an irregularly aligned front and northern side boundary. The site has a frontage of 20.11m and rear boundary of 14.835m. The site has an area of 638.2sqm. The site is located on the western side of the street. Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house constructed of fibro with a tile roof. A metal detached outbuilding exists to the rear western corner of the site and there is also an external detached toilet on site within the rear yard.

        The site has a steep rock garden along the front boundary which rises approximately 2m in height. The dwelling house on site is situated on top of a slight rock face which results in the subject site being on the higher side of the street and higher than its neighbours to the north.

        Adjoining the site on the northern side boundary is the rear boundary of two (2) dwelling houses, both two (2) storey. The two (2) dwellings to the north are sited lower than the subject site as a result of the natural topography of the land. Located at the rear of the site is a dwelling house. The area is generally residential in character.

        To the south of the site is a single storey dwelling house with awning to rear. This dwelling house is sited 2.4m at the closest point from the common side boundary with the subject site.

        The site has a cross fall west east of approximately 5.69m which results in the rear western corner of the site being higher than the front eastern corner. There is no significant vegetation on site.


        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.

        Clause 10 – Subdivision

        Council’s Manager - Development Advice has reviewed the proposal and has identified standard conditions for Torrens title subdivision should the proposal be supported.

        Clause 11A (2A) – Dual Occupancies

        The proposed development is not considered to satisfy all the requirements of this clause, as it does not have a width of at least 15 metres for the entire length of the site. The rear boundary as indicated on the survey provided by the applicant is 14.835m wide. The applicant has provided a SEPP 1 Objection in relation to this matter.

        It is considered that the variation sought is acceptable, as the site varies in width only minimally and this is only along the rear boundary of the site. The portion of the site comprising the building footprint is in excess of 15m, ranging from 18.8m to 15.7m in width, which is above and beyond the requirements of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan.

        The site complies with site area requirements and is not located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

        Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

        There is no significant vegetation on site. No trees are proposed to be removed.

        Clause 15 – Services

        Standard conditions for dual occupancy development include the requirement for service provision in relation to water, energy, gas and telecommunications.

        Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

        The proposal seeks to excavate part of the front of the site to accommodate basement car parking. A significant portion of the rock outcrop on the northern and southern sides at the street boundary will be retained. 'Cut' is also proposed on the southern side boundary alongside the external wall of the dwelling. The modified ground level is proposed to be retained by a retaining wall with a length of approximately 23m. At the most affected point excavation proposed is 2.3m from natural ground level to the proposed finished basement floor level along part of the front southern side of the site.

        No fill is proposed within the footprint of the dwellings or in the rear yard.

        The proposed excavation is unlikely to detrimentally impact upon soil stability in the locality, drainage patters or the likely future use or redevelopment of the land. Given the unusual site constraints, the proposed modifications are considered acceptable in this case.

        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.

        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.

        STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 1 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

        The applicant has provided a SEPP 1 Objection in relation to the width of the site. This has been discussed under Clause 11A (2A) - Dual Occupancies earlier in this report.

        Arguments provided as part of the SEPP 1 Objection by the applicant are summarised below.

        * The design of the proposed dual occupancy has not been compromised by the rear boundary being just under the required width.
        * At the point where the building ends, the site is 16.5m wide being in excess of the required 15m. Thus the rear boundary of the site being 165mm narrower than what is required by the Local Environmental Plan has no impact on the adjoining properties.

        The variation is considered acceptable in this instance.2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

        Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Applicant of Development Standards

        The proposed development is supported under the provisions of Draft SEPP 1 as the variation is required due to the unusual site characteristics. The site area complies with the minimum 630sqm required under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the allotment width complies within the footprint of the dual occupancy development.

        For the abovementioned reason, the variation is supported under Draft SEPP 1.

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

        The application complies with the requirements of 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.

        Building Code of Australia

        Building Code of Australia requirements relating to Fire Services/Equipment and Access and egress are discussed in the Council Referrals section of this report.

        3. Development Control Plans

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        For the use proposed, the following on site car parking is required to be provided on site.

        DevelopmentStandardProvidedComplies
        Dual Occupancy1 space per dwelling and 1 driveway space2 garage and 1 driveway space per dwelling
        Yes
        Double garage dimensions5.4m x 5.4m5.7m x 5.4m
        Yes
        Clear openings of garage4.8m5.1m
        Yes

        As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with the provisions of the Plan.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 11 – DUAL OCCUPANCY HOUSING

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

        Dual Occupancy Housing DCP No. 11
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Minimum Site Area630sqm638.2sqmYes
        Minimum Width Allotment15m14.835m rear boundary
        20.11m front boundary
        No (1)
        Yes
        Option No. 3Two storey semi-detachedTwo storey semi-detachedYes
        Front Boundary Setback5.5m5.5mYes
        Rear Boundary Setback13m13mYes
        Side Boundary Setback1.5m1.5mYes
        Light wells
        Size
        Style
        Minimum 1.5m x 3m
        Uncovered at ground and first floor
        Dwelling 1 = 0.7-1.5m x 3m (uncovered)
        Dwelling 2 = 1.5m x 3m (uncovered)
        No (2)

        Yes
        Second Storey Rear Setback3m3mYes
        Maximum Depth of Rear First Floor Balcony2m2m with 1m fixed planterYes
        Maximum Floor Space Ratio0.6:10.51:1Yes
        Maximum Height to Uppermost Ceiling6.8m7.75m NE front corner of proposed dwellingNo (3)
        Internal Floor to Ceiling Heights2.7m (min) - 3.6m (max)2.7m - 2.85mYes
        Maximum Ridge Height9m8.65mYes
        Recommended Roof Pitch25-35 degrees22 degrees - As this is a recommended roof pitch only, compliance cannot be enforcedYes
        Car ParkingGarage + Driveway SpaceYesYes
        Driveway – WidthMinimum 3m wide per dwelling house6m - combined drivewayYes
        Driveway – Setback from side boundaryMinimum 1.5m from boundary> 1.5mYes
        Minimum Garage Recess300mmFirst floor deck overhangs garage 400mm to balconyNo (4)
        No. of Storeys23No (5)
        Principal Private Open SpaceMinimum 4m x 5m7.4m x 13mYes
        Deep Soil LandscapingMinimum 40% (38sqm) of Rear Yard71.75sqm – Dwelling 1
        89.5sqm – Dwelling 2
        Yes
        Cut and FillLimited to Maximum 600mm2.3m cut at most affected pointNo (6)
        Solar Design and Energy EfficiencyBasixProvidedYes
        Overshadowing – Living areas and private yardsDevelopment living areas and private yards achieve minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 JuneYesYes
        Overshadowing – Habitable roomsWindows of habitable rooms, solar collectors or private open space of adjoining properties must receive minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 JuneYesYes
        Outdoor Clothes DryingOne (1) for each dwelling houseProvided to rear Yes
        Garbage SpaceMinimum 3m x 1m per dwelling houseLocated within basement subfloorYes
        Storage SpaceMinimum 6 cubic metres per dwelling house6sqm throughout Dwelling 1
        7.8sqm storage in basement for Dwelling 2
        Yes
        BasementsNot permittedBasement proposedNo (7)

        (1) Minimum Allotment WidthClause 2.1.2 (a) states that ‘a dual occupancy can only be built on land that has a minimum width (measured along the entire length of the allotment, including the street frontage) of no less than 15 metres’.

        It is noted that the survey as provided by the applicant indicates that the rear allotment boundary is 14.835m in width and as such does not comply with this requirement.

        It is noted that the applicant has provided a SEPP 1 Objection in relation to this matter as the width variation is also an Local Environmental Plan development standard. It is considered that the variation as sought is acceptable, as the site varies in width only minimally and this is only along the rear boundary of the site. The portion of the site comprising the building footprint is in excess of 15m, ranging from 18.8m to 15.7m in width.

        (2) Lightwells

        The variation to the depth of the lightwell is considered acceptable on Dwelling 1 given that the northern side boundary begins to taper in at this point. Consequently, if a deeper lightwell was proposed, the external wall of the rear portion of Dwelling 1 would not be able to achieve compliance with the 1.5m side setback.

        This variation is supported due to the site constraints of being an irregular shaped lot and it is situate on the northern side of the site, thus achieving adequate sunlight, which is the intention of the lightwell.

        (3) Maximum Height to Uppermost Ceiling

        The proposal indicates that the north eastern corner of the proposed dual occupancy exceeds the maximum external wall height. The front corner of the proposed north east wall is 7.75m, this exceeds Council requirements by 0.95m.

        It is noted that this height excess is primarily resultant of the topography of the site, whereby the northern part of the site is lower than the south and as such to provide a level building this north eastern wall is higher. The proposal has been assessed against relevant council requirements and under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and it is considered that the variation is unlikely to detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the surrounding environment. As such the variation is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

        (4) Garage Recess

        The first floor balcony overhangs the garage by 400mm. Whilst this does not 'technically' comply with the requirement for the garage to be 'recessed' into the facade of the dwelling, the design achieves the objective of Development Control Plan No 11 which is to ensure that the garages do not dominate the front of the dual occupancy.

        In this case, the garages will not dominate the front of the dwelling as the visibility of them will be limited by the rock outcrops at the front of the site proposed to be retained and the first floor balcony which protrudes beyond the external wall of the garage.

        (5) Number of Storeys

        The proposal seeks to provide ‘basement’ for car parking as a result of the steep site, which would not allow for a conventional useable driveway.

        As per the definition for storey within Development Control Plan No 11, a storey includes any ‘basement’ which protrudes more than 1 metre outside of natural ground level. Part of the ‘basement’ of proposed Dwelling 1 is sited 2.2m above natural ground level and as such is considered to be a storey. The proposal is therefore part three (3) storeys and does not comply with this requirement.

        It is important to note that the design of the building is based on a response to the topography of the site, whereby the northern part of the site is lower than the south and as such to provide a level building this part of the building results in a three (3) storey portion.

        When viewed from the street, only a small portion of the front facade will appear greater than two (2) storeys given the proposed retention of the rock and landscaped outcrops at the northern and southern ends of the front of the site.

        For example, the rock outcrop on the northern side proposed to be retained is at RL43.11-RL42.63. As the ceiling level of the basement of Dwelling 2 will be at approximately RL43.2, this dwelling will predominately appear as two (2) storeys.

        As the southern side is at lest 1m-2m lower than the northern side, the non compliant basement will be visible from the street for a distance of approximately 5m across a 20.11m frontage.

        This variation is considered minor and necessary because of the site constraints.The proposal has been assessed against relevant Council requirements and under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and it is considered that the variation is unlikely to detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the surrounding environment. As such the variation is considered to be acceptable in this instance.(6) Cut and Fill

        As previously noted in the report, cut on site is proposed at a maximum depth of 2.3m to accommodate the basement. This exceeds the Development Control Plan maximum of 600mm.

        The proposed cut on site is a result of the natural topography on the site and the requirement to provide on site car parking and a suitable driveway grade for the proposal.

        The proposed cut is unlikely to adversely impact the site and surrounding development.

        (7) Basements

        A basement is required in this case given the slope and existing rock outcrops. A functional driveway and parking at grade could not be accommodated for the abovementioned reasons.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal provides for a physical environment that encourages a feeling of safety and allows for natural surveillance, access control and ownership.

        DCP No. 18 – CPTED
        Standard
        Plan
        Complies
        FencingAllows natural surveillance to streetNo front fencing indicated
        Yes
        Blind CornersTo be avoidedNone evident
        Yes
        Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillanceNatural surveillance of street provided windows and balconies to front of site
        Yes
        EntrancesClearly visible and not confusingEntrances identifiable due to stairwells on sides of garage
        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
        Passive surveillance provided
        Building addresses street
        Bedrooms and lounge provide an outlook to street, along with front balcony
        Garages partly hidden behind natural rock outcrop
        Windows are offset
        Yes

        Yes

        Yes



        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
        A mixture of landscaping is proposed. This ranges from ground cover, small shrubs to larger trees. All shrubbery can be trimmed to allow visual surveillance.
        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 on lighting provided. Standard condition of consent.
        Yes
        Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
        - Entrances numbered
        - Unit numbers provided at entry
        Standard condition of consent.
        Yes
        Security- Main entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car parkN/A
        N/A
        OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownershipLandscaping, driveways and entryways indicate ownership
        Yes

        As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with the provisions of the Plan.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 30 - SUBDIVISION

        The proposal complies with the requirements of this Development Control Plan in terms of site area. Reasons why the variation to allotment width is supported has been discussed earlier in this report.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        The proposal seeks to cut part of the front portion of the site. This has been discussed previously in the report.

        It is not considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon the natural environment as an erosion and sediment control plan and stormwater concept plan have been considered and addressed any potential impacts. A site and construction management plan and waste management plan will also be required to be provided at Construction Certificate stage as standard conditions of consent.

        Built Environment

        The proposal does not adversely impact upon neighbours amenity by way of privacy or overshadowing. The proposal complies with the majority of Council requirements and non compliances have been outlined within this report.

        The proposal does represent in part a three (3) storey development from the street, this however is largely resultant of the natural topography of the site and the requirement to excavate to provide for onsite car parking.

        The applicant has provided a landscape plan which indicates various plants and trees are to be planted on site. It is important to note that four (4) Leptospermum Petersonii have been indicated along the northern boundary of the site, these grow to a height of 5m and will provide for privacy between the subject site and neighbours to the north. In addition it is noted that windows upon both side elevations are either highlight windows or obscured glass, in order to maximise privacy to neighbours. 1.8m high privacy screens have also been provided to the sides of the rear first floor verandas.

        It is further noted that four Callistemon Citrinus which grow to a height of 3m and two (2) Leptospermum Petersonii (5m) are located along the rear boundary to provide privacy and screening between the subject site and rear neighbours.

        Social Impact

        No impact.

        Economic Impact

        As the proposal is of a residential nature, it is not considered that it will create any adverse economic impacts.

        Suitability of the Site

        The site is considered to be suitable for the proposal. The site constraints in terms of allotment shape, topography and existing rock outcrops have resulted in variations to Council's Codes. For reasons discussed earlier these variations are supported.


        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.

        Council Referrals

        Manager - Development Advice

        Council’s Manager – Development Advice has considered the proposal and raised no issues in relation to subdivision or drainage. Standard conditions of consent should be imposed should the proposal be considered for approval.

        Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has considered the proposal and stated that the proposed steps and filling to the north may result in privacy issues. Amended plans as submitted by the applicant indicate fill has since been removed.

        It was further noted that standard conditions of consent should be imposed should the proposal be considered for approval.

        Senior Design Engineer

        Councils Senior Design Engineer considered the proposal and advised that standard conditions of consent should be imposed should the proposal be considered for approval.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has considered the proposal and raised no objections.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The report outlines several non compliances that the proposal seeks. It is noted that Development Control Plan No 11 allows Council to consider variations to the frontage requirement where an allotment is irregular in size yet conforms to the minimum site area, such as in this instance.

        The proposal is unlikely to adversely impact upon the amenity and privacy of neighbours and has been amended to ensure that the design responds appropriately to its surroundings.


        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 20060331 for demolition of the existing dwelling and associated structures on site and erection of an attached dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision on Lot 89 DP 36415 and known as 21 Boatwright Avenue, Lugarno subject to the attached conditions:

        1. The standard conditions imposed by Council for dual occupancy development. Excluding the following conditions: OC1 (b)–(d), (f)–(h), (j)–(s), (i)–(iv);
        2. Plans

        Plan NoDateDescriptionDrawn by
        1 of 1325 Sep 06Site planG Loupis
        2 of 1325 Sep 06Basement planG Loupis
        3 of 1325 Sep 06Ground floor planG Loupis
        4 of 1325 Sep 06Upper floor planG Loupis
        5 of 1325 Sep 06ElevationsG Loupis
        8 of 1325 Sep 06Landscape planG Loupis

        3. Section 94 Contributions of:

        Community Services
        $2,716.00
        Open Space
        $5,065.00
        Management
        $200.25
        Library – Infrastructure
        $1,381.48
        Library – Bookstock
        $7.90

        Include under Introduction

        4. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        Include under ‘To Obtain a Construction Certificate’

        5. S942; S944; S943; S945; S946; S948; PU1; SM1

        6. Sydney Water - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water's sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

        7. Details of external lighting are to be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        Include under ‘Before Commencing the Development’

        8. BC5; IN2

        Include under ‘During the Development’

        9. IN2; DE1; DE4; DE5; PV7

        10. Unless noted on the approved plans, filling along the side or rear boundaries is strictly prohibited.

        11. All enclosed and unrestricted car parking spaces, internal driveways and the like, shall be designed to conform with Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking. Regard shall be given to the cross fall, in longitudinal profile, of the footpath in the design of footpaths.

        Include under ‘Before Occupation’

        12. PV17 (b)–(c); IN2

        Subdivision conditions

        13. SU150; SU151-SU157; SU34

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        A. THAT the SEPP 1 Objection be supported for the reasons outlined in the report.

        B. 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 20060331 for demolition of the existing dwelling and associated structures on site and erection of an attached dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision on Lot 89 DP 36415 and known as 21 Boatwright Avenue, Lugarno subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr W Pickering)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC028.05 - 06

        3 HILLCROSS STREET, LUGARNO - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION

        APPLICANT

        Urban Style Design Pty Ltd

        PROPOSAL

        Section 82A review of determination

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Single Dwelling House Code, Code for the Erection of Outbuildings, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Mr Argyrios Kartambis

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $850,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Six objections received

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Mrs A Aversa-Morassut and Manager - Development Assessment, Ms T Christy

        FILE NO

        DA 20060154


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The proposed development involves demolition of the existing dwelling house and ancillary residential structures and construction of a two (2) storey dwelling house, front fence, BBQ area and associated landscaping.

        2. The development application was initially recommended for approval by the assessing officer, however was refused by the Development Assessment Committee (DAC) on the 7 June 2006. The applicant lodged a Section 82A Review of Determination on the 14 August 2006 accompanied by amended plans.

        3. The amended design results in a fully compliant development and is believed to have overcome the concerns for the reasons for refusal.

        4. A total of six (6) objections were received during the notification period of the amended plans.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT the application be determined by Council.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The proposal seeks approval for demolition of an existing dwelling house and ancillary residential structures and construction of a two (2) storey dwelling house comprising the following.

        Lower Ground Floor Rumpus room, laundry and water closet.

        Ground Floor Entry foyer, double garage, guest suite and guest powder room, ancillary storage, formal lounge, casual living room with breakfast bar, casual dining, kitchen and walk-in pantry. Rear balcony off living room at the rear on the western side.

        First Floor Four (4) bedrooms with a walk in wardrobe, ensuite and spa off the master suite, linen cupboard and galleria and separate bathroom with spa. A 1.5m (w) x 9.5m (l) balcony is proposed of the master suite at the rear of the first floor.

        External improvements 1.8m partially transparent front fence proposed, water feature and landscaping works to front setback area, addition of covered BBQ area in rear yard, provision for a future swimming pool to be assessed as part of a separate development application (DA 20060441) and terraced landscaped open space via provision of retaining walls to accommodate slope of site.

        A separate development application has been lodged for the swimming pool (DA 20060441) and as such no assessment pursuant to Development Control Plan No 28 – Swimming Pools and Spas has been undertaken as part of this report. It should be noted however, that in respect to calculating open space the area proposed for the swimming pool and associated paving has been included as part of the “impervious areas” to ensure full compliance with Council’s Single Dwelling House Code.


        BACKGROUND

        7 Jun 06 Application refused by the Development Assessment Committee.

        14 Aug 06 Section 82A Review lodged accompanied by amended plans.

        21 Aug 06 Amended plans re-notified between 23 August 2006 – 6 September 2006 in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17.

        25 Aug 06 Amended stormwater plan received. Letter sent to residents advising of receipt of stormwater plan. Notification period extended until 15 September 2006.

        Sep 06 Total of six (6) submissions received. Preliminary assessment and stormwater referral undertaken. Applicant asked to provide a revised stormwater plan which addresses Council’s initial advice in relation to a stormwater solution and a response from hydraulic engineer in respect to stormwater issues raised by objectors.

        12 Oct 06 Amended stormwater plan received in response to Council’s request and a response to the ‘stormwater’ issues raised by objectors. No requirement for re-notification of stormwater as amendments are site specific and respond specifically to Council’s Manager - Development Advices’ initial advice in respect to an improved stormwater solution.

        Amended stormwater plan re-referred to Council’s Manager - Development Advice for comment.

        Final assessment undertaken.


        COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

        The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 82A “Review of Determination” of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

        Provisions under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

        Section 82A (4) states that Council may review a determination if:

        The request for review was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17.
        Six (6) submissions were received. The issues raised have been considered and are discussed later in this report.Council is satisfied that the development is substantially the same development as that described in the original application as it still comprises a dwelling house and ancillary residential development, however will result in less environmental impact than that originally proposed.

        The proposal has also been accepted as substantially the same development as the amendments specifically seek to address the initial reasons for refusal. The reasons for refusal and subsequent design changes submitted as part of the Section 82A Review are discussed below.

        The amended design is no longer considered to be inconsistent with these objectives given the significant reduction in the bulk, scale and gross floor area of the dwelling house, specifically:* The reduction in gross floor area to 436.8sqm resulting in a total FSR of 0.42:1 which complies with the Single Dwelling House Code.

        * The dwelling house has been reduced from a part 3/part 2 storey dwelling house to a maximum of two (2) storeys at any point resulting in a smaller built form than that originally proposed.

        * The original submissions received, indicated that the original flat roof was ‘out of character’ with the dwellings in the foreshore scenic protection area. The amended design comprises a pitched roof to better fit in with the built forms surrounding the development and blends in with the surrounding built form. The ‘flat’ portion of the roof towards the rear of the site is considered to have less of a visual impact than if a complete ‘pitched’ roof was proposed.

        The amended design is considered to better respond to the natural topography of the site as:* The extent of excavation below natural ground level within the footprint of the dwelling has been significantly reduced given the reduced gross floor area of the ‘lower ground level’. The initial lower ground floor was designed to house a double garage, rumpus and ancillary storage area, however has been reduced to house a rumpus room and water closet only.
        * No excessive cut or fill is proposed outside the footprint of the dwelling house which would result in any adverse privacy issues for the adjoining properties. The site has an overall gradient of 1:6 across the entire site representing an average difference of 10-11m from the front to the rear of the site.
        * To accommodate the change in level across the site, a stormwater concept plan comprising a pump out system for all roof water drain to the street gutter as well as an absorption system to capture any overflow of water in the rear yard. To ensure the protection of the trees at the rear of the site, the trench is proposed to be located 3m from the eastern side boundary as this is the only area unaffected by trees.
        The amended design is no longer considered to be excessive in bulk and scale and will not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality for the following reasons:* The height of the dwelling house complies with the 9m height limit and as such achieves the height limit under the Single Dwelling House Code.

        * The dwelling house does not exceed two (2) storeys at any point and complies with the 900mm setback required under the Single Dwelling House Code.

        * The length of the first floor has been reduced from its original 30m length (excluding balconies) to 17m in length (excluding balconies) thereby reducing the bulk and scale of the dwelling has viewed from the east west elevations.

        * The first floor external walls on both the east and west (side) elevations have been proposed with articulation to provide a visual break in the walls. This is especially evident on the eastern elevation with a defined improvement to the bulk and scale.

        * The deletion of the following balconies and outdoor terraces has also reduced the bulk of the dwelling house:

        As the site is located on an allotment of land where the maximum frontage and average width is 15.5m or less, the dwelling house must comply with either of the three (3) following requirements pursuant to Clause 3.3.3 of the Single Dwelling House Code:The proposal results in a gross floor area of 436.8sqm which equates to FSR of 0.42:1. The amended design results in a floor space less than that permitted under Council’s Code, Clause 3.3.3 (c).

        The proposal also complies with the minimum 900mm side and rear setback for dwellings containing 1 or 2 storeys.

        The number of windows on the east elevation has been reduced from at least twenty four (24) openings to eighteen (18). The most significant amendment to overcome privacy issues has been the modification of the type, and size of windows. All windows on the eastern elevation with the exception of the guest suite are proposed to be ‘obscure’ windows. The applicant has also proposed that all windows will be ‘awning windows’ which wind out so that visibility is restricted in an almost vertical downward view. No visibility over adjoining properties is achievable with this type of window design.

        Although not a reason for refusal, all windows on the western elevation, with the exception of the storage room are also proposed to be obscure glass to minimise privacy concerns.

        On the issue of ‘privacy’, it should be noted that the existing height difference between the site and the adjoining villa development, allows overlooking into the rear yard of Unit 5 of 1166-1168 Forest Road from the rear yard of the development site at present. Following the site inspection, it is considered that this situation can be improved by the imposition of the following condition:
        Given the height and spread of existing trees at the rear of the site, the site inspection revealed that it is extremely difficult to view into the windows or rear yard of the objector from 1192 Forest Road, located south of the site. This is even so when standing at the higher level of the rear yard which may in future accommodate a pool and the current proposed garden.

        To ensure that this existing privacy is maintained, the following condition has been imposed:
        As discussed under point 2, above, of this report, the amended design is considered to respond to the natural topography of the site. As discussed under the referral from Council’s Manager - Development Advice and expert advice received from a hydraulics engineer, the disposal of stormwater can be managed without a detrimental impact on the environment or neighbouring properties.

        As outlined in the table below, the amended design fully complies with the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Single Dwelling House Code
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Height9m8.597m
        Yes
        Maximum wall lengthBuildings must have a maximum straight length of 6m6m
        Yes
        Side and rear boundary setbacks900mm900mm and >
        Yes
        Setbacks of eaves and gutters675mm600mm, however conditioned to comply
        Yes
        Clause 3.3.3 – Allotments maximum frontage and average width is 15.5m or less(a) Building envelope; or
        (b) Two (2) storey portion is setback 1.5m from boundary;
        (c) Maximum FSR is 045:1
        FSR is 0.42:1
        Yes
        Front setback4.5m8m
        Yes
        Car parking2 spaces for new dwellingsDouble garage proposed
        Yes
        Setback of car parkingBuilding front setback or minimum of 4.5m whichever is the greater>8m
        Yes
        Driveways and frontagesDriveways and parking areas must not occupy more than 40% of the frontage25%
        Yes
        Privacy9m separationLess than 9m but windows on east and west elevation are obscure. No privacy impacts
        Yes
        Solar designBASIX CertificateBASIX Certificate lodged
        Yes
        Overshadowing4hrs of sunlight upon private open space of adjoining properties to be maintained between 9am-3pm midwinter4hrs achieved
        Yes
        Fences at street boundarySolid fences to be no more than 1m in height otherwise compliance with Fencing CodeComplies with Fencing Code
        Yes
        Landscaped Open Space55% of Site Area (min)60.9%
        Yes
        Impervious Areas20% of landscaped open space (max)25.3%. Conditioned to comply to achieve 20% (max)
        Yes
        Soft areas30% of landscaped open space (min)80%
        Yes

        Code for the Erection of Outbuildings

        The BBQ area complies with the Code for the Erection of Outbuildings in terms of siting, height and setbacks. A condition has been imposed requiring the construction of the brick wall adjoining the boundary to comply with the Building Code of Australia.


        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 residents were given an extension of time to consider the late submission of a stormwater concept plan.

        Objections were received from the following properties:

        * Anonymous resident
        * 5 Hillcross Street Lugarno
        * 6/1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno
        * Strata Owners Services Pty Ltd on behalf of 1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno
        * 5/1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno
        * 1192 Forest Road Lugarno

        The following concerns were raised by the Anonymous resident.

        Flat concrete walk on roof on the second level

        The objector is concerned that the flat roof will be accessed and cause privacy issues.

        Comment: Privacy cannot be adequately addressed as the author of the letter has not included their name or address. There is no access proposed to the flat portion of the roof and as such this concern is not substantiated.

        Drainage

        The objector states that the design of the drainage is not acceptable and will cause damage to the objectors’ property should the pumps fail. The objector states that Council must force the developer to utilise an existing nearby easement.

        The objector states that legal consequences will eventuate if their property suffers damage from stormwater from the site.

        Comment: Council’s Manager - Development Advice raises no objection to the proposed stormwater concept plan subject to the conditions discussed under a separate heading in this report.

        The following concerns were raised from 6/1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno, located in an eastern direction from the proposed development site.

        Accessibility of flat roof

        The objector is concerned that the flat roof over the rear portion of the site will be accessed by the residents causing privacy issues.

        Comment: The flat roof over the rear of the dwelling house is not proposed to be accessed as entertaining space. The first floor balcony proposed off the master suite and outside the bathroom is only 1.4m deep. Given the use of the rooms attached to the balcony being for bedrooms and the depth of the balcony being less than 2m, it is highly unlikely this area will be used for “entertaining” purposes.

        A condition has been imposed to prohibit any form of entertainment on the flat portion of the roof and conditions have been imposed requiring the erection of 1.8m privacy screens on the eastern and western ends of this balcony.

        Conversion of master bedroom into a family room

        Objector claims that given design and layout of first floor, it would not be difficult to convert this space into a family room.

        Comment: If approved, the first floor is to be used for bedrooms and bathrooms only. A separate development application would have to be lodged with Council to either alter the use of the rooms or convert the roof to a ‘roof top’ terrace so that issues such as privacy can be addressed.

        There are enforcement provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), for unauthorised works or uses which have not been approved by Council.

        Size of property

        The objector claims that the size of the property is still ‘way beyond’ what would be considered reasonable.

        Comment: As discussed, the height, FSR and setbacks fully comply with the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Legal built limit of 1.5m

        Objector claims that the ‘legal’ building limit of 1.5 metres has been ignored as the setback is only 90cm from the boundary.

        Comment: One (1) and two (2) storey dwellings can be located up to 900mm from any side or rear boundary. The proposal complies with this requirement.

        Overshadowing

        The size, height and setbacks would make the existing shadowing experienced on site worse.

        Comment: Given the orientation of the objectors property being east of the development site, the objector will be affected by afternoon shadows in mid-winter. The objector’s open space will however have sunlight in the morning to late afternoon which is more than sufficient to comply with the Single Dwelling House Code.

        The reduction in the number of storeys and height however is considered to improve the initial impacts of overshadowing. As discussed, the number of storeys, height and setbacks of the amended design also comply with the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Filling outside footprint of building and required fence height

        The objector claims that there is filling proposed outside the footprint of the building alongside the boundary shared between the two (2) properties.

        Comment: There is no filling outside the footprint of the building along the east or west elevation for the length of the new dwelling. There is some minor cut and fill proposed to obtain appropriate levels along the pathways and landscaped garden areas. As discussed later in this report, at the most affected point within the landscaped garden area, the existing natural ground level has been cut between 330mm-500mm and filled 170mm. Neither of these is considered to result in ‘excess’ fill which would result in privacy or require the need for any side fencing higher than 1.8m.

        Standard conditions for new dwellings require 1.8m of either lapped and capped or colourbond fencing to be constructed at the expense of the developer. The condition will clearly state that the fencing is to be 1.8m above the finished ground level on the property boundary.

        Rising damp

        New development will increase damp of villa.

        Comment: The objector’s property is located lower than the development site, at least 2m lower at the most affected point. The proposed stormwater concept plan involves all roof water to be collected and discharged to the street and the overflow water to be collected in an absorptive system within 3m from the eastern boundary.

        The collection of the overflow of water in a formalised system is considered to ‘improve’ rather than worsen the existing problems experienced by the neighbour. Through the provision of this development, excess water is captured rather than following downstream. Council’s Manager - Development Advice has reviewed the amended plan and raises no objection to the concept plan.

        Swimming pool location

        Plans do not commit the pool to the area currently shown.

        Comment: A separate development application has been lodged for the inground swimming pool. Even with the proposed location for the future swimming pool, the proposal fully complies with the landscaped open space requirements under the Single Dwelling House Code and impervious areas. However, it should be noted that an assessment of the pool will be undertaken with the pool development application.

        Run-off from site

        The objector is concerned that with the increase in impervious areas on site the existing drainage problems experienced with the objectors property located ‘downstream’ will worsen. Further the objector is concerned about the pump system and potential for the pump system not to be ‘switched on’.

        Comment: This has been discussed under previous headings in this report. Council’s Manager - Development Advice raises no objection to the stormwater concept plan.

        Deep foundations and potential damage to adjoining properties

        Concern with proposed excavation and damage to adjoining properties.

        Comment: To overcome the concerns raised by the objector, a condition has been imposed requiring the applicant to obtain a dilapidation report and provide a copy to the owners and residents of all adjoining properties.

        Construction phase

        The objector is concerned about the stress which will be caused to the ill members of the family during construction with the noise and dust associated with the construction phase.

        Comment: Standard conditions require the applicant to install dust suppression measures on site. Whilst construction noise cannot be completely overcome, special conditions have been imposed to limit the exposure and duration of noise on the development site during development to address the objectors concerns.

        The following concerns were raised by 5 Hillcross Street Lugarno adjoining the development site on the western boundary.

        Setback and shadows

        Objector is concerned about the setback from the 3 storey (sic) building to the boundary and impacts of overshadowing.

        Comment: The side setbacks comply with the Single Dwelling House Code. The objectors property will only be affected by overshadowing at 9am in the morning in midwinter. The property will have full access to sun in the afternoon which also complies with the Code. The building is two (2) storeys not three (3) storeys.

        First floor balcony off master bedroom and privacy

        The objector is concerned that the balconies off the first and second floors will impose on the objector’s privacy, especially their use of their rear yard.

        Comment: There is 1.8m privacy screens proposed along the western end of the balcony on the ground floor located off the living room.

        To address the objectors concerns with regard to the balcony off the first floor (off the main bedroom), a condition has been imposed requiring the construction of a 1.8m fixed privacy screen on the western and eastern ends.

        Entertainment on roof

        Objector does not want the roof to be used for entertainment purposes.

        Comment: This has been discussed earlier in this report.

        Swimming pool

        Objector cannot understand why details for the swimming pool is not shown on the plans. The objector is concerned about proximity to the boundary and the proximity of the sewer line.

        Comment: This has been discussed earlier in this report.

        Cost of fence

        The objector is concerned about the cost of any new fence. As the objector is a pensioner, there is concern about ‘sharing’ costs.

        Comment: As conditioned by this consent, the cost of any new fence is borne by the developer.

        The following concerns were raised by 5/1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno.

        Increase in impervious areas and increase in runoff

        The objector is concerned that the increase in impervious areas will exacerbate an existing stormwater problem suffered by the objector.

        Comment: The stormwater concept plan has been supported by Council’s Manager - Development Advice and as such, there will be no excess runoff into the objector’s property as the overflow of water will be captured by the absorption trench at the rear.

        As conditioned, the amount of impervious areas proposed will comply with the permitted amount of impervious areas allowed under the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Existing stormwater problems and new development

        Objector states that the proposal does not adequately address the problem of stormwater drainage and flooding suffered by Unit 6.

        Comment: The applicant has submitted a stormwater drainage plan to the satisfaction of Council to address how stormwater from the subject site is proposed to be managed.

        Council is satisfied that the stormwater from the subject site, will not impact on the downstream residents.

        The following concerns were raised by the Strata Owners Services Pty Ltd from 1166-1168 Forest Road Lugarno.

        Lack of adequate drainage

        The existing water run-off that is draining through SP 66157 is at a level that is causing damage to the property. The large scale paving proposed would increase the existing problem. The drainage concept plan does not appear adequate to handle the amount of water that would be draining through the property into SP 66157.

        Comment: The existing property falls to the rear and the site stormwater currently drains overland through the rear property. The proposed stormwater concept plan does not rely on the absorption system as the only means to dissipate water. The objective of the trench is to capture excess stormwater runoff from the outdoor landscaped areas only. The actual amount of overland flow will be reduced by the proposed development.

        All roof water and driveway waters from the building footprint will be directed to the street via a pump system which Council’s Stormwater Engineer has endorsed as being acceptable for this site.

        Blockage of sunlight

        The two (2) storey dwelling house will reduce the existing sun exposure to zero which will increase fungus and mould growth.

        Comment: As the objector’s site is located ‘below’ the subject site due to the topography of the land, it is understandable that the natural slope of the land would cause some overshadowing. This cannot be overcome through this development.

        The two (2) storey dwelling house will only overshadow the objector’s site during the afternoon in midwinter, allowing full access to morning sun. This is considered more than sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Loss of privacy

        The development will overlook the courtyards and into the villas.

        Comment: All windows on the eastern elevation are ‘obscure’ windows. The windows are not ‘sliding’ windows, but awning windows which will restrict visibility into the strata development next door.

        Privacy screens are proposed to be erected on the balconies on the eastern elevation.

        The following concerns were raised by the owners of 1192 Forest Road Lugarno, located south of the development site.

        No Statement of Environmental Effects lodged

        No new Statement of Environmental Effects was lodged with Council with the amended plans except for the covering letter dated 11 August 2006. The previous Statement of Environmental Effects is misleading.

        Comment: The author of this report did not rely on the previous Statement of Environmental Effects to undertake its assessment as part of this review. The application before Council is a request to review a decision not to re-consider a new development application. As such, it was not considered necessary for an amended Statement of Environmental Effects. A letter was submitted detailing the proposed amendments.

        Precedent

        If the application is supported, it will set a precedent for other developers to follow.

        Comment: As discussed earlier in this report, the amended design fully complies with the Single Dwelling House Code and significantly improved in scale, bulk and number of storeys proposed.

        Achievement of objectives and aims of the Single Dwelling House Code

        The objector states that the amended plans fail to achieve the objectives of the Code in the following manner:

        “* Application does not consider the characteristics of the existing neighbourhood and the privacy and amenity of adjacent residents with its intrusive, intimidating and confronting building design thrusting itself onto the side boundaries.”

        Comment: Amended building design complies with the Single Dwelling House Code in terms of height, setbacks and floor space ratio.

        “* Proposal will create a precedent of this type of violation of the codes allowing uncontrolled construction of ethically and morally prejudice flat roof monstrosities in the area.”

        Comment: The amended building design comprises a pitched roof for the front portion of the dwelling house and a flat roof over the rear portion of the site.

        “* The application is anti-tree and anti-social and disregards the natural topography of the environment.”

        Comment: The trees proposed to be removed have been considered as part of the original development application. No changes are proposed as part of the review. No objections were raised by Council’s Tree Management Officer.

        The rear of the site which contains natural rock and steep slope remains unaltered by the proposed development.

        “* No solar consideration has been given with the exception of the sundeck and the rear rooftop alfresco.”

        Comment: The proposal comprises a ground floor balcony off the living area and first floor balcony off the bedroom. The landscape open space also comprises gardens and landscaped areas which area accessible and functional from the living areas of the dwelling house. A compliant BASIX Certificate has been lodged. There is no rooftop alfresco area proposed.

        Bulk and scale

        Objects to proposed bulky development facing southern property boundary and eastern and western neighbours

        Comment: The ground floor of the two (2) storey dwelling (measured from the balcony) is located approximately 35.5m away from the southern property boundary which adjoins the objectors’ property. The first floor is setback approximately 45 metres from the southern boundary which adjoins the objector’s property.

        Given the distance, reduced height, reduced gross floor area, reduction in overall floor length of the first floor the bulk and scale is considered to be significantly improved than that initially considered by Council and consistent with Council's controls.

        Side setback

        The 30m long walls on the side boundaries of the ground floor breach the side setback of 1.5m. The proposal would not comply with the building envelope.

        Comment: A side setback of 900mm not 1500mm applies under the Single Dwelling House Code. The proposal is not required to comply with the building envelope. The proposal achieves the FSR requirement under the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Comparisons to planning controls under the IRDC for ‘Development Area A’

        Numerous comparisons are made to the planning controls under the IRDC, the objector stating that there are stricter controls in the IRDC.

        Comment: The prescriptive controls contained in the IRDC do not apply to the proposed development. The IRDC only applies for dual occupancies in foreshore areas and multiple dwellings.

        The amended plans before council are for a dwelling house and as such, the Single Dwelling House applies.

        Floor space ratio

        Room sizes have been misrepresented. The ‘ancillary storage’ room will take the FSR over the 0.45:1. The ceiling height of the storage room is greater than 2.5m making it a habitable room. The objector also states that the balconies are not included in calculations of gross floor area.

        Comment: The author of this report does not rely on stated dimensions or values notated on plans. A full calculation of all rooms has been undertaken by hand with the application of definition of Gross Floor Area under the Local Environmental Plan.

        The amended plans (including the ancillary storage room – whether habitable or not) results in a gross floor area and floor space ratio which is under that permitted under the Single Dwelling House Code.

        Pursuant to the definitions under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, balconies are not included as gross floor area.

        Breach of Clause 3.3.3 of the Single Dwelling House Code

        The objector claims that the proposal does not comply with any of the three (3) requirements of building envelope, setbacks or FSR under the Code.

        Comment: The proposal complies in full with the FSR and required setbacks.

        Deep excavation

        The objector states that the proposal will result in deep excavation.

        Comment: The only significant excavation proposed to occur is within the footprint of the dwelling house only. Given the slope of the site, it is not considered unusual for this type of modification within the footprint of a building.

        As discussed earlier, a dilapidation report has been conditioned to ensure the protection of all adjoining properties during the excavation phase should the application be supported by Council.

        Privacy

        The objector states that their privacy will be taken away from the first floor balcony off the master bedroom. Suggestions are made that the master bedroom could be converted into a rumpus room and the flat roof top be used as entertaining space.

        There is a suggestion that the wrap around flat roof on the eastern elevation could be converted into a terrace.

        Objection has also been made with respect to the balcony off the living area on the ground floor for its potential for “overlooking” to the sides and rear.

        Comment: The balcony off the bedroom is only 1.4m deep. It is off a bedroom which is not a ‘living’ space which would attract entertainment or large gatherings of persons.

        There is no access to the flat roof top, nor any suggestion that this area will be used for as a roof top terrace. The concrete flat roof on the eastern side is a roof and must be used as such.

        A condition has also been imposed to this effect. As discussed earlier, there are penalties under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for breaches of development consent.

        A privacy screen is proposed on the western side of the balcony off the living room. No overlooking will occur to the adjoining residents. Given the distance between the balcony and the objector’s property at the southern boundary it is considered highly unlikely that any overlooking will occur.

        Misrepresentation of levels

        Objector claims that existing ground contours and elevations of the property are misrepresenting the actual levels disguising the fact that the south eastern garden area is 2.5m above natural ground level requiring massive retaining walls and stairs. This area will be raised above the fence line.

        Concern is raised in respect to the pool location.

        Comment: All the existing ground contours and levels taken are verified by a Survey Plan prepared to Australian Height Datum (AHD) by a registered surveyor. The levels are not misleading or incorrect.

        Given the levels shown on the Survey Plan the existing natural ground levels within the garden areas are at RL 58.5–RL 59.5. The finished level for the gardens ranges from RL 59.17 at the higher end and RL 58.0 at the lower end of the garden. The top landscaped garden area has been cut 330mm and filled 170mm to achieve RL 59.17 and the lower garden cut 500mm to achieve RL 58.00.

        The retaining walls are only required to contain the fill and cut discussed above and to facilitate passage to the rear of the site which without steps would be very difficult to access.

        The finished levels of the proposed pool coping, paving and other related issues will be considered as part of a separate development application.

        Windows

        Objects to all windows, balconies, open areas which face the objector’s property at the rear of the site.

        Comment: It is considered unreasonable to obscure all the windows and balconies on the south elevation given that the east and west elevations have been completely screened. The distance between the new dwelling and the objectors property at the rear and the slope of the site, will make it extremely difficult to look into the bedrooms or living areas of the objectors property. This was confirmed at the site inspection.

        Rising ground levels at the rear

        Objects to rising ground levels at the rear to accommodate a large terrace and above ground swimming pool.

        Comment: Ground levels have not been raised at the rear at all. The pool is to be assessed as part of a separate DA and is proposed as an inground pool.

        Flat roof construction

        Objects to flat roof construction as it is out of character.

        Comment: Amended design incorporates a pitched roof and a flat roof over part of the site. The roof will not be used for any habitable or entertaining purposes.

        The amended design better suits the context in which it is located.

        Tree removal

        Alleges that trees have been removed without Council approval.

        Objects to number of trees to be removed.

        Objector states that there is no landscaping proposed.

        Objector states that plans do not accurately reflect all trees on site.

        Comment: This matter is outside the scope of the Section 79C(1) assessment of this application. No concerns were raised by Council’s Tree Management Officer at the time the original application was considered.

        The trees between the objector’s property and subject site are proposed to be retained and will provide some screening and visual separation between the two (2) sites. The trees proposed to be removed were not considered to be an issue from Council’s Tree Management Officer.

        A Site Coverage Plan indicating the areas proposed to be turfed and/or covered with paving has been submitted as part of the application. The proposal complies.

        The Survey Plan is considered to be an accurate reflection of the existing tree location on site. Council’s Tree Management Officer did not raise any objection to the removal of the required trees.

        Standard conditions for dwelling houses require tree protection zones to ensure the protection of the trees to be retained as part of the proposal.

        Height of retaining walls

        Objects to 3m height of retaining walls. Objects to height of swimming pool.

        Comment: The retaining walls are required towards the rear of the site to contain the slope of the existing site, not modifications created by the proposal.

        Assessment of swimming pool will occur as part of a separate application.

        Stormwater

        Objector objects to stormwater absorption trench and pits and submitted an independent hydraulic report and engineering report.

        The two (2) specialist reports submitted by the objector were from Pacific Environmental (stormwater consultants) and Roz Engineering (Structural Engineers). A summary of the issues raised and response provided by the applicant’s stormwater engineer are outlined below.

        Comments from objector’s stormwater engineer - Pacific Environmental

        * The soil absorption rate for this site is far less than that required for this type of development. Evaporation and plant uptake can not be relied upon in the short term.
        * Recommendation for the installation of a 10,000L pump well at the rear of the property in addition to the 5,000L harvesting tank.
        * Pump all roof and surface water to the street stormwater drainage system.
        * Direct all roof water to the front of the property and then gravitate the stormwater to the street.
        * Alternatively gain an easement.

        Comments from objector’s structural engineer

        * The rock level on site is too shallow and the soil type is unsuitable for absorption and should not be relied upon as a means of stormwater dispersal.

        Comments from objector in respect to stormwater

        * Issues raised by specialist reports re-iterated by objector.
        * Concern raised in respect to risk to trees at the rear of the property due to excavation required for drainage and retaining walls.
        * Claim that drainage system has not been prepared by a qualified hydraulic/stormwater engineer.
        * Council should encourage the applicant to utilise an easement to drain water.

        In response to the issues raised in the specialist reports and issues raised by the objector, the following response was provided by the applicant’s qualified stormwater engineer:

        Comment: These specialist reports and comments received were referred to Council’s Stormwater Engineer for comment. Council’s Manager - Development Advice concurred with the response as outlined above and raised no objection to the stormwater concept plan.

        Council Referrals

        Manager - Development Advice

        No objections were raised to the stormwater concept plan involving a harvesting tank pump out system for roof water and driveway waters and absorption trench to collect surface overflow.


        CONCLUSION

        The reasons for refusal have been overcome through the amended design. Subject to the conditions imposed as part of this report, the proposal fully complies with all relevant planning controls and policies.

        It is recommended that Council review their decision in light of the issues raised in this report. It is further recommended that should Council approve this application the conditions recommended in the original report be deleted and replaced with the conditions outlined below.


        RECOMMENDATION

        Pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, the determination of development application 20060154 by Refusal granted on 7 June 2006 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two (2) storey dwelling house on Lot 16 DP 18873 and known as 3 Hillcross Street, Lugarno is submitted to the Council for review and determination.

        Should Council choose to approve the above application, following is the conditions outlined below.

        1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for dwelling houses. Excluding the following conditions: OC1 (b)–(t); PW1; ST1 (g); MI6; MI18; PN13; WA6; LA9; TPZ3; CC1; BO1. Including the following conditions:

        2. Standard conditions for demolition, including the removal of asbestos.

        3. Approved plans.

        Plan No.
        Date
        Description
        Drawn By
        Sheet 01A10 Aug 06Site Plan/Roof PlanUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 02A10 Aug 06Lower Ground Floor PlanUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 03A10 Aug 06Ground Floor PlanUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 04A10 Aug 06First Floor PlanUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 05A10 Aug 06North, South Elevations, Section A-A and Front Fence detailUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 06A10 Aug 06East and West ElevationsUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        A-Colours and FinishesUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        Sheet 07A10 Aug 06Calculations – Site Coverage PlanUrban Style Design Pty Ltd
        05MB2294/D01, Issue CMar 06Stormwater Concept PlanUnited Consulting Engineering Pty Ltd

        Include under Introduction

        4. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        Include under “Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate”

        5. ES2; TG3 (a); DR1 (f).

        6. The water feature proposed at the front of the site must have a maximum depth of 300mm and must be fitted with a safety grate to prevent a child from being submerged into base of the water feature. Details are to be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate. If the depth of the base of the water feature exceeds 300mm, a separate development application must be submitted with complies with Development Control Plan No 28 – Swimming Pools and Spas.

        7. OC8 - Design changes required - The following design changes are required and are to be incorporated into the plans to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.
        8. M14 - The side boundaries of the site must be fenced to a height of 1.8 metres, for the portion of the fence which is behind the front building line. The size, materials and colours are to be agreed upon by neighbours and reference is to be given to the Dividing Fences Act. This fence is to be constructed prior to use of this development commences, and the cost of the fence is to be borne by the beneficiary of this consent.

        9. The covered BBQ area must comply with the Building Code of Australia in terms of construction requirements for structures adjoining a property boundary.

        10. The existing earth rocks at the rear of the site must be retained and protected and structurally re-enforced where required. Details of the re-enforcement prepared by a structural engineer must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate. The external finish of any retaining walls or reinforced elements must be sandstone or other rock ‘finish’ to not pose a visual intrusion of the natural landscape.

        11. Sydney Water - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water's sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

        12. No approval is expressed or implied for the use of the flat portion of the roof for entertaining purposes. Access to the roof is permitted for maintenance and repair work only.

        13. Any air conditioning unit proposed to be installed must be located at least 3 metres away from any adjoining property boundary and must be acoustically treated to achieve an ambient background noise level of no more than 5dB (A) above the existing ambient background noise level. Details are to be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        14. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the plans must be endorsed and approved by Sydney Water due to the location of the sewer main at the rear of the site. Any special conditions or construction requirements requested from Sydney Water must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        Include under “Prior to the commencement of works”

        15. BC5.

        16. The developer must submit a Geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer in relation to dilapidation reports, all site works and construction. This is to be submitted prior to the Construction Certificate and is to include:17. If any excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

        Include under “During development”

        18. DE4; DE5.

        19. For construction and demolition periods of four (4) weeks or less the Leq noise level, measured over a period of fifteen (15) minutes when the construction or demolition site is in operation, shall not exceed the ambient background noise level by more than 20dB (A) when measured at the nearest affected premises.

        20. For construction and demolition periods greater than four (4) weeks and not exceeding twenty six (26) weeks the Leq noise level, measured over a period of fifteen (15) minutes when the construction or demolition site is in operation, shall not exceed the background level by more than 10dB (A) when measured at the nearest affected premises.

        21. For construction and demolition periods greater than twenty six (26) weeks the LAeq noise level, measured over a period of fifteen (15) minutes when the construction or demolition site is in operation, shall not exceed the background level by more than 5dB (A) when measured at the nearest affected premises.

        22. Any ‘work’ carried out within the area hatched ‘brown’ at the rear of the site must be supervised by a qualified Arborist to ensure that all trees within this area are retained and protected in accordance with a tree protection zone pre, during and post development of the site.

        Include under “After Occupation/Ongoing”

        23. A separate development application is required for the inground swimming pool, overspill area and swimming pool pump.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the Section 82A application be approved in accordance with the conditions stated in the report, including the updated Stormwater Concept Plan.
        (Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr P Sansom)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC028.06 - 06

        14 MARSDEN CRESCENT, PEAKHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE VILLA HOMES

        APPLICANT

        Michael Nader C/- Fouad Al Hazzouri

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of three villa homes

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Interim Residential Development Code, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Michael Nader

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $426,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Non compliance with IRDC and one objection

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Senior Town Planner, Ms L Locke

        FILE NO

        DA 20060150


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application proposes demolition of existing structures on the site and the construction of three (3) villas.

        2. The site is a battleaxe allotment with a long driveway to access the site. The irregular shape of the allotment means that it borders a number of properties.

        3. The proposal does not comply with the Interim Residential Development Code in terms of density.

        4. One (1) submission was received during the notification of the application.


        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 demolition of the existing structures and the construction of three (3) single storey villa houses on the site. The proposal is in the form of two (2) attached three (3) bedroom dwellings located in the western portion of the site and one (1) detached two (2) bedroom dwelling located in the northern part of the site.

        As the site is a battleaxe allotment the proposal also involves the construction of a long driveway to service the development. The proposal includes the removal of all trees on the site.


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is an irregular shaped battleaxe allotment site with a frontage onto Marsden Crescent. The site has a total area of 1097sqm including the access handle, and an area of 931.5sqm excluding the access handle. The site is located on the western side of the street. Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling and associated outbuildings.

        Due to the irregular shape of the allotment the site directly borders eight (8) other sites. The surrounding development is primarily residential, although there is a site at 38 Talbot Street that is occupied as an Energy Australia depot.

        The site falls approximately 1.6m from the north west to the south west. There is an existing single storey dwelling, outbuilding and swimming pool proposed to be demolished as part of this consent.


        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. The proposed development is defined as a “multiple dwelling”. Multiple dwellings are permissible with development consent. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

        Clause 10 – Subdivision

        Torrens title subdivision is not part of this application. It is proposed to be strata subdivided which is considered acceptable for this proposal.

        Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the trees to be removed as part of the development. Comments provided are discussed in a separate heading of this report.

        Clause 15 – Services

        Standard conditions require the site to be connected to the standard utility service providers such as water, sewer and energy.

        Clause 19 – Foreshore Areas

        The site is not affected by a Foreshore Building Line, is not located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and does not adjoin a waterways zone.

        Clause 22 – Excavation and filling of land

        The proposal does involve some alteration to the existing ground levels on the site, however, there is no proposed cut or fill outside the building footprint and it is not considered that there will be any adverse impacts arising from the slight changes in levels.

        Clause 22A – Acid Sulphate Soils

        The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils.

        Part 4 - Heritage Provisions

        The site is not listed as a heritage item. There are also no heritage items within the vicinity of the site which will be affected by the proposal.

        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 disposal of stormwater is considered appropriate and will not detrimentally impact on the Georges River 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

        Interim Residential Development Code

        IRDC Development Area B Controls
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Minimum Street Frontage15m6.45m (battleaxe allotment)No (1)
        Residential Density (site area/unit)315sqm per dwelling
        (Foreshore Area 500sqm per dwelling)
        310.5sqmNo (2)
        Landscaped Open Space50%
        45% if all single storey
        45%Yes
        Front Site Height Maximum9mN/AN/A
        Rear Site Height Maximum6m5.8mYes
        Front Site Storeys Maximum2N/AN/A
        Rear Site Storeys Maximum11 storeyYes
        Attached Dwellings
        – Minium Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        Yes


        50sqm

        60sqm
        >50sqm provided

        >60sqm provided for 3 bedroom dwellings
        Yes

        Yes
        Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        4m x 5m

        4m x 6m
        >4m x 5m

        >4m x 6m
        Yes

        Yes
        Front Boundary SetbacksMinimum 4.5mN/A battleaxeN/A
        Rear Boundary SetbacksBuilding EnvelopeComplies Yes
        Minimum Side Boundary Setbacks

        * Rear Site – 1 storey
        building envelopeComplies Yes

        General Provision of IRDC
        IRDC Provisions
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Solar DesignMinimum 4 hours of sunshine between 9am and 3pm for adjoining properties and living areas/private open space of proposed dwellingsAll dwellings are single storey so proposal compliesYes
        OthersFlat Roof or between 22-35 degrees25 degree pitch Yes
        Wall Length ArticulationMaximum straight length of 6m to street frontageN/AN/A
        Battleaxe Allotments- Maximum height 6m
        - Single Storey only
        Max height 5.8m

        Single storey
        Yes
        PrivacyMinimum 9m separation for windows, or walls offset by 1myesYes
        FenceFronting public space maximum 1m in heightN/AN/A
        Principle Private Open SpaceNot to be forward of building lineLocated to rear of dwellingsYes
        LandscapeMaximum 20% impervious of the landscaped area

        Minimum 40% deep soil
        Complies



        Complies
        Yes

        (1) Street Frontage

        The Interim Residential Development Code specifies that a medium density proposal must have a street frontage and minimum width of at least 15m. The site does not comply with the street frontage requirements as it is a battleaxe allotment. The width of the site however is greater than 15m at the front building line of the dwellings.

        (2) Residential Density

        Due to the large access handle the proposal does not comply with the density requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code. The Interim Residential Development Code specifies a maximum density of one (1) dwelling per 315sqm, therefore to achieve three (3) dwellings on the site the area of the site would have to be 945sqm excluding the access handle. When the area of the access handle is subtracted from the total area of the site the resultant area is 931.5sqm, a non compliance of 13.5sqm. The non compliance of 13.5sqm is considered to be minor and would not result in an over development of the site, especially given that the proposal achieves full compliance with landscaping and private open space requirements. The proposal is only for single storey development and results in no loss of privacy or overshadowing impacts on adjoining premises.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The proposed design is considered to be acceptable in terms of energy efficiency principles, a BASIX certificate has been lodged and each of the dwellings has the private open space with a northern orientation.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        The proposal results in the removal of several trees on the site, however none of these trees are listed on Council's Tree Preservation Order. The proposal is not considered to give rise to any adverse environmental impact.

        Built Environment

        Solar access

        The proposed development has been designed in a way so as to orientate the private open space of each dwelling to the north. The provision of private open space with a northerly aspect helps to achieve a good level of amenity to each of the dwellings.

        In terms of the shadows cast by the proposal, the proposal has been designed in such a way that the each of the dwellings will not cast an unacceptable amount of shadow on another dwelling in the development. The proposal is also for single storey dwellings which comply with the Interim Residential Development Code height requirements and therefore it is considered that no adverse overshadowing is likely to occur.

        Privacy

        No privacy impacts are considered to arise from the siting of the villas. As the dwellings are single storey, the landscaping and fencing proposed is considered sufficient to ensure privacy between the site and adjoining properties and within the site itself.

        Built Form

        The proposed built form is in keeping with the built forms within the vicinity of the development site.

        Social Impact

        The site is zoned for residential development and the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

        Economic Impact

        There are no detrimental economic impacts anticipated as a result of this development.

        Suitability of the Site

        The site is not known to flood, is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils and is not located within a bushfire sensitive area.

        The site is considered suitability zoned for residential purposes.


        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 was received.

        Objection from the owner of 25 Keith Street, located to the south east of the site.

        Safety during construction phase

        The driveway serving the site is very narrow and very long and heavy earth moving machinery and large trucks would potentially cause damage to adjoining properties and trucks would be parked in Marsden Crescent and Keith Street during construction.

        Comment: The driveway serving the site is relatively narrow, however it is considered that it is sufficient to allow for construction vehicles and machinery to access the site. In any case, a dilapidation condition has been recommended on the consent and conditions have been recommended requiring a site management plan and prohibiting vehicles from blocking public roads. Conditions of consent are enforceable and Council can act upon any breaches to those conditions.

        Non compliance with IRDC in respect to driveway width and length

        Comment: The Interim Residential Development Code has been superseded by Development Control Plan No 2 in respect to car parking. In respect to the length and width of the driveway and the car parking spaces, Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that the proposal complies with the Development Control Plan. There is sufficient room for cars to manoeuvre on site so they all enter and exit in a forward motion.

        Removal of Tree on northern border with 25 Keith Street

        Comment: Council’s Tree Management Officer has no objection to the removal of the said tree. The retention of the tree would not allow for the proposed location of the driveway to remain, and there is no other pratical location for the driveway due to the narrow access handle.

        Privacy issues from the change of level from the driveway to the adjoining property

        Comment: It is considered that due to the low volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic that the proposal will generate that the driveway will not result in any adverse privacy impacts, as the driveway level is changing approximately 500mm at worst case.

        Council Referrals

        Manager - Development Advice

        No objection subject to conditions of consent.

        Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        No objection subject to conditions.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has permitted the removal of ten (10) trees on the site.

        Traffic Engineer

        Proposal complies with off street parking provisions and the driveway widths comply with Council’s Codes.


        6. CONCLUSION

        The proposed development is recommended for approval as it complies with the majority of the relevant planning instruments and policies, with the exception being the non compliance with the density requirements. For reasons outlined earlier in this report, the minor variation is supported.

        The one (1) letter of objection received has been discussed earlier in this report.

        The site is suitable for the proposed development and will blend in well with the existing development in the vicinity of the site.


        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 20061050 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and outbuilding and construction of three (3) villa houses on Lot 19 DP 220417 and known as 14 Marsden Crescent, Peakhurst, subject to the attached conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for villas and townhouses. Excluding the following conditions: OC1 (b)-(g), (j)-(u), (i)-(ii); PW1; DR1 (a), (b) and (d); ST1(g); DD3 (b); MI18; PN13; WA6; LA5; LA9; LA10; CC1. Including the following conditions: Add ‘Interim Residential Development Code’ to OC1.

        2. Plans

        Plan No.
        DateDescriptionPrepared by
        A052381/2 B
        5 Sep 06Elevations and sections Atelier Hazzouri Architects
        A052382/2 B
        5 Sep 06Site/floor planAtelier Hazzouri Architects

        3. Payment of the following Section 94 Contributions:

        Open Space and Community Recreation
        $10,675
        Community Services and Facilities
        $5,679
        Management
        $418.94
        Library – Infrastructure
        $2,891.44
        Library – Bookstock
        $16.44
        George’s River Catchment
        $2,841.75

        Include under Introduction

        4. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        5. Subdivision - No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwellings. For any future Strata/Torrens subdivision, a separate development application is required to be submitted and approved by Council.

        Include under ‘Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate’

        6. DR12 (2%); DR15; DR11; RR1; S942; S944; S943; S945; S946; S948; PU1; PU4; PU5; PU6; SM3; SM1; TG(a); ES2.

        7. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following plans with details prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        8. The location of any outdoor air conditioning units must be located at least three (3) metres away from any side or rear property boundary (including any dividing walls between the townhouses and villas on the subject site) to minimise any transmission of noise to adjoining residents. A sound level of no more than 5dB (A) above the existing ambient background noise level at the most affected boundary must be achieved. Details are to be shown with the application for the construction certificate.

        Include under ‘Prior to the commencement of works’

        9. IN2.

        10. The developer must submit a Geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer in relation to dilapidation reports, all site works and construction. This is to be submitted prior to the Construction Certificate and is to include:
        11. If any excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building or driveway extends below the level of the base of the footings of any structure on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

        Include under ‘During development’

        12. BC5; IN2; DE4; DE5; PV7; MI3; DE1; DE6; DE7; DE8; DE9; DE10.

        13. No vehicles, construction equipment, machinery or the like shall cause any obstruction to any public road or the access to any adjoining property.

        Include under ‘Prior to Occupation Certificate’

        14. PV17; IN2.

        15. All car parking spaces are to be signposted and delineated prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

        Include under ‘After occupation/ongoing’

        16. MI22.

        17. Drainage Maintenance - The on-site detention drainage facility shall be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved plans and with the Positive Covenant on the title to this effect.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be refused for the following reason:-

        * The proposal does not comply with the Interim Residential Development Code in terms of density.
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr J Morris)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC029.01 - 06

        27 QUEENSBURY ROAD, PENSHURST - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY DWELLING AND FRONT FENCE ON A DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY SITE

        APPLICANT

        Rachael Lau

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey dwelling and front fence on a detached dual occupancy site

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency, Detached Dual Occupancy Policy, Fencing Adjacent to Public Road Code

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Ms Rachael Oi King Lau

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Subdivided detached dual occupancy with single dwellings

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $550,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        One objection received and non compliance with DCP 11

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Senior Town Planner, Ms L Locke and Development Assessment Officer, Ms D Fellows

        FILE NO

        DA 20060275


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. This application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling on the front allotment of a site approved for detached dual occupancy and erection of a two (2) storey dwelling.

        2. Detached dual occupancy development on this site was originally approved in 1992 with part of the approved development including a two (2) storey dwelling on the front allotment and the proposal has been considered under the provisions of Council’s Detached Dual Occupancy Policy and Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing.

        3. The proposal complies with a majority of Council’s controls except in respect to ceiling height and driveway location.

        4. One (1) objection has been received to this application.

        5. The application was deferred from the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 4 October 2006 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors, and that shadow diagrams be made available for perusal at the site inspection.. The inspection was held on 25 October 2006.


        RECOMMENDATION

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

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        BACKGROUND

        The application was deferred from the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 4 October 2006 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors, and that shadow diagrams be made available for perusal at the site inspection.. The inspection was originally scheduled for 18 October 2006, however was re-scheduled for 25 October 2006.

        After inspection of the shadow diagrams and comparison with the original approved plans, it is suggested that the proposal be moved forward 1m to a front setback of 4.5m, and the finished ceiling level reduced by 300mm. This will achieve the same rear setback (9m) as what was approved in the original consent and the same overall height.

        It will also be a better outcome for privacy, giving that the original approved dwelling house has a rear balcony with three (3) bedrooms and a gallery overlooking the objector's property, whereas this recent proposal has no rear balcony and only one (1) bedroom and gallery overlooking.

        Councillors should note that the original approved dwelling house is setback 1m further from the objector's side boundary, which makes a marginal difference to the shadows cast. Given the improvements in privacy and the suggested relocation of the dwelling forward 1m and reduction in height it is believed this proposal will have less overall impact on the objectors.


        For the information of Councillors, please find the previous report following.

        "DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The subject application seeks approval to demolish the existing dwelling fronting Queensbury Road and construct a new two (2) storey dwelling of brick veneer construction. The new dwelling will include a dinning/lounge room, kitchen and study at ground floor level and rear deck area, and will contain four (4) bedrooms and a gallery at first floor level. A balcony is proposed at first floor level facing Queensbury Road.

        The proposal incorporates a single garage with direct access from the street, with tandem parking available in front of the garage. The existing parking area at the rear of the site is to be retained with a barbecue area.

        A new front fence is also proposed, consisting of brickwork to 900mm in height with 230mm wide brick piers of 1.2m in height at 1.8m centre spacings. Planting is proposed between the piers with Murraya bushes to be planted at the rear of the fencing.


        BACKGROUND

        13 Jun 06 Development Application submitted to Council.

        23 Jun–7 Jul 06 Adjoining owners notified of proposal.

        Council’s records show that Development Application No 19920467 was approved on 10 December 1992 for detached dual occupancy on the subject property. The approved development consisted of a four (4) bedroom single storey dwelling on the proposed rear allotment adjoining Olds Park, and a two (2) storey four (4) bedroom dwelling on the proposed front allotment facing Queensbury Road.

        This consent included the following conditions which are relevant to this proposal:

        The proposed two (2) storey dwelling is similar in scale to that as previously approved and will accommodate four (4) bedrooms as approved, however a rear balcony is no longer proposed.

        On 12 October 1993, Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy development was approved.


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The subject property is located on the south western side of Queensbury Road, between Argyle Street and Olds Park, Penshurst. The site is rectangular in shape and the subject subdivided allotment has a frontage of 13.715m and depth of 27.505m, with an area of 377sqm. The total area of the approved dual occupancy site is 694.05sqm. The site is affected by a 2.6m wide right-of-carriageway and easement for services on the eastern side of the site which provides access to the rear allotment of the development.

        The subject allotment is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling with an open paved car parking area next to the rear boundary.

        The site is adjoined by single storey dwellings and the area is characterised by detached housing in landscaped settings, varying between single and double storey in height.


        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 the proposed development is permissible in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

        Clause 11A – Dual Occupancies

        The site of this approved detached dual occupancy complies with the minimum allotment size requirement as the total land area exceeds 630sqm. The site has a width of 13.715m which although is less than 15m, was part of the original approval and the existing allotment width is unchanged by this proposal. The site is not located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

        The subject site has been approved for this form of detached dual occupancy development and therefore the proposal is not seen to contravene the objectives of this clause nor the provisions of Clause 11A(3).

        Clause 11A(1)(d) of the Local Environmental Plan, as amended on 31 March 2006, requires dual occupancy development to provide a minimum allotment size and width so that the pattern of subdivision is retained as reflected in lot size, orientation and shape. Allotments are also to have a minimum size so as to provide landscaped areas that are suitable for tree planting, and the scale and density of development is to be compatible with the existing streetscape.

        The proposal has been assessed in respect to these criteria and is considered to be satisfactory as there will be no effect on the existing approved subdivision pattern, landscaped area suitable for tree planting is retained and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding streetscape.

        Tree Preservation Orders

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objection to the proposal including the proposed removal of a cumquat tree from the rear of the site.

        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.

        GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

        The site is not within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – 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.2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

        There are no draft environmental planning instruments which are applicable.

        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

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        Development Control Plan No 2 – Car Parking requires the provision of one (1) car space plus one (1) driveway space per dwelling for dual occupancy development. The proposal complies with this requirement as one (1) garage and one (1) car space is provided for each dwelling in the development.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 11 – DUAL OCCUPANCY

        The proposal has been considered against the relevant requirements of Development Control Plan No 11 as follows.

        Dual Occupancy Housing DCP 11
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Minimum Site Area630sqm694.05sqmYes
        Minimum Width Allotment15m13.715mYes - existing situation
        Option No. 6
        (p 31 of DCP)
        1 or 2 storey detached is closest Option1 and 2 storey detached duplexYes (1)
        Front Boundary Setback5.5m from street5.5m from streetYes
        Rear Boundary Setback7m from new rear neighbour’s property boundary8.205mYes
        Side Boundary Setback1.5m for two storey2.7m - east
        1.5m - west
        Yes
        Yes
        Maximum Floor Space Ratio0.5:10.44:1Yes
        Internal Floor to Ceiling Heights2.7m2.5mNo (2)
        Maximum Ridge Height9m8.2m max.Yes
        Recommended Roof Pitch25-35 degrees20 degreesYes (3)
        Car ParkingGarage plus driveway spaceGarage plus driveway space providedYes
        Driveway – Width Minimum 3m wide per dwelling house3mYes
        Driveway – Side boundary setbackMinimum 1.5m from boundary500mm from northwest boundary to proposed drivewayNo (4)
        Minimum Garage Recess300mm300mm recess providedYes
        No. of Storeys2 max.2 max.Yes
        Principal Private Open SpaceMinimum 4m x 5m4.4m x 9.5mYes
        Deep Soil LandscapingMinimum 40% of Rear Yard>40% providedYes
        Cut and FillLimited to Maximum 600mm600mm max. at frontYes
        Solar Design and Energy EfficiencyBasixBasix certificate provided Yes
        Overshadowing – Living areas and private yardsDevelopment living areas and private yards achieve minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June3 hours achievedYes
        Overshadowing – Habitable roomsWindows of habitable rooms, solar collectors or private open space of adjoining properties must receive minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 JuneMinimum 3 hours is maintained to adjoining propertiesYes
        Outdoor Clothes DryingOne (1) for each dwelling houseClothes line is providedYes
        Garbage SpaceMinimum 3m x 1m per dwelling house3m x 1m concrete plinth base providedYes
        Storage SpaceMinimum 6 cubic metres per dwelling houseYes - >6 cubic metres providedYes

        (1) Option No 6

        The existing dual occupancy has been compared with Option No 6 however the existing form of this dual occupancy does not strictly correspond with any of the design options in the Development Control Plan as the site is not located on a corner and does not have dual street and rear lane access. Therefore, these design controls are not strictly applicable to this proposal and assessment of the design is to be made on its merits.

        It is also noted that the existing dual occupancy as approved in 1992 was approved without lightwells, therefore a lightwell has not been required to be incorporated in this proposal.

        (2) Internal Floor to Ceiling Heights

        The proposed dwelling has an internal floor to ceiling height of 2.5m instead of the required 2.7m. This is considered to be acceptable in this case as the overall height of the building is minimised, particularly as was required by condition on the original consent which required the height of the proposal to be no greater than 8 metres.

        (3) Roof Pitch

        The proposed roof pitch of the dwelling is below the specified 25-35 degrees, however this is considered acceptable.

        (4) Driveway - Setback

        The proposed driveway on the north western side of the property has not been setback 1.5m from the boundary, but is 500mm from the adjacent side boundary. Council’s Traffic Engineer has not raised any concern with the location of the proposed driveway and the proposed location is considered to be acceptable in terms of accessibility to the proposed single garage and to maintain separation from the existing vehicle crossing on the other side of the site frontage, thereby enabling one (1) on-street car parking space to be maintained.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal provides for a physical environment that encourages a feeling of safety and allows for natural surveillance, access control and ownership.

        DCP No. 18 – CPTED
        Standard
        Plan
        Complies
        FencingAllows natural surveillance to streetAdequate surveillance to the street is available as the form of fence proposed is solid only to 900mm in height
        Yes
        Blind CornersTo be avoidedNo blind corners
        Yes
        Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillanceSurveillance is provided by windows and door openings
        Yes
        EntrancesClearly visible and not confusingEntrance is defined by front porch
        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
        - Passive surveillance provided
        - Building addresses street
        - Habitable rooms are directed toward front of building
        - Garages proposed are not dominant
        -Windows are offset satisfactorily
        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
        Existing street tree is retained and perimeter planting is proposed with visibility to be maintained
        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 on lighting provided. Standard condition of consent
        Yes
        Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
        - Entrances numbered
        - Unit numbers provided at entry
        Standard condition of consent.
        Yes
        Security- Main entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car parkN/A to this scale of development, however deadlocking and alarm systems will be incorporated into the development
        N/A
        OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownershipLandscaping, driveway and entrance indicate ownership
        Yes

        As can be seen by the above table, the proposal complies with this Development Control Plan.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The proposal has been satisfactorily designed in terms of energy efficiency and has achieved a Basix Certificate.

        DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY POLICY

        Council has a policy in relation to assessment of proposals for alterations and additions to detached dual occupancies approved prior to the commencement of Council’s Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy. The subject proposal has been assessed against the controls in this policy as follows.

        Comment: Point 1 – This point is not directly applicable to this proposal.

        Point 2 – The proposal has a FSR of below 0.5:1, thereby complying.

        Point 3 – Side setbacks of 1.5m and 2.7m are proposed which complies with this requirement.

        Point 4 – A minimum front setback of 5.5m is required to the street and has been provided.

        FENCING ADJACENT TO PUBLIC ROADS CODE

        The proposed front fencing complies with the design principles of this Code as it will be compatible with surrounding fencing and has been designed incorporating vertical brick piers to alleviate its massing.

        The height of the proposed fencing does not exceed 1.8m as required.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        The proposal incorporates additional planted screening to the rear yard area to screen the right-of-way, and no significant tree removal is proposed. A landscape plan has been submitted showing areas of proposed landscaping on the site including camellias, an orange tree, and Murraya planting.

        Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be beneficial to the natural environment.

        Built Environment

        The development has been designed to benefit from a northerly orientation. The southern wall of the building has been indented to reduce its massing adjacent to the right-of-way, and the first floor balcony and glass railing proposed above the front garage and decorative circular feature add design interest to the façade of the building.

        In respect to privacy, the proposed first floor balcony is sited at the front of the building and not the rear and therefore is without potential to overlook the private open space of the adjacent properties.

        A lattice screen is shown on the drawings and is proposed to provide screening to the south eastern side of the rear ground level deck.

        The applicant proposes to install obscure glass to the first floor window to the stair on the north western side of the building, and a condition is included in the recommendation to reinforce this requirement. The first floor gallery on the south eastern side of the building has a clear glass window. Although the applicant has indicated that privacy will not be an issue because of the desk shown next to this window on the floor layout, it is still recommended that a condition be imposed requiring this window to be constructed from translucent glazing to a height of 1800mm above the finished first floor level to prevent overlooking of the adjacent property, and a condition requiring this window to be constructed incorporating translucent glass is included in the recommendation.

        In respect to shadowing, the applicant has submitted shadow diagrams which show that the proposed building will not cause significant shadow to the adjoining property until mid morning during midwinter. Shadowing of the rear verandah of the neighbouring property to the south will occur from late May to mid July until early aftenoon.

        The proposed new building is similar in scale to that as previously approved however will cause some additional shadow.

        The proposed fence will be compatible with the surrounds.

        Social Impact

        It is considered that the proposal will have negligible social impact from that as approved originally as no additional bedrooms are being proposed.

        Economic Impact

        As the proposal is of a residential nature, it is not considered that it will create any adverse economic impacts.

        Suitability of the Site

        It is considered that the subject site is of appropriate width and area to accommodate the proposal, and the proposed two (2) storey dwelling is of similar scale to that as originally approved. The site is not constrained in any aspect and is not bushfire or acid sulphate soil affected.


        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. In response, one (1) objection has been received to this proposal from the property at 25 Queensbury Road adjoining the site to the south east.

        The following issues were raised.

        Rear alignment of proposed two storey building will eliminate sunshine to the rear verandah of the neighbouring property

        The proposed rear alignment of the new two (2) storey building will extend approximately one third further back than that of the present building and concern is raised by the neighbours that sunshine will be obliterated from the rear verandah of their property. The rear verandah is used for outdoor clothes washing and drying and absence of sunshine to the rear verandah is considered likely to exacerbate the neighbour’s medical conditions which include acute osteoporosis.

        No objection would be raised to a single storey dwelling built to the same alignment as existing.

        Comment: The proposed house has been sited to accommodate an additional car space at the front of the property in lieu of the rear yard. The proposed building however complies with the required 5.5m front building setback. The distance between the rear alignment of the subject allotment and the existing single storey house is approximately 11m whilst the proposed rear alignment is 8.2m.

        It is considered that additional overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south will occur. It is noted that the property is also itself the front house of a subdivided allotment.

        Inspection of the site reveals that the adjoining house to the south although single storey is elevated at the rear with the floor level being approximately 2m above ground level. The proposed building although two (2) storeys in height will impact, be only approximately 1.5m higher than the dwelling to the south. The solar heater will therefore not be affected however, sunlight will be obscured on the rear balcony from early June to late July from about 11.30am to 1.30pm.

        Regrettably, the redevelopment of the subject site with any form of two (2) storey dwelling will result in overshadowing on the adjoining property to the south.

        Impact on air space

        The surrounding air space will become cluttered due to the minimal land area, which will exacerbate the neighbour’s health concerns.

        Comment: There is considered to be adequate separation between the buildings with a distance of 4m separating the proposed building and the neighbouring building to the south east.

        Council Referrals

        Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has advised that the subject application can be approved subject to standard building conditions for dual occupancy development, including the following additional condition.

        1. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following details, with plans prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        This requirement has been incorporated by condition within the recommendation.

        Manager – Development Advice

        Council’s Manager – Development Advice has advised that the proposed eaves and gutter line will overhang the right-of-carriageway. This would therefore require the terms of this right-of-carriageway to be amended to allow this proposed overhang to remain. Alternatively, the building should be setback so that there is no encroachment onto the right-of-way.

        This matter has been discussed with the applicant who has agreed to the imposition of a condition of deferred commencement requiring amendment of the terms of the right-of-carriageway.

        Council’s Manager – Development Advice has further advised that this application can be approved subject to standard engineering conditions including a requirement for all stormwater to drain by gravity to the existing piped system at the rear of the site.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has commented on the proposal and advised that there is no objection to the proposal in respect to tree management.

        Traffic Engineer

        Council’s Traffic Engineer has commented on the subject proposal as follows.

        The application has been referred to Council’s Works Officer as discussed below.

        Works Officer

        Council’s Works Officer has commented on this proposal and advised that there is no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions.

        * Crossing to be constructed as per Council’s standard shape and specification.
        * Access levels to be issued by Council prior to the Construction Certificate.
        * Underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The subject existing dual occupancy was approved in 1992 prior to the adoption of Council’s Development Control Plan No 11. Therefore, assessment of the proposed additions has also been carried out based on the merits of the application and Council’s detached dual occupancy policy and the proposal is seen to comply with the relevant Section 79C Heads of Consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

        The proposal does comply with a majority of the controls within Council’s Development Control Plan No 11 and Detached Dual Occupancy Policy.

        Therefore it is recommended that the development application be granted deferred commencement approval subject to the conditions as set out below.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060275 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of new two storey dwelling and front fence on a detached dual occupancy site on Lot 21, DP 849729 and known as 27 Queensbury Road, Penshurst, subject to the following:

        A. The terms of the right-of-carriageway are to be amended to allow the proposed overhang by the eaves and gutter line onto the right-of-carriageway located on the south eastern side of the property. Evidence of the registration with the Land Titles Office of the amended terms of the right-of-carriageway shall also be submitted.

        Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

        Subject to A above being satisfied, a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

        1. Standard conditions imposed by Council for dual occupancy. Excluding the following conditions: OC1 (b)-(d), (f)–(h), (j)–(l), (n)–(t), (i), (ii) and (iv);
        2. Standard conditions imposed by Council for demolition: Include only: DE1 (a)-(f).

        3. Approved Plans

        Plan No.
        Plan Date
        Description
        Prepared By
        LR/6518 May 06Site Plan and AnalysisPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Ground and First Floor PlansPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06ElevationsPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Sections, Window and Door Schedule and Driveway DetailsPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Landscape DetailsPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Excavation Details and Waste ManagementPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Sediment and Erosion, Demolition and Site Management Details Plancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Elevations and FinishesPlancraft
        LR/6518 May 06Sewer Details and Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan Plancraft

        Include under “After Occupation/Ongoing”

        4. Any lighting to be installed in association with this proposal is not to cause excessive light spillage to adjoining properties.

        5. Perimeter landscaping is to be trimmed regularly to allow visual surveillance.

        6. No fill is permitted between the external walls of the building and the side boundaries. Deepened edge beams may be required on the Construction Certificate plans to avoid the filling of the land.

        7. The window proposed to the first floor gallery on the south eastern side of the building shall be constructed from translucent glass to a height of 1800mm above finished first floor level, with details shown on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate.

        8. The window proposed to the first floor stair on the north western side of the building shall be constructed from obscure glass, with details shown on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate.

        9. A lattice privacy screen shall be erected on the south eastern side of the rear ground level deck, with details shown on the drawings submitted with the Construction Certificate.

        Building

        10. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following details, with plans prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        Crossings

        Include under “During the Development”

        11. Crossing to be constructed as per Council’s standard shape and specification.

        12. Underground services and access lids to be adjusted accordingly.

        13. Access levels for the vehicle crossing are to be issued by Council prior to the Construction Certificate.

        Engineering

        14. All stormwater shall drain by gravity to the existing piped system at the rear of the site.

        15. Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council’s Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate. "

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be granted a deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report, subject to the plans being amended to relocate the building on the site as follows:-

        * Move the building forward by one (1) metre to a building line setback of 4.5 metres,
        * Move the building to the North by 0.5 metres to a side setback of one (1) metre,
        * Reduce the finished ceiling height by 300mm.
        (Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr S McMahon)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC029.02 - 06

        57-59 MOUNTVIEW AVENUE, BEVERLY HILLS - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF THREE TOWNHOUSES AND TWO VILLAS WITH STRATA TITLE SUBDIVISION

        APPLICANT

        Sam Sakr

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three townhouses and two villas with strata title subdivision

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

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

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        I, N, K and G Nassif

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $850,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Objections received and non compliance with IRDC

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson

        FILE NO

        DA 20060153


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application is for the erection of three (3) townhouses and two (2) villas with basement car parking. The application has been received in combination with DA 20060152 for the erection of a dual occupancy development adjacent to the proposal at 55 Mountview Avenue. A boundary adjustment has been proposed as part of the application in order to achieve the required density for each allotment.

        2. The application was referred to the Development Assessment Committee meeting on 2 August 2006. The application was deferred for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors.

        3. Two (2) sets of amended plans were submitted to Council and notified to adjacent neighbours in accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan No 17. The second set of amended plans, that are the subject of this report, received one (1) submission which indicated that the proposal would be satisfactory if a window was relocated.

        4. The amended application now proposes two (2) minor variations to the Interim Residential Development Code.


        RECOMMENDATION

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

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The application is for the erection of three (3) townhouses and two (2) villas with basement car parking with vehicular access from the front of the site with ten (10) resident spaces and two (2) visitor spaces. The application has been received in combination with DA 20060152 for the erection of a dual occupancy development adjacent to the proposal at 55 Mountview Avenue. A boundary adjustment has been proposed as part of the application in order to achieve the required density for each allotment.

        The attached townhouses on the south eastern side of the allotment (Unit 1 and 2) are to comprise a living and dining room, family area, eat in kitchen, and a laundry on the ground floor. The first floor is to comprise a foyer, bathroom and four (4) bedrooms, one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and ensuite bathroom.

        The townhouse on the north western side of the allotment (Unit 3) is to comprise a living room, family area, eat in kitchen and laundry on the ground floor. The first floor is to comprise a bathroom and four (4) bedrooms, one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and ensuite bathroom.

        Each of the two (2) villas (Unit 4 and 5), located at the rear of the site, is to comprise a porch, living area, kitchen, dining, bathroom, laundry and three (3) bedrooms, one (1) with an ensuite bathroom. The pedestrian access to the basement is via a shared stairway that is located at the front of the villas in a common area.


        BACKGROUND

        No previous applications have been lodged for the site that impact on the proposed development. The application is being considered in parallel with DA 20060152 for a dual occupancy at 55 Mountview Avenue (the site to the south east). It is noted that DA 20060152 has been approved by Council.

        The application was previously referred to the Development Assessment Committee meeting on 2 August 2006. The application was deferred for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors.

        Following the site inspection, the applicant submitted amended plans. These plans were not considered to be satisfactory and further amended plans were forwarded to Council and renotified in accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan No 17.

        One (1) objection was received in relation to the latest proposed amendments. The submission indicated that if the adjacent second floor bedroom window in the northern townhouse bedroom 4 was moved or deleted then the objection would be dropped. It is considered that this objection can be fully satisfied by conditions of consent.


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is an irregular shaped allotment with a proposed frontage of 27.205m to Mountview Avenue. Following the proposed boundary adjustment the area of the site will be 1660.5sqm. The site is located on the south western side of the street. Existing on the site are two (2) single storey single dwelling houses and two (2) detached rear garages and various fibro and metal outbuildings/sheds to the rear.

        The site has a fall to the front south eastern corner of the allotment and also has a fall to the rear along the north western boundary. The site provides stormwater drainage to the street. A Sydney Water sewer line traverses the rear southern corner of the site.

        Adjoining development predominately comprises single dwelling houses with a townhouse development evident to the north west. It is also noted that the former Narwee High School site is approximately 50 metres to the north of the proposed development site.

        There are two (2) street trees, a Sydney Water hydrant and two (2) Telstra pits located on the street at the front of the proposed development. The services/utilities should not be affected in the event that the development is approved, however one (1) street tree is proposed to be removed.


        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.

        Clause 10 – Subdivision

        The proposal is consistent with the Local Environmental Plan requirements for subdivision.

        Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the application is relation to the requirements of Council’s Tree Preservation Orders and has indicated that the proposal for the retention of trees in accordance with the plans is satisfactory. Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that the proposal to remove one (1) Council street tree is acceptable.

        Clause 15 – Services

        Standard conditions for townhouse and villa development include the requirement for service provision in relation to water, energy, gas and telecommunications.

        Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

        The proposal is located on a site with a gradual fall towards the street and a fall to the rear along the north western boundary. The site is able to drain to the street without significant fill. It is noted that the rear villa identified on the plans as ‘Unit 4’ proposes fill of up to 300mm and ‘Unit 5’ proposes fill up to 100mm. This is not considered to be of concern as privacy is not affected.

        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.

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

        The proposal is consistent with the draft abovementioned.

        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.

        Building Code of Australia

        Building Code of Australia requirements are conditioned to be addressed at the Construction Certificate stage.

        3. Development Control Plans

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        For the proposed development, the following on site car parking is required to be provided on site.

        Development
        Standard
        Provided
        Complies
        Townhouse and Villa
        1 space per 2 bedrooms or less (0 required)
        0
        N/A
        2 spaces per 3 bedrooms or more (10 required)
        10
        Yes
        Visitor Parking
        1 pace per 4 units (2 required)
        2
        Yes

        INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE (IRDC)

        Development Area B

        IRDC 1995 ControlsStandardProposalComplies
        Density (site area/unit)315sqm332.1sqmYes
        Landscaped Open Space50% 59.5%Yes
        Front Site Height Maximum9m7.994m (max)Yes
        Rear Site Height Maximum6m6.011m (max)No (1)
        Front Site Storeys Maximum22Yes
        Rear Site Storeys Maximum11Yes
        Minimum Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        -
        60sqm
        -
        71.19sqm (min)
        N/A
        Yes
        Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 Bedroom
        -
        4m x 6m
        -
        7.9m x 5.6m (min)
        N/A
        Yes
        Front Boundary Setbacks4.5m5mYes
        Rear Boundary SetbacksBuilding EnvelopeCompliesYes
        Minimum Street Frontage24m33.52mYes
        Minimum Side Boundary Setback
        * Front Site
        * Rear Site
        Envelope
        Envelope
        Unit 3 and 4 propose variationNo (2)

        As can be seen from the table above, the development proposal proposes two (2) variations to Council’s Interim Residential Development Code. These variations are discussed below.

        (1) Rear Site Height

        Unit 5, the villa at the rear of the site, proposes an 11mm variation to overall ridge height. As the proposal is a single storey villa and the variation is so minor it is considered that this variation should be permitted.

        (2) Side Boundary Setback

        The proposal indicates a variation to the required building envelope for Unit 3 and Unit 4 on the northern side.

        The variation for Unit 3 is proposed as this townhouse has a basement which results in the overall wall height exceeding the envelope requirement by 115mm. This variation does not result in any negative impacts on adjacent neighbours and is considered to be minor in nature as it does not result in any overshadowing or additional loss of privacy. Nor will the extra height of 115mm create additional bulk in the overall scale of the development. The additional height is required to permit the introduction of basement car parking with complying driveway gradients and the variation is considered to be minor, as the provision of the basement driveway has provided more separation from the adjacent neighbours (to the south) which provides a more acceptable outcome in accordance with the privacy and overshadowing objectives of the Interim Residential Development Code.

        The variation proposed for Unit 4 is an excess of 3mm which is considered to be extremely minor and may be permitted.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal provides for a physical environment that encourages a feeling of safety and allows for natural surveillance, access control and ownership.

        DCP No. 18 – CPTED
        Standard
        Plan
        Complies
        FencingAllows natural surveillance to streetAllows natural surveillance to street
        Yes
        Blind CornersTo be avoidedNone evident
        Yes
        Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillanceRear communal area permits surveillance from the rear villas.
        Yes
        EntrancesClearly visible and not confusingEntrances clearly defined by pathways, entires and porches
        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
        Good surveillance opportunities
        Building addresses street
        Living areas are orientated towards the street
        Garages do not dominate front façade
        Windows are offset
        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
        A mixture of landscaping is proposed which is considered to be satisfactory
        Yes
        Lighting- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally
        - Access/egress points illuminated
        - No lightspill towards neighbours
        - Hiding places illuminated
        - Lighting is energy efficient
        May be conditioned
        Yes
        Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
        - Entrances numbered
        - Unit numbers provided at entry
        May be conditioned as part of subdivision.
        Yes
        Security- Main entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car parkEach unit has private car park with appropriate security. Each garage has good access to unit.
        Yes
        OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownershipAchieved
        Yes

        As evidenced by the table above, the proposal complies in full with the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal achieve the minimum BASIX standard for new dwellings. An amended BASIX report has not been submitted. It is to be a condition of consent that an amended and complying BASIX certificate is to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        It is not considered that the proposed development will have any negative impacts on the natural environment.

        Built Environment

        The development, as a result of the site orientation, will overshadow the allotment to the south to some degree. As additional side setbacks are achieved by including the basement car parking entrance on the southern side of the development. The living and open space areas of the adjoining development to the south receives the required amount of solar access during the midwinter solstice.

        Social Impact

        It is considered that the proposed townhouse and villa development is located appropriately and is compatible within in the local area. Conditions in relation to the relocation of windows will be placed on any future consent in order to prevent any impact from overlooking.

        Economic Impact

        As the proposal is of a residential nature, it is not considered that it will create any adverse economic impacts.

        Suitability of the Site

        It is considered that the site is of appropriate width and area for the proposal. The proposal is considered to be suitably located upon this site.


        5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

        Resident

        Adjoining residents were notified by letter on 12 April 2006 and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Five (5) objections were received in relation to the proposed application including objections that noted errors in the submitted plans.

        The applicant was requested to correct these errors and the plans were renotified on 30 May 2006. Four additional (4) submissions were received from adjacent neighbours apologising for a statement that “was not intended to be derogatory, and we apologise if it came across as such”.

        Amended plans were received and submitted on 22 August, 2006. These plans were further amended to address issues raised by Council and the plans were notified on 19 September, 2006. These plans received one (1) submission raising the following concern.

        Privacy

        Bedroom 4 of the northern detached townhouse overlooks the objector's yard.

        Comment: A condition of consent will require that this window is relocated to the rear façade of the townhouses thus negating privacy concerns.

        Council Referrals Manager - Development Advice

        Council’s Manager - Development Advice has reviewed the proposal and has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to standard conditions in relation to drainage and subdivision.

        Traffic Engineer

        Council’s Traffic Engineer has indicated that sufficient off-street parking has been provided and that the proposal is satisfactory providing a condition is placed on any consent for driveway gradients to comply with the relevant Australian Standard.

        Crossings EngineerCouncil’s Crossings Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the existing driveway crossovers are to be replaced to Council issued levels and specification and that an application is to be lodged prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Further to this any utilities or services in the street that need to be adjusted shall be at the cost of the applicant.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that Council’s street trees listed for retention are to be retained as per the submitted plans and with a 4.0m separation from any new proposed driveway and Council’s street tree. It is also advised that the landscape plan and proposed tree removals are satisfactory.

        Senior Environmental Health and Building Officer

        Council’s Senior Environmental Health and Building Officer has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to an additional condition in relation to the provision of certification detailing compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The application for three (3) townhouses and two (2) villas with strata title subdivision complies with the relevant Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

        The proposal seeks a variation to the relevant Interim Residential Development Code in relation to ridge height for one (1) of the villas and in relation to envelope for Units 3 and 4. It is considered that the intention of the height and envelope requirements is achieved for the proposal in relation to solar access and privacy and all variations are considered to be minor in nature.

        The one (1) submission in relation to the amended plans may be fully satisfied with conditions of consent. It is further considered that the amended plans satisfactorily address all the written concern of the initial objection.

        As such it is considered that the application may be approved subject to the conditions attached.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060153 for the demolition of the existing dwelling houses and erection of three townhouses and two villas on Lot A DP 348319 and Lot B DP 348319 and known as 57-59 Mountview Avenue, Beverly Hills, subject to the follow:

        A. The proposal is to lodge a complying with the BASIX certificate prior to the issue of the development consent.

        Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

        Subject to A. above being satisfied, a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for villa and townhouse development. Except the following conditions: OC1 (b)-(h), (j)-(l), (n)-(s), (i)-(iii);
        6 (b)-(c) The following must be submitted to either Council or an Accredited Certifier before a Construction Certificate is issued: (c) Evidence of compliance with condition/s no. * of this consent.;
        RR2; LA5; LA4; MI21.
        Amending the following conditions: 6 (a) Amendment of plans to indicate "the northern first floor window of bedroom 4 in the detached townhouse being deleted and replaced with a window on the rear elevation"; PW6 - add this line at the end of the condition "The car wash bay must be located in one of the visitor car parking spaces in the basement."; WA1 add "or basement garage" after open space area; LA9 "street trees listed for retention"; BA2 delete from "dated" and include "to be submitted prior to the approval of the Construction Certificate."
        Including the following conditions:
        The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.;
        Sydney Water - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water's sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.;
        Drainage Maintenance - The on-site detention drainage facility shall be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved plans and with the Positive Covenant on the title to this effect.
        S942; S944; S945; S946; S948; PU5; BC5; DE4; DE5; BO1.

        2. Approved Plans

        Plan NoDateDescriptionDrawn by
        Sheet 1/1C16/2/06Landscape PlanSam Sakr
        Sheet 1/3C23/3/06 Site, Basement and Subdivision PlanSam Sakr
        Sheet 2/3C23/3/06Site and Floor Plans, ElevationsSam Sakr
        Sheet 3/3C23/3/06Site and Floor Plans, ElevationsSam Sakr

        3. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

        Open Space and Community
        $16,861.00
        Community Services
        $9,588.00
        Management
        $706.99
        Library – Infrastructure
        $4,878.35
        Library – Bookstock
        $27.77
        4. The new driveway is to be provided in accordance with Council issued levels and specification and an access levels application is to be lodged prior to the issue of the construction certificate. Further to this any utilities or services in the street that need to be adjusted shall be at the cost of the applicant.

        5. DR12 2%; DR14; DR11; PV17 (a) Mountview Ave, (b) 150mm, F72, (c); RR1

        Strata Title Subdivision Conditions

        6. SU50-SU56; SU58-SU62; SU66; SU67


        The application that was referred to the Development Assessment Committee meeting on 2 August 2006 is included below for the information of Councillors.

        "DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The application is for the erection of three (3) townhouses, two (2) with basement car parking and two (2) villas. The application has been received in combination with DA 20060152 for the erection of a dual occupancy development adjacent to the proposal at 55 Mountview Avenue. A boundary adjustment has been proposed as part of the neighbouring dual occupancies application in order to achieve the required density for each dwelling proposed on this subject site. The proposal also entails strata title subdivision.

        The attached townhouses on the south eastern side of the allotment (Unit 1 and 2) are to comprise a basement with each townhouse having a double garage with a storeroom and internal stairs to the ground floor. The ground floor level is to comprise a living and dining room, family area, eat in kitchen, and a laundry. The first floor is to comprise a foyer, bathroom and four (4) bedrooms, one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and ensuite bathroom.

        The townhouse on the northern side of the allotment (Unit 3) is to comprise a living room, family area, eat in kitchen and laundry on the ground floor. The first floor is to comprise a bathroom and four (4) bedrooms, one (1) with a walk in wardrobe and the master bedroom with a walk in wardrobe and ensuite bathroom. The ground floor of Unit 3 also comprises a single garage with a hard stand space on the driveway in front of the garage.

        Each of the two (2) villas (Unit 4 and 5), located at the rear of the site, is to comprise a single garage and a single hard stand space on the driveway, porch, living area, kitchen, dining, bathroom, laundry and three (3) bedrooms, one (1) with an ensuite bathroom.


        BACKGROUND

        No previous applications have been lodged for the site that impact on the proposed development. The application is being considered in parallel with DA 20060152 for a dual occupancy and boundary adjustment at 55 Mountview Avenue (the neighbouring site to the south).


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is an irregular shaped allotment with a proposed frontage of 27.205m to Mountview Avenue. Following the proposed boundary adjustment the area of the site will be 1660.5sqm. The site is located on the south western side of the street. Existing on the site are two (2) single storey single dwelling houses and two (2) detached rear garages and various fibro and metal outbuildings/sheds to the rear.

        The site has a fall to the front south eastern corner of the allotment and also has a fall to the rear along the north western boundary. The site provides stormwater drainage to the street. A Sydney Water sewer line traverses the rear southern corner of the site.

        Adjoining development predominately comprises single dwelling houses with a townhouse development evident to the north west. It is also noted that the former Narwee High School site is approximately 50 metres to the north of the proposed development site.

        There are two (2) street trees, a Sydney Water hydrant and two (2) Telstra pits located on the street at the front of the proposed development. These services/utilities should not be affected in the event that the development is approved. It is noted that the existing driveway crossovers are being used for the proposed development.


        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.

        Clause 10 – Subdivision

        The proposal is consistent with the Local Environmental Plan requirements for subdivision.

        Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Orders

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the application is relation to the requirements of Council’s Tree Preservation Orders and has indicated that the proposal for the retention of trees in accordance with the plans is satisfactory. Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that conditions in relation to driveway separation from trees would be appropriate. Council's Tree Management Officer has also indicated that the conditions included in the arborists report received in relation to retaining the Camphor Laurel tree adjoining the rear boundary are to be included as conditions of any consent.

        Clause 15 – Services

        Standard conditions for townhouse and villa development include the requirement for service provision in relation to water, energy, gas and telecommunications.

        Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of land

        The proposal is located on a site with a gradual fall towards the street and a fall to the rear along the north western boundary. The site is able to drain to the street without significant fill. It is noted that the rear villa identified on the plans as “Unit 5” proposes significant fill of up to 700mm. This is not considered to be appropriate in relation to privacy concerns and envelope non compliance and it is to be a condition of consent that the finished floor level for this unit be RL44.3 AHD resulting in the finished floor level being 300mm above natural ground level. It is noted that this amendment reduces fill to a more appropriate level of approximately 150mm, negates privacy concerns and provides a better outcome in relation to envelope compliance (to be discussed later). It is also noted that this amendment will not impact on the proposed stormwater drainage system.

        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.

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

        The proposal is consistent with the draft abovementioned.

        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.

        Building Code of Australia

        Building Code of Australia requirements are conditioned to be addressed at the Construction Certificate stage.

        3. Development Control Plans

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        For the proposed development, the following on site car parking is required to be provided on site.

        Development
        Standard
        Provided
        Complies
        Townhouse and Villa
        1 space per 2 bedrooms or less (0 required)
        0
        Yes
        2 spaces per 3 bedrooms or more (10 required)
        10
        Yes
        Visitor Parking
        1 pace per 4 units (2 required)
        2
        Yes

        INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE

        Development Area B

        IRDC 1995 ControlsStandardProposalComplies
        Density (site area/unit)315sqm332.1sqmYes
        Landscaped Open Space50% 50%Yes
        Front Site Height Maximum9m8.374m (max)Yes
        Rear Site Height Maximum6m5.826m max (will be 5.526 after condition imposed)Yes
        Front Site Storeys Maximum22Yes
        Rear Site Storeys Maximum11Yes
        Minimum Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        60sqmAll > 60sqm Yes
        Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 Bedroom
        4m x 6m4m x 6m (min)Yes
        Front Boundary Setbacks4.5m5.5mYes
        Rear Boundary SetbacksBuilding EnvelopeCompliesYes
        Minimum Street Frontage24m33.52mYes
        Minimum Side Boundary Setback
        * Front Site
        * Rear Site
        Envelope
        Envelope
        Unit 1, 3 and 5 propose variationNo (1)

        As can be seen from the table, above the development proposal proposes one (1) variation to Council’s Interim Residential Development Code. This variation is discussed below.

        (1) Side Boundary Setback

        The proposal indicates a variation to the required building envelope for Unit 1 and Unit 3 being the two (2) townhouses at the front of the site, and Unit 5 being the villa at the rear of the site.

        The proposed variation for Unit 1 is proposed as this townhouse has a basement which results in the wall height exceeding the envelope requirement by 955mm. This variation does not result in any overshadowing of existing neighbours, however it does result in overshadowing of the proposed dual occupancy next door that is being proposed by the same applicant on 55 Mountview Avenue. However, it is noted that the proposed dual occupancy will receive the required amount of solar access. Therefore the variation is considered acceptable.

        The variation proposed for Unit 3 is an excess of 195mm where a side wall height of 5.195 metres is proposed. It is not considered that this wall is of excessive height and it is noted that Unit 3 is to the south of the adjoining property so no overshadowing is experienced. The variation has been proposed in order to permit the provision of drainage by gravity to the street. The ground floor slab cannot be excavated further for this reason. It also will have no privacy impacts as the only upper level windows are for the stairwell and bathroom.

        In relation to Unit 5 the proposal requires fill of up to 700mm which results in the single storey villa providing a variation to the envelope requirement along the southern wall. This also results in privacy concerns for the adjacent neighbour from a bedroom which would allow views over the side boundary fence. In addition to this the additional wall height would result in some overshadowing to the adjacent neighbour to the south. In order to overcome this issue it is considered that the following condition should be imposed to require compliance: “In order to comply with Council’s envelope requirements, the finished floor level of Unit 5 shall be no more than RL44.3 AHD. Furthermore the setback from the southern boundary shall be increased to 1830mm. The garage level is permitted to remain at RL44.6 AHD. Should compliance with this condition lead to any issue being raised by Sydney Water in relation to the sewer, a Section 96 application shall be lodged with Council proposing suitable amendments.”

        It is considered that this condition will result in a better outcome for the adjoining neighbour and will result in a compliance with Council’s envelope requirements for Unit 5. It is noted that the Unit 5 is proposed to be erected over the Sydney Water sewer line, hence the wording of this condition.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal provides for a physical environment that encourages a feeling of safety and allows for natural surveillance, access control and ownership.

        DCP No. 18 – CPTED
        Standard
        Plan
        Complies
        FencingAllows natural surveillance to streetAllows natural surveillance to street
        Yes
        Blind CornersTo be avoidedNone evident
        Yes
        Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillanceNo communal areas
        N/A
        EntrancesClearly visible and not confusingEntrances clearly defined by pathways, entires and porches
        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
        Good surveillance opportunities.
        Building addresses street.
        Living areas are orientated towards the street.
        Garages do not dominate front façade.
        Windows are offset.
        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
        A mixture of landscaping is proposed which is considered to be satisfactory
        Yes
        Lighting- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally
        - Access/egress points illuminated
        - No lightspill towards neighbours
        - Hiding places illuminated
        - Lighting is energy efficient
        May be conditioned
        Yes
        Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
        - Entrances numbered
        - Unit numbers provided at entry
        May be conditioned as part of subdivision.
        Yes
        Security- Main entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car parkEach unit has private car park with appropriate security. No shared car parking area is proposed.
        N/A
        OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownershipAchieved
        Yes

        As evidenced by the table above, the proposal complies in full with the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan No 18 – Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        This Development Control Plan requires that the proposal achieve the minimum BASIX standard for new dwellings. Overall the proposal has achieved a BASIX certificate, in relation to the NSW Governments requirements for sustainability. It will be a condition of consent that the proposal complies with the provided BASIX certificate dated 22 March 2006.

        The applicant has also provided an assessment in relation to energy efficiency from a NatHERS Assessment Officer. It is noted that the thermal performance specification is conditioned to be achieved in line with the plans provided.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        It is not considered that the proposed development will have any negative impacts on the natural environment.

        Built Environment

        The development, as a result of the site orientation, will overshadow the allotment to the south during the middle of the day. The adjacent allotment will still receive morning and afternoon sun in line with Council requirements however some overshadowing will be apparent. It is noted that overshadowing from the Unit 5 to the rear will be reduced when a condition is placed on the development to bring it into conformity with the envelope requirement of the Interim Residential Development Code. This condition will require a reduction of the finished floor level to RL44.3 AHD and require a setback of 1.83m from the south eastern boundary.

        Social Impact

        It is considered that the proposed townhouse and villa development is located appropriately and is compatible within in the local area. Conditions in relation to the provision of privacy screens and highlight windows will be placed on any future consent in order to prevent any impact from overlooking.

        Economic Impact

        As the proposal is of a residential nature, it is not considered that it will create any adverse economic impacts.

        Suitability of the Site

        It is considered that the site is of appropriate width and area for the proposal. The proposal is considered to be suitably located upon this site.


        5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

        Resident

        Adjoining residents were notified by letter on 12 April 2006 and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Five (5) objections were received in relation to the proposed application including objections that noted errors in the submitted plans.

        The applicant was requested to correct these errors and the plans were re-notified on 30 May 2006. Four additional (4) submissions were received from adjacent neighbours.

        The relevant items of objection received in the first round of notification are considered below.

        Sewer

        Adjacent neighbours to the rear and to the south east have indicated that there have been extensive problems in times of moderate to heavy rain with the Sydney Water sewer line which traverses the rear southern corner of the site. Neighbours have indicated that a property further along the street has connected their stormwater drainage system into the sewer and that in times of moderate to heavy rain the sewer overflows leading to effluent flooding properties on Bell Avenue and Mountview Avenue. The neighbours have expressed concerns that the additional sewer connection will exacerbate this problem and that there may be problems with building Unit 5 over this sewer.

        Comment: Advice from Council’s Manager – Environmental Health and Building has advised that issues in relation to the sewer are a matter for Sydney Water. It is also a standard condition of consent that Sydney Water is consulted in relation to connection to the sewer. It is a condition of deferred commencement consent that issues in relation to the sewer are resolved in accordance with Sydney Water requirements.

        Drainage and Stormwater

        Adjacent neighbours have indicated that the site drains towards the rear and that this will cause problems. Neighbours have also queried as to where the basement garage is to drain.

        Comment: Hydraulic Plans indicate that all roof waters can drain to the kerb and gutter in Mountview Avenue. Council’s Manager – Development Advice has examined the hydraulic plans and has indicated that they are appropriate, even with the reduction in level of Unit 5.

        Camphor Laurel Tree

        Neighbours have indicated that the location of Unit 5 at the rear of the allotment will result in the root system and canopy of the Camphor Laurel tree on the southern corner of the site to be pruned which may destabilise the tree. The neighbours want to know who will be responsible for the removal or care of the tree should it be destabilised.

        Comment: Council’s Tree Management Officer has advised that any development proposed within the zone of influence of the Camphor Laurel tree would be required to be built in accordance with conditions provided by the consulting arborist in order for the tree to be retained in a healthy state. These conditions are to be included in the consent.

        Demolition Plans

        A neighbour has indicated that the plans stated 5 Bell Ave was to be demolished as part of the proposal.

        Comment: This error has been conditioned to show the correction.

        Demolition

        Neighbours have requested that any asbestos onsite be removed safely. An adjacent neighbour has indicated that they are allergic to dust and that this will be a problem during demolition and building works.

        Comment: Standard conditions of consent cover the removal of materials containing asbestos and sedimentation and dust suppression measures during demolition and construction. These conditions are imposed to ensure a reasonable amount of comfort is maintained for adjacent neighbours.

        Rear Unit 5

        The adjacent neighbour has indicated that the villa will cause overshadowing, privacy and noise concerns.

        Comment: It is proposed that the finished floor levels of Unit 5 be reduced to a more appropriate level in relation to privacy. The only windows adjacent to the neighbour are on the ground floor and it is considered that a standard 1.8 metre high fence will reduce any privacy and noise concerns. The single storey nature of the development will entail that the neighbouring property receives the required amount of solar access.

        Basement

        The neighbour to the rear has indicated that car headlights and noise from this basement will be a problem.

        Comment: These garages are for a maximum of four (4) vehicles and it is considered that this basement will not cause unreasonable light or noise problems. Furthermore a standard 1.8 metre high fence should ensure noise and possible light spill is kept to a minimum.

        Property Devaluation

        A neighbour has indicated that the proposal will result in property devaluation.

        Comment: Council cannot comment in relation to the potential for change in property values.

        Overshadowing

        The neighbour to the north at 61 Mountview Avenue has indicated that the adjacent villa to the south will overshadow their property.

        Comment: No shadows will fall on the neighbouring property at 61 Mountview Avenue.

        Fencing

        Neighbours have queried the provision of fencing.

        Comment: Council will impose standard conditions in relation to the provision of fencing.

        Garbage Bin Storage

        Neighbour has indicated that the storage of garbage bins on the boundary is a problem.

        Comment: Each townhouse and villa can accommodate the required amount of bins in the parking or rear courtyard area. This is not considered to be an amenity concern for any adjacent neighbour.

        Site Storage

        An adjacent neighbour has questioned the proposal to store sand adjacent to the boundary during construction.

        Comment: Site storage is considered to be appropriate. Standard conditions in relation to the control of sediment are placed on all developments in order to protect neighbour amenity.

        Council Referrals Manager - Development Advice

        Council’s Manager - Development Advice has reviewed the proposal and has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions in relation to drainage and subdivision. Council’s Manager has further advised that a condition to reduce the finished floor level of Unit 5 will not impact on the proposal to dispose stormwater to the kerb and gutter in Mountview Avenue.

        Traffic Engineer

        Council’s Traffic Engineer has indicated that sufficient off-street parking has been provided and that the proposal is satisfactory providing a condition is placed on any consent for driveway gradients to comply with the relevant Australian Standard. Further the access driveway for the rear villas and basement car parking area allows adequate sight distance along the 30m long driveway to not require a parking bay. A car may queue on the driveway to permit outgoing residents to pass.

        Crossings Engineer

        Council’s Crossings Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the existing driveway crossovers are to be replaced to Council issued levels and specification and that an application is to be lodged prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Further to this any utilities or services in the street that need to be adjusted shall be at the cost of the applicant.

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that Council’s street trees are to be retained as per the submitted plans and with a 4.0m separation from any new proposed driveway and Council’s street tree. It is also advised that the landscape plan and proposed tree removals on site are satisfactory. Council’s Tree Management Officer has also advised that any development proposed within the zone of influence of the Camphor Laurel tree adjoining the rear southern corner would be required to be built in accordance with conditions provided by the consulting arborist in order for the tree to be retained in a healthy state. Council’s Tree Management Officer has indicated that should all neighbours agree to the removal of the tree, that the removal of this tree may be considered.

        Comment: It is noted that the existing crossover location is being utilised and this does not allow for a 4.0m separation from Council’s street tree. As this is the status quo, it is considered to be appropriate.

        Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        Council’s Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to an additional condition in relation to the provision of certification detailing compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The application for a two storey attached dual occupancy complies with the relevant Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

        The proposal seeks a variation to the relevant Interim Residential Development Code in relation to envelope. It is considered that the intention of the envelope requirements is achieved for the townhouses in relation to solar access and privacy, however conditions of consent are considered to be appropriately applied in relation to envelope requirements for Unit 5 in order to preserve neighbour amenity.

        Five (5) neighbour submissions were received in relation to the application. It is considered that these objections may be satisfied with appropriate conditions in relation to tree removal and standard conditions of consent.

        As such it is considered that the application may be approved subject to the conditions attached.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060153 for the demolition of the existing dwelling houses, boundary adjustment and erection of three townhouses and two villas with strata title subdivision on Lot A DP 348319 and Lot B DP 348319 and known as 57-59 Mountview Avenue, Beverly Hills, subject to the following:

        A. The applicant is to obtain written confirmation from Sydney Water that the finished floor levels of Unit 5 can be lowered to RL44.3 AHD without impacting upon the sewer pipe/casement that traverses the rear of the site.

        B. Amended plans are to be submitted to Council showing the revised finished floor levels of Unit 5 at RL44.3 AHD and the southern side boundary setback increased to 1830mm.

        C. The boundary adjustment involving 55 and 57-59 Mountview Avenue is to be registered with the Department of Lands prior to the activation of this consent.

        D. The basement garage of Unit 2 is to be stepped 1.6m to the east in order to allow for improved vehicle manoeuvrability.

        Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

        Subject to A.-D. above being satisfied, a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as adopted by Council for villa and townhouse development. Except for the following conditions:- OC1 (b)-(h), (j)-(l), (n)-(s), and (i)-(iii); PW6; DR1 (a), (c), (d).
        Including the following conditions:- DR1 (b) in Mountview Avenue; LA9; BA1; BA2; S942; S944; S945; S946; S948; DR12;
        Sydney Water - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water's sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.;
        2. Approved Plans

        Plan NoDateDescriptionDrawn by
        Sheet 1/116 Feb 06Landscape PlanSam Sakr
        Sheet 1/323 Mar 06 Site, Basement and Subdivision PlanSam Sakr
        Sheet 2/323 Mar 06Site and Floor Plans, ElevationsSam Sakr
        Sheet 3/323 Mar 06Site and Floor Plans, ElevationsSam Sakr

        3. Payment of Section 94 Contribution fees of:

        Open Space and Community
        $16,588.00
        Community Services
        $9,433.00
        Management
        $695.58
        Library – Infrastructure
        $4,799.50
        Library – Bookstock
        $27.34
        4. The driveway is to be erected a minimum distance of 300mm away from the power pole.

        5. The proposal is to comply with the BASIX Certificate No 61441M, dated 22 March 2006, and the NatHERS Assessment Officers report in relation to the thermal performance specification.

        6. No approval is expressed or implied for the demolition of the property known as 5 Bell Avenue, Narwee.

        7. The existing driveway crossovers are to be replaced to Council issued levels and specification and an access levels application is to be lodged prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Further to this any utilities or services in the street that need to be adjusted shall be at the cost of the applicant.

        8. All driveway gradients are to comply with the relevant Australian Standard.

        9. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following plans and details, prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        * Site Treatment for Termite Risk Management - Pat 3.1.3
        * Location and Installation of Smoke Alarms - Part 3.7.2
        * Treatment Process of Wet Areas - Part 3.8.1
        * Construction of Sanitary Facilities - Part 3.8.3
        * Fire Separation and Construction between Occupancies - Part 3.7.1
        * Sound Transmission and Insulation between Occupancies - Part 3.8.6

        10. Any development proposed within the zone of influence of the Camphor Laurel tree adjacent to the rear southern corner of the site is required to be built in accordance with conditions provided by a consulting arborist in order for the tree to be retained in a healthy state.

        11. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the specifications and recommendation included in the Allied Tree Consultancy Tree Assessment prepared by Consulting Arborist Warwick Varley. Specifically the Camphor Laurel adjoining the rear/southern boundary of the site is to be retained in accordance with Chapters 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this report, dated 21 July 2006, reference number D938.

        Trees

        12. Camphor Laurel (Cinnimomum camphora) is required to have a Tree Protection Zone of 7.5m, in association with the following tree protection measures:
        13. The tree referred to within the Tree Protection Zones:

        a) shall not be fertilised during the construction process;

        b) shall require thorough watering of the root systems at least twice a week.

        14. No form of material or structure, solid or liquid, is to be stored or disposed of within the Tree Protection Zones.

        15. No lighting of fires are permitted within the Tree Protection Zone.

        16. All drainage run off, sediment, concrete and mortar slurry, paints, and washings, toilet effluent, petroleum products, and any other toxic wastes must be prevent from entering the Tree Protection Zone.

        17. No vehicle parking or any other activity that will cause excessive soil compaction is required within the Tree Protection Zone unless stipulated within the report. Unable soil compaction will require further consultation from a qualified Arborist to determine mitigation.

        18. No form of construction work or related activity such as the mixing of concrete, cutting, grinding, generator storage, or cleaning of tools is permitted with the Tree Protection Zone.

        19. Any part of the tree may not be used as an anchorage point, nor should any noticeboard, telephone cable, rope, guy, framework, etc, be attached to any part of the tree.

        20. A cover of organic mulch (leaf chip mulch) approximately 100mm thick is to be place within the designated area. Mulch from tree work undertaken on the site may be used, however, a negative attributed resulting from this practise is nitrogen drawn down. This may be alleviated by adding a natural fertiliser (appropriate to natives) to the mulch (blood and bone) ie a fertiliser with a low phosphate content must be employed at a rate of 1kg per 8sqm. This mulch will:

        * prevent the area losing water by evaporation which will be exposed after removal of the existing structure, and

        * reduce compaction that will result from the machinery required for demolition/construction.

        21. Soil levels within the Tree Protection Zone must remain the same. Any excavation within the Tree Protection Zone must be previously specified and allowed for:

        a) So that to not alter the drainage to the tree.

        b) Under specified circumstances:
        * Added fill soil does not exceed 100mm in depth over the natural grade. If the added fill does exceed 100mm or an impervious cover be used, an approved permeable material or permanent aeration system or other approved means of alleviation be utilised.
        * That no more than 80mm be removed from the natural grade. Those grades of removal exceeding 80mm shall incorporate retaining walls or other approved transitional means.

        22. a) All excavation work within the Tree Protection Zone of the tree will utilise methods so that root systems are preserved intact and undamaged. Methods permitted are by hand digging, hydraulic, or pneumatic air excavation technology.

        b) Roots located of a smaller diameter than 50mm must be cleanly cut and dusted with a fungicide, and not allowed to dry out, with minimum exposure to the air as possible.

        c) Those greater than 50mm in diameter must be located in regard to their directional spread and a Council Tree Officer or qualified Arborist be consulted to determine future action in regard to retaining the tree in a healthy state.

        d) Avoid excavation within the dripline during hot, dry weather.

        23. a) All backfilling around root systems must be a suitable organic soil mix in accordance with the Australian standard with an appropriate ph value and density appropriate to the tree species.

        b) A thorough watering routine and root hormone treatment must be applied immediately after backfilling to the root zone.

        24. Soil tests were taken at three (3) locations, the ph value of the natural soil ranges between 6 and 7. This ph value must be sustained throughout the Tree Protection Zone and if not, be restored as so.

        25. A trench must be excavated for installation according to the plan and be no wider than 0.3m. Any roots greater than 5mm in diameter must be cleanly cut (not torn) and a fungicide such as sulphur applied to the severed root ends.

        26. Upon installation of the barrier, no damage must be permitted to the barrier. Any punctures, tears or stretched areas will allow a root to grow through the barrier.

        27. The top edge of the barrier must be above or maintained at the final surface grade so that roots will not migrate over the top edge of the barrier.

        28. Barriers must constitute a continuous, unbroken length; gaps between panels will allow root growth through the barrier.

        29. The cavity either side of the root barrier must be filled with a medium exhibiting no form of material that may damage the barrier (such as rocks or hardened clay), however is suitable for healthy root growth, such as river sand.

        30. However not mandatory, further protection can be provided by the addition of a root growth inhibitor to the bottom of the trench where the root barrier meets the ground.

        31. The Camphor Laurel will be required to be retained, in accordance with the proposed Tree Protection Zone and protection conditions.

        32. Foundations of Unit 5 within the Tree Protection Zone will be required to be either screw of piered type.

        33. The removal of a lower scaffold limb extending over the site, as well as any deadwood found within the tree shall be completed prior to the erection of Unit 5.

        34. Installation of a root barrier for those structures within the area of 12m radius from the tree, in accordance with the root barrier installation conditions.

        35. All tree retention conditions are to be undertaken under the supervision of a qualified Arborist. The Arborist is to provide a letter to Council/Principal Certifying Authority detail that these conditions were satisfied satisfactorily."

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be granted a 'deferred commencement' approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report, and the following additional condition:-
        (Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr S McMahon)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC029.03 - 06

        43A PENSHURST STREET, PENSHURST - SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION

        APPLICANT

        Eminent Developments

        PROPOSAL

        Section 82A review of determination

        ZONING

        Zone 3(c) - Business Centre

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, SEPP No 1 - Application of Development Standards, SEPP No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings, Draft SEPP No 1 - Application of Development Standards, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 17 - Neighbour Notification, Development Control Plan No 18 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Development Control Plan No 19 - Access and Mobility, Development Control Plan No 22 - Energy Efficiency

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        D Antipas

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Two storey building with retail shops and squash courts

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $850,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Original application determined by DAC

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Senior Town Planner, Ms L Locke

        FILE NO

        DA 20050122


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. This proposal is a Section 82A Review of Determination in regards to Council’s refusal of development consent for alterations and additions to the existing Penshurst Squash and Fitness Centre Building and conversion into a mixed retail/serviced apartment and one (1) caretaker's residence building with associated parking and strata subdivision

        2. Council refused the original development application in December 2005.

        3. The proposal has been slightly amended and additional information has been received in support of the application.

        4. The notification of the review application generated one (1) submission.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT the application is submitted to Council for review and determination.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The proposal is for the adaptive re-use of an existing squash court building into a mixed retail and serviced apartment development, with associated parking. The building is currently a two (2) storey building fronting Penshurst Street and steps up at the rear. The applicant intends to work within the confines of the existing external walls and increase the height. From the front the building will appear as a four (4) storey building, however at the rear it will only be three (3) storeys, due to the slope of the land.

        The front section of the existing building will accommodate an additional 1.5 floor levels. The remaining rear portion of the building will have an additional floor. However, a section of the building being approximately 9.1m in depth will be demolished at the rear. The existing building façade and awning is mostly retained at street level.

        The ground floor (referred to as lower ground floor on the plans) will encompass the existing twenty one (21) car spaces, existing driveway crossing and the existing three (3) retail shops, with floor spaces of 42sqm, 42sqm and 43.35sqm. The pedestrian access to the units is provided on the north eastern corner of the site from Penshurst Street. This provides direct pedestrian access to the parking area and to the lift, as well as security access to stairs to the upper levels. The existing stairs from the basement and open air shaft both located at the rear of the site are to remain.

        The first floor (referred to as ground floor on the plans) provides for one (1) caretaker's residence (one (1) bedroom) and eight (8) x one (1) bedroom apartments. The five (5) units facing the street all have balconies addressing that street, whilst the four (4) units at the rear have their living areas facing towards a rear courtyard area. An internal courtyard/walkway 4m-5m wide separates the two (2) sets of units. Due to the slope of the land this is approximately 3.85m above natural ground level at the front elevation, however at the rear is approximately only 1m above natural ground level.

        The second floor (referred to as first floor on the plans) provides for ten (10) x one (1) bedroom units. Five (5) of which face Penshurst Street and five (5) face the rear courtyard area. The internal courtyard separates the two (2) sets.

        The third floor (referred to as second floor on the plans) has a similar floor plan as the one below, with the exception that three (3) of the units facing Penshurst Street have their one (1) bedroom located in the fourth level loft area.

        The building at the rear above the courtyard is open to the sky to ensure adequate light and ventilation reaches the units at the rear. Part of the existing building at the rear and sides are to be cutback to increase the amount of light and ventilation reaching the bottom units. Also, a glass roof is proposed above the central walkway to aid in the natural light reaching the centre of the building.


        BACKGROUND

        The original development application was determined by Council by way of refusal on 7 December 2005 for the following reasons:


        ASSESSMENT

        Provisions under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

        Section 82A (4) states that Council may review a determination if:

        The request for review was notified in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Plan No 17.
        One (1) submission was received. This is discussed further in the report. Council is satisfied that the development is substantially the same development as that described in the original application. Reasons for Refusal

        Comment: As noted in the original assessment of the application, the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible FSR for the exclusively non residential use. Clause 13(2A) of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan specifies a maximum FSR of 1:1 for non residential use. The whole proposal has a FSR of 1.5:1, and as the proposal is a 100% commercial development, the maximum FSR is breached.

        The applicant submitted a SEPP No 1 Objection with the original application and that SEPP No 1 Objection is still relevant to this Review. It is considered that the SEPP No 1 Objection is supportable as the proposal achieves compliance with the site FSR as a whole, and the objectives of the control are achieved.

        Comment: The applicant is proposing a commercial development that would not house residents on a permanent basis. Notwithstanding this, Council has received legal advice in relation to the limitation of the use to the serviced apartments and it is considered that a condition limiting the length of stay of the occupants of the units to ninety (90) days and a condition requiring a covenant to be placed on the title would be sufficient to ensure that the proposal remains a serviced apartment use.

        As part of this Review application, the applicant has provided a statement to justify the approval of the proposal subject to no restrictive covenant being imposed and subject to a there hundred and sixty five (365) day time limit. The applicant’s justification is as follows:

        Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is a commercial, rather than residential use, Council should ensure that the proposed use cannot revert to a residential use if the commercial venture fails. The applicant has objected to the imposition of a ninety (90) day time limit, but has not provided any compelling justification as to the unreasonableness of such a condition. In this respect, it is recommended that a further condition be placed on the consent so that the ninety (90) day time limit will be reviewed at the conclusion of a twelve (12) month period. If at the conclusion of the twelve (12) month period the applicant can demonstrate that the ninety (90) day time limit is unreasonable or insufficient then Council may review its decision.

        In respect to the imposition of a covenant on the title of the units, the applicant has provided examples of serviced apartment applications determined by the Land and Environment Court where the Court has chosen not to impose a restrictive covenant. The applicant has also suggested that a more appropriate way to restrict the use of the development is through conditions of development consent.

        Council Officers have sought legal advice in relation to a restrictive covenant and Council’s solicitor has advised that the applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that a restrictive covenant will have an adverse impact on the financing of the project. Further to this attention should be paid to a decision of the Court in the case of Fortunate Investments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council where Justice Pearlman ruled:

        As the proposal before Council involves the Strata Subdivision of the development, it is considered that purchasers of a unit within the development may not always be aware of specific conditions of a development consent applying to that land, this would especially be the case with a unit that has gone through multiple owners.

        Taking the above into consideration, and as noted in the original assessment report, the original proposed conditions relating to the ninety (90) day time limit and the restrictive covenants are recommended to remain.

        The proposal has been amended so that the building is four (4) storeys at any one point. A four (4) storey building is considered acceptable in this location and is considered to be consistent with other recent four (4) storey approvals in Penshurst Street. It should also be noted that there are some other four (4) storey buildings in close proximity of this site, namely the four (4) storey residential flat buildings to the south west.

        The applicant has stated that the building would be a dramatic improvement for the locality. The proposal has been assessed by the Design Review Panel who have stated that the massing, scale and density of the proposal is acceptable in the context of the surrounding development and for the proposed use.

        The proposal is for a commercial development within a commercial centre. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with Council’s intent of encouraging commercial/business developments in commercial centres.

        The applicant has submitted a Traffic Study in relation to the original application. The application was also considered by Council’s Traffic Committee who raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to traffic management and parking control. The Roads and Traffic Authority have also considered the application and have raised no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and compliance with the Australian Standard and Council requirements.

        It is accepted that the proposal does not comply with Council’s requirements for residential developments, however, the proposal has been assessed in relation to the requirements for commercial developments. It is considered that the proposed use is a commercial use as the intention of the application is the leasing of apartments for a business or commercial purpose. This is further entrenched in the case of Vicbrow Pty Ltd vs Willoughby Council concerning serviced apartments where part of the judgement ruled “the operator is conducting a business, and the business is that of leasing rooms for such periods as the operators determines.”

        The proposal provides a compliant number of car parking spaces when assessed under the rate for serviced apartments in Development Control Plan No 2. It is considered that the there is no deficiency in car parking spaces.

        Section 94 Contributions

        As the proposal has been assessed as a commercial development and conditions have been recommended to ensure it is a commercial development, Section 94 contributions have not been applied. Council's Section 94 contributions plan does not allow for contributions to be applied to non residential development outside of Hurstville Town Centre.


        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 was received.

        Objection from 1 Austral Street, Penshurst located to the west of the site.

        Noise from the Building in Progress and Health Concerns from Dust during Construction

        Comment: Conditions have been recommended on the consent to limit the noise from the construction of the building. A condition is also recommended for a construction and site management plan and dust suppression measures.

        Pest Control During Construction

        Comment: Pest control is beyond the scope of assessment for this development application. If during construction a pest problem occurs then it would be appropriate for any affected persons to contact Council’s Enforcement Officers who can serve orders on the property.

        Privacy due to Overlooking from Apartments

        Comment: The proposed development does involve balconies on the first and second floors fronting the adjoining single dwelling to the rear. These balconies are setback 7.8m to 8.8m from the adjoining property. The balconies to the rear also incorporate solid balustrades to a height of 1-1.2m. Solid balustrading would make it difficult to overlook the neighbouring property when a person on the balconies was sitting down.

        Property devaluation

        Comment: Council does not comment on property devaluation, however, the subject site has been zoned for mixed use development for some time and it is not likely that this compliant proposal would affect the value of the property.

        Lack of Sunlight

        Comment: The proposal will overshadow the objector’s property in the mornings. The objector’s property is to the west of the subject site and it is considered that the overshadowing is largely unavoidable due to the orientation of the sites. It should be noted that the principle private open space of the objector’s property will still receive the 3-4 hours of sunlight and therefore would comply with Council's general requirements for solar access to residential properties.

        Council Referrals

        As the proposal has remained substantially the same as the previous proposal, the internal Officer’s comments are still valid.

        Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        As the floor plan of the proposal has slightly altered, Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor commented on the proposal and has recommended some additional conditions in relation to construction methods, excavation and site management. These have been included as part of this report.

        External Referrals

        Urban Design Review Panel

        Comment: The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the proposed use as serviced apartments. The applicant has made amendments to improve the amenity of the apartments. As the use is commercial and Council has imposed appropriate conditions to ensure that the use of the site is not residential, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of amenity.
        CONCLUSION

        It is considered that the applicant has adequately responded to the reasons for refusal of the original development application. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and it is recommended that Council review their decision.


        RECOMMENDATION

        Pursuant to the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the determination of development application 20050122 by Refusal on 7 December 2005 for the alterations and additions to the existing Penshurst Squash fitness Centre building into a mixed retail/serviced apartment and one caretaker's residence building with associated parking and strata subdivision on Lot 1 DP 956554 and Lot 1 DP 962297 and known as 43A–47 Penshurst Street is submitted to the Council for review and determination.

        The conditions recommended in the following report be altered as follows:

        Condition 2 be altered to read:

        2. The following plans.

        Plan No.Date DescriptionPrepared by
        DA 02Received Mar 05Floor plansEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 03Received Mar 05Floor plansEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 04 - BReceived Apr 06Floor plansEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 05Received Mar 05Floor plansEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 06Received Mar 05Floor plansEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 07-BReceived Apr 06ElevationsEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 08-BReceived Apr 06ElevationsEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        DA 09-BReceived Apr 06SectionsEminent Developments Pty Ltd
        -Received Mar 05External Colour ScheduleEminent Developments Pty Ltd

        The following additional conditions:

        1. The proposed development should be designed such that road traffic noise from King Georges Road is mitigated by durable materials, in accordance with the EPA criteria for new land use developments (The Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise, May 1999). The RTA’s Environmental Noise Manual provides practical advice in selecting noise mitigation treatments.

        2. All works associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost to the RTA.

        3. Management of the Serviced Apartments is to keep records of tariffs and each resident’s length of stay, which must be submitted to Council’s Manager - Development Assessment every six (6) months.

        4. The ninety (90) day time limit imposed by this consent may, at the request of the applicant, be reviewed by Council twelve (12) months after an Occupation Certificate is granted.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        The Deputy Mayor advised that this application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC029.04 - 06

        6-8 CHAMBERLAIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSES AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO X TWO STOREY TOWNHOUSES AND TWO SINGLE STOREY VILLAS WITH BASEMENT CAR PARKING

        APPLICANT

        Artech Design and Construction

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling houses and construction of two x two storey townhouses and two single storey villas with basement car parking

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

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

        HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994 INTERPRETATION OF USE


        OWNERS

        Mr Pascal Ferraz Antunes

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Two dwelling houses

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $800,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        One objection received and non compliance with IRDC

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Mrs A Aversa-Morassut

        FILE NO

        DA 20060157


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The proposed development involves the demolition of two (2) existing fibro cottages and multiple ancillary residential structures and construction of two (2) x two (2) storey townhouses and two (2) x single storey villas with basement car parking.

        2. With the exception of a minor variation to the front setback under the IRDC to accommodate a garbage storage area, the proposal complies in full with all relevant planning instruments and policies.

        3. One (1) submission was received during the notification period.


        RECOMMENDATION

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

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The application seeks approval for demolition of two (2) existing dwelling houses and multiple ancillary residential structures and construction of the following.

        * Two (2) x two (2) storey townhouses at the ‘front’ of the site, each comprising the following:

        * The two (2) single storey villas at the ‘rear’ of the site will comprise the following:

        * Basement car park - access is proposed via a new driveway and ramp from Chamberlain Street. Total of eight (8) resident car spaces and one (1) visitor bay which is also proposed as the car wash bay.

        * Proposed removal of sixteen (16) trees on site and the removal of two (2) Council street trees to accommodate the driveway crossing.

        No approval has been sought at this stage for Strata Title Subdivision.


        BACKGROUND

        3 Apr 06 Application lodged.

        12 Apr 06 Application notified and advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan No 17. One (1) submission received. Referrals undertaken.

        12 Jul 06 Assessment undertaken. Applicant asked to provide additional information and amend non compliances.

        14 Sep 06 Amended plans received. No requirement for re-notification. Final assessment undertaken.


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is known as 6-8 Chamberlain Street (Lots C and D DP 18924). Both lots are rectangular shaped lots and result in a total site area of 1263.2sqm. The overall frontage to Chamberlain Street is 24.38m and the length of the northern and southern side boundaries is 51.815m.

        The site is located on the eastern side of Chamberlain Street and has a gentle slope of approximately 3.5m falling from the front of the site down towards the south eastern corner of the site. There are two (2) existing single storey fibro dwellings on site with associated ancillary residential structures.

        There are at least sixteen (16) trees located on site. There are no known easements or pipelines which burden the site.

        Adjoining the site to the north is a single storey dwelling house, 10 Chamberlain Street and a single storey dwelling house on the southern boundary known as 4 Chamberlain Street. Located at the rear of the site is 58-60 Mercury Street which are also residential properties.

        The Narwee Boys School site is across the road from the site.


        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. ‘Multiple dwellings’ are permissible with consent in the subject zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

        Clause 10 – Subdivision

        No approval has been sought at this stage for Strata Title Subdivision. A separate development application will have to be lodged for any future subdivision.

        Clause 14 – Tree Preservation Order

        No significant vegetation was identified on-site by Council’s Tree Management Officer.

        Clause 15 – Services

        Standard conditions require the site to be connected to relevant utility providers such as sewer, water and electricity.

        Clause 19 – Foreshore Areas

        The site is not located within a foreshore scenic protection area and is not adjacent to a waterways zone.

        Clause 22 – Excavation and filling

        Excavation is required within the footprint of the building to accommodate the basement car park. Special conditions have been imposed requiring the preparation of a geotechnical report including a dilapidation report to protect the adjoining buildings of neighbouring properties.

        There is minor filling proposed outside the footprint of the buildings to ensure an accessible path of travel from the street into the entrance of each of the villas along the southern boundary of the site. The paved courtyards proposed at the ground floor level with the northern orientation area also slightly raised above natural ground level with the most affected courtyard being Villa No 4’s courtyard which is 420mm above existing ground level.

        The proposed work is not considered to result in any privacy or soil stability impacts on the adjoining properties.

        Clause 22A – Acid Sulfate Soils

        The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils.

        Part 4 – Heritage Provisions

        The site is not listed as a heritage item and there are no heritage items within the vicinity of the site.

        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 relevant draft environmental planning instruments.

        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

        INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE

        The extent to which the proposed development complies with the Interim Residential Development Code for ‘Development Area B’ is outlined and discussed in the table hereunder:

        IRDC Development Area A Controls
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Minimum Street Frontage15m24.38mYes
        Residential Density (site area/unit)315sqm per dwelling
        (Foreshore Area 500sqm per dwelling)
        315.8sqm/dwellingYes
        Landscaped Open Space50%721.19sqm
        57%
        Yes
        Front Site Height Maximum9m8.31mYes
        Rear Site Height Maximum6m4.71mYes
        Front Site Storeys Maximum22Yes
        Rear Site Storeys Maximum11Yes
        Attached Dwellings
        – Minium Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom

        * More than 3 bedroom
        Yes


        50sqm

        60sqm
        Yes


        -

        61.92sqm-233.41sqm
        Yes


        -

        Yes
        Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space
        * Less than 3 bedroom
        * More than 3 bedroom
        4m x 5m
        4m x 6m
        -
        > 4m x 6m/dwelling
        -
        Yes
        Front Boundary SetbacksMinimum 4.5m4.5m to external wall of Townhouse 1.

        Roofed waste storage area is located 2m from front of site.
        Yes



        No (1)
        Rear Boundary SetbacksBuilding EnvelopeBuilding envelope compliesYes
        Minimum Side Boundary Setbacks
        * Front Site – 2 storey



        * Rear Site – 1 storey
        2m or building envelope, whichever is greater

        1.35m or building envelope, whichever is greater
        >2m (Building envelope)


        >1.35m (Building envelope)
        Yes



        Yes

        The extent to which the proposal complies with the more ‘generic’ design requirements of the IRDC is outlined in the table below.
        IRDC Provisions
        Standard
        Proposal
        Complies
        Solar DesignMinimum 4 hours of sunshine between 9am and 3pm for adjoining properties and living areas/private open space of proposed dwellingsThe southern property, being 4 Chamberlain Street is affected by overshadowing all day during mid winter due to the site orientation, however the rear yard will have 4hrs of access to the sun in midwinter.

        Given the generous side setbacks of the development on this boundary ranging from 4m-6m, this is considered sufficient to minimise the extent of overshadowing.
        Yes
        Roof pitchFlat Roof or between 22-35 degreesPartially flat and partially skillion ‘type’ roof
        N/A
        Wall Length ArticulationMaximum straight length of 6m to street frontage3.9m
        Yes
        Driveway setbackLocated at least 1m from an adjoining side boundary; and

        1.5m from windows of habitable rooms
        >1m



        Driveway adjoins dining room window of Townhouse 1, however driveway slopes down into basement car park. This is considered to minimise direct noise from vehicles into habitable room and comply with objective of this criteria.
        Yes



        Yes
        Basement ExcavationEither wall on the boundary or 1500mm setback1.5m
        Yes
        PrivacyMinimum 9m separation for windows, or offsets proposedYes
        Yes
        FenceSolid fencing fronting public street must have a maximum height of 1m.

        Fence height may be increased to 1.8m if 50% transparent and is required to secure private open space
        Not solid




        Fence height is 1.8m and is partially transparent.
        N/A




        Yes
        Principle Private Open SpaceNot to be forward of building lineYes
        Yes
        LandscapeMaximum 20% impervious of the landscaped area

        Minimum 40% deep soil
        95.51sqm (13.2%)



        625.68sqm (86.7%)
        Yes



        Yes
        StorageMinimum 6 cubic metres per dwellingYes
        Yes

        (1) Front Boundary Setback - Roofed Waste Storage Area

        This variation is supported given that if conditioned to comply, it will affect views and aspect from the study and dining area of Townhouse 1 and the adjoining resident at 4 Chamberlain Street who will look straight across into the waste storage area.

        The variation is also supported as the objectives of ‘front setbacks’ as outlined in the IRDC to achieve landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy are achieved by the proposed design.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 – CAR PARKING

        The extent to which the proposal complies with Development Control Plan No 2 is detailed and discussed in the table below.

        DCP 2 – Car ParkingStandardProposal
        Complies
        No. of car spaces requiredResident
        2 spaces per 3+ bedrooms

        Visitor
        1 space/4 dwellings
        8 car spaces



        1 visitor space
        Yes



        Yes
        Car wash bayA designated car wash bay for three or more dwellingsVisitor bay also nominated as car wash bay
        Yes
        Layout and dimensionsCompliance with AS2890.1 -2004Complies
        Yes
        Aisle widthAS2890.1 -2004Complies
        Yes
        Blind aisleAn additional 1m required for parking spaces closed at one end (Car spaces 2 and 4).Additional 1m provided in amended plans
        Yes
        Headroom2.2m2.2m
        Yes
        Vehicular crossing2.7m-3m3m
        Yes
        Sight linesClear sight lines must be provided at the property line to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the car park and pedestrians.Due to only 600mm height of blade wall of stairs (leading up from basement) and low height wall near mailbox location, clear sight lines of 2m x 2.5m provided
        Yes

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 18 – CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

        The extent to which the proposed development complies with Development Control Plan No 18 is detailed and discussed in the table below.

        DCP No 18 – CPTED
        Standard
        Plan
        Complies
        FencingAllows natural surveillance to streetFront fence is partially open, partially solid which will facilitate privacy, but still allow surveillance
        Yes
        Blind CornersTo be avoidedYes
        Yes
        Communal AreasProvide opportunities for natural surveillanceYes
        Yes
        EntrancesClearly visible and not confusingSeparate entrance to Townhouse 1. Other townhouses and villas accessed via communal pathway leading into main entrance of each dwelling through a portico entrance feature
        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
        Landscape Plan submitted. Height and spread of trees and shrubs considered to be satisfactory
        Yes
        Lighting- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally
        - Access/egress points illuminated
        - No light spill towards neighbours
        - Hiding places illuminated
        - Lighting is energy efficient
        To be conditioned for Construction Certificate stage.

        Up lights conditioned for pathways to minimise light spill on residential dwellings on site and on adjoining properties.
        Yes
        Building Identification- Clearly numbered buildings
        - Entrances numbered
        - Unit numbers provided at entry
        Standard conditions of consent require street and villa numbering
        Yes
        SecurityMain entrances to multi-unit development utilise intercom and code/card locks for main entrance/car parkConditions imposed requiring secure access into basement and pedestrian access for visitors into the site. Details to be provided at Construction Certificate stage.
        Yes
        OwnershipUse of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownershipYes
        Yes

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        A BASIX Certificate has been lodged which overrides the provisions of Development Control Plan No 22.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        No objections were raised by Council’s Tree Management Officer for the removal of the nominated trees on-site.

        As a result of the required driveway, two (2) trees on Council’s nature reserve will have to be removed as their protection during construction cannot be assured. Conditions have been imposed requiring the applicant to replant two (2) native species on Council's footpath prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

        Stormwater disposal has been considered by Council’s Manager - Development Advice and no objections were raised subject to the provision of on-site detention and obtainment of an easement to drain water.

        Built Environment

        Solar Access

        The proposed development is considered to be of quality design and well suited to the locality in which it is located. The orientation of the private open space with a northern aspect is considered to maximise solar opportunities and amenity for the future residents of this development.

        In terms of the shadows cast by the proposal, the adjoining property located due south of the site will be most affected given the orientation of the site. The dwelling house will be affected by shadows during midwinter, however the rear yard will have at least 4hrs access to sunlight in midwinter. Notwithstanding this, the design of the proposal along the southern boundary has incorporated generous side setbacks and articulated the external façade, which is considered to have minimised the impacts of overshadowing which could have been worse, if not for the consideration given to this proposal.

        Privacy

        No privacy impacts are considered to eventuate at the rear of the site where the single storey villas are proposed to be sited as the landscaping and fencing proposed is considered sufficient to ensure privacy between the site and adjoining properties.

        Assessment of the privacy impacts on adjoining properties at the front of the site has been considered given the two (2) storey townhouses proposed. There are no privacy impacts identified between the site and 4 Chamberlain Street given that the windows on the ground floor of Townhouses 1 and 2 have been offset to the existing windows on the adjoining dwelling house.

        The windows on the first floor on the southern elevation are also not of concern as they are either bedroom or bathroom windows. Given the uses of these rooms are limited to sleeping and other passive activities, it is considered that any overlooking will have a marginal impact.

        In relation to privacy impacts between Townhouses 1 and 2 and 10 Chamberlain Street, no issues have arisen in respect to the ground floor doors, windows or entertaining areas given the distance between windows, off-setting of windows and the proposed 1.8m side boundary fence which is considered to provide adequate separation.

        The first floor ‘L’ shaped balcony off the main bedroom on the northern elevation is not considered to provide a privacy impact on 10 Chamberlain Street as it is not to be used for entertaining purposes. The balcony is only 1.5m deep and is not of sufficient depth to service large quantities of persons or occupation for long duration of time.

        The windows on the first floor of the two (2) townhouses on the northern elevation are attached to bedrooms or bathrooms. The windows on Townhouse 1 are ‘highlight’ windows. Given the 5.5m-7m setback of the windows on Townhouse 2 from the adjoining boundary, it is considered unnecessary and unreasonable to reduce the size or obscure the bedroom windows given that the line of sight into the adjoining dwelling would be difficult to achieve.

        Conditions have been imposed to obscure all bathroom windows with frosted glass.

        Built Form

        The proposed built form is in keeping with the built forms within the vicinity of the development site. The colours and finishes are appropriate for the locality and the proposal is considered to achieve the design outcomes highlighted in Council’s planning instruments and policies.

        Parking

        The proposed development complies in full with the required number of car parking spaces and as such will not detrimentally impact on existing availability of on-street parking.

        Noise

        Conditions have been imposed requiring noise levels not to achieve more than 5dB (A) above the existing ambient background noise level for any outdoor air conditioning units proposed and also the siting of the car park exhaust to ensure that no detrimental noise impacts are inflicted on the residents of the site and adjoining residents.

        Social Impact

        There are no detrimental social impacts identified as part of this development.

        Economic Impact

        No detrimental economic impacts have been identified as part of this development.

        Suitability of the Site

        The site is considered to be suitably zoned for the proposed development. The site is not located within a bushfire prone area, is not affected by acid sulfate soils and is not within the vicinity of any heritage items.


        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) letter of objection was received from the owner of 10 Chamberlain Street, located on the northern boundary of the subject site. Issues of concern are outlined and discussed below.

        Privacy

        Objections to the windows and balconies on the second floor which will directly overlook objector’s property and rooms. Objector has requested the following modifications to the plans:
        Comment: This is considered unnecessary and unreasonable for reasons discussed under Section 79C (1) of the assessment under ‘privacy’.Comment: The proposed first floor windows on the northern elevation of Townhouse 1 are highlight windows and bathroom windows. No privacy impacts are considered to arise from this townhouse given the type of windows proposed and conditions imposed requiring the bathroom window to be frosted.

        The north facing windows on the first floor of Townhouse 2 comprise a bathroom window which will be frosted and a bedroom window with dimensions of 1.5m x 2.5m. As this is the only window which will permit light and ventilation into this room, it is considered unreasonable to obscure it or reduce the size of the window.

        The window is attached to a bedroom, not a living or dining room. Given the position of the window relative to the objector’s property, it is considered that the only overlooking which may occur will be onto the objector’s garage and provide a minimal impact.

        Council Referrals

        Manager - Development Advice

        No objections were raised subject to a deferred commencement condition for the obtainment of an easement to drain stormwater and subject to standard conditions for drainage.

        Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

        No objections were raised subject to standard conditions for villas and townhouses.

        Tree Management Officer

        No vegetation of significance was identified on the subject site and as such no objections were raised to the removal of the required trees.

        Design Engineer

        No objections were raised subject to standard conditions for new driveway crossings.

        Traffic Engineer

        No objections were raised subject to car spaces to be signposted and delineated.
        6. CONCLUSION

        The proposed development is recommended for approval with a deferred commencement for stormwater drainage as it complies in full with the relevant planning instruments and policies, with the only non compliance being the siting of the waste storage area. For reasons outlined earlier in this report, the minor variation is supporting for planning reasons as requiring the waste storage area to comply with the 4.5m setback will result in amenity concerns for the residents on site and on the adjoining site at 4 Chamberlain Street.

        The one (1) letter of objection received has been discussed earlier in this report.

        The site is suitable for the end use and will blend in well with the existing development in the vicinity of the site. The proposal has been well design with attention to building and open space orientation, generous side setbacks which will result in a quality built form, consistent with Council’s planning controls.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060157 for the demolition of the existing dwellings and ancillary structures and construction of two (2) x two (2) storey townhouses and two (2) x single storey villas with basement car parking Lots C and D DP 18924 and known as 6-8 Chamberlain Street Beverly Hills, subject to the following:

        A. DR17 - 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 the kerb and gutter in Mercury Street. The easement must be registered on title in order to activate the development consent.

        Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

        Subject to A. above being satisfied, a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for villas and townhouses. Excluding the following conditions:- OC1 (b)-(g), (j)-u), (i)-(ii); PW1; DR1 (a), (b), (d); ST1 (g); DD3 (b); MI18; PN13; WA6; LA5; LA9; LA10; CC1. Including the following conditions:- add ‘IRDC’ to OC1.

        2. Approved plans

        Plan No.
        DateDescriptionPrepared by
        01B
        Dec 05Basement Floor PlanArtech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        02B
        Dec 05Ground Floor planArtech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        03B
        Dec 05First Floor PlanArtech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        04B
        Dec 05Roof and Site Analysis PlanArtech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        05B
        Dec 05Section A-A; Driveway Section; Section B-B Artech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        06B
        Dec 05East, West, South and North ElevationsArtech Design and Construction Pty Ltd
        Sheets 1-4
        -
        Concept Stormwater Drainage PlanAJK Structural and Civil Engineers
        -
        -
        Colours and FinishesArmadadesign

        3. Payment of the following Section 94 Contributions.
        Open Space and Community Recreation
        $10,130.00
        Community Services & Facilities
        $5,432.00
        Management
        $400.50
        Library – Infrastructure
        $2,762.96
        Library – Bookstock
        $15.80

        Introduction

        4. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        5. The 1800mm front fence to Townhouse 1 is to enclose the southern side of the private open space outside the ground floor of Townhouse 1 as shown in ‘pink’ on the approved ground floor plan.

        6. Subdivision - No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwellings. For any future Strata/Torrens subdivision, a separate development application is required to be submitted and approved by Council.

        Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

        7. DR12 (2%); DR15; DR11; RR1; S942; S944; S943; S945; S946; S948; PU1; PU4; PU5; PU6; SM3; SM1; TG(a); ES2.

        8. An amended Landscape Plan which accurately reflects the building footprint, deletion of the inground swimming pool and amended pathways must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        9. The stormwater drainage plans submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate is to clearly illustrate how the rainwater tanks are to be incorporated into the management of water on-site.

        10. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following plans with details prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        11. To minimise the effects of light spill into the residential properties of the new development and adjoining residential development, up lights are to be installed into the finished ground surface of the communal pathway leading into the entrance of Townhouse 2 and Villas 3 and 4.

        12. Details of all external lighting are to be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate and must comply with the Australian Standards for minimising obstructive effects of lighting on residential properties.

        13. Secure access via intercom or swipe card is required for access into the basement car park and pedestrian access into the development site. Details of all security measures proposed to be installed for access into the basement and access into the townhouse and villas must be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        14. All bathrooms windows are to be constructed with frosted glass. Details are to be illustrated on the plans submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        15. The location of any outdoor air conditioning units must be located at least three (3) metres away from any side or rear property boundary (including any dividing walls between the townhouses and villas on the subject site) to minimise any transmission of noise to adjoining residents. A sound level of no more than 5dB (A) above the existing ambient background noise level at the most affected boundary must be achieved. Details are to be shown with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        Prior to the commencement of works

        16. IN2; DE1; DE6; DE7; DE8; DE9; DE10.

        17. The developer must submit a Geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer in relation to dilapidation reports, all site works and construction. This is to be submitted prior to the Construction Certificate and is to include:
        18. If any excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

        19. A separate application is to be lodged for the removal of the two (2) Council street trees which interfere with the driveway location. Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate two (2) mature native species must be replanted on the nature strip at the developer’s expense, in accordance with species recommended by Council's Tree Management Officer.

        During development

        20. BC5; IN2; DE4; DE5; PV7; MI3Prior to Occupation Certificate

        21. PV17; IN2

        22. All car parking spaces are to be signposted and delineated prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

        23. Any existing services located on the footway or in the area required for the driveway crossing must be removed and relocated at the developer's expense and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant utility providers.

        After Occupation/Ongoing

        24. MI22

        25. Drainage Maintenance - The on-site detention drainage facility shall be maintained at all times in accordance with the approved plans and with the Positive Covenant on the title to this effect.

        26. No approval is expressed or implied for the use of the roof as an entertainment area.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be granted a 'deferred commencement' approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.
        (Moved Clr D Gillespie/Seconded Clr S McMahon)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC029.05 - 06

        24 DELVES STREET, MORTDALE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION

        APPLICANT

        Kim Mikelsons and Vanessa Micevski

        PROPOSAL

        Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision

        ZONING

        Zone 2 - Residential

        APPLICABLE PLANNING INSTRUMENT/S

        Hurstville Local Environmental 1994, Development Control Plan No 2 - Car Parking, Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing, 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

        Mrs N Ludwig and Mrs V Micevski

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $500,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Non compliance with DCP 11 and two submissions received

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Development Assessment Officer, Ms H Atkinson and Senior Town Planner, Ms L Locke

        FILE NO

        DA 20060241


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling house and the erection of two (2) storey detached dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision. The proposal includes a swimming pool in the rear yard of each dwelling.

        2. Under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 (as amended), the construction of a dual occupancy is permissible on this land.

        3. The proposal result in two (2) non compliances with Council’s planning instruments. These have been detailed in the report.

        4. Council’s neighbour notification of the proposed development resulted in two (2) submissions.

        5. The application was 'called in' by a Councillor from the DAC Delegation report.


        RECOMMENDATION

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

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL

        DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

        The application seeks approval for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and the construction of two (2) storey detached dual occupancy development with each dwelling comprising a single car garage, study, lounge, store, kitchen and pantry, family/dining, laundry and separate water closet. The first floor comprises of four (4) bedrooms, a family bathroom, storeroom and ensuite off bedroom 1. An inground swimming pool with dimensions of 9m x 5.5m is proposed in the rear yard of each dwelling. The proposal is to be Torrens Title subdivided.


        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is a regular shaped site with a frontage of 22.86m to Delves Street and an area of 933sqm. The site is located on the north eastern side of the street. Existing on the site is single storey cottage and several mature trees.

        The site falls approximately 2.5m from street to the rear boundary.

        The surrounding development is primarily residential and comprises of one (1) and two (2) storey dwelling houses, dual occupancy development and townhouse/villa developments.

        There is an existing sewer main which runs through the length of the site nearest the south eastern side boundary.


        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 the proposal is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

        Clause 11A

        Clause 11A of the Local Environmental Plan encourages dual occupancies in the form of attached dwellings, however, it does not prohibit detached dual occupancy development.

        Clause 11A also aims to provide development that reflects the existing subdivision pattern and is compatible with the existing streetscape. In this respect the proposal is considered to achieve the objectives of the clause.

        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 disposal of stormwater is considered appropriate and will not detrimentally impact on the Georges River 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

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 11 – DUAL OCCUPANCY HOUSING

        DCP No. 11StandardProposalComplies
        Minimum Site Area630sqm933mYes
        Minimum Width Allotment15m22.86mYes
        Option No 3Two storey attachedTwo storey detachedNo (1)
        Front Boundary Setback5.5m4.6m (to first floor balcony)No (2)
        Rear Boundary Setback15m15mYes
        Side Boundary Setback1.5m1.5mYes
        Second Storey Rear Setback3m3mYes
        Maximum Depth of Rear First Floor Balcony2m2mYes
        Maximum Floor Space Ratio0.6:10.55:1Yes
        Maximum Height to Uppermost Ceiling6.8m5.7mYes
        Internal Floor to Ceiling Heights (minimum)2.7m2.7mYes
        Maximum Ridge Height9m8.3mYes
        Recommended Roof Pitch25-35 degrees27 degreesYes
        Car ParkingGarage and driveway spaceGarage and driveway spaceYes
        Minimum Garage Recess300mmNone No (3)
        Light Wells1.5m x 3mNone No (4)
        No. of StoreysTwo (2) storeysTwo (2) storeysYes
        Principal Private Open SpaceMinimum 4m x 5m 4m x 5m Yes
        Deep Soil Landscaping Minimum 40% of rear yard97.36sqm
        55.9%
        Yes
        Cut and Fill Limited to 600mmApprox 800mm filled within footprintNo (5)
        Solar Design and Energy Efficiency BasixBasix Certificate provided Yes
        Overshadowing – living areas and private yardsDevelopment living areas and private yards achieve minimum 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June Yes Yes
        Overshadowing – habitable rooms 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
        Garbage Space Minimum 3m x 1m per dwelling house 3m x 1m per dwellingYes
        Storage Space Minimum 6 cubic metres per dwelling per houseInternal store provided Yes

        (1) Option No 1

        As the proposal is for a detached dual occupancy on a 'standard allotment', it does not comply with the building envelope controls under Development Control Plan No 11. Although there is no building envelope demonstrating a detached dual occupancy option, the Development Control Plan does not prohibit such developments. Council has approved similar developments previous, eg 29 Gungah Bay Road Oatley. Although the proposal is a detached form, the 22.86m width of the site is adequate to ensure a reasonable amount of amenity for each dwelling and a satisfactory streetscape outcome. The separation of the buildings complies with the Building Code of Australia and due to the internal configuration of the dwellings no overlooking or amenity impacts will arise. The 'detached' built form is also considered to reflect the existing subdivision pattern and density within the street.

        (2) Front Boundary Setback

        The intention of the front setback is to provide landscaping to the front of the dwellings. The non compliance is only excess at the first floor level and as such provides no impact on landscaping. Further the siting of the balcony is considered to improve the articulation of the front facade as viewed from the street. For this reason the variation is supported.

        (3) Minimum garage recess

        Development Control Plan No 11 requires that the garage be recessed by 300mm in order to break up the façade. Whilst the proposed garage is not recessed the design of the frontage is such that it is does incorporate design features which result in a built form that is consistent with streetscape and does not appear bulky or out of character. A variation in this instance is considered to be acceptable.

        (4) Light wells

        The detached form of development does not incorporate light wells into the design which is inconsistent with the requirements of Development Control Plan No 11 – Dual Occupancy Housing. The applicant has provided the following justification for the non-provision of light wells:-

        ‘* The separation of the two dwellings by 1.8 metres will provide each dwelling with significantly more natural light and cross ventilation along the full length of the building, compared to an attached dwelling arrangement with a single light court.
        * In particular, the lounge areas will be lit by the window of the stairwell. Thereby enjoying natural light from both north and south.
        * The non-provision of a light well will provide potential privacy and acoustic benefits to the adjacent dwellings (by avoiding for example on the northern elevation, placing and open space area adjacent to a neighbouring window).’

        In this case a variation is considered to be acceptable and the resulting built form will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings nor on the neighbouring properties.

        (5) Cut and Fill

        The fill slightly exceeds 600mm within the front portion of the dwelling footprint. This variation is supported as no privacy impacts are considered to arise as a result. Minor cut and fill is proposed within the rear yard to accommodate the pergola and pool. No adverse impacts are considered to arise.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 28 – SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS

        An assessment has been carried out against the numerical and design requirements of Development Control Plan No 28 – Swimming Pools and Spas and the proposal complies with these requirements. Conditions have been imposed to ensure the pool fencing and access into the swimming pool area complies with Development Control Plan No 28 and AS1926.

        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 22 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY

        The applicant has provided a BASIX certificate and the proposal achieves the commitments indicated on the certificate.

        4. Impacts

        Natural Environment

        Although the proposal results in the removal of several trees on the property, the application has been deemed acceptable by Council’s Tree Management Officer provided that for every tree removed two (2) native trees are planted. This is recommended as a condition of consent. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which shows significant planting on the site.

        Built Environment

        Although the proposal does not strictly comply with the built form controls in Development Control Plan No 11, it is considered that it provides an adequate streetscape response as the development will appear as two (2) separate, detached dwellings, which is consistent with the prevailing streetscape of Delves Street.

        The proposal has also been designed to follow the natural topography of the site. The dwellings “step up” the slope of the land to minimise the amount of cut and fill required on the site and in this respect is considered a good design response to the site.

        The proposal has been designed to minimise the opportunity for overlooking into adjoining properties through the introduction of privacy screens on the first floor balconies. The only windows on the first floor elevations that front adjoining properties are bedroom windows and are not considered to give rise to unacceptable privacy impacts.

        The living area windows of the two proposed dwellings have been offset to minimise the opportunity for overlooking between the dwellings. The proposal does incorporate two (2) large glazed staircases however, these are proposed as opaque glazing to protect the privacy of the occupants of each of the dwellings.

        Social Impact

        No adverse social impact envisaged.

        Economic Impact

        The proposed residential use is consistent with the existing use and is not considered to result in an adverse economic impact.

        Suitability of the Site

        The site is not known to be affected by bushfire, acid sulfate soils or flooding. The size, shape and topography of the site render it suitable for the proposed development. Although Council does not normally encourage detached dual occupancy development, in this case due to the large width and area of the site the site is considered suitable for the detached form proposed. A condition has been imposed requiring Sydney Water's consent and/or special conditions for construction as a result of the existing sewer main along the south east boundary.


        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) letter of objection was received from the resident of 27 Delves Street, located to the south of the application site. One (1) letter of support has also been received from the occupants of 22 Delves Street to the immediate north of the application site. The objection is summarised first.

        Trees

        The loss of the mature trees is objected too on the basis that any replacements will be saplings and will probably die and will not be replaced.

        Comment: The proposed development does involve the removal of nine (9) mature trees predominantly along the boundary with 22 Delves Street. The application was accompanied by a Tree Assessment Report which concludes that four (4) trees to the front of the site can be retained with some minor modifications to the proposed footpath. Council’s Tree Management Officer has commented that no objections are raised provided that for every tree that is removed two (2) native trees are planted.

        One (1) letter of support was also received from the neighbouring property, their concern relate to the following.

        Trees

        The existing trees on the boundary have resulted in on-going damage to the neighbouring property 22 Delves Street, such as foundation damage from roots and constant overshadowing as such the removal of the trees is supported.

        Comment: As above.

        Council Referrals

        Tree Management Officer

        Council’s Tree Management Officer has commented on the development application and comments that if there is no design alternative then no objections are raised to the proposal provided that for every tree that is removed two (2) native trees be planted. This is to be secured through conditions.


        6. CONCLUSION

        The development is permissible in accordance with the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.

        The proposed development varies from a number of the technical controls contained in Council’s Dual Occupancy Housing Development Control Plan. These variations are primarily due to the applicant’s preference for the detachment of the dwellings. The resultant built form is consistent with the existing pattern of subdivision and density within the street.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grants a deferred commencement consent to Development Application 20060241 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of detached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision on Lot 1 DP 121218 and known as 24 Delves Street, Mortdale, subject to the following:

        A. Approval from Sydney Water must be obtained as a result of the location of the existing sewer main under the footprint of the building located on the south east boundary.

        Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 12 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent. Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

        Subject to A. above being satisfied, a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

        1. Standard conditions as adopted by Council for dual occupancy development. Excluding the following conditions: OC1 (b)–(d), (f)–(l), (n)-(t), (i)–(iv); DR1; MI1; PN13; LA9
        2. Standard conditions imposed for demolition: Including only: DE1 (a)–(f)

        3. Standard conditions imposed for swimming pools: Excluding the following: OC1 (a)–(q), (s)–(t); (i)–(iv), DR1, MI1, PN13.

        4. Approved Plans
        5. Payment of Section 94 Contributions

        Open Space and Community Recreation
        $5, 065.00
        Community Services and Facilities
        $2, 716.00
        Drainage Services (Georges River Catchment)
        $2, 416.47
        Management
        $200.25
        Library – Infrastructure
        $1, 381.00
        Library - Bookstock
        $7.90
        6. The proposal must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. However, if this requires any changes to the external portion of the building it may require a Section 96 Modification to be lodged and approved with Council, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

        Include under “To obtain a Construction Certificate”

        7. S942; S943; S944; S945; S946; S948; DR11; DR13; PV17 (b) 2 x 130mm thick concrete crossings reinforced with F62 fabric; RR1.

        8. The location of eighteen (18) native trees is to be replanted on site must be plotted on the Landscape Plan. Trees T1-T4 are to be retained and the Landscape Plan amended accordingly.

        9. The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by the following plans and details, prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the Building Code of Australia:

        10. Sydney Water – The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Care Centre to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements are to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au, see “Your Business” then Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

        11. Underground services and access lids must be adjusted accordingly and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant providers.

        12. Crossing to be constructed as per Council shape and specification.

        13. All pool fencing must be no less than 1.2m in height (as measured from the finished level of the ground directly below the top of the fence) and must comply with Development Control Plan No 28 – Swimming Pools and Spas, the Swimming Pool Act 1992, Regulations and AS1926 – Swimming Pool Safety.

        14. The latching device for the gate within the pool safety fence must comply with Clause 2.4.6 of the Development Control Plan No 28 – Swimming Pools and Spas, the Swimming Pool Act 1992 and AS1926 – Swimming Pool Safety.

        15. Redundant crossing to be removed with kerb guttering and turf to be reinstated.

        16. Details of the height, materials and finishes of the retaining walls are to be provided with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        17. No direct access to the swimming pool from the building and or the landscaped area is permitted.

        18. Pool fencing must be located at least one (1) metre from the pool edge and in addition to the fencing shown on the plans, must also enclose the pool area on the norther eastern and south eastern sides of the pool so that it is not accessible from the rear landscape area.

        19. The windows and/or any other opening of each dwelling attached to the family room and dinning room which adjoin the swimming pool on the ground floor must be constructed with restricted access within the meaning of Development Control Plan No 28 - Swimming Pools and Spas. Details are to be provided on the plans submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

        20. The 1.8m masonry wall feature must provide an effective barrier within the meaning of the Swimming Pools Act and AS 1926 - Swimming Pool Safety. Details are to be shown with the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

        21. Any fence forward of the building line on the side or front boundary must be no higher than one (1) metre.

        Include under “During development”

        22. All landscaping associated with the proposed development must be completed prior to the swimming pool being filled with water.

        23. The pool must be located in the location specified by the approved and stamped plans.

        24. The following trees may be removed at the owners consent. All other trees are to be retained and protected pre, during and post development of the site in accordance with the recommendations made by Paul Loverty and Associates 'Tree Assessment Report', dated April 2006.

        Include under “Ongoing conditions”19. Pool water quality must be maintained to Council’s satisfaction.

        20. All fencing, doors and gates that provide access to the swimming pool must so long as the swimming pool exists, be maintained in a good state of repair as effective and safe barriers.

        21. All gates providing access to the swimming pool must be kept securely closed at all times when they are not in use.

        Subdivision conditions

        22. A linen plan of subdivision prepared by a Registered Surveyor, plus five (5) copies shall be lodged with Council. The centre dividing boundary shall be created a minimum of 900mm from both dwellings side walls.

        23. SU151; SU152; SU153; SU154; SU155; SU156 (no. 24 for the south east and no. 24a for the north east); SU157; SU34.

        Include under “Advices to applicant”

        24. There is NO substitute for responsible adult supervision and care of the swimming activities of children, irrespective of fencing and other safety measures.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the application be deferred for redesign as an attached dual occupancy to comply with
        Development Control Plan No 11 - Dual Occupancy Housing.

        NOTE: The following corrections to the above report should be noted should the applicant choose to redesign the proposal and resubmit the application:

        *10 trees are proposed to be removed, not 9 as stated in the report.

        *Condition 8 to be amended to read as follows:
        (Moved Clr C Hindi/Seconded Clr D Gillespie)

        Meeting Date: 01/11/2006


        DAC030.01 - 06

        72 BRISTOL ROAD, HURSTVILLE - UNAUTHORISED BUILDING WORKS - ERECTION OF OUTBUILDING

        APPLICANT

        Mr Hui Lei Liu and Ms Yun Li Yu

        PROPOSAL

        Unauthorised building works - erection of outbuilding

        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 Hui Lei Liu and Ms Yun Li Yu

        EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

        Single dwelling house

        COST OF DEVELOPMENT

        $11,000.00

        REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

        Unauthorised building works

        REPORT AUTHORS

        Manager - Environmental Health and Building, Ms J Nicol

        FILE NO

        06/82


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        1. The report relates to the unauthorised construction of a fibro addition to an existing dwelling house. The unauthorised structure is erected on a concrete slab with metal deck roof.

        2. This report provides an assessment of the executed works with respect to the requirements of Council’s Code for Single Dwelling Houses and Code for the Erection of Outbuildings.

        3. One (1) submission was received during the neighbour notification period.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order be issued directing the demolition of the bathroom section of the unauthorised structure.
        THAT the owner be advised to submit a Building Certificate application and associated fee to Council, following the demolition of the bathroom, to formally ratify the unauthorised building work.
        FURTHER THAT Council commence prosecution proceedings within the Local Court seeking a penalty for the subject work which was undertaken without development consent where development consent is required.

        ___________________________________________________________________________

        REPORT DETAIL


        DESCRIPTION OF UNAUTHORISED BUILDING WORK

        The owners of the subject premises seek Council’s endorsement for an unauthorised structure attached to the rear of the existing dwelling house. The structure is 11.1 meters in length, 3.3m in width and approximately 2.8 metres high. The structure contains a bathroom, kitchen, rumpus and storage room. The structure can only be accessed externally from the dwelling house and appears to have been designed as a separate residence. Evidence of this was clear during Council's Officer inspection where it was noted the rumpus room was set up as a bedroom.


        BACKGROUND

        Following receipt of a letter of compliant regarding the conversion of an existing awning to a number of rooms, the premises were inspected by an Officer of Council.

        It was found that the aforementioned described structure had been erected in the rear yard area and was substantially completed at the time of inspection.

        The owners were advised to cease all building work, an unauthorised works submission was then lodged by the owner.


        DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

        The site is located on the northern side of Bristol Road and has a frontage of 12.19m. The site is basically flat.


        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

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

        Development Control Plans

        Code for Single Dwelling Houses

        Code for Single Dwelling HousesStandardProposedComplies
        Site areaExisting 520.14sqm
        Side boundary to wallSee part 3.3 of Code – 900mm250mmNo (1)
        FSR0.45:10.39:1Yes
        Existing landscape area50%, ie 260sqm55%Yes
        Ceiling heights for habitable rooms2.4m
        see part 3.8.3 BCA
        2.2mNo (2)

        (1) Side boundary to wall

        The unauthorised structure is attached to the existing dwelling house. The existing dwelling house is setback 950mm to 1150mm from the side boundary. The unauthorised structure, attached to the dwelling house, has been constructed 250mm from the side boundary. The Building Code of Australia and Council's policy requires a minimum side boundary setback of 900mm.

        The minimum setback issue was raised with the owner whom then submitted amended plans proposing to delete the bathroom section of the unauthorised structure accommodating a 1 metre separation distance from the structure to the existing dwelling house thereby effectively making the unauthorised structure an outbuilding. The 1 metre separation would then allow the outbuilding structure to comply with the Building Code of Australia and Council's Code for the Erection of Outbuildings with regard to distances to boundaries and the dwelling house.

        (2) Ceiling heights for habitable rooms

        The unauthorised structure has been constructed with an existing ceiling height of 2.2 metres. The Building Code of Australia requires a minimum ceiling height of 2.4 metres for habitable rooms. No minimum ceiling heights are required for outbuildings with Council's Code for the Erection of Outbuildings.


        NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

        Adjoining residents were notified in writing and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was received from the adjoining owner at 68 Bristol Road situated on the eastern side of the subject lands expressing four (4) points of concern.

        Privacy

        The proposal has an additional three (3) rooms with double glass doors and double windows to the rumpus room which look directly into the rear yard. The existing fence does not provided adequate visual privacy.

        Comment: The structure is located on the opposite side of the yard to the complaints property and it is considered that the loss of privacy is minimal.

        Separate Occupancy

        The room as constructed may be used as a separate occupancy and noise is already generated from the use of this area by visiting friends.

        Comment: The proposal as constructed has the potential to be used as a separate occupancy.

        Plumbing

        We wish to ensure that no pipe work to allow toilet or shower is added at a later stage.

        Comment: This particular concern addressed the deletion of the bathroom shown on the amended plans. Should Council adopt the recommendation to issue a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order directing the demolition of the bathroom the Notice can be phrased to address the permanent capping/sealing of the subject plumbing work.

        Floor Space Area

        Does the extension meet the allowable floor space ratio.

        Comment: The floor space ratio is within the guidelines of the Code for the Erection of Outbuildings.


        CONCLUSION

        The unauthorised structure as it has been constructed does not comply with Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses nor the Building Code of Australia, however should the bathroom section be demolished as proposed by the owner, and of which can be directed by Council through the issuing of a Notice of Intention, then the structure would become an outbuilding and therefore compliant with the requirements of Council's Code for the Erection of Outbuildings and Building Code of Australia.

        A structural engineers certificate has been received certifying the structural adequacy of the unauthorised slab.

        Although the structure would not have gained approval as it currently stands, attached to the dwelling house, when separated through the demolition of the bathroom section, the structure becomes an outbuilding and would have in all likelihood been granted approval is development consent had been sought.

        With regard to the offence of undertaking a development without development consent, given the structures size, scale and bulk and its initial intended use as a separate residence, it is suggested a more punitive penalty be sought in the Local Court rather than the issuing of a $600.00 Penalty Infringement Notice.


        RECOMMENDATION

        THAT a Notice of Intention to Serve an Order be issued directing the demolition of the bathroom section of the unauthorised structure.

        THAT the owner be advised to submit a Building Certificate application and associated fee to Council, following the demolition of the bathroom, to formally ratify the unauthorised building work.

        FURTHER THAT Council commence prosecution proceedings within the Local Court seeking a penalty for the subject work which was undertaken without development consent where development consent is required.

        * * * * *

        APPENDIX



        COMMITTEE'S DECISION

        THAT the matter be deferred to enable Council to seek legal advice.
        (Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Lee)