EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The application initially was approved for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with a front fence.2. The subject site was identified to be affected by overland flow path due to a 3m wide easement running diagonally through the front section of the land from south to north. An overland flow study was prepared by GEC Consulting Group Pty Ltd dated 8 April 2009 was submitted upon lodgement.3. This application seeks approval to modify the consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to expand the ground floor level and the first floor balcony to the rear.4. The construction work has already been undertaken and the matter was referred to the Manager – Building Control who then advised that a Section 96 Modification application could be lodged for this work. This application is a result of that.5. The proposal satisfies the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and Development Control Plan No.1.6. There was one (1) submission received in relation to the proposed development.7. The application was deferred at the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 3 March 2010 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors. The inspection was held on 7 April 2010.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.FURTHER THAT the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy.REPORT DETAILBACKGROUNDThe application was deferred at the Development Assessment Committee meeting of 3 March 2010 for inspection and report by Ward and interested Councillors. The inspection was held on 7 April 2010.For the information of Councillors, please find the previous report following."DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe application initially was approved for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with a front fenceThis Section 96 application seeks approval to modify the approved design to expand the ground floor level by approximately 2.4sqm and redesign the first floor balcony to the rear.The approved rear first floor balcony is facing north east and overlooking the rear yard. The subject balcony is located above the ground floor patio. As the area of the patio is larger than the area of the balcony, the pitched roof of the ground floor patio surrounds the perimeter of the balcony.The modified design rather than imbedding the balcony within the roof of the patio has eliminated the roofed portion surrounding the balcony, replaced it with an elevated planter bed by extending the balcony’s floor out to the same alignment as the patio below, and extended the main roof above the first floor balcony to suit.The approved balcony had dimensions of 2m x 6.5m and the extended portion is a 600mm wide strip around the perimeter of the balcony measuring 6.3sqm. This proposed extended portion will consist of planter beds and will not be trafficable. Hence the approved dimensions of the trafficable portion of the balcony will remain unaltered.The remainder of the modified works involve the extension of the rear south eastern corner of the dwelling by an additional 2.4sqm. The approved dwelling had an indentation extending 6m along the eastern elevation to the rear and another 6m along the southern elevation from the side. This indentation has been reduced by approximately 200mm from both sides of the corner as a result of an error of judgment during construction. This has resulted in an additional 2.4sqm being added internally to the kitchen area on the ground floor only.Notwithstanding, the southern side setback will maintain a distance of 900mm from the side boundary at ground floor level and the first floor level southern side setback will remain unaltered at 1.5m. BACKGROUND27 Aug 09 Initial application endorsed (09/DA-144)30 Nov 09 Subject Section 96 application lodged (09/DA-144REV01)24 Dec 09 Notification period ended.DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITYThe site is a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 14.325m to Donald Street and an area of 508.6sqm. The site is located on the north eastern side of the street. Existing on the site is a single storey weatherboard dwelling house with a metal shed located at the rear of the property.Adjoining the site to the north west is a single storey brick dwelling house and a two storey brick dwelling house to the south east. Located at the rear of the site is the rear yard and swimming pool area of a two storey dwelling house fronting Hodge Street. The area is generally low density and residential in character.COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENTThe development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration” and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The relevant issues raised are discussed below.Heads of Consideration in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 “Section 96 (1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact - A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if: (a) It is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and (b) It is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and (c) It has notified the application in accordance with: (i) The regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) A development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and (d) It has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.”Comment: The modified design is considered to be of minimal environmental impact. The additional floor space equates to 2.4sqm at ground floor level only and the subject dwelling remains defined as a two storey single dwelling house. The landscaping conditions will remain complying and the development is considered to remain substantially the same. The application has been notified pursuant to Council’s Development Control Plan No1 – LGA Wide – Section 2.2 and there was one (1) submission received in relation to the modifications. 1. Environmental Planning Instruments HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANThe land is zoned 2 – Residential and the proposed use is permitted within the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.Clause 15 – ServicesThe existing infrastructure is considered adequate to accommodate the proposed land use and the stormwater is proposed to be collected into a 3600L rainwater tank with the overflow line discharging to the existing stormwater easement onsite via a gravity fed line. The area falls under the Wolli Creek catchment area.STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LANDThe 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 InstrumentsThere are no drafts Environmental Planning Instruments that are relevant to the proposed development.Any other matters prescribed by the RegulationsThe 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 PlansDEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING
* Due to the rear of the dwelling being elevated by 1m above natural ground level, two (2) 1.8m high privacy screens must be installed along the north western elevation of the front facing balcony and the modified first floor rear facing balcony, prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate. The front facing balcony must have its screen extended from the western wall of bedroom 4 by a minimum of 1m in width around the curvature of the balcony. This condition has been imposed to protect the privacy of the north western adjoining property.FURTHER THAT the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy." * * * * *DECISION - DACTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.FURTHER THAT the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The Section 96 application seeks approval for a modification to a consent, which consists of relocating and re-orientation of the garage and a new addition of a covered BBQ area. The original approval was for a first floor addition to the dwelling and alterations, and the construction of a garage/outbuilding.2. The proposal, although compatible with the existing built and approved form on the site and in relation to surrounding premises, does not comply with the required landscaped area. As such it is considered an overdevelopment and is incompatible with Council’s objectives. The previously approved design for the garage is considered more appropriate when applying Council’s controls.3. The proposal has one (1) non compliance with the numerical requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan, and otherwise provides on-site solutions which are considered excessive beyond development guidelines. 4. No objections to this proposal have been received.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe Section 96 Modification seeks to relocate and re-orientate a garage and add a new BBQ area.* Move the approved garage into the rear northern corner of the site and make it into a masonry double garage rather than a tandem garage. Internally is proposed a store area and shower/WC (similar to the originally approved WC/Shower inside the garage), yet despite this the size of the garage is to be reduced from 46sqm to 42sqm. * A new and additional covered BBQ area with fixed BBQ appliances is to be attached to the east of the proposed garage adjacent to the rear boundary. Within the original approval, a BBQ area (proposed in the northern corner of the site) was deleted from the approved Development Application and Construction Certificate plans. This modification seeks to re-establish the BBQ albeit in a different location. The new BBQ area is proposed at 18.24sqm. * The proposal adds 43sqm of built upon area with the extension of the garage to the rear of the site (thereby creating more driveway area) and due to the new proposed BBQ area. * Landscaped areas do not comply and provide a significant shortfall in overall required landscaped area, as well as providing an overwhelming surplus of impervious covered land, beyond the maximum allowed area. BACKGROUND 26 Aug 03 Original Development Application lodged with Council.2 Nov 03 Development Consent issued.3 Feb 10 Section 96 Modification application (Rev01) lodged with Council, seeking garage relocation and re-orientation and the new BBQ area.DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITYThe subject property is a regular allotment with a width of 14.33m and an overall site area of approximately 521sqm. The site has no significant slope and is oriented towards the south west and is on the northern side of Donald Street. The site is adjoined west by a single storey dwelling and to the east and rear by two (2) storey dwellings.This area is characterised by a mix of single/two (2) storey dwellings with low to medium density developments.COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENTThe 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 SECTION 96 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979The proposal has been assessed in relation to the following clauses under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended):
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.3 OUTBUILDINGSThe following is an assessment of the detached double garage/WC/storage outbuilding at the rear of the allotment.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.5 SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES
This reflects an existing approved non compliance as assessed in 2003. (2) Landscape Open Space – Total Site AreaThe overall proposed landscaped open space does not comply, providing only 41.79% of the total site area when 50% is required, falling short of the required open landscaped area by 42.84sqm. The modification creates this non compliance from the previously approved and complying design.Given the area of the site is 521sqm and there are already a number of substantial approved structures on-site (two (2) storey dwelling, inground swimming pool, tandem garage and WC/shower) there is no justification for the varying of the landscaping controls, through an increase of built environment.(3) Maximum Allowed Impervious Area The impervious component creates a severe non compliance in providing an excess of 104.91sqm impervious area from that allowed under the current landscaping controls. (4) Minimum Required Deep Soil AreaThe deep soil component of the site does not comply, providing only 11.65% of the total site, when 15% is required. The modification creates this non compliance, from the previously approved and complying design.These non compliances are regarded as primary reasons for refusal of the development application.Note: After a site inspection it was noticed that the plans provided were not accurate in detailing site coverage of the site sufficiently to make an assessment as accurate as it otherwise would have been. In effect, the landscaping figures in the assessment are an estimate of what was witnessed on-site. 4. ImpactsNatural EnvironmentIt is considered the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the natural environment. No trees are to be affected by this proposal despite the increase in building area. Built EnvironmentThe development does not impact on the streetscape as it cannot be seen from the street. The proposal is considered an overdevelopment in context of the site and the structures already approved. Although in scale with surrounding premises, the overall impact of all the buildings on-site should this modification be approved is considered excessive and not complying with Council’s development objectives and controls for the zone. The development will have an adverse social impact, on the future character of the community, and would create an undesirable precedent for single dwelling design solutions. There is minimal impact on the adjoining premises from that previously approved, but the proposal is excessive beyond a reasonable design, given the considerable development already approved onsite and the size of the allotment.Social ImpactThe development carries no negative social impact.Economic Impact The development carries no economic impacts.Suitability of the SiteIt is considered that the allotment is suitable for the proposed development in terms of the allotment size, shape, orientation and topography. The site is not bushfire, flood, acid sulfate affected, nor contaminated. The site is stable. 5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTResident 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 in relation to this development.Council ReferralsNo Council Officer referrals were required.6. CONCLUSIONThe application is for a modification to a consent, which consists of relocating and re-orientation of the garage, and a new addition of a covered BBQ area. The proposal does not comply in full with Development Control Plan 1. The proposal does not comply with the provisions of the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). RECOMMENDATIONTHAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, refuses Development Application 03/DA-680REV01 for the Section 96 modification for relocation of garage and new BBQ area on Lot 24, DP 8435 and known as 60 Donald Street, Hurstville, for the following reasons:1. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed development does not achieve the minimum required ‘Landscaped open area’ under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 4.5.8 Single Dwelling Houses.2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed development does not adhere to the maximum allowed ‘Impervious landscaped area’ under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 4.5.8 Single Dwelling Houses.3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed development does not adhere to the minimum required ‘Deep Soil landscaped area’ under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 4.5.8 Single Dwelling Houses.4. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed development will likely cause adverse social impact on the existing and future character of the locality.5. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed development is considered an overdevelopment and thus not suitable for the site.6. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest as it will set an undesirable precedent, for other similar sites which are to be assessed, considering the excessive nature of the proposal and the non compliances. * * * * *DECISION - DACTHAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Development consent was originally granted for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new two storey dwelling. This Section 96 application seeks to increase the height of the dwelling by raising the ground floor slab of the dwelling by 300mm. 2. The proposal complies with Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan No 1 with the exception of the external wall height of the dwelling. However this non compliance can easily be overcome and a condition is recommended to ensure compliance. 3. One (1) submission was received in response to the notification of the application. AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe Section 96 application seeks approval for an increase in the height of the building by 300mm. The ground floor slab of the dwelling will be 300mm higher than originally approved, therefore increasing the height of the whole dwelling. The applicant has stated that the increase in height is sought due to the dwelling being lower than the street. The increase in height is proposed to facilitate better drainage of the site. BACKGROUND 11 Dec 09 Development consent granted for demolition of dwelling and construction of new dwelling.21 Jan 10 Current modification application lodged.3 – 18 Feb 10 Proposal on neighbour notification. Council incorrectly notified the proposal as modifications to a dual occupancy development.22 Feb – 8 Mar 10 Proposal renotified correctly.DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITYThe site is a rectangular shaped site with a frontage of 15.09m to Carrington Avenue and an area of 606.96sqm. The site is located on the north east side of the street. The dwelling the subject of this application is currently under construction. Adjoining the site to either side and opposite are single dwelling houses. The area is generally residential in character.COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENTThe 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 SECTION 96 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979The following is an assessment of the proposal in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended):
The proposed variation to the external wall height is minor, only being 64mm. Nevertheless there is no valid reason why the proposal could not comply with the control as the internal floor to ceiling heights within the dwelling are generous. A condition requiring a compliant external wall height of 7.2m is recommended. 4. ImpactsNatural Environment The impact of this development on the natural environment was considered acceptable as part of the original approval. Nothing in this modification application alters this. Built Environment The only alteration to the development from what was originally approved is the additional height. The increase in height will still result in the adjoining property receiving a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight to their private open space.The increase in the ground floor slab height has the potential to impact on the amenity of the adjoining property at 146 Carrington Avenue due to increased privacy impacts. To overcome this concern a condition is recommended so that the windows for the ground floor dining and living areas incorporate obscured glazing. Social ImpactThe social impact of this development was considered acceptable as part of the original approval. Nothing in this modification application alters this. Economic Impact The economic impact of this development was considered acceptable as part of the original approval. Nothing in this modification application alters this. Suitability of the SiteNothing in this modification application affects the suitability of the site for the development as originally assessed.5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTResidentAdjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was received.External Wall Height ControlsThe proposal does not comply with Council’s external wall height controls.Comment: Although the non compliance is minor in nature there is no valid reason why the external wall height cannot comply. A condition is recommended ensuring compliance. DrainageBetter drainage cannot be provided by the increase in height.Comment: The increase in the height of the ground floor slab will allow the provision of a pipe with appropriate fall to drain roof water to the street. This is consistent with Council’s requirements.The increase in height does not match with neighbouring developmentComment: The increase in height does not unacceptably alter the appearance of the dwelling from the street from that which was originally approved. OvershadowingThe height will further increase the overshadowing impact on the adjoining dwelling.Comment: The increase in height does have a further impact on the overshadowing to the property to the south, however this property will still achieve a minimum of (3) three hours of solar access. PrivacyThere is an increased privacy impact on the adjoining dwelling. Comment: It is agreed that the proposal in its current form has a privacy impact and as such conditions requiring obscured glazing on the ground floor living area windows are recommended. Air CirculationThe proposal will affect air circulation.Comment: There is nothing to support this claim, however, given that there is a 4m separation between the subject dwelling and the adjoining dwelling to the south it is considered unlikely.Council Referrals None required. 6. CONCLUSIONWith the imposition of conditions relating to obscured glazing and a compliant external wall height this modification application is considered to have a minor environmental impact and is substantially the same development as that to which consent was originally granted. RECOMMENDATIONPursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as amended, development consent 09/DA-361 granted on 11 December 2009 for the demolition of the existing single dwelling house, and construction of new dwelling house on Lot 19 DP 8011 and known as 148 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville, is amended in the following manner:A By amending Condition 2 to read:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The application seeks approval for a five (5) storey mixed use building with two (2) levels of basement car parking and strata subdivision. 2. The proposed floor space ratio exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 2:1 under Council’s Local Environmental Plan and the applicant’s objection to the development standard pursuant to SEPP No 1 is not well founded.3. The proposal exceeds the maximum four (4) storey height, encroaches on the 8m rear setback and exceeds the maximum 2:1 floor space ratio requirements under Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide – Section 6.3 Riverwood. 4. The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s requirements and received two (2) objections. AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe proposal seeks approval for the demolition of the existing service station across three (3) allotments at 345 Belmore Road, Riverwood to allow for the proposed construction of a five (5) storey mixed use development with a total of nine (9) residential units and 200 square metres of commercial space with basement parking. The proposed built form covers a corner site with three (3) street frontages at Belmore Road, Killara Avenue and at the rear lane way.The development will comprise specifically of the following:Ground Floor (Level 1) – one (1) commercial area comprising of 200 square metresUpper Basement – Car parkLower Basement – Car parkLevel 2 – three (3) x two (2) bedroom unitsLevel 3 – three (3) x two (2) bedroom unitsLevel 4 – two (2) x three (3) bedroom unitsLevels 5 – one (1) x three (3) bedroom unit Vehicular access to the basement levels of the property is via rear lane. A lobby with lifts is located at the Killara Avenue street frontage.The architectural plans were amended in minor form after comments from the Urban Design Review Panel in particular, the following:* Changes to the Lobby door line forward to the linear line of the bin store and removing views of parked vehicles from the entranceway.* Changes to the corner façade with lesser use of masonry in favour of a glass and louvered approach.* Removal of top hat roof design and doughnut feature at the corner. BACKGROUND 13 Nov 09 Application lodged with Council.25 Nov-9 Dec 09 Notification period of application.3 Dec 09 Application presented to Design Review Panel 10 Feb 10 Meeting with Applicant to discuss proposal and comments of Design Review Panel 19 Mar 10 Amended plans received by Council 7 Apr 10 Referral to Development Assessment CommitteeDESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITYThe site is located on a prominent corner in the Riverwood Town Centre located at 345 Belmore Road, Riverwood. The site has generally a rectangular shape, which comprises of three (3) allotments of land and a total site area of 547.5sqm. The site is located on the western side of Belmore Road with a frontage of 17.98m with a splay of 3.035m to Belmore Road and 23.175m to Killara Avenue with a further splay of 2.995m to the rear lane. The site has a fall of 0.87m from west to east across the site, ie from the rear lane to Belmore Road. Currently on the site is a two (2) storey building used as a service station which is proposed to be demolished. The surrounding development on Belmore Road is comprised of a mix of older buildings being commercial and retail shops generally one (1) to two (2) storeys in height and some with residences located above. To the rear of the site is zone 2 – Residential comprising predominantly of single dwellings. The site is located near the northern end of the Riverwood Town Centre within approximately 350m from Riverwood Station. COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENTThe 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 PLANThe land is zoned 3(c) - Business Centre and is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal generally meets the zone objective regarding a mixed use building within a business centre.Clause 13 - Floor Space RatioThe Local Environmental Plan also has the following additional requirements:
Clause 14 – Tree preservation ordersConsent for removal of trees is not required as no trees are present on the site.Clause 15 – ServicesPursuant to Clause 15, water supply, sewerage and drainage infrastructure is required to be available to the land. It is considered the above services can be provided to the proposed development on the land.Clause 22 – Excavation, filling of landThe proposal will involve excavation of the land for the proposed basement. In consideration to this clause, a condition of consent is recommended that a geotechnical report be submitted to Council prior to the prior to the commencement of any work to ensure adequate regard is given to any potential impacts to existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality. Clause 25A – Advertising and signageNo outdoor advertising or signage is proposed as part of the application.STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SEPP) NO 1 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSThe proposed modification seeks a variation to the maximum permitted overall floor space ratio of 2:1 for buildings within zone 3(c) - Business Centre Zone of Riverwood Town Centre. A non complying floor space ratio of 2.248:1 is proposed, thus resulting in a variation to Clause 13(2a)(a) of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The applicant has lodged an objection under the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 1 to the floor space ratio of 2:1. Consideration to an Objection under SEPP 1 is considered on the basis to whether compliance with the development standard is unnecessary and/or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Land and Environment Court recommends that an objection under SEPP 1 should be determined by reference to the tests set out rather than by undertaking a 'merit assessment'. The appropriate manner of dealing with a SEPP 1 objection is found in the judgment of Lloyd J in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46, at par 26, where five (5) questions are posed. These questions listed below form the basis for consideration to SEPP 1 objections.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.3 ACCESS AND MOBILITY
(1) HeightThe site is located on a prominent corner along Belmore Road. Belmore Road is a regional road that runs north to south, which defines areas to the east and west of the Riverwood suburb. The location of the site at this section of Belmore Road comprises of a commercial/retail strip of the Riverwood Town Centre.Riverwood in the hierarchy of commercial centres within the Local Government Area ranks as the secondary centre after the regional centre at Hurstville. The consistent scale of narrow fronted buildings, unusually wide footpaths and mix of local services, creates a village character as stated in the Section 6.3. Riverwood 6.3.5 Belmore Road and Mixed Use Development. Development in the commercial area is limited to a maximum of four (4) storeys and building design requires the fourth storey to be setback to give the appearance of a three (3) storey appearance along Belmore Road and in keeping with the a village character for the Riverwood Town Centre.Clause 6.6 of the Development Control Plan objectives for Riverwood specify to enure that new development is compatible with the existing street built form and streetscape by:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. This application seeks consent to convert an existing outbuilding to a secondary dwelling. The development application has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 2. Development consent has previously been issued in respect to the erection of an outbuilding at the rear of the subject property. The existing outbuilding however does not fully correspond with the plans approved for the outbuilding and the matter of unauthorised works has been referred to Council’s Manager – Building Control for investigation.3. The proposal complies with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and meets with the minimum standards under Section 22 of the SEPP which cannot be used as grounds for any refusal of the development.4. One (1) objection has been received following the neighbour notification.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.FURTHER THAT the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe application seeks approval to enclose the verandah on the eastern side of an existing outbuilding situated at the rear of an existing dwelling, and convert the outbuilding to a self-contained detached secondary dwelling.The proposed granny flat originally has a floor area of 60sqm and is to contain a living room with kitchenette, two (2) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms and a dining room. The granny flat is separated a minimum of 4m from the existing house.BACKGROUND Council’s records show that Development Application 09/DA-160 for new outbuilding to rear of dwelling was approved on 14 July 2009. This approved outbuilding was for a games room with attached awning. The consent issued for this outbuilding included the following conditions:
The height of the outbuilding exceeds the recommended maximum of 3m however this height has been previously approved and this proposal does not alter the approved height.4. ImpactsNatural Environment The proposal is satisfactory in respect to the natural environment, as no trees are to be removed and as landscaped areas will be retained on site. Built Environment The building is not readily visible from Thurlow Street due to its siting behind the existing dwelling. Being single storey in height, the granny flat is not overtly obtrusive, and is setback a minimum of 23.2m from the rear rail corridor.The building will not have any adverse impact on privacy as the building is only single storey and the bedroom windows on the eastern side of the building face Thurlow Reserve and will be screened by the existing fencing. The windows on the western side of the outbuilding are to utility rooms and do not present privacy concerns.The southern side of the dwelling faces the existing house and is 4m away from this house, and the rear of the granny flat including the proposed verandah is 23.2m from the rail corridor at the rear. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to present any issues in respect to privacy.In regard to acoustic privacy, only a small verandah is proposed at the rear and is not considered large enough to facilitate outdoor entertaining. Therefore, no adverse acoustic impact is envisaged. The single storey outbuilding does not cause any substantive loss of sunlight to the private open space of adjoining properties, and the bulk of shadow cast falls over the site at the rear of the secondary dwelling. In terms of the built environment, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. Social ImpactThe proposal is for residential purposes only, and no detrimental social impact is foreseen. Economic Impact The proposal is for residential purposes, and no adverse economic impact is envisaged.Suitability of the SiteThe site is considered to be suitable for the form of development proposed as the land is not affected by any known environmental risk factors, and the property meets the dimensional requirements for secondary development. Unauthorised WorksPart of the building works proposed in association with converting the outbuilding to a secondary dwelling have commenced (being the kitchenette on the south west corner of the outbuilding which was shown as a verandah on the approved plans for the outbuilding), and other proposed work such as the installation of a verandah to the north east side of the building has not yet commenced. It is therefore recommended that the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy.5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTResidentAdjoining 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. The issues raised are discussed below as follows.Increase in noiseThere has already been an increase in noise since new occupants moved into the house on this property. The addition of another residence will increase the noise level.It is asked that the occupants abide by the By-Laws and keep the noise level down after 8.00pm at night so that all neighbours can have peace and quiet. Comment: The dwelling is permissible under SEPP (Affordable Housing) 2009 and has been well setback (a minimum of 23.2m) from the rail corridor at the rear. Conditions have been included in the recommendation requiring noise levels emitted not to interfere with the surrounding amenity. Should the use be carried out in breach of these conditions, then a complaint can be registered to Council’s Compliance section for investigation.Council Referrals Manager - Development AdviceThe application was referred to Council’s Manager – Development Advice who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition which has been included in the recommendation. Senior Environmental Health and Building SurveyorCouncil’s Senior Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.6. CONCLUSIONThe subject development application has been submitted under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the development complies with the applicable development standards within this SEPP. For the reasons outlined in this report the proposal is considered acceptable.Part of the building works has already commenced, therefore it is recommended that this matter be referred to Council’s Manager – Building Control for appropriate action. Approval can still be granted retrospectively for the use but no approval is expressed or implied in regard to the unauthorised building works which have been undertaken.RECOMMENDATIONTHAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application 09/DA-449 for conversion of an existing outbuilding to a secondary dwelling on Lot 26 DP 35640 and known as 19 Thurlow Street, Riverwood, subject to the attached conditions:1. Standard condition as imposed by Council for Outbuildings. Excluding the following conditions: OC8; B12; ST1 (g); DR1 (b)–(f); 22 RTA; DR5; RR1; ES1; DD2 (e); 38 The carport must be constructed…; MI32; MI34; MI21; RR8; 46 RTA; MI1; MI27; MI20; MI22. Including the following conditions:2. Approved Plans
Include under “To Obtain a Construction Certificate”4. Stormwater System - All roof water from the proposed granny flat structure must be collected and discharged to the existing drainage system.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The application seeks approval to extend the existing deck to the rear, add a new awning above the deck and some internal alterations to the kitchen area.2. The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Development area A and is bushfire prone.3. The proposal satisfies the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and Development Control Plan No 1 with exception to a minor variation to the landscaping requirement. 4. There were no submissions received in relation to the proposed development.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe application seeks approval to extend the existing deck to the rear, add a new awning above the deck and some internal alterations to the kitchen area.The existing development consists of a rendered two (2) storey dwelling house with a detached outbuilding to the front and a swimming pool to the rear of the property.The proposed work will involve the partial demolition of the rear wall presently serving the existing kitchen area, located on the first floor level with direct access unto the existing north facing deck to the rear.The existing kitchen area will be renovated and extended by approximately 4sqm to the rear and the existing first floor deck will be also extended by approximately 6.12sqm to the rear. Similarly, the existing awning, balustrades and the existing spiral staircase will all be replaced with new adjustable louvre privacy screen to be installed along the eastern elevation of the deck.The ground floor area beneath the deck is currently engaged by a garden bed which will remain unaltered as the deck will remain at 2.7m above ground and the extent of the rear extension is considered minimal at 1.17m to the rear by 5.2m across the width of the deck.The new awning will have a height of approximately 6.4m and the existing tiled roof of the dwelling will remain unaltered. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITYThe site is an irregular shaped site with a frontage of 23.66m to Lugarno Parade and an area of 679.31sqm. The site is located on the northern side of the street. Existing on the site is a two (2) storey single dwelling house with a detached outbuilding to the front and a swimming pool to the rear of the property.Adjoining the site to the east, west and north (rear) are single dwelling homes. The area is generally low density residential in character.The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Development area A and is bushfire prone.COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENTThe development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) and Section 79BA "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
As existing the amount of deep soil and the impervious areas of landscaping do not comply.Hurstville’s Local Environmental Plan 1994 defines a landscaped area and requires it not to be occupied by a “building”. The proposal in its current form further reduces the soft landscaping by 6.12sqm by definition only as the area underneath the proposed deck will remain unaltered as a garden bed. This variation is considered negligible especially when considering that the site offers an additional 44.7sqm of overall landscaped area.Further, the proposal is considered to have satisfied the objective of this control in terms of allowing natural water infiltration into the ground as the proposed deck is located at the first floor level and is 2.7m above the existing garden bed underneath.In this regards, the variation is considered negligible and is therefore supported. 4. ImpactsNatural Environment There will be minimal impact on the natural environment as a result of the proposed development. The proposal will require the removal of two (2) palm trees of low significance located in the garden bed below which will be replaced by low shrubs. Roof surface water collected from the existing dwelling and awning will remain unaltered and discharged into the existing system. Built Environment StreetscapeThe proposal will not be seen from the street and the existing streetscape will remain unaltered.DesignThe proposed design is considered to be a much more practical and more desirable design than the existing condition in terms of providing a slightly bigger kitchen area as well as allowing more solar access to penetrate into the dwelling adding foldable doors leading unto the deck facing north.OvershadowingAll adjoining properties will continue to receive more than the minimum required sunlight. The majority of the shadows created by the new awning will be directed unto the dwelling itself.PrivacyThe proposed deck is well setback by over 10 meters from the west and provides a louvered privacy screen from the east which is considered to be an improvement to the existing conditions as well as adequate measures to preserve the privacy of the adjoining neighbours to the east. Heritage The subject property is not a heritage listed item or located within the vicinity of heritage listed item. Social ImpactThe proposal has no adverse social impact. Economic Impact The proposal has no adverse economic impact.Suitability of the SiteThe site is considered suitable in terms of its size, shape and topography. The site is considered to be bushfire prone however, the proposed alterations and additions is considered acceptable subject to compliance with the principles of appendix 5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The site is not affected by acid sulphate soils, overland flow nor believed to be contaminated.5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTResidentAdjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. There were no submissions received in relation to the proposed developmentCouncil Referrals There were no internal referrals necessary for this application.External Referrals NSW Rural Fire ServiceNo objections were raised subject to standard conditions.6. CONCLUSIONThe proposal satisfies the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994; and Development Control Plan No 1 with exception to a variation to the landscaping requirement. At present, the existing available soft landscaped area vs. the impervious area does not comply.This proposal increases this variation by 6.12sqm and is considered negligible especially when considering that the site offers an additional 44.7sqm of overall landscaped area.There were no submissions received in relation to the proposed development.The proposed design is considered to offer a better design in terms of privacy and solar access.As such, the proposal in its current form is considered reasonable and an improvement to the existing conditions RECOMMENDATIONTHAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application 09/DA-467 for the extension of the first floor level deck including a new awning and new staircase on Lot 12 DP 238930 and known as 85 Lugarno parade Lugarno, subject to the attached conditions:1. Standard conditions as approved by Council for single dwelling. Excluding the following conditions: ST1 (g)-(h); 20 Geotechnical report; PN11; DR1 (b)-(f); 29 RTA; DR5; RR1; RR2; 33 and 34 Air conditioners; BC3; DD2 (e); MI21; RR8; 52 RTA; MI1; TPZ1; TPZ2; BA1; MI27; PN6. Including the following conditions: 2. Approved Plans
3. OC8 to read:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. In 2006 Council granted development consent for alterations and additions to a dwelling.2. This Section 96 Modification application seeks to remedy unauthorised development constructed and added to the building works completed without consent include retaining wall, air conditioning and balcony extension.3. The modifications are compatible with the existing approved and built form, but conditions are recommended to reduce their additional impact on the adjoining premises. 4. The proposal complies with all the numerical controls of Council’s relevant Development Controls Plan. 5. Two (2) objections to this proposal have been received.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.FURTHER THAT the matter be referred to the Manager – Building Control to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy.REPORT DETAIL
4. ImpactsNatural EnvironmentIt is considered the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the natural environment. No trees are affected by this proposal, and it is substantially the same as previously approved.Built EnvironmentThe proposed development fully complies, but conditions are recommended to reduce additional impact arising from ongoing use of the site. The proposal provides a consistent design solution with the existing approved development by not impacting on adjacent premises beyond what is considered reasonable or conditionable. The air conditioner and extended balcony do not create an additional bulk to the design of the dwelling. Retaining WallThe new retaining wall provides a more rational and safer solution to the backyard by allowing access of a consistent levelled turf area. The swimming pool design fence at 1.2m high on the retaining wall, does not create an overbearing aesthetic to the eastern neighbours, and seeks to retain the on-site conditions of the previous mesh boundary fence. The retaining wall is not an overdevelopment but its construction effectively establishes use of the rear yard immediately adjacent to the boundary, as a finished ground level much higher than that of the property to the east. It is this aspect of the development, in conjunction with there being a see-through fence, which increases the impact by way of compromising privacy. The impact is exacerbated given the affected rear yard at 1 Marine Drive has a swimming pool which can be viewed from the subject premises rear yard through the existing pool type fence. It is seen as prudent given the increased privacy impact to a swimming pool area, that a fixed fabric privacy screen is conditioned to be attached to and maintained on the fence, along the 10m length new retaining wall. Air conditionerThe location for the installation and operation of an air conditioner is guided by the development standards in the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, and by the noise emission standards in the Public Health Act 1991, and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and AS 3666 and AS1668 as applicable.In this case the air conditioner does not meet the development standard to be considered as an exempt or complying development as it is closer than 450mm to the boundary. It complies with the other development standards for location and installation.The air conditioner is very large, and its location is considered insensitive, as it is located within the side setback between 1 Marine Drive and 3 Marine Drive. If it was installed at the rear of dwelling at 3 Marine Drive would have fully complied with the SEPP, and would have negated any additional impacts from its use. Although it is likely that its untreated use will add an impact to the residents of 1 Marine Drive, it is considered that the location is appropriate provided the air conditioner is made to comply with the noise emission standards as aforementioned. It is considered reasonable that an acoustic study be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at the applicant’s expense, showing an Acoustic Engineer’s report and recommendations for the treatment of the air conditioner to reduce noise emissions (should it be required), in line with those standards. A condition is recommended to this effect.On inspection, it was noticed that attached to the external wall of 1 Marine Drive, within the same building corridor, was located two (2) air conditioners. It is considered that any acoustic engineer’s report should take into consideration the standard operation of these two (2) air conditioners, when applying recommendations on any study with ambient background noise standards as a principal. Balcony ExtensionThe balcony extension towards the eastern boundary at the front of the property is considered to impact on the privacy of one part of the living area and balcony to the dwelling at 1 Marine Drive. Due to the orientation of the two (2) dwellings and the difference in height between the extended balcony level and the floor level of the living area and balcony it is impacting upon it is considered that the impact is not severe.However, the balcony extension itself is considered excessive, given the original consent approved an appropriate distance between the two (2) balconies, so as to provide greater privacy for both. As such, it is considered the balcony extension would increase an impact on privacy by increasing its immediacy, if used by a person in a standard way in a seated position. From a seated position on the balcony extension, the view of the impacted upon window and balcony is considered much greater than that previously approved. It is considered that controlling the use of the overbearing and immediate element of the balcony extension, and retaining the area of use of the balcony as originally approved, is the best solution in remedying the unauthorised work.It is recommended that four (4) fixed planter boxes be installed on the floor of the northern end of the extended balcony, so as not to allow for a table to be placed in that part of the balcony, as this is the part of the extended balcony which causes all of the added impact upon the window and most of the impact upon the balcony at 1 Marine Drive. A condition to this affect is recommended as part of this report.Social ImpactThere are no foreseen negative social impacts arising from the proposal.Economic ImpactAs the proposal is for residential purposes no adverse economic impact is foreseen.Suitability of the SiteIt is considered that the allotment is suitable for the proposed development in terms of the allotment size, shape, orientation and topography. The site is not flood, acid sulphate affected, nor contaminated. The site is not bushfire affected.5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTResidentAdjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. There were two (2) submissions received.Note: There is a long history of complaint in Council’s records from neighbouring premises, extending from the application for and construction of the approved development on 3 Marine Drive, Oatley. Some of these concerns, which have been dealt with in previous Council action and assessment, have been reiterated in this application. They are mentioned in the following part of the report, but only those issues pertinent to the application to remedy the unauthorised works are commented upon.Rear sleeper/timber retaining wall (privacy issues and unauthorised works)Concerns are raised stating that the development affects privacy and ability to entertain in the backyard, and that is was installed without permission. A historical perspective has been provided regarding a number of retaining walls having been built over a period of time, which has effectively raised the level of the backyard, and has caused ongoing drainage and flooding issues in their backyard and rear study. The objector suggests the retaining wall be dismantled and land be re-established to its original level, with a new retaining wall re-established in its previous position.Comment: It is considered that although the concerns are valid, that a dismantling of the retaining wall is inappropriate, as the development itself is reasonable as long as any added privacy impact is controlled. The property to the rear is lower than that of the subject premises and it is difficult to ascertain the comments made about an ongoing history of raising the level of the backyard. The level of top of the retaining wall under assessment and already built is proposed at the level of the previous retaining wall, shown on a survey dated 26 July 2005. This is the same survey as used in the original assessment.It is considered that the top of the retaining wall should maintain the level as shown on the survey, and that the level of the backyard be filled in behind. On inspection, the newly retained area of the rear yard is no higher than any other part of the backyard. The privacy concerns are valid, and because of the angle of view one can achieve into the swimming pool and entertaining area of their premises from the extended/retained part of the backyard, it is considered that a green mesh material be attached to the swimming pool fence on top of the retaining wall, to obstruct any direct views. The material is not to be see-through but must allow natural ventilation and some sunlight to pass through it. It is to be attached to the swimming pool fence along the area of the new part of the sleeper/timber retaining wall (approximately 10m from the rear boundary).Air conditioning unit noise emissionsConcerns are raised about the air conditioner not ever being approved, and its operating noise level being offensive and affecting the use of the neighbouring dwelling and lifestyle particularly on warm days and evenings. The objector suggests it should be installed inside the building at 3 Marine Drive to contain noise emissions, and not on the boundary.Comment: It is considered these concerns are valid. The location of the large air conditioner in a narrow building corridor, close to a boundary and with no significant sound suppressing measures is unreasonable. It is assessed that the air conditioner would not meet the SEPP development standards as it is slightly closer to the boundary the minimum allowed setback of 450mm. Therefore its merits are assessed as a standard air conditioning development within Council’s standards.The location (given the size of the unit) is unreasonable, however, it too is unreasonable to now ask for the air conditioner (given its size and complex nature of ducting into the dwelling) to be relocated, when its noise emissions can be suppressed to meet the maximum allowed levels. Council in effect attaches standard conditions of consent in controlling noise levels, with the onus falling on the owner to ensure that operating noise emissions do not exceed that allowed. In this case, as there have already been objections to the noise emissions, it is considered that the onus should now be on the owner of 3 Marine Drive as the person responsible for the installation of the unit, to prove that the noise emissions meet the required level of 5dBA above ambient background noise level measured at the nearest property boundary between the hours of 7.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 10.00pm on weekends and public holidays. The air conditioning unit if operated outside these hours must not be heard in a habitable room in a neighbours residence.It is to be conditioned in any consent for an acoustic study to be undertaken with appropriate recommendations applied by the Principal Certifying Authority, for the site. Loss of privacy from balcony extension Concerns are raised that the balcony extension increases a privacy impact to a living room, and that the balcony extension be demolished.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The application seeks permission to demolish part of the existing garage and undertake alterations and additions to the existing commercial/residential development.2. The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan No 1 and complies.3. The application was notified in accordance with Council’s requirements and five (5) submissions were received in reply. The issues raised in the submissions are discussed in the report.AUTHOR RECOMMENDATIONTHAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.REPORT DETAILDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALThe application seeks approval for the demolition of part of the existing garage and to undertake alterations and additions to the existing commercial/residential development. In particular, the application seeks permission to undertake the following works: