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


SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 01 29TH JANUARY, 1997-



05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward
05:02.01 48 Queens Road, Hurstville (D.A. 369/96)
Alterations And Additions To An Existing Child Care Centre And
Increase Number Of Children To 43
05:02.02 15-17 Gordon Street, Hurstville (D.A. 360/96)
2X2 & 7X3 Bedroom Home Units With Basement Carparking

05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward
05:03.01 13-15 Bryant Street, Narwee (252/96)
Residential Flat Building
05:03.02 34-38 Martin Place, Mortdale (D.A. 233/95)
Section 102 Modification- 18X2 Bedroom Units
05:03.03 83 Inverness Avenue, Penshurst (D.A. 330/96)
Detached Dual Occupancy
05:03.04 106 Penshurst Street, Penshurst (D.A. 280/95)
Detached Dual Occupancy (Section 102 Modification)

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward
05:04.01 19 Douglas Haig Street, Oatley (332/95)
Detached Dual Dwellings
05:04.02 61 Park Street, Peakhurst (D.A. 334/96)
3X3 Bedroom Single Storey Villas
05.04.03 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood (D.A. 41/95)
Section 102 Modification - Residential Flat Building
05.04.04A 121 Myall Street, Oatley (D.A. 79/96)
1X3 Bedroom Townhouse and 2x3 Bedroom Villas

05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters
05:05.01 Appeal To Land And Environment Court For 54 Home Units
At 47-67 Mulga Road, Oatley (D.A. 282/95)
05:05.02 Development Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority
05:05.03 Development Applications Received Between 2 December, 1996 And 13
January, 1997


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 01 29TH JANUARY, 1997-


The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE

Dear Sir,

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


05.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.01 48 QUEENS ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 369/96)
ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING CHILD CARE CENTRE AND
INCREASE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO 43
(Report by Town Planner, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)





Applicant : Chinese Australian Services Society
Proposal : ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO
EXISTING CHILD CARE CENTRE AND
INCREASE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO 43
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 :
Owners : Chinese Australian Services Society
Existing Development : Single Storey Child Care Centre
Cost of Development : $20,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to carry out alterations and additions to the existing child care centre, increase numbers of children attending the centre, and increase the hours of operation.

2. The proposal is in compliance with the criteria established by the NSW Department of Community Services.

3. The proposed development has been assessed under the relevant matters for consideration of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

4. The proposal will diminish the amenity of the residential locality in which it is located due primarily to the proposed extension of trading hours.

5. No objection is raised by Councils engineers, tree inspectors or building surveyors.

6. Eight (8) submissions were received from adjoining and nearby residents during the notification period.

7. Recommendation - Approval subject to conditions of consent.

Proposed Development

It is proposed to carry out the following alterations and additions to the existing child car centre:

* Relocation of office to the north-eastern corner of the existing building. The existing office will be converted into an indoor play area;

* Install an nappy change room adjacent to existing children’s toilets;
* Provide new pedestrian entry from McLeod Street, new building entry and new roofed porch over;

* New child proof 1.5 metre high front fence to enclose new elevated outdoor play area where existing pedestrian entry off McLeod Street is located. The new outdoor play area will be covered by a pergola with shade cloth over;

* Erection of pergola with shade cloth over existing outdoor play area along existing metal colourbond fence fronting McLeod Street plus a new flat roof awning over the proposed entry off McLeod Street. Both these structures are 100mm off the McLeod Street boundary; and

* Demolish and reconstruct existing access ramp along north-western elevation of the building at a lesser grade.

It is proposed also to extend the existing trading hours from 8.00am 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, to 6.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The applicant initially proposed to extend the hours of operation to include Saturdays from 6.30am to 6.30pm. However, by way of letter dated 13 January 1997, the applicant amended the proposal by withdrawing the proposed Saturday trading hours, and amending the proposed trading hours during the week to between 7.00pm and 6.00pm.


Development History

Development Application No 80/93, for the conversion of the existing building to be converted from three flats to a child care facility for 39 children aged between 2 and 6 years was approved by Council at its Health, Building and Development Committee meeting on 31 March 1993. The Notice of Determination was issued by Council on 1 April 1993. The approval was subject to 16 conditions of consent, including defined hours of operation between 8.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday.

Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is a corner allotment and has a frontage to Queens Road of approximately 16.8 metres and a frontage to McLeod Street of approximately 43 metres. Existing development on the site consists of a single storey dwelling house which has been converted into a child care centre and associated children’s play equipment in the existing outdoor play area.

The locality is characterised by detached residential development generally single storey in height. Some two storey dwellings and infill development existing in the locality.

Statutory Requirement

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

There are no numerical statutory provisions contained within the LEP relevant to the assessment of the current application.

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant Section 90 matters for consideration which are discussed below.

Building Design and Appearance

It is considered that the proposed works to the elevation fronting McLeod Street will improve the external appearance of the building located on the site. The works will be accompanied by an open 1.5 metre high child safety fence, maintaining the semi-public open space that currently exists, and the introduction of landscaping within the side yard area. lThe 100mm alignment to McLeod Street for the pergola and entry awning is considered reasonable when taking into account the slim lines of these roof structures.

Relationship with Adjoining Development and Amenity Considerations

The existing development on the site is not characteristic of the residential development within the locality. The child care activities carried out on the site result in the development generating vehicle trips, both in the morning and in the evening of a week day which is generally uncommon in localities with a predominantly residential character. Council was aware of this altered relationship when approving the initial proposal to establish the child care centre, and has imposed appropriate conditions of consent to ensure the maintenance of the existing residential character and amenity.

An intensification of the child care centre as currently proposed will further effect the residential character and amenity of the locality. This is primarily due to the requested extension of trading hours, and the associated vehicle movements. Additionally, the extension of trading hours as proposed will necessitate the arrival of staff at an even earlier time of day. Therefore, the proposed hours of operation are not totally compatible with the residential character of the locality.

However, with Queens Road being a main thoroughfare and the traffic noise arising therefrom there is scope for the facility to extend its hours to some degree without an unreasonable impact upon the locality. In this light, it is considered that the extension of trading hours be limited to the following;

Additionally, a restriction upon the use of the outdoor playground area during the early morning period would alleviate some concerns raised regarding the noise generated by the activities carried out within the site. Discussions have been held with the applicant who has advised that the outdoor area is not generally used until after 9.00am. It is recommended that a condition be imposed in this regard to ensure that the impacts upon adjoining properties are minimised during the early morning period.

It is considered unlikely that the increase in the numbers of children attending the facility from 39 to 43 will noticeably alter the relationship with adjoining properties or unduly impact upon the existing and likely future amenity of the locality.

Landscape Quality

The proposal indicates the introduction of additional planting to the McLeod Street boundary, ensuring that the proposal makes a positive contribution to the landscape quality and character of the locality.

The proposal does not result in the removal of any significant vegetation located on the site.

Vehicle Access and Parking

The proposal makes no change to the existing vehicle parking and access arrangements. McLeod Street is generally utilised as the drop-off and pick-up point for the children. It is considered that an additional four children attending the facility will not generate excessive traffic and parking demands. No objection is raised to maintaining the existing situation.

The site currently provides staff parking in a stacked arrangement for three cars. This was deemed acceptable by Council when the original approval was granted. The current proposal has no intention of increasing the current staff numbers, and it is therefore considered likely that the existing parking arrangements will be acceptable.

Manager, Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent including:

* submission of a building application; and

* maintenance of existing disable access facilities.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a condition of consent requiring the applicant to pay Council to replace the cracked concrete path along McLeod Street.

NSW Department of Community Services

The proposal to expand the child care centre from 39 to 43 children has been endorsed by the NSW Department of Community Services, subject to the following requirements:
Regulated warm water to be provided to children’s washing facilities;
Nappy change facilities are to be provided for children under three years of age; and
Bottle preparation facilities shall be provided for children under 2 years of age.

The above matters have been included within a condition of development consent requiring compliance with the stipulations of the NSW Department of Community Services.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given 14 days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Eight submissions were received from adjoining owners and residents. The submissions raised the following issues:

i) Extension of trading hours will create unreasonable impact with regard to noise, particularly early morning, in the evenings, and Saturdays.

Comment : As indicated in the discussion throughout the report, the proposed hours of operation of 6.30 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Saturday are considered inappropriate and likely to exacerbate the incompatibility of the existing development on the site with the residential development in the locality. However, it is considered acceptable to allow an extension of trading hours to a restricted degree. An appropriate condition of consent has been included in those attached.

The applicant has withdrawn the proposed Saturday opening.

ii) Increase in numbers will exacerbate existing traffic problems.

Comment : It is considered unlikely the one would be able to perceive a worsening the existing traffic problems in the locality as a result of the increase in numbers of children attending the facility. An impact would be ameliorated by restricting the hours of operation as discussed, particularly in the early morning period.

Summary

The proposal is likely to unduly impact upon the residential character of the locality and the amenities currently enjoyed. This is primarily as a result of the proposed extension of trading hours from the original approval of 8.00am and 5.00pm. It is appropriate to limit the extension of hours to no earlier than 7.00am, and no later than 6.00pm on weekdays only.

The external works to the building are acceptable subject to materials being consistent with the existing building throughout. An appropriate condition of consent has been recommended.

The proposal in a form modified by conditions, therefore, is considered satisfactory with regard to the relevant matters pursuant to Section 90 of the Environment and Planning Act, 1979. Accordingly, approval of the application subject to conditions is recommended.






HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 48 QUEENS ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 369/96)
ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING CHILD CARE CENTRE AND
INCREASE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO 43
(Report by Town Planner, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)


. Recommendation 48 QUEENS ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 369/96)
ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING CHILD CARE CENTRE AND
INCREASE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO 43
(Report by Town Planner, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council, as the consent authority grant consent to the proposed alterations and additions, and extension of trading hours, to the existing child care centre at land known as 48 Queens Road, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development take place in accordance with drawing numbers 9646/01 and 9646/02, dated October 1996 and received by Council on 5 November, 1996, except as amended by the conditions listed hereunder.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of building work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Saturday, inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE: A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

5. Advertising signs shall not be erected without prior application to and approval by Council.

6. The use may only be conducted between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday. The child care centre may not operate outside of these hours.

7. The use of the outdoor playground areas is prohibited before 9.00am.

8. The premise shall be occupied solely for the approved use. No separate occupation or use of any part of the premises is permissible without prior Council approval.

9. A street number shall be clearly displayed in a prominent location at the front of the premises at all times.

10. Noise emissions from any activity within the site shall not exceed the background sound level measured at the nearest residential boundary at any time. The applicant is to submit, with the building application, a detailed noise report by a suitably qualified consultant with regards to the adequacy of the adjoining fencing and further measures, if required, to reduce noise emanating from the outdoor activities.

11. The premises and use of the building being conducted in such a manner so as to not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or otherwise.

12. The three existing staff parking spaces on-site shall be maintained and utilised at all times by staff only.

13. Applicant to pay Council to replace cracked concrete path slabs along McLeod Street with 80mm thick concrete slabs.

14. The existing disabled access is to be maintained at all times.

15. The development shall comply with all relevant provisions stipulated by the NSW Department of Community Services.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.02 15-17 GORDON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 360/96)
2X2 & 7X3 BEDROOM HOME UNITS WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)




Applicant : Mr. Robert Moss
Proposal : RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
OF NINE (9) UNITS BEING
2X2 & 7X3 BEDROOM HOME UNITS
WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : Mr. Robert Moss
Existing Development : Detached Single Brick Dwellings
Cost of Development : $810,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Proposal and existing development.

2. Proposal isolates a single residential allotment.

3. One (1) submission to proposal received.

4. Comment from Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment.

5. Recommendation - Approval.


Existing and Surrounding Development

The proposed development consisting of two (2) two bedroom units and seven (7) three bedroom units at 15-17 Gordon Street, Hurstville is located within an area undergoing significant development change. The site proposal is located opposite the high profile and well utilised Hurstville Oval and within a precinct identified for higher living densities under the Hurstville City Council Residential Development Control Plan 1994. The site is within close proximity to the Hurstville Town Centre which provides transport, entertainment and commercial opportunities.

Immediately adjoining the site is a single dwelling on the southern side and older style single detached dwellings north of the proposal along Gordon Street. A similar type higher density proposal is currently nearing completion at the corner of Gordon and Dora Streets and is a higher density development on the corner of Dalcassia and Dora Street, Hurstville.

The site currently accommodates single storey older style dwellings that have not been identified as items of Heritage significance Schedule 2 of the Hurstville City Council Local Environmental Plan 1994.

The property on the southern side of the proposed residential flat building development is a single dwelling site known as No. 19 Gordon Street. As a result of both this proposal and the existing development at the corner of Dora and Gordon Streets it will become isolated. However, following discussions with Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment and the developer of the proposal a suggestion is made further on in this report on a possible solution to this isolated site problem.

History

24/10/96Development application for 15-17 Gordon Street, Hurstville submitted to Council.
28/11/96-19/12/96Proposed development neighbour notified to affected and adjoining property owners.
December, 1996Applicant submits to Hurstville City Council a letter outlining the history of efforts to purchase adjoining property at No. 19 Gordon Street, Hurstville
7/1/97Applicant submits to Council amended Gordon Street elevations indicating proposed building envelope variations sought.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Interim Residential Development Code and its relevant amendments.

Proposed Development

The proposal as submitted for this development application is for the development of seven (7) three bedroom units and two (2) two bedroom units plus associated basement carparking. The existing single storey detached dwellings located at the site are to be demolished in order for the development to proceed.

The proposed building has been developed under Council's Interim Residential Development Code and is designed with architectural features incorporated into the elevations, particularly when viewed from the Gordon Street and Hurstville Oval elevations.

The completed development is considered to complement the existing development nearing completion, south of the site and should contribute to the changing character of the Dalcassia, Gordon Street locality.


Tabled Information

Proposed
Compliance
Draft
DCP
Site Area
970 m2
Yes
945 m2
Density
9 units
Yes
9.23
Development Area "D"
Building Height
11.0 m
Yes
12.0 m
Private Open Space:
12 m2
Yes
12 m2
Landscaped Area
436 m2
Yes
436 m2
Building Setbacks: Front
6.0 m
Side/rear
6.0 m/-
Residential Parking
12
Yes
11
Visitor Parking
2
Yes
2
Building Envelope - Front
1.5/45o
No
1.5/45o
- rear
1.5/45o
Yes
1.5/45o
Frontage
24.38 m
Yes
24.0 m

Comment : Building Envelope - The only area of non-compliance to protrude into the front building envelope is an architectural design feature approximately 230 mm in thickness. This variation is considered acceptable as the encroachment in this instance only consists of the thickness of the facade and as it enhances the design.

The Isolated Site

As previously mentioned in this report, the applicant has brought to Council's attention the result of the developments impact on the adjoining property at No. 19 Gordon Street, Hurstville.

The development nearing completion at Nos. 21 and 23 Gordon Street is a three (3) storey proposal with associated basement carparking, similar in height and density to this application.

To further outline to Council the lengths that the current applicant has pursued to purchase the property at No. 19 Gordon Street, the following letter was submitted to Council :

"We would like to point out that we have owned 15 and 17 Gordon Street for many years and have repeatedly made efforts to buy number 19 Gordon Street also.

However, this property was owned by Mr and Mrs A. Morgan and on Mr Morgan's death was apparently left to the Hurstville Baptist Church with the condition that Mrs Morgan be able to occupy the home on a life tenancy basis. However the Land Titles office still shows the home to be owned by Mrs Morgan, which is why we had constantly asked Mrs Morgan to sell to us over recent years. Mrs Morgan, who does not live in the property, consistently refused to sell and then only recently informed us that she merely had a life tenancy arrangement with the true owners, the Hurstville Baptist Church.

We have visited Mrs Morgan at her home in Culburra, NSW, on three occasions over the past eighteen months and asked if she could allow the property to be sold to us by the Baptist Church as she was obviously not occupying it. However she refuses to consider any such arrangement, partly because she was obviously annoyed that, as her husband left the property to the Baptist Church, there will never be any financial gain to her if the property is sold to another party. Also she informs us that her nephew currently occupies 19 Gordon Street and she does not wish to unsettle him in any way.

Therefore, the current situation is that because there will never by any advantage to her, she will definitely not relinquish her life tenancy rights to this home. The Baptist Church cannot sell the property because of Mrs Morgan's life tenancy so we see no way to obtain this lot to add to our adjoining properties.

We have also discussed this situation with Council's former Town Planners, David Crane and Michael Buckley and have recently informed Jan McCredie of the situation also.

We are obviously prepared to pay market value for this home as a part re development site as it would allow us to create a more profitable development, but Mrs Morgan has not only informed us that she cannot sell but also that she does not care what is built around her, particularly as she does not live on Gordon Street.

We have also been contacted by Mrs Morgan's niece who has advised us that Mrs Morgan has neither the authority nor the motivation to sell the property and asked us to refrain from further contact with her aunt.

We have attempted to secure this property since we purchased the adjoining home in 1989 and our solicitors have spent considerable time and effort in tracking the true owner of the property, all to no avail.

We now consider that 19 Gordon Street is unobtainable and we ask the Council approve our current development application with this fact in mind."

Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment

In order to achieve a future potential use for No. 19 Gordon Street, Hurstville, it was the opinion of the Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment, that the current applicant should not have to be responsible for the legal situation surrounding this site.

An opportunity to achieve future density levels on this site, which have been identified in the current Residential Density Control Plan, is to move the current application at 15-17 Gordon Street 1.0 metre north towards the northern boundary of this site. The result would leave a desirable setback between the two properties to which a three storey, six unit proposal could potentially be achieved. At the present time, it is difficult to indicate which direction the remaining sites along Gordon Street will evolve, i.e., as individual or consolidated sites. However, future development proposals along the remaining seven (7) sites of Gordon Street can be altered to accommodate this 1.0 metre variation. No. 1 Gordon Street, Hurstville, which has a larger street frontage of 14.02 metres, depending upon future development proposals will be able to absorb this 1.0 metre difference.

At issue in this instance are many unknown factors. It is therefore considered by the Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment that moving the current proposal 1.0 metre north that a desirable streetscape for Gordon Street, Hurstville can be achieved, without limiting the potential for higher density development at No. 19 Gordon Street, Hurstville

Manager, Building Services

The development proposal was referred to the Manager, Building Services, to which the following comment was made. Standard conditions relating to the submission of a building application and on site detention and stormwater details. A number of advisory notes have also been outlined for consideration by the applicant at the building application stage.

Manager, Development Advice

The development proposal was referred to the Manager, Development Advice to which the following comment was made. Standard conditions relating to stormwater, on site detention, replacing the brick kerb with concrete kerb and gutter for the full width of the site and creating and registering a 1.0 metre wide drainage easement to benefit Nos. 16 and 18 Dalcassia Street, Hurstville.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was registered and their concerns are outlined below :

i) My privacy will be invaded and the proposed building will be overshadowing my backyard.

Comment : The subject site is located on the southern side of the submission and will therefore not impact upon this property.

Summary

The proposal as submitted by the applicant for the development of seven (7) three bedroom units and two (2) two bedroom units at 15-17 Gordon Street, Hurstville is generally within compliance with the Hurstville City Council Interim Residential Development Code, 1995 and therefore should be supported. The applicant has brought to Council's attention the constraints of the adjoining isolated site known as 19 Gordon Street. The development if conditioned to be moved 1.0 metre toward No. 13 Gordon Street, will allow future development potential at No. 19 Gordon Street. As highlighted within this report, Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment considers this to be a workable option, with the difference in setback to be absorbed dependent upon future applications along Gordon Street and the larger street frontage at No. 1 Gordon Street, Hurstville.

It is for these reasons and the general conformity with Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994, that this type of proposal is supported. Overall the proposal has architectural and streetscape merit and is a good quality development.





HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 15-17 GORDON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 360/96)
2X2 & 7X3 BEDROOM HOME UNITS WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)


. Recommendation 15-17 GORDON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 360/96)
2X2 & 7X3 BEDROOM HOME UNITS WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent for the erection of a three (3) storey residential flat building with basement carparking containing 7 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom units at 15-17 Gordon Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No tables and documentation prepared by dated and submitted with DA 360/96, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $27,548 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $3,072 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

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

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

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

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

7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

8. All stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Gordon Street and the underground garage area to "pump" to the same kerb and gutter.

9. A 1m wide easement to drain water is to be created over the subject site to benefit the lands adjoining the north-eastern boundary known as 16 and 18 Dalcassia Street to allow their stormwater to be drained to the kerb and gutter in Gordon Street. The easement is to be registered prior to occupation of the dwelling or with any plan of subdivision prior to issue of a Building Certificate. Where the easement is located under a proposed garage the developer is to pipe that portion of the easement to the satisfaction of Council.

10. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by ,the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed RL at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

11. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

12. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

13. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

14. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

15. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

16. All access driveways, queuing areas, ramps, gradients and the like for basement and ground level parking areas are to conform with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2890-1-1993 - Parking Facilities except where otherwise required by Council. Details are to be submitted with the building application for approval.

17. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m, except for disabled spaces which shall have minimum dimensions of 3.0m X 5.5m.

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

19. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.1 metres for all areas traversed by cars. A minimum of 3.6 metres headroom shall be provided over all areas traversed by service vehicles.

20. Visitor spaces to be identified on strata plan and spaces to be suitably signposted on site using metal screw-on or rivet-on type signs.

21. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

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

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

24. Perimeter planting along northern boundaries shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining development. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.

25. Compliance with the requirements of Sydney Electricity in relation to the provision of a site within the subject land for the establishment of an electricity kiosk type substation, if required for the locality. Prior to submission of building plans, the developer shall present details of the development in writing to Sydney Electricity and obtain confirmation of that authority's requirements. The kiosk site shall be dedicated at the applicant's expense for use of Sydney Electricity.

26. Where a sub-station kiosk is required, such shall be suitably located and screened, and details of screening and location shall be submitted with the landscape plans and shall be to the satisfaction of Council.

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

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

29. Any trade waste containers are to be screened from public view and are not to obstruct or interfere with the use of loading and parking facilities and accessways. Such bins are to be stored within 12 metres from the front boundary. The structure housing the bins is to be designed to reflect the approved building. Details are to be submitted with the building plans.

30. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

31. Applicant to pay Council to :
a) Replace all redundant crossings with kerb and gutter.
b) Construct a 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
c) Replace the brick kerb with concrete kerb and gutter in Gordon Street for the full width of the site.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

32. The building, as proposed, shall be relocated a distance of 1.0 metre towards the north-eastern boundary. Details of this work shall be included with the building application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.01 13-15 BRYANT STREET, NARWEE (252/96)
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING




Applicant : Mr. P. Paridisis
Proposal : RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : A. Smeal and V. & M. Lam
Existing Development : Two Single Storey Dwellings
Cost of Development : $950,000



Council, at its Meeting held on 11 December, 1996, considered a report on the above development application and resolved :

"That the matter be deferred for a redesign which ensures issues of density, storeys, setbacks, balconies, privacy, overshadowing, excavation and easements are altered to comply with Council's Interim Residential Development Code."

Since the last Council Meeting there have been further discussions between Ward Councillors and the applicant and amended plans will be lodged with Council.

As residential flat buildings are permissible in this area and the concerns of councillors have been expressed to the applicant, it is suggested that this application be further dealt with by delegated authority.

To reacquaint Council with this matter, the previous report and recommendation are reproduced below :





Existing and Surrounding Development

The site comprises two existing allotments each currently occupied by detached single storey weatherboard residences. Existing dwellings are in a reasonable state of repair but have not been maintained, presumably on the expectation of redevelopment. The site is almost level.

The predominant form of development in the locality is detached dwellings mostly of a single storey nature. There are a scattering of two storey developments which appear to be more recent. There is also a scattering of three storey residential flat buildings although none appear to have been constructed in recent times.

Two of these three storey developments are in close proximity to the site one being immediately to the east and sharing a common boundary and the other being to the south west. Whilst the former of these is relatively bland in terms of articulation and design the latter has varied setbacks by virtue of its staggered elevation.

Proposed Development

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwellings on the site and replace them with a residential flat building. The new development will contain 8x3 bedroom dwellings and 1x4 bedroom dwelling. Below this will be basement car parking for the development.

Access to the site is via Bryant Street to the basement car parking. The parking level is generally below ground. The development site is constrained by an easement that traverses the front of the property. This has had an impact on the location of the building within the site.

Statutory Requirements

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

Compliance with Interim Residential Development Code Requirement

The proposal has been assessed against Council’s Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) and there are several key areas of non-compliance. These are discussed in greater detail later in the report.

The following table summarises the proposal’s compliance with the provisions of the IRDC. Further comment is provided where appropriate:


ProposedCompliesInterim DCP
Site Area930m2No945m2
Density9No8
Building Height11.7m maxYes12 m max
Private Open Spacesee commentsee commentsee comment
Building Setbacks
Front
Rear
6.2m

see comment
Yes

No
6m

6m
Residential Parking11Yes11
Visitor Parking3Yes3
Building Setbacks
Nth Side
Sth Side
See comment
See comment
Yes
Yes
4m/7m
4m/7m
Frontage30.48mYes24m
No of storeys4No3

Comment :

Building Design - this proposal is a product of an irregular shaped allotment which fronts Bryant Street. Not only is the property of irregular shape it also is traversed by a significant easement resulting in a front setback that varies from 6.2m to up 11m. This produces a number of constraints on the site.

The applicant has stated that in order to overcome these site constraints yet still have a viable development there has been a need to seek a variation to Council’s policy in several areas. The most obvious of these is that the development contains four storeys as distinct from Councils requirement of only three. Discussions with Council officers has been on the basis that the proposal must comply with the building envelope controls and that the fourth storey is substantially designed as attic space. The result is that whilst the development does not comply with the three storey limit, its overall shape and therefore its potential impact is much the same as a three storey proposal.

This has not been achieved because of the amount of space required in the attic. The building front and rear facades include walls at the fourth storey. The presentation of this development to Bryant Street is of a 4 storey development.

The roof space has been used to provide bedrooms for three of the units in a townhouse style arrangement. In order to add design features and provide additional light dormer windows have been provided to these rooms. Whilst these result in a minor encroachment of the building envelope their removal would have a negative effect on the design and amenity of the bedrooms. If the use of the attic by having a fourth storey had not been proposed, there would be total compliance.

Setbacks - Council has a requirement of a minimum setback of 4m on the first and second storeys and a setback which increases to 7m on the third storey. This is to control a number of aspects including privacy, bulk and appearance and potential overshadowing. The development does not comply with these requirements in that there is an intrusion at the lower levels particularly on the eastern elevation.

Stormwater easement across the northern section of the site has meant the development has been pushed into the southern section. The result has been that the car park at basement level extends to both side boundaries and its egress points are within the 4m setback.

The main entrance to the building and the stairwell leading up out of the basement car park are located within the 4m setback on the eastern boundary. This intrusion is limited to a single storey, but represents one more intrusion into the setbacks.

At the upper levels, there is also some non-compliance with side setbacks. In this regard the building on the eastern elevation encroaches at its closes point to 6.3m and on the western elevation to 6.4 metres. It should be stated however that these encroachments are only for small parts of the building.

The applicant has not addressed the non-compliance with the side boundary setbacks except to say that the site has particular constraints because of its shape. There are a number of impacts which result from the non-compliance which also have not been adequately addressed.

Balcony Sizes - there is a non-compliance with three of the balcony sizes being for units 2, 5 and 8. In addition, some of the balconies intrude into the side boundary setback requirements. An argument has been put forward that the balconies add to the design by giving articulation but in this regard it is considered that this articulation should be provided but not at the expense of side boundary setbacks where the potential to increase loss of privacy is enhanced.

Loss of Privacy - as mentioned, there is a potential for loss of privacy where balconies encroach greater than they should on side boundary setbacks. It brings these areas closer to the adjoining development at 9 Bryant Street, and will potentially impact on development that may take place at 17 Bryant Street. In order to overcome some of these concerns the applicant reorientated one of the balconies away from the rear (southern) boundary to the western one.

Other Section 90 Issues

Potential for overshadowing : As this development is on the southern side of Bryant Street it shares a common boundary along its southern side with a proposed development at Berrille Road. Given the properties orientation combined with the increased setback from Bryant Street (resulting from the stormwater easement) the development is as close as possible to the southern boundary. The flow on effect is that there will be overshadowing of the proposed residential flat building at No. 1A and 1B Berrille Road. This is arguably increased by the additional storey.

Manager, Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposal subject to a number of conditions which have been incorporated in the recommendation.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposal subject to a number of conditions which have been incorporated in the recommendation.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the “St George and Sutherland Shire Leader” and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. A total of two submissions were received from nearby residents during the advertising period. The issues raised in these submissions have been summarised and addressed as follows.

One of the submissions was from the existing block of units at No. 9 Bryant Street and was concerned with loss of privacy and loss of amenity through overshadowing. In addition concern was raised over working hours during the construction process.

There are balconies proposed off units 2,5 and 8 which face the eastern boundary. In particular, the balcony on the upper floor which is off unit 9 is only 4.2 metres from the boundary.

A further submission was received from an adjoining property raising concern over the construction of residential flat buildings and noise that may be generated from the underground garages.

The proposal has a number of areas of non compliance with Councils IRDC as well as exceeding the density requirements by a minor amount. It is difficult to justify the number of areas of non compliance and even harder to support a variation to density requirements when the site has so many constraints.

The development erodes the integrity of Council’s policy by seeking conditions without sound basis. The appearance is seeking an increased density but at the expense of other properties and without providing other attributes to negate impacts.

If Council Policy is to be varied, then the applicant has to demonstrate the benefits derived. This is difficult when the variations result in loss of amenity, loss of privacy, additional bulk in the streetscape and an undermining of the integrity of Council Policy.

There have been objections relating to impacts which will result from non compliance with the Council’s requirements. This adds weight to the decision to refuse the application. Variation to Council Policy should not be at the expense of the adjoining properties.



Recommendation

THAT the matter be deferred for an inspection and further report by the Ward Councillors and appropriate officers to consider if site constraints warrant a code variation AND THAT delegated authority be granted to the General Manager to approve the application if so recommended by the Ward Councillors.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 13-15 BRYANT STREET, NARWEE (252/96)
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING


. Recommendation 13-15 BRYANT STREET, NARWEE (252/96)
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the matter be further deferred for the admission of amended plans on the building design and that delegated authority be granted to the General Manager to approve the redesigned application if so recommended by the Ward Councillors.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.02 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 233/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION- 18X2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)




Applicant : Michael Khoury
Proposal : SECTION 102 MODIFICATION
18X2 BEDROOM UNITS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : Reefhill Pty. Ltd.
Existing Development : Single Dwellings
Cost of Development : $1,575,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Development Application approved by Council on 26 February, 1996.

2. Section 102 Modification submitted to Council on 17 October, 1996.

3. Amendments in compliance with Council's Interim Residential Development Code, 1995.

4. Four (4) submissions to proposal received.

5. Recommendation - Approval.


Council, at its Meeting held on 21 February, 1996, considered Development Application No. 233/95 to which approval was given for the development of 18 x 2 bedroom units at 34-38 Martin Place, Mortdale.

A Section 102 Modification plan has since been lodged by Reefhill Pty. Ltd., on 17 October, 1996, to raise the building approximately 1.2 metres in order to install louvre windows in the basement carpark to allow for natural ventilation and to improve the existing slope of the access driveway to a lesser gradient. This does not alter the development substantially as the building is still within the required building envelope.

Assessment of Modification

The reduction in the amount of excavation will result in an RL 46.65 to ridge (previous RL 45.45) representing a maximum increase of approximately 1.2 metres. The average increase in height for the slope of the land is no more than 1.0 metre.

This height increase is not considered to be significant in this instance, particularly as the proposal is still within the required building envelope and it is within an area identified for higher density proposals.

The site is a corner location situated at Martin Place and the Strand and the amended proposal will not impact on adjoining properties.

Public Notification and Comment

A notice was placed in the "Public Notices" section of the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and 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 proposal was also notified in accordance with Section 77(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, Division 3 - Modification of Development Consents. Four submissions were registered and their concerns are outlined below :

i) "No objection is raised to the proposal of raising the height of the existing development application. What is of concern, however, is the two (2) large trees situated on the proposed development site.

The two (2) trees in question are extremely large with two-thirds of the trees encroaching upon our block of units rendering two of the three clothes lines unusable due to bird droppings and tree sap.

Also, owing to the enormity of these two trees, we fear possible damage may be occasioned due to the severe storms of late. Also, as one of these trees is deciduous, the continuous deluge of both leaves and "berries" at certain times of the year cause much inconvenience to the body corporate in cleaning both lawns, pathways and gutterings, as well as detract aesthetically from the overall look of our building."

Comment : These two trees have been identified by survey plan as Camphor Laurel species that have no particular value to the proposal or the amendments to this proposal. The applicant has indicated an undertaking to either remove or lop these trees with Council permission to minimise the above concerns.

ii) The number of units proposed for the block will be too densely arranged for the proposed block. Street parking will also be greatly affected due to the shopping precinct in Morts Road.

Comment : The proposed density of this development is in accordance with the density requirement for Development Area "D" which has been identified by Council in the Hurstville City Council Residential Development Control Plan. The application at issue is a variation to an existing consent to which this density requirement has previously been assessed.

In addition, issues of carparking have previously been addressed and approved under the original application.

iii) "Original plan shows a building envelope of 12.0 metres for the south east elevation, but shows a building envelope of 18.0 metres for the north east and north west and south west elevations. Town Planners report states building height to be 11.2 metres, the proposed amendments raising the building envelope by 1.2 metres would therefore give a height of 12.4 metres - exceeding the specified limit. Plans of the proposed building show that whilst the north east elevation shows the entire building within the envelope, the south east, south west and north west elevations show sections exceeding the envelope."

Comment : The applicant has submitted amended plans with reduced levels indicating total compliance with the 12 metre height limit and building envelope criteria in accordance with Council's IRDC 1995.

Summary

After considering the issues submitted by adjoining property owners and public notification respondents, the nature of the amendments and the general amenity of the locality, it is considered that the proposal is a satisfactory amendment to the previous development consent, D.A. 233/95. It is on this basis that the proposed amendments are considered reasonable and approval is therefore recommended.

To reacquaint Council with the various aspects of the application the report to the said Meeting is reproduced below :





Existing and Surrounding Development

The site is situated on the corner of Martin Place and The Strand, one block from the Mortdale Shopping area in Morts Road. It slopes to the rear and is currently developed by way of one fibro cottage, one weatherboard dwelling and one brick dwelling. A number of trees are present on the site, these being a Jacaranda, Crepe Myrtle, Liquid Amber, Camphor Laurel and Gum. These will all need to be removed.

The properties adjoining the rear boundary, the western side boundary and across the road are all developed by units. The only exceptions are the properties across The Strand, being Nos. 30 and 32 Martin Place. They have single dwellings on them.

This area of Mortdale was zoned for units under Council's previous Planning Scheme Ordinance, 1980, and therefore there is a variety of existing two and three storey residential flat buildings in the immediate area.

History

6/6/95Development application for 21 x 2 bedroom units lodged with Council officers.
3/7/95Applicant advised that Council repealed the RDCP.
4/7/95Amended plans for 21 x 2 bedroom units lodged with Council officers.
23/8/95Preliminary Assessment of application made. Applicant advised the application is considered an overdevelopment.
27/9/95Applicant further advised to reduce the number of units, increase the provision of deep landscaping and increase the setbacks. This was confirmed in a letter dated 28/9/95.
24/11/95Amended plans for 18 x 2 bedroom units was received.
27/11/95Preliminary assessment undertaken.
5/12/95 - 29/12/95Adjoining owners notified and advertisement placed in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader".



Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's repealed Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and Council's Interim Residential Code 1995, with its subsequent amendments.

Proposed Development

The amended proposal is for the establishment of two (2) three storey residential flat buildings with 18 x 2 bedroom units and basement parking.

Vehicular access is from The Strand and enters the basement garage via a ramp parallel to the rear boundary. Due to the slope of the site, the basement at the rear of the site will extend 0.6 to 0.8 metres above natural ground level.

The design will comprise of two buildings slightly offset, with mirror reversed floor plans. They will be separated by 5.7 metres for the majority of the building, with the minimum separation being 3.0 metres between bedroom windows and kitchen walls.

Three units are on each floor of each building, with two per floor from each building fronting Martin Place and one per floor at the rear of each building. Bedrooms, bathrooms and laundries have been limited to the middle of the site to reduce the amount of internal overlooking. However, it still exists with three of the bedrooms per floor, so it is suggested that these windows be rearranged to alleviate this problem. Also, the internal ends of the balconies will need to be screened to ensure privacy.

Tabled Information


Proposed
Repealed DCP
Com
pliance
draft DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
1309.5 m2
-
Yes
No
1890.0 m2
Density
18 units
-
Yes
No
12.5 units
Development Area "D"
Building Height
11.2 m
12.0 m
Yes
Yes
12.0 m
Private Open Space:
14.0-19.6 m2
15.0 m2 ea
No
Yes
12.0 m2 ea
Landscaped Area
46%
604.0 m2
45%
589.0 m2
Yes
Yes
45%
589.0 m2
Building Setbacks:
Front - Martin Place

The Strand
3.0-4.7 m

1.775 m
4.7 m min

-
No

Yes
No

No
6.0 m min

2.5 m min
Side/rear
3.0-4.3/
5.7 m
- / -
Yes/
Yes
No/
No
7.0/
6.0 m
Residential Parking
18
18
Yes
Yes
18
Visitor Parking
5
5
Yes
Yes
5
Building Envelope - front
5.5m/45o
5.5m/45o
Yes
No
1.5m/45o
Frontage
36.575 m
-
Yes
Yes
24.0 m


Comment :

Breakdown of Landscaped Area - Council's repealed RDCP requires a minimum of 30% (176.2 square metres) of the landscaped area to be deep landscaping and Council's Interim Code requires 40% (235 square metres) to be deep landscaping. The applicant has provided 232.5 square metres (39%) which is greater than 3.0 metres in width, as well as a further 51.0 square metres at the rear, 53.8 square metres along the north-eastern side and 55.8 square metres along the south-western side which have dimensions less than 3.0 metres wide. Additional landscaping will be provided above the basement area.

Front Setback - Martin Place : Since the buildings are slightly offset, the front setbacks vary with the balconies being set back between 3.0 metres and 4.4 metres. The building's front walls are set back between 4.8 and 6.0 metres. The walls comply with the repealed code requirements of 4.7 metres but not the interim RDC requirements of 6.0 metres, however, the balconies do not comply with either requirements. Since the immediate area has units surrounding it is believed the minor encroachment to the front setback under the repealed code (between 0.3 and 1.7 metres) will not affect adjoining residents.

Manager, Building Services (South)

No objections were raised in relation to the amended plans, however a number of advisory notes are to be attached to ensure the proposal complies with the Building Code of Australia.

Manager, Development Advice

No objections were raised provided all stormwater drains to the kerb and gutter, drainage amplification is paid, appropriate conditions regarding crossings are adhered to and a 3 x 3 metre splay at the corner is registered.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was registered and their concerns are outlined below :

(i) Traffic along Martin Place has increased considerably over recent years, especially since the introduction of "one way" through the shopping area, Pitt Street and Macquarie Place.

Comment : It is true that traffic has increased due to the one way streets, however, the introduction of an eighteen (18) unit proposal will not compound any problems that may already be existing.

(ii) This development of eighteen (18) units is out of character with the usual six (6) to nine (9) unit buildings in the area.

Comment : The unit developments in the immediate area are a mixture of seven (7) units (at the rear) to twelve (12) units (at the rear and adjoining). The two developments across the road consist of nine (9) and eleven (11) units. Although all of these are less than the proposed eighteen (18) they are also built on one and two allotments, whereas the proposal is spread over three allotments thus allowing an extra unit capacity. There are other examples in Martin Place of fifteen and eighteen unit developments (at 41 and 47 Martin Place) and these extend over similar sized allotments to this proposal.

(iii) Can our resources (sewerage, water, garbage, etc.) cope with the influx of bigger unit constructions.

Comment : The applicant is required to pay drainage amplification fees to go towards Council's upgrading of stormwater pipelines. However, the area has been designated for unit developments for a number of years and it is believed that the resources can cope.

(iv) A "delightful federation brick cottage on the corner .... (is) well worth preserving for the benefit of retaining some character and historic value to Mortdale."

Comment : The property is not registered in Council's LEP or Heritage Study, 1988, as an historic dwelling. Therefore, the owners should be permitted to sell it any time they wish, especially since the area is designated for unit development.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 233/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION- 18X2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)


. Recommendation 34-38 MARTIN PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 233/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION- 18X2 BEDROOM UNITS
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant approval for a Section 102 Modification to Development Consent No. 233/95 for 18 x 2 bedroom units at 34-38 Martin Place, Mortdale, subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Amended plans submitted with the application dated 10 January, 1997, prepared by Quick Draw Drafting and Design and the conditions of consent for Developmetn Application 233/95 issued on 26 February, 1996

9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted the proposed dwelling shall not exceed RL 46.65 at the main ridge line.

35 The raised section of ground floor slab shall be either roofed or landscaped and details for the design and finishes to the raised section of ground floor slab outside the perimeter of the main building walls shall be included with the building application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.03 83 INVERNESS AVENUE, PENSHURST (D.A. 330/96)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)




Applicant : Laura Kincade Developments
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "B"
Owners : Ms. G. Cruwys
Existing Development : Detached Weatherboard House
Cost of Development : $125,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Detached dual occupancy, both dwellings are single storey.

2. Proposal does not fully comply with the Hurstville City Council (IRDC) 1995.

3. No objections were received.

4. Stormwater to drain by gravity to Inverness Avenue.

5. Recommendation - that the application be refused.


Existing and Surrounding Development

The site contains a single storey two (2) bedroom weatherboard house and an older style factory/saddlery building that is in a dilapidated condition and requiring demolition. The site falls from the rear western boundary to the eastern front boundary at Inverness Avenue. The site has a generally east/west orientation with the eastern and western boundaries having a width of 15.245 metres and the northern and southern boundaries, a length of 60.46 metres and 60.09 metres respectively.

The general locality of the proposal is that of older style, single storey dwellings. The site is within close proximity to Gifford Park which is located a short distance north along Inverness Avenue.

History

20/9/96Development application submitted to Hurstville City Council
23/10/96Preliminary Assessment highlighted design deficiencies and amendments required to be submitted by the applicant.
30/10/96Amended plans submitted to Council.
18/11/96 to 9/12/96Notification to adjoining properties.
11/12/96Applicant again advised by phone of design deficiencies relating to landscaping, plan inaccuracies,no building height shown, no levels being supplied of proposal and that rear site setbacks on submitted plans could not be achieved. In addition, front building setback is to be encroached with a carport type proposal. Applicant further advised that the proposed rear dwelling is too big in order to meet the relevant controls of the IRDC 1995.
16/12/96Final assessment of the application commenced to which many deficiencies in design were again noted. The applicant was again further notified that the submitted plans were not in accordance with Council's IRDC 1995.
6/1/97The applicant further submitted additional landscape plan and altered site plans with minor building changes. An additional supporting letter also forwarded to Council outlining to Council the applicant's family situation, development and demolition expenses and altered landscaping areas.
13/1/97Applicant interviewed for two (2) areas of non-compliance with Council's IRDC 1995. Further, the applicant requested that Council staff proceed with the application and that an opportunity to present the case to Council be granted to the applicant. The applicant was advised to outline details in writing, of any presentation to Council in writing, should he wish to proceed with representations at this level.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Interim Residential Development Code and its relevant amendments.

Proposed Development

The proposal as submitted for this application is to construct a four (4) bedroom single storey detached brick veneer dual occupancy dwelling at the rear of the existing site. The existing dwelling is to remain unchanged apart from the construction of a carport area at the frontage to Inverness Avenue. A large existing 125 square metre fibro factory building is to be demolished as the applicant submits this development to be out of keeping with the locality.

The new dwelling is to be of brick veneer construction with a tile roof. The existing and new dwellings will be separated by a landscaped driveway area that adjoins the double garage of the new dwelling. The dwellings will have access via Inverness Avenue, Penshurst with a 3.0 metre driveway servicing the rear dwelling along the western boundary of the site. The site has a total area of 921 square metres with a frontage of 15.25 metres and a depth of 60.09 metres.

This proposal shows two areas of non-compliance with Council's IRDC to which the applicant submits, is acceptable in this instance due to the requirement for a dwelling of this size to accommodate an existing family situation.


Tabled Information

Proposed
Compliance
Draft
DCP
Site Area
921 m2
Yes
630 m2
Density
2 dwgs
Yes
2.92
Development Area "B"
Building Height
Approx. 5.5m
(Not indicated)
Yes
6.0 m
Private Open Space:
87/87 m2
Yes
60 m2
Landscaped Area
41%
No
414.15 m2
45%
Building Setbacks: Front
9.0 m
Yes
4.5 m
Side/rear
1.35 m
Yes
1.35 m
Residential Parking
3
No
3.25
Building Envelope - Front
3.5/45%
Yes
9.0 m
- rear
1.5/45%
Yes
6.0
Frontage
15.245 m
Yes
15.0 m

Comment : Building Height - No building height dimensions have to date been supplied by the applicant apart from the submitted elevations indicating a floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres. It is assumed from this and given the 22.5 degree roof pitch that the proposed rear dwelling will address the building height requirement under the IRDC 1995. Details to be submitted at the building application stage if this application is considered beyond development application level.

Landscaped Area - See comment in "Summary".

Residential Parking
The applicant is seeking a variation to Council's IRDC to bring the carport forward of the required building setback of 4.5 metres and the front building facade of 9.0 metres.

Manager, Building Services

The application was referred to the Manager, Building Services for comment to which the following details have been outlined. Submission of a building application and stormwater details to be supplied.

Concern has also been raised over the lack of detail regarding building elevation heights and site contours.

Manager, Development Advice

The application was referred to the Manager, Development Advice to which the following comment and details were made. All stormwater from the site is to drain to the kerb and gutter in Inverness Avenue. A requirement for on site detention to be provided in addition to the demolition of the existing saddlery/garage. The applicant is to pay Council to replace the existing badly damaged crossing with a 100mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh. A quote to undertake this work for the crossing will be given by council on request.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days between 18 November and 9 December, 1996 in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. No submissions were registered.

Summary

From analysis of this application a number of issues have been highlighted that indicate significant variations from Council's IRDC 1995. It has also been presented to Council staff that the application seeks to vary Council's IRDC in regard to the required landscaping component of 45% and the carparking requirement beyond the predetermined building setback of 4.5 metres. These variations are sought by the applicant on the basis of a requirement for the larger proposed dwelling at the rear to accommodate the existing family situation. The owners wish to point out that the family unit now consists of husband, wife and three (3) sons aged 10, 16 and 18 and they require a four bedroom home. Further the applicant highlights to Council that it will cost $15,000 to demolish the 125 square metre existing fibro factory. By granting approval, the owners will be able to demolish the structure thus eliminating a health hazard and an eyesore.

The applicant has lodged a written submission to Council on these areas of non-compliance and states as follows :

"The owners wish to make the following submission to the Development Committee regarding the two variations to the Code.

1. Landscaping area 41% - should be 45%.

The owners have recently remarried bringing together 3 males 10, 16 and 18 years old. Hence the need for 4 bedrooms in the proposed new dwelling.

Upon the land at the rear exists a large 125 m2 ex-saddlery factory made from fibro asbestos sheeting and has a large concrete floor. The cost of demolition is going to be high making a small proposed residence uneconomic.

2. A 1 metre encroachment into the building alignment of a proposed car port. There has been no objections from the adjoining neighbours.

Two existing trees - a Lilipilli and a Liquidamber will screen the proposed car port.

Residence at No. 87 has an existing car port only one metre to the street frontage."

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear through discussion with the applicant's developer that the owners do not wish to alter the proposal any further in order to meet the areas of non-compliance in the IRDC 1995.

Whilst the site area is reasonably large for a dual occupancy site, at 921 square metres, the footprint of the existing house at the front and the 9.0 metre front setback utilises much of the site area. This is the cause of the lack of space for the proposed size of the rear dwelling.

If the front building was demolished and replaced with a two storey dwelling on a 4.5 metre front alignment a design could be achieved which permitted the proposed size of the rear dwelling.

As a result of these issues presented and under the submission to Council on behalf of the applicant highlighting the current family situation, this proposal is referred to Council for determination.

The options available to Council in this instance are as follows :

a) Approve of the application subject to standard conditions application for dual occupancy developments.

b) Refuse the application on the grounds of :

i) The amount of landscaped area is inadequate.

ii) One of the required car parking spaces will be located in front of the building line.

c) Request the applicant to amend the plans by redesigning the building to give a smaller floor area and larger landscaping area.

There has been no recommendation for approval in this instance and the matter has been listed for Council's consideration as personal issues on family size are not generally seen as having a planning and environment relationship for variation of a planning code.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 83 INVERNESS AVENUE, PENSHURST (D.A. 330/96)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)


. Recommendation 83 INVERNESS AVENUE, PENSHURST (D.A. 330/96)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the matter be for Council.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.04 106 PENSHURST STREET, PENSHURST (D.A. 280/95)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY (SECTION 102 MODIFICATION)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)




Applicant : C. & S. Kalokeri
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(SECTION 102 AMENDMENT)
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "B"
Owners : C. & S. Kalokeri
Existing Development : One Half of a Semi-Detached Dwelling
Cost of Development : $86,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Previous application (D.A. 419/94) for detached dual occupancy approved at Council Meeting held on 2 November, 1994. Current owners purchased the property with this consent. This approval was later found to be flawed in regard to landscape area calculations.

2. D.A. 280/95 lodged to amend the proposal and provide an improved design.

3. Existing house forms one half of a semi-detached dwelling. The semi-detached house is listed as a heritage item in Council's Local Environmental Plan, 1994.

4. Torrens subdivision of previous dual occupancy has been approved by Council on 18 May, 1995 and registered with the Land Titles Office on 2 November, 1995.

5. Pump-out system is required for the proposed dwelling at the rear of the site. (This was approved for the previous application).

6. One (1) objection received.

7. Application does not comply with Council's requirements due to flaw in original approval.

8. Recommendation - Approval.


Existing and Surrounding Development

The site is currently developed by way of a single storey residence at the front of the property. This dwelling forms one half of a semi-detached dwelling and is classified as a Class "A" of Council's Heritage Study 1988 as well as listed in Council's LEP 1994, as an item of heritage significance.

The adjoining dwelling, No. 108 Penshurst Street, forms the other half of the semi-detached dwelling. This adjoining property has an approved detached dual occupancy dwelling at the rear which was approved by council at the Council Meeting held on 29 November, 1995. This proposal also incorporates a pump-out system. The immediate area surrounding the property has a mixture of single and two storey dwellings.


History of Proposed Development

2/11/94Previous application (D.A. 419/94) for detached dual occupancy approved on the site. The landscaped area was later found to be incorrect.
18/5/95Council approved Torrens subdivision of the land under the dual occupancy provisions.
26/6/95Section 102 Amendment submitted to Council as the new owners did not like the approved design and considered vehicular movements to be unworkable. (Note : Modified application thus lodged under the Repealed Code)
3/7/95The applicant advised in writing that Council repealed the Residential Development Control Plan 1994.
10/7/95The applicant advised verbally that the proposed dwelling is larger than the previously consented to development proposal.

The development does not meet the 50% landscaping requirement as required under Council's (now repealed) RDCP 1994. The applicant would have to provide details showing a proposal meeting the 50% landscaping requirement. The applicant was also advised that if the application was withdrawn, Council would refund her application fees, due to the Code being repealed. The applicant chose to continue with the development application.
27/7/95The applicant advised in writing that Council's planning officers would assess the application according to its merits under Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and taking into account the repealed RDCP 1994 and the draft Interim Residential Development Control Plan, 1995.
14/8/95The application was referred to the Heritage Branch of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.
9/11/95Clendon Vale Homes, the builder, advised verbally and in writing that Council was still waiting for plans for landscape area.

The landscaping could be reduced to 45% under the Interim Code, but still it did not appear to comply.

The builder was also advised that the rear of the proposed dwelling is high above the natural ground level (due to the sloping nature of the site) and that it should be split level.
23/11/95-7/12/95Neighbour and adjoining owners notified of amended proposal.
January 1996Amended landscape plan received but did not comply.
12/2/96After numerous discussions, the applicant advised that they were not willing to split the level for the rear of the dwelling. They were asked to obtain a letter from the neighbours at the rear ensuring they have no objections to the provision of additional lattice screen above the rear fence.
23/4/96Letter received from a neighbour saying they have no objections to the proposed lattice fence addition.
16/5/96Council contacted Clendon Vale Homes and further explained that the submitted plans did not comply with the minimum requirement of 45% landscaping for the whole site, but rather 45% for the rear site only.
14/10/96The applicant advised that amended application was to be refused due to the landscaping requirement of 45% not be achieved. The applicant was forwarded the opportunity to withdraw the application. The applicant further advised that the original consent still applies, however, an additional letter requesting an extension of time for this consent beyond 7 November, 1996 to be submitted.
15/10/96Letter of request to the extension of time for DA 419/94 submitted by the applicant as it will lapse on 2 November, 1996
6/12/96A further letter to the applicant requesting Clendon Vale Homes to submit a plan showing a landscaping component over the whole site of 45%, not the rear of the site as submitted by Clendon Vale Homes. The site requires 313 square metres to be dedicated to landscaping. Calculations indicate that the front dwelling has approximately 103 square metres of landscaped open space. The rear proposal therefore requires landscaped area of approximately 210 square metres. Clendon Vale Homes claim to be supplying 159 metres of landscaped area, the result of which is a 51 square metre shortfall. It was found at this time that the proposal submitted by the original applicant under D.A. 419/94 was incorrect on landscape areas.
11/12/96Letter to the applicant in response to their letter of 15 October, 1996 requesting an extension of consent (D.A. 419/94). The letter outlined that this development proposal does not comply with Council's current development code, thus it is not intended to recommend extension of the subject consent.
31/12/96Letters to Council from the applicant highlighting the history of the application, requesting an extension of time for the development consent 419/94 and for Council to favourably consider the current amendments under D.A. 280/95. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to each Councillor.
9/1/97Letter sent to the applicant outlining that the issues raised will be forwarded to the next Council Meeting to be held on 29 January, 1997 for determination by Ward Councillors.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's repealed Residential Development Control Plan, 1994 and Council's Interim Residential Development Code 1995 and its subsequent amendments.

Proposed Modification to the Development

The proposal is to establish a new three bedroom single storey dwelling at the rear of the site. As previously mentioned, the new owners wish to change the approved design to position the family room at the rear of the dwelling to allow for better supervision of small children in the yard area. The proposed changes also improve vehicular access and manoeuvrability. The dwelling itself has been changed to a rectangular shape, with the beds to be located on the western side of the site, with the kitchen, dining and family rooms on the eastern side of the proposal.

However, the modified design continues to err in regard to lack of landscaping. Details are as follows :

SUBJECT
D.A. 419/94
D.A. 280/95
Landscaping Required
348 m2 (50%)
313 m2 (45%)
Landscaping Proposed
280 m2
262 m2
Built Areas (including drives)
415 m2
433m2
Shortfall
68 m2
51 m2

Tabled Information on Modified Application

Proposed
Repealed
DCP
Com
pliance
Draft
DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
695 m2
-
Yes
Yes
630 m2 (min)
Density
2 dwgs
-
Yes
Yes
2.2 dwgs
(max)
Development Area "B"
Building Height
5.6 m
9.0 m
Yes
Yes
6.0 m max
Private Open Space:
64 m2
Yes
Yes
60 m2
Landscaped Area
38%
50%
(347.5 m2)
No
45%
(313 m2)
Building Setbacks: Front
-
Side/rear
1.4/.925m
6.0 m
Yes
No
1.35 m
Residential Parking
2
2
Yes
Yes
2
Frontage
10.67 m
-
Yes
No
15.0 m min

Comment : Landscaping - The site requires 313 square metres for landscaping over the whole site. The front dwelling has approximately 103 square metres of landscaping. Under the existing control plan, the rear proposal needs to supply 210 square metres of landscaping. The proposal put forward the applicant claims to supply approximately 159 square metres of landscaped area, the overall shortfall therefore is 51 square metres.

The size of the proposed dwelling is similar in both the previous and the proposed applications and the present landscaping deficiency is a result of the previous application having conflicting representation between what was being proposed and what was actually available on the site.

This discrepancy was only found recently. Whilst this problem should have been detected earlier by Council officers it could also have been calculated by the applicants, who held the previously approved plans, and thus been drawn to Council's attention.

Building Setbacks - The previous consent had a setback of 900mm on the north eastern boundary. The amended proposal has a setback of 925 mm and will not affect the adjoining property any more than the previous consent. This concession means that the modified application receives the benefit of the setbacks of the Repealed Code but also gets the advantage of the lesser landscaped area (45%) of the Interim Code.

Street Frontage - Under the Hurstville City Council Residential Development Control Plan 1994, no street frontage requirement was applicable. The amended proposal is considered acceptable in this instance as this control was not in force at the time of lodgement.

Manager, Building Services

The matter was referred to the building surveyor for assessment against the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. the following comments were made :

* Submission of a building application.

* Building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project.

* The existing dwelling is to be upgraded, painted and landscaped.

* Stormwater comment similar to previously approved development application.

Manager, Development Advice

No objections were raised provided all stormwater is drained to the kerb and gutter, on site detention is provided and the standard condition regarding vehicular crossings is adhered to.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One (1) submission was registered from the property at the rear and their concerns are outlined below :

i) Stormwater removal from the property.

Comment : Stormwater removal will not impact upon the subject property as it is to be pumped to the kerb and gutter in Penshurst Street in addition to a Council requirement for on site detention.

ii) Privacy from kitchen/family room overlooking backyard.

Comment : The applicant has agreed to erect lattice screen to address this issue and minimise potential privacy concerns.

Summary

At issue throughout this development application has been the shortfall of landscape area. It was recently determined that it was the incorrect site calculations on the original application that have had implications on the current proposal. It is felt in this instance that Council should view this amendment favourably and not penalise the current applicants for inconsistencies in the previously approved consent.

However the Council does have the option to refuse this application plus the request to extend the existing consent due to the lack of landscaping. This is not recommended as the oroginal application has sold the consent and as the dual occupancy subdivision has now been processed and the front lot is under separate ownership.

The amended dual occupancy proposal for the development of the rear site at 106 Penshurst Street does not comply with the requirements of the IRDC 1995 or the Repealed 1994. Given that the original proposal has previously been granted consent by Council and the amended proposal is essentially of a similar nature, approval is therefore recommended, subject to conditions.



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 106 PENSHURST STREET, PENSHURST (D.A. 280/95)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY (SECTION 102 MODIFICATION)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)


. Recommendation 106 PENSHURST STREET, PENSHURST (D.A. 280/95)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY (SECTION 102 MODIFICATION)
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent to the amended dual occupancy proposal at No. 106 Penshurst Street, Penshurst subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Amended Plans, tables and documentation prepared by Clendon Vale Homes dated 30 May, 1995 and submitted with DA 280/95, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $2967 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

6. Stormwater drainage plans for a "pump out" type system prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, pump details etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

7. All roofwater via the front downpipe from the existing dwelling is to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Penshurst Street. Details are to be shown with the building application.

8. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

9. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

10. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

11. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

12. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

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

14. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification.

15. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

16. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by Clendon Vale Homes, the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed 5.3 metres at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

17. If the existing crossing is damaged during construction of the rear dwelling, then the applicant is to pay Council to construct a new 100mm thick concrete vehicular crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

18. The proposed carport and rear dwelling shall be designed to reflect the characteristics of the existing house. Plans shall be submitted with the building application.

19. The fence around the proposed private courtyard area for the existing dwelling is to be located 500mm from the driveway. The area between the said fence and the driveway is to be planted with shrubs.

20. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

21. A lattice screen extension shall be provided on the top of or over the side boundary fences of sufficient height to screen the yards of neighbouring properties from overviewing when standing at floor level. Details of levels and heights of such screen fencing shall be included with the building application.

22. A hard stand car space shall be provided for the front dwelling in a location behind the building line and any carport over this space shall be designed to reflect the characteristics of the existing house.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04.01 19 DOUGLAS HAIG STREET, OATLEY (332/95)
DETACHED DUAL DWELLINGS




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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



Existing and Surrounding Development

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

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

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

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

History


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


Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No.2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Repealed Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and Council's Interim Residential Development Code 1995.

Proposed Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tabled Information



Proposed
Repealed
DCP
Compl iance
Draft
DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
627m2
-
Yes
No
630m2
Density
2 dwellings
-
Yes
Yes
1.99 dwellings
Development Area " A"
Building Height - front

- rear
9.2m

5.5m
9.5m

9.5m
Yes

Yes
No

Yes
9m - See
Comment
6m
Private Open Space: - front
- rear
95m2
104m2
70m2
60m2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
100m2
80m2
Landscaped Area
348m2
55%
(344.8m2)
Yes
No
55%
(344.8m2)
See
Comment
Building Setbacks: Front
3.8m
3.5m
(min.)
Yes
No
4.5m
Side/rear
0-0.9m/
7.6m
0-0.9m/
0.9m
Yes/
Yes
No/
Yes
2m/3m
Residential Parking
3
3
Yes
Yes
3
Visitor Parking
-
N/A
-
-
N/A
Building Envelope - Front
3.5m/
45o
3.5m/
45o
No
No
3.5m/
45o
See
Comment
- rear
3.5m/
45o
3.5m/
45o
Yes
No
1.5m/
45o
See
Comment
Frontage
13.715m2
-
Yes
No
15m

Comment:

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

Building Envelope

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

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

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

Stormwater Disposal

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

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

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

Manager, Building Services

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

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

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

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

Manager, Development Advice

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

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

Tree Preservation Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Notification and Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Drainage problems appear to be present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Council at its meeting on 17th July 1995, resolved the following:
"That applications submitted to Council prior to 13 July 1995, be considered according to their merit using Section 90 considerations and taking into account as heads of consideration both the plan in force when submitted and the draft Multi Residential Development Control Plan - 1995 on display."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Summary

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

1. Compliance in all respects with amended drawings, plans dated 29/6/95 and received by Council 5/1/96, Drawing No DA.01a, submitted with DA 332/95, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.

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

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $2,119.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $236.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.

The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,110.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

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

8. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

9. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

10. Natural colours such as browns and greens are to be used for the exterior roof and walls. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

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

12. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

13. Applicant to pay Council to construct two (2) 100mm thick concrete crossings.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

14. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services. This is to be done in accordance with Council's Tree Preservation Officers.

Note:
In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Should the applicant wish to subdivide the subject dual dwelling at a later date, the relevant authorities are to be contacted regarding their requirements prior to laying any cables or services; Australian Gas Light Company, Telecom and the Sydney Water Board.

19. Payment to Council for an additional garbage service on occupation of the new dwelling. For relief from the second garbage service the landowner shall signify, in writing, that one service is sufficient for the approved dual dwelling developments on the site and that there is no intention to seek approval for a subdivision of the lands by way of a strata subdivision or the like.

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

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

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

23. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

2. Encroachment upon the building line.

3. Excessive height of the building.

4. Overshadowing and privacy concerns for the rear dwelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Encroachment upon the building line

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

3. Excessive height of the building

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

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

4. Overshadowing and privacy concerns for the rear dwelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amended Proposal

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

1. Alteration to the design of the roof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Alteration to the building design.

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


Tabled Information

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

Public Notification and Comment

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

Their concerns are outlined below :

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

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

ii) The drainage is inadequate for the proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vi) The height of the proposal is excessive.

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

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

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

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

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

ix) Landscaping on the site is inadequate.

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

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

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

Summary

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


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

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


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



RECOMMENDATION


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

1. Compliance in all respects with amended drawings DA016 and 026, plans dated January, 1997, submitted with DA 332/95, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.

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

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $2,119.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $236.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.

The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,110.- and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by ,the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed RL105.34 for the front portion and RL103.84 for the rear portion at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

8. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

9. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

10. Natural colours such as browns and greens are to be used for the exterior roof and walls. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

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

12. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

13. Applicant to pay Council to construct two (2) 100mm thick concrete crossings.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

14. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services. This is to be done in accordance with Council's Tree Preservation Officers.

Note:
In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Should the applicant wish to subdivide the subject dual dwelling at a later date, the relevant authorities are to be contacted regarding their requirements prior to laying any cables or services; Australian Gas Light Company, Telecom and the Sydney Water Board.

19. Payment to Council for an additional garbage service on occupation of the new dwelling. For relief from the second garbage service the landowner shall signify, in writing, that one service is sufficient for the approved dual dwelling developments on the site and that there is no intention to seek approval for a subdivision of the lands by way of a strata subdivision or the like.

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

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

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

23. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

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

25. The Angophora species tree near the proposed sitting room shall be retained and the amendments to the building layout to save this tree shall be included with the building application.

26. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown. These plans shall show stormwater from the front dwelling draining to the Douglas Haig Street gutter via gravity and stormwater from the rear dwelling and all other surface waters being pumped to the same gutter.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04.02 61 PARK STREET, PEAKHURST (D.A. 334/96)
3X3 BEDROOM SINGLE STOREY VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)





Applicant : Rhodes Developments Pty. Ltd.
Proposal : 3X3 BEDROOM SINGLE STOREY VILLAS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "B"
Owners : A. Abdullah
Existing Development : Single Storey Dwelling and Detached Garage
Cost of Development : $250,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to demolish the existing single storey dwelling and to construct 3 x 3 bedroom single storey villa dwellings

2. The proposal is in compliance with the criteria of Councils policy, except with regard to the building envelope and the minimum driveway width. Matter is submitted to Council for consideration of this variation.


3. No objection is raised by Councils engineers, tree inspectors or building surveyors.


4. One submission was received from an adjoining resident during the notification period.

5. Recommendation - Approval subject to conditions of consent.



Proposed Development

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling on the site and construct three single storey villa dwellings, each containing three bedrooms. Car parking is to be provided within attached garages.

Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site has a frontage to Park Street of approximately 21.285 metres and is located between Kerrie Crescent and Belmore Road. The property to the rear (south) fronts Caledonia Crescent. The site has a slight cross fall from its southern boundary to its northern boundary fronting Park Street, with a fall from RL 39.45 to RL 38.09. Existing development on the site consists of a single storey dwelling house and detached single car garage.

Adjoining development comprises a single storey dwelling to the east at 59 Park Street, and a part one and part two storey dwelling to the west at 63 Park Street. Development in the locality is generally characterised by single storey dwelling houses interspersed with the occasional two storey dwelling.

Statutory Requirement

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

There are no numerical statutory provisions contained within the LEP relevant to the assessment of the current application.

The proposal has been assessed against Councils Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) and exhibits compliance except with regard to the building envelope and the minimum driveway width. The following table summarises the proposals compliance with the provisions of the IRDC. Further comment is provided where appropriate.

ProposedCompliesInterim DCP
Site Area1169m2Yes945m2
Density3 dwellingsYes3.7 dwellings
Frontage21.285mYes15.0m
Storeys:
Front
Rear
1
1
Yes
Yes
2
1
Building Height:
Front
Rear
5.3m
4.8m
Yes
Yes
9.0m
6.0m
Private Open Space61.74m2Yes60.0m2
Building Setbacks:
Front
Rear
4.5m
Determined by envelope
Yes4.5m
Building Envelope:
Northern elevation
Southern elevation
Eastern elevation
Western elevation
Nil
Nil
Nil
3.0m
Yes
Yes
Yes
No: See comments below
Front: 3.5m/450
Rear: 1.5m/450
Landscaped Area45.2% (528.8m2)Yes45% (526m2)
Residential Parking6Yes6
Visitor ParkingNilYesNil
Driveway width2.8mNo: See comments below3.0m

COMMENT:

Building Design/Streetscape - The proposal has been designed to reflect the detached nature of development fronting the street in the locality. Villa 1, whilst being attached in nature, will appear a single detached dwelling from the street. The proposal incorporates architectural design features to ensure its compatibility with the character of the locality, including gabled and hipped roof forms of appropriate scale, and has been well integrated with landscape elements to add to its contribution to the street scape.

Building Envelope - As indicated in the above table, the proposal fails to comply with the building envelope in the south western corner of the site. The breach is a result of the proposed attached garage to Villa 3 having a zero set back from the site’s western boundary.

The extent of the non-compliance does not compromise the amenity currently enjoyed by the adjoining property, 63 Park Street, nor does it result in a building incompatible with the scale of development in the locality. The location of the garage along the western boundary of the site allows an efficient use of the land by way of facilitating the appropriate location of the private open space associated with the Villa to the north eastern side of the subject property. No objections are raised in this instance.

Driveway Width - Vehicle Access and Manoeuvrability - The width of the proposed driveway falls short of Council’s minimum standard, thereby raising implications for the adequacy of vehicle manoeuvrability on site. The layout of the driveway facilitates egress for vehicles in a forward direction, however, it is considered appropriate to condition the approval to comply with Council’s minimum specified driveway width.


Relationship with Adjoining Development

The proposal has provided adequate separation of the new dwellings from adjoining properties in order to enhance its relationship with adjoining development. Side boundary set backs accommodate the driveway access to the western boundary and private open space areas to the eastern boundary. It is proposed to provide landscaping to both side boundaries to soften the development when viewed from adjoining properties.

Amenity Considerations

It is considered unlikely that the proposed development will unduly impact upon the amenities enjoyed by adjoining properties. The level of overshadowing likely to be experienced will be negligible due to the single storey nature of the proposed development, and the set backs to the adjoining properties.

The proposal will not unreasonably diminish the visual or acoustic privacy of adjoining development for the following reasons:

* the single storey nature restricts the possibility of overlooking adjoining properties from any internal living areas;

* the proposed dwellings have adequate separation to adjoining development; and
* windows and private open space have been sufficiently screened from adjoining development.

Internal amenities to the proposed dwellings have been satisfactorily addressed in the following manner:

* location of private open space areas in order to achieve adequate solar access;

* acceptable relationship between the internal and external living areas; and

* adequate separation and screening of each outdoor private open space area.

Landscape Quality

The proposal indicates the introduction of additional planting to all boundaries, as well as additional landscaping adjacent to the proposed dwellings and the internal driveway. A number of existing trees will be removed as a result of the proposed development. However, Council’s Tree Officer has advised that the existing trees are in poor condition and are not worthy of retention. Additionally, these trees do not make a significant contribution to the landscape quality of the locality, therefore, their removal is considered acceptable.

A complete Landscape Plan will be required to be submitted with the building application which will enable Council to ensure the proposal makes a positive contribution to the landscape quality and character of the locality.

Manager, Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent including:

* submission of a building application;

* discharge of stormwater to Park Street; and

* submission of stormwater drainage plans with building application.

Council’s Building Surveyor has also advised that the garage openings within 1.5 metres of the western property boundary are to be protected in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. This does not affect the appearance of the proposal, nor its compliance with the relevant planning provisions.
Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent. These include the following:

* gravity stormwater drainage to Park Street;

* drainage amplification; and

* pay Council for construction of vehicular crossing and footpath.

* creation of 1.0 metre wide drainage easement to benefit 22 Caledonia Crescent to the rear.

Tree Preservation Officer

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has advised that all trees on the site nominated for removal are in poor condition. No objections have been raised to their removal.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One submission was received raising the following issues:

i) Stormwater discharge problems from the subject property affect the adjoining site.

Comment : The submission of stormwater plans with the building application, and the creation of a one metre wide drainage easement will allow Council to ensure appropriate controls for stormwater run off from the site.

ii) Garage structure to the western boundary should be set back to allow the retention of the existing boundary fence.

Comment : It is considered that the location of the garage on the boundary is acceptable given that there will be no unreasonable environmental consequences to the adjoining property, and that it allows a more efficient use of the subject site. The creation of a set back between the garage and the western boundary of the site would not improve the outcome for the adjoining property, and would create a space with little or no utility for the future residents the development proposed.

iii) Lack of visitor parking will be detrimental to existing local residents.

Comment : The proposal is not subject to the provision of visitor parking under the Council’s current planning controls. Compliance with the specified parking requirements have been achieved, therefore, no objections are raised.

Summary

The proposal is generally in compliance with Council’s planning controls, and provides a reasonable development on the site within the context of the immediate locality. The bulk and scale of the proposal are compatible with existing development, and do not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the streetscape or the amenities enjoyed by adjoining properties.

It is deemed appropriate to require the provision of a driveway width in accordance with Council’s minimum standard to ensure adequate vehicular manoeuvrability. This will not substantially alter the proposed development and can be dealt with by way of condition of consent.

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the relevant matters pursuant to Section 90 of the Environment and Planning Act, 1979. Accordingly, approval of the application subject to conditions is recommended.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 61 PARK STREET, PEAKHURST (D.A. 334/96)
3X3 BEDROOM SINGLE STOREY VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)


. Recommendation 61 PARK STREET, PEAKHURST (D.A. 334/96)
3X3 BEDROOM SINGLE STOREY VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council, as the consent authority grant consent to the proposed development of 3 x 3 bedroom, single storey villas at land known as 61 Park Street, Peakhurst, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 9619.1 and 9619.2 tables and documentation prepared by Rhodes Developments Pty. Ltd., dated September 1996 and received by Council on 25 September, 1996 and submitted with DA 334/96, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Saturday, inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE: A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City’s population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore, the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $9324.00 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $1040.00 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.

The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $2069.13 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system, including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

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

9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by S J Anderson the proposed villa dwelling shall not exceed RL 44.10 metres at the main ridge lines as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

10. The vehicular driveway and shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council’s specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

10. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

11. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

12. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Certificate of Classification being issued.

13. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council’s satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

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

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

16. The Applicant is to pay Council to construct a new 150mm thick concrete vehicular crossing reinforced with F72 mesh and a new 1.52m wide and 80mm thick concrete footpath for the full width of the site. Quote given on request.

17. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services.

Note: In addition, the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

18. Perimeter planting along all boundaries shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining development. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.

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

20. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

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

22. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m.

23. The driveway shall be widened to have a minimum width of 3 metres. Details to be submitted to with the building application.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

A) Garage wall openings within 1.5 metres of the western boundary are to be protected to comply with C3.2 of the Building Code of Australia. Details to be submitted with the building application.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04.03 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)




Applicant : Huntington & MacGillivray, Architects
Proposal : SECTION 102 MODIFICATION
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : Green & Javeski


PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Proposed modification of development to that approved in DA 41/95 is to re-configure internal layout and move four (4) storey section from the front to the centre of the building. The number of units remains the same at twenty (20).

2. Modified design lessens the impact of approved design in regard to privacy loss and streetscape.

3. Thirty-one (31) submissions received from thirteen (13) residents for this modification.

4. Recommendation - approval.



Background

On 13 December, 1995, Council approved the development of a residential flat building containing twenty (20) two bedroom units at 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood.

On 4 April, 1996, the applicant submitted new plans for the development in the form of a proposed modification of the approved development under Section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Subsequently further amendments were made to the new plans, which were received by Council on 5 September, 1996. These latter plans have since been advertised and notified and are the subject of this report.

Site and Locality

The site is located on the north side of Cairns Street, approximately 100 metres east of its intersection with Belmore Road. the site encompasses two house blocks and is rectangular in shape, having a frontage to Cairns Street of 25.6 metres and a depth of 56.98 metres. Each block contained a house, both of which were in poor condition but have since been demolished. The site slopes towards the rear and the west (No. 8 Cairns Street), with a total fall diagonally across the site of approximately 3.0 metres.

Adjoining the site are cottages on the west side and an approved residential flat building on the east side. To the rear is the St. Patrick's Anglican Church (which addresses Littleton Street). On the opposite side of Cairns Street and further up and down the street are single cottages.

Proposal

The applicant has lodged a written submission on the modified proposal and it states as follows :

"An application is before council for a section 102 amendment to the development consent on the above property.

The existing approval is for 20 times two bedroom home units.

The amended plans are for 20 times two bedroom units.

We believe the approved plans have the following deficiencies :

a. The garaging is for cars in open spaces. Enclosed separate garages are preferable.

b. The development proposes four storeys to the street frontage. A development of three storeys facing the street would be more in scale with existing developments in the area and more in keeping with peoples expectations of three storeys for high density development.

c. The proposed front elevation does not agree with the plans. This means that what is actually depicted will not be what is actually built.

d. The building because of its configuration requires a fire isolated stair. Before the fire isolated stair can provide entry to individual flats it must give access to an internal foyer at each floor. Those foyers can only be artificially lit and this is practically undesirable and wastes energy.

e. A fire isolated stair must be lined with non-combustible materials. This means that the stair cannot be carpeted but must be tiled with a hard material that generates unwanted noise when in use.

f. The south facing residential flats have their dining rooms located so far from a window that the available natural light would be insufficient for normal use, requiring artificial lighting for most of the daytime that the room was in use.

g. The rear units have been planned so that their living areas overlook their adjoining neighbours whilst the bedrooms to the same units are orientated to the north sun.

h. On the fourth floor the approved plans show in about the middle of the block, a living room window, a balcony a kitchen window and two bedroom windows all overlooking their adjoining neighbours. The window sills to these top floor flats are about 9000 above natural ground. In addition the east facing flats on the fourth floor are setback 7000 from the boundary, a marginal increase on the 6700 of the approved plans and hence a marginal improvement on the loss of privacy issue to the adjoining neighbour.

i. The proposal is excavated so that two of the ground floor south facing two bedroom flats are of a 1600 high retaining wall. Because of the south orientation these flats would be rather dank and dark

A meeting was held with Councillor Sansom regarding the proposed changes. His main objection dealt with the apparent increase in windows to the fourth floor overlooking the adjoining neighbours.

Three sets of amended plans, drawings 3.127.1, 2, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6, 7a and 8a are enclosed that address that problem. Whereas the approved plans have a total of four windows and a balcony overlooking the neighbouring property on both the east and west sides, on the fourth floor the amended plans have two bedroom windows overlooking the neighbouring property on both the east and west sides. The potential for overlooking has been more than halved. There is more potential for undesirable overlooking from balconies, living rooms and kitchen windows. This is eliminated in the amended plans.

On the approved plans the walls of the fourth storey is set back, 6500 to 7000 from the side boundaries. The amended plans that are the subject of the section 102 amendment are set back 7000 and 4505 from their side boundaries. When compared with the numbers of windows and the side setback on the approved plans with the lesser numbers of windows and the setback to the amended design to the additional loss of privacy due to decreased setback is nullified by the numbers and types of windows on the amended plans.

The amended plans provide for, as opposed to the approved design :

a. Enclosed self contained garages.

b. Three storeys to the street frontage providing a more apt scale to the street.

c. A redesigned front elevation that is in our opinion an improvement on the approved design.

d. The amended design now does not require a fire isolated stair. There is then no internal artificially lit foyer. The stair can be carpeted thereby reducing noise transmission.

e. The South facing flats are redesigned so that the almost internal dining room is now located closer to a natural light source.

f. Half of the rear facing flats have been redesigned so that their living areas face north with an attendant reduction in potential overlooking of an adjoining neighbour.

g. The fourth floor is in roughly the same position on plan as the approved plans. The numbers of windows overlooking their adjoining neighbours has been more than halved.

h. The amended design now provides for the lowest of the southern most flats looking over natural ground rather than into an excavated cavern.

On the evidence above it is clear that the amended proposal is superior to both the approved plans and to a lesser extent to our plans originally submitted with the section 102 amendment.

We ask that council consider the amendment favourably.

As a footnote our client has indicated he may sell the plans with the original approval if council rejects the section 102 amendment rather than build a development he feels is inferior.

He must feel strongly about the approved plans to invest so much time in obtaining a 102 amendment when the interest clock is ticking so loudly.

Should council reject the proposed amendments then the development WILL proceed on the already approved development consent."

Whilst there is general agreement with the points made by the applicant in the submission above a comment is made as follows :

"clause (c)" - The approved plans did depict what was going to be built. The floor plan for first and second floors did not show the off-set of facades as marked on the front elevation because it was a composite drawing on one sheet. However, this construction was understood and would have been clearly shown on construction plans with the building application.

"clause (g)" - The rear units balconies did overlook adjoining properties to each side and now one will look to rear instead of the side. Whilst it is still overlooking rear properties it is preferable as rear wall is 9 metres away from the boundary.

"clause (i)" - The building floor level has been raised up by 1.4 metres to eliminate the low level of the ground floor units but the overall height of the building has been increased by only 0.3 metres due to a change in roof shape and reduction in roof pitch.

The proposed modified design generally seeks to reconfigure the internal layout of the approved development. Its general configuration is similar to that approved by Council in DA 41/95. Details of the approved scheme and the proposed modified design are shown below:

Approved
Proposal
No. of Units20 x 2 bedroom20 x 2 bedroom
FootprintRectangularRectangular
Height3-4 storey over basement3-4 storey over basement
Setbacksoff all boundariesoff all boundaries
Driveway and Parkingsouth-western corner down to basementsouth-western corner down to basment
LevelsBasement - RL 22.0Basement - RL 22.45
Ground - RL 25.0Ground - RL 26.4/25.45
1st - RL 27.551st - RL 29.15/28.0/28.2
2nd - RL 30.102nd - RL 31.9/30.55/30.85
3rd - RL 32.7363rd - RL 33.1
Overall - RL 36.9Overall - RL 37.2
Max. Heightless than 12.0 m12.0 m

From the above table it is clear that the proposed design is substantially similar to that approved by Council. Consequently Council is within its power to consider the new scheme as a proposed modification to the original consent.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the modified proposal is permissible with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the (now repealed) Residential Development Control Plan 1994, because DA 41/95 was lodged at a time when that plan was still in force. For comparison purposes the proposal has also been assessed against the provisions of Council's Interim Residential Development Code.


Tabled Information

Proposed
Repealed
DCP
Com
pliance
Draft
DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
1458.69 m2
-
-
-
-
Density
20
-
-
No
13.9
Development Area "D"
Building Height
12.0m max
12
Yes
Yes
12.0 m
Private Open Space:
10.8 m2 min
15.0 m2
No
No
12.0 m2
Landscaped Area
734.4 m2
50.3%
656.4 m2
45%
Yes
Yes
656.4m2
45%
Building Setbacks: Front
7.3 m
6.0 m
Yes
Yes
6.0 m
E Side
3.2/3.2 m
-
Yes
No/No
4.0/7.0 m
W Side
3.7/3.7 m
-
Yes
No/No
4.0/7.0 m
Side/rear
9.0 m
-
Yes
Yes
6.0 m
Residential Parking
20
20
Yes
Yes
20
Visitor Parking
5
5
Yes
Yes
5
Building Envelope - Front
5.5m/45o
5.5m/45o
Yes
No
1.5m/45o
Frontage
25.6 m
-
-
Yes
24.0 m

Comment :

i) Private Open Space

The stated objectives of private open space as stated in the Interim Residential Development Code area to ..... "meet user requirements for privacy, access, outdoor activities and landscaping...."

The proposal supplies each dwelling with a private open space, either in the form of a courtyard/terrace or a balcony. While there are eight (8) units that have private open spaces less than the required 15 square metres, the actual average provision is 28.2 square metres per dwelling. This indicates that a range of users can be catered in this development, from those that require/wish little private open space, to those that require/wish to have more.

Privacy will be maintained for the nominated private open spaces either by courtyard walls, or planter boxes and railings for balconies above ground level. The privacy of these spaces is reasonable given the density of development proposal.

There is an adequate provision of landscaping in this development proposal. The submission of a landscaping plan will ensure the effective utilisation of this area.

The actual requirement of future users of private open spaces is difficult to predict. While a reasonable area per unit may be desirable on a theoretical level, it should be remembered that perceived excess/inadequacy of private open space will be a matter for future occupants to consider in deciding to occupy the dwellings. The development as a whole caters for a wide range of private open space requirements.

In this light the apparent shortfall of private open space for some units, is not a matter that detracts from the proposed design.

ii) Side Setbacks/Building Envelope/Privacy

The proposed development scheme is designed to the former envelope control applicable to this site. This control of 5.5 metres and 45 degrees was considered appropriate to assess the approved development, consequently it is now considered appropriate to utilise it for assessing the modified design.

In regard to impact it should be noted that the proposed scheme is 300mm higher but it does not exceed the 12 metre height limit. Further the proposed scheme contains only seven (7) balconies facing side boundaries, the approved scheme has ten (10). The redesigned top level also greatly reduces the opportunity to overlook the neighbouring properties.

Generally the proposed scheme represents at worst no difference to the approved scheme, and at best represents an improvement to the privacy of neighbouring properties.

iii) Density

The proposal contains 20 units, which is the same as that approved by Council in DA 41/95 after having accepted review of this application under the Repealed Code. As long as there is no nett deterioration of impacts from development of this site, no objection is raised to the excess density in this instance.

iv) Storeys

The proposal exceeds the limit on the number of storeys in the Interim Residential Development Code for Development Area "D". It contains a development of 3/4 storeys over a basement level, which is the same as that approved by Council in DA 41/95. In the same vein as iii) Density above, no objection is raised to the excess storey in this instance.

Other Section 90 Issues

i) Solar Access

The proposed design offers marginally better solar access into the living and dining areas of many of the units in the building.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposed modification was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Upon receipt of amended plans for the proposed modification the matter was re-advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were re-notified by letter,. inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one days. The twenty-six (26) people who had previously lodged a submission at some time since the original application was first lodged on 8 February, 1995 were also further notified for comment on the amended proposal.

As the Council is also aware, at the Council Meeting of 29 November, 1995 a petition, against development in this area, containing over 114 signatures was tabled and received by Council. A further petition calling for a rezoning of the area and containing 26 signatures was received on 5 February, 1996. Copies of both petitions were forwarded to all Councillors.

For this modified application a total of thirty one (31) submissions were received from thirteen (13) residents. A total of twenty-one (21) issues were raised and these issues are addressed below :

i) Non-compliance with Section 102

Comment : It has been submitted that the proposal differs to a substantial degree to the approved development and cannot therefore be considered a modification to DA 41/95. Previously in this report it is shown that the proposal is substantially similar to that approved by Council in DA 41/95 and can therefore be considered as a proposed modification to that approval.

It has also been submitted that Council has not permitted adequate public consultation, nor made correct and complete plans available for public viewing. The fact of the matter is that the proposal has been advertised twice, neighbours have been advised twice, there have been two (2) twenty-one day periods in which to view plans and all relevant plans available to Council have been available for public viewing. Given the level of public interest shown and the volume and content of correspondence it is difficult to support these allegations.

It has been claimed that the correct form has not been completed for the 102 Modification Application but the applicant submitted the required information in letter form and this is legally acceptable.

It has been claimed that the application is invalid as Council did not notify the application within twenty-one (21) days of receipt but that is a matter for action by the applicant and does not invalidate the application.

ii) Incorrect Wording in Advertisement

Comment : The first advertisement placed in the local press used the term "levels" in place of storeys. It has been claimed that this use of the term "levels" misrepresented the initial proposal.

While the two words are not the same, they are considered sufficiently similar to the reasonable reader. Irrespective of the choice of words, levels/storeys, the advertisements correctly invited the public to inspect the plans between certain dates, it correctly advised of the address of the proposed development, it correctly invited the public to make submissions, and it satisfactorily translated the fact that the proposal represented a modification to the approved development. Consequently no concern is raised in regard to the inhibition of public comment, nor of any prejudice caused to previous objectors, with regard to the proposed modifications. There is no evidence that anybody in the immediate vicinity is unaware of this proposed development.

iii) Townhouses and Villas are Preferable to Units - Object to Four (4) Storeys

Comment : Council's Development Area plan for the locality shows that the northern side of Cairns Street is zoned to permit home units, while the southern side is zoned to permit townhouse/villa style developments. On this basis it is unlikely that private developers would consciously not attempt to extract the maximum yield of units from land zoned for units. Whilst the Interim RDC limits development of residential flat buildings to three (3) storeys this application has been accepted under the Repealed Code.

iv) Residents not Advised of Rezoning

Comment : This matter is more relevant to the conduct of the preparation of the Hurstville LEP 1994 and the Residential Development Control Plan. Accordingly this matter is not one for assessment with the proposal at hand. It is a matter which can be considered together with Council's future review of residential strategies for this area.

v) Residents Do No Want Units in the Area

Comment : As for iv) above.

vi) Unit Development Will Turn Riverwood Into a Slum

Comment : The proposed residential building will be located within an established residential area. It will be closely situated to good quality shops and services, an express train route, and the M5 motorway. The proposal is of good quality design and is likely to actually enhance the streetscape in Cairns Street. Accordingly, it is suggested that units located in this development are likely to attract premium prices relative to poorly designed and poorly located developments evident elsewhere.

vii) Units Degrade Safety and the Street

Comment : Poorly designed and constructed development of any density will degrade any suburban street. Unit developments are considered no worse or better in this respect.

Public safety, especially in areas close to commercial precincts, is related to issues of safety in publicly accessible areas, rather than related to types of residential developments nearby. Assertions that home unit occupiers tend to be more criminally inclined cannot be reasonably considered.

viii) Destruction of an Established Area

Comment : In zoning the immediate vicinity of the site as Development Area "D", Council envisaged that significant change in the character of the area will occur. The future character, as dictated by the planning controls, are for walk-up unit developments. The current proposal is consistent to Council's envisaged future for Cairns Street.

ix) Amendments do not Make Building More Attractive

Comment : The amendments proposed do not change the size of the building but improve conditions for future occupiers and slightly reduce the impact on adjoining properties.

x) Privacy Loss

Comment : The development of 3-4 storey flat building adjoining cottages will lead to a degree of lost privacy. However, this must be considered in light of Council's long-term strategy for the areas, and the acceptance of a period of transition where this type of privacy loss is almost inevitable. In this instance, the proposed development actually represents an improvement over the approved scheme with respect to neighbour's privacy.

xi) Sunlight Loss

Comment : Similarly to x) Privacy Loss, some loss of sunlight to adjoining properties is inevitable in the "D" area. Council's Interim Residential Development Code specifies a minimum of four (4) hours of sunshine adjoining open space areas. The proposal permits the retention of the morning/midday sun to the back yard of No. 14 Cairns Street, and the midday/afternoon sun to the rear yard of No. 8 Cairns Street. Accordingly the proposal permits adequate sunlight to adjoining properties. As this building is of similar size to the previous approval and overshadowing was considered in that case there was no requirement for shadow diagrams with the amended plan.

xii) Excessive Height

Comment : The proposal satisfies the 12.0 metre height limits of both the Repealed Code and the Interim Residential Development Code.

xiii) Size and Bulk

Comment : The proposal presents no real difference to the overall size or bulk of the approved development on this site. In fact both the approved and proposed schemes utilise balconies and building variations that will reduce the perceived bulk of the building. The proposed repositioning of the fourth storey component to the middle of the building will obscure it from view from the street, and is therefore considered an improvement in the relationship of the proposal to the existing and likely future streetscape.

xiv) Inadequate Setbacks

Comment : This matter has been addressed previously in this report.

xv) Lack of Landscaping

Comment : This matter has been addressed previously in this report.

xvi) Insufficient Parking

Comment : The proposal satisfies the on-site parking requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code.

xvii) Increase in Traffic is Too Much for Local System

Comment : The capacities of the local traffic network, and its relationship to land use are clearly strategic issues. Accordingly the assessment of this proposal can only be made in light of the incremental increase in traffic. Assertions about saturation of the local network are properly considered within dedicated and comprehensive studies, not in response to individual development proposals.

xviii) Noise from Change in Driveway Location

Comment : Both the approved development and the proposed modified design utilise a driveway crossing at the south-western corner of the site adjoining No. 8 Cairns Street.

xix) Insufficient Play Area for Children

Comment : The proposal more than satisfies the requirements for landscaping area on the site. Most ground floor units actually retain a courtyard area directly accessible from the unit.

xx) Did Not Receive Notification of the Amendment

Comment : Neighbours to the development site were individually notified on two separate occasions in regard to the proposed modification. The proposal was also advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" on two separate occasions. While it is an unfortunate fact that, on occasion, mail is misplaced, or does not reach its addressee, the local level of public interest demonstrated by the volume of submissions, and the advertisements ensured adequate public notification of the proposed modifications.

xxi) Did Not Receive a Copy of the Plans.

Comment : The author who raised this issue claimed that they did not receive a copy of the plans with their notification. Copies of the plans are not sent with the notification letters to adjoining neighbours, however, plans of the proposal were available for inspection at Council's office during both notification periods. This information was contained in the letters of notification.

Manager, Building Services

The matter was referred to the Manager, Building Services who raised no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of a building application and the provision of a bin storage area at the front of the site.

Manager, Development Advice

This matter was referred to the Manager, Development Advice who raised no objection to the proposal subject to stormwater draining to Cairns Street. This will require the pumping out of stormwater for the proposed basement which is below the street level.

Summary

The proposed scheme is substantially similar to that approved by Council on this site in DA 41/95. While there are changes in some details (i.e., split levels) the new scheme actually represents a net improvement in regard to privacy of neighbours to the east and west, and its streetscape appearance. Its size and bulk, will not be repeated on other sites in the area due to the adoption of the Interim Residential Development Code, though it is considered acceptable in this instance given the form of the approved development on this site.

It should be noted that the approved development can be developed on this site. Council support for the modification of the consent for DA 41/95 will permit the approved plans to be superseded by the current proposal. Submissions received in respect to the proposed modified design were substantial in quantity, though tended to raise strategic issues that cannot be properly considered within an assessment of one development proposal. In view of the above matters the modification to DA 41/95 is supported.

For the benefit of Councillors the report to the Council meeting held on 13 December, 1995 for the original approval of this application is reproduced below :

Locality

The site is located on the northern side of Cairns Street and is centrally located within this block. The land currently accommodates a single storey fibro cottage and a single storey brick and tile residence with associated rear garages and sheds. The site has a fall of approximately 2 metres from the south (Cairns Street) to the north. The site is only sparsely vegetated with a number of semi-mature trees across the rear of the site.

The surrounding locality is predominantly residential in nature with the housing form being single storey detached residences. The locality is also in close proximity to the Riverwood Shopping Centre. The northern side of Cairns Street is identified for Multiple Dwelling Building redevelopment as a "D" area, whilst the southern side of the street is identified for Townhouse/Villa style housing potential as a "B" area.

Proposal

Demolition of existing two residences and the erection of a brick and tile part four/three storey above basement carparking, residential building. The ground, first and second floor levels shall accommodate six units with the third level accommodating two units. The upper level is partially with a roof space design. The complex will accommodate 20 x 2 bedroom units whilst the basement carpark provides for twenty (20) resident and five (5) visitor carparking spaces.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and is generally in compliance with the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The matter was referred to the Manager of Building Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to standard conditions.

Manager, Development Advice

This matter was referred to the Manager, Development Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to all stormwater being pumped back to Cairns Street.

Tabled Information

Proposed
Repealed DCP
Com
pliance
draft DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
1,458.68m2
-
-
-
-
Density
20
-
yes
no
13.9
Development Area ( D )
Building Height
12m
12m
yes
yes
12.0m
Private Open Space: Balconies
12m2
15m2
no
yes
12.0m2
Landscaped Area
734.47m2
50%
656m2
45%
yes
yes
656m2
45%
Building Setbacks: Front
6.5m
5.8m
yes
yes
6.0m
Side/rear
4.0m/9.0m
n/a
yes
no/yes
7.0m/6.0m
Residential Parking
20
20
yes
yes
20
Visitor Parking
5
5
yes
yes
5
Building Envelope - side
5.5m/450
5.5m/450
yes
no
1.5m/450
Frontage
25.6
n/a
yes
yes
24m

Building Envelope/Setbacks

The proposal does not comply with the 1.5m x 450 envelope control under the Interim RDCP, for the side boundaries however, the application was originally submitted in February, 1995 and designed to comply with the 5.5m x 450 envelope of the repealed RDCP. The development provides a minimum of 9 and 4 metre setbacks to the rear/side boundaries which generally exceeds setbacks which were required for similar two storey above carparking developments under the Old Residential Flat Building DCP pre-1994. The proposal as amended is considered to be satisfactory with acceptable boundary setbacks and compliance with the original envelope control.

Density

The proposal is for 20 units (a reduction from 26 units as part of the original application), whereas the Interim RDCP permits 13.9 units (at one per 105m2). This proposal equates to a rate of one per 72.9m2. This density rate is comparable to the current rates being applied to similar scale of developments lodged under the Repealed RDCP, which have been approved by Council. The 20 unit proposal is considered to be an acceptable compromise density for this particular proposal.

Storey's

The proposal is for three storeys plus two units in a roof area level above basement parking. This would be defined as a four storey building under the Interim RDCP and is not permissible under that Plan. The original application was for a straight four storey building with the fourth storey accommodating six units. The compromise proposal reduces the fourth storey to only two units and these are recessed within the roof space (permissible under the repealed RDCP), giving the development a less bulky appearance. The subject proposal is an acceptable design compromise and strict compliance with the three storey restriction is considered unwarranted, taking regard to the development being lodged five months prior to repeal of the RDCP.

Public Notification and Comment

In accordance with the requirements of Hurstville LEP the subject development was publicly notified for twenty one (21) days and adjoining owners were notified. At the close of this period seventeen (17) objections were received which raised the following concerns:

i) Lower Land Values

Claims of lower land values due to new developments being constructed have not been substantiated. Lower values is not likely for land which is in the "D" Area, whilst for lands on the southern side of Cairns Street in the "B" Area it is unknown what impacts will result on land values.

ii) Pollution

Arguments are raised that the developments during construction and later due to population/traffic increases will result in greater pollution concerns. This again has not been substantiated as a significant concern. It is agreed that dust/noise will result during construction and some increase in vehicle pollutants will result, however, these are not considered to be significant.

iii) Site "Public Notice" Signposting

It is noted that the DCP places the responsibility of signposting sites with the developer. It has become evident that this requirement has been overlooked on previous occasions by some developers. Clearly, by the 17 submissions received, the public was well aware of the development proposed for this site. Nevertheless, this site was subsequently sign-posted during the official newspaper "public notice" period for the amended application.

Photos have been submitted, a letter from the owner of No. 12 verifying their placement and a Council officer confirming their existence on site, is noted on file.

iv) Overshadowing

The site has a north/south orientation which results in any overshadowing of adjoining properties being restricted to either mornings or afternoons only. Hence, although overshadowing does result for the residences located to the west and east (subject of a recent refused multiple dwelling development) both properties will achieve at least four hours direct sunlight onto their lands. Minor overshadowing of lands to the south will result as they are separated by Cairns Street. Overshadowing is therefore considered acceptable in this instance.

v) Parking and Traffic

The application provides carparking on site in accordance with the requirements of the Residential DCP. The development will result in increased traffic generation in this locality, however, the capacity of the roads in this locality is adequate to cater for this increased traffic flow. The area was identified in this locality due to its close proximity to good public transport and the likelihood of future occupants utilising this public transport.

vi) Services

There is no substantiation that the proposed developments will result in servicing problems. Provision of satisfactory servicing of the development is a conditional requirement of developments of this nature. Should for unforeseen reasons servicing of the site be unavailable then any development consent would be invalid. It is considered that the site can be adequately serviced and this should not result in any servicing difficulties for the locality.

vii) Noise

Noise will be generated during construction stages of this development, however, this is expected with any new construction including single residences and will be for a restricted period only.

Additional street noise may be also generated following completion with the increased car usage associated with such developments. This again is an unavoidable result of development within the "D" Area and must be expected.

viii) Design

Claims are made that the design of the building is unsatisfactory and does not compliment the streetscape. Design is a subjective consideration and in this instance the design of the building is considered appropriate by providing a staggered facade to the street and makes use of roof elements within the design. The existing streetscape is of a single storey residential nature and the area at the time of lodgement was identified for redevelopment as two and three storey residential flat buildings with additional accommodation in the roof space.

ix) Open Space Usage

The development clearly provides more than adequate open space in accordance with Council's DCP. Objection was raised to the lack of adequate open space in the locality and the possible illegal use of open space. Section 94 contributions for Open Space would be imposed to provide and maintain future open space over and above the physical on-site provision.

Summary

The subject development as amended, achieves a reasonable design with sound use of roof elements and broken facades to reduce bulk and scale of the building. The development generally complies with the requirements of the Residential DCP and is recommended for conditional approval.

Additional Comment by Divisional Manager

This report has been prepared with regard to applying a consistent approach to outstanding development applications lodged under the repealed Residential Development Control Plan.

That is, the application has been considered on its merit with a view to achieving compliance with the repealed RDCP and some compliance towards the standards of the draft DCP.

Also it has been judged under a zone which permits residential flat buildings to a height of 12.0 metres.

An application for a four storey residential building on the adjacent site, 14-16 Cairns Street, was refused by Council earlier this year and Council's decision was upheld upon appeal.

The issues on that appeal were height, bulk, density, privacy, overshadowing, private open space and landscaping. These issues have been addressed in the subject application and their variances to the appealed application are as follows:

* height: four storeys reduced to three storeys with additional accommodation in roof space.
* bulk: building size reduced as less units.
* density: 26 units reduced to 20 in the subject application.
* privacy: 4 balconies each side reduced to 2.
* overshadowing: adjoining properties now receive four hours sunshine.
* private open space: increased to comply with code and communal open space provided at the rear.
* landscaping: 45% increased to 50%.

Amongst other things, Judge Bannon, stated in his judgement as follows:
It is open to conjecture which of the alternatives of three storey with attic, three storey or two storey, the judge would have found acceptable. Similarly, no indication was given that 75m2, 80m2 or 90m2 was preferable as a density per unit.

It is open to Council to apply more stringent requirements towards the draft DCP such as apply a maximum of three storeys with greater side boundary setbacks and apply a density closer to 105m2 site area per unit. The fact that it is new area for home unit buildings would probably support Council's case for applying its latest controls but this would not be ultimately known until tested at an appeal.

The impact of this proposal is greater as it is one of the first in a new zoning. However, similar buildings in other suburbs such as Hurstville, Penshurst and Mortdale have not adversely affected the general amenity of those areas.

Consequently, this application has been assessed according to area "D" requirements in the manner adopted for similar applications, whether they be at Hurstville, Penshurst or Riverwood.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)


. Recommendation 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority modify the development consent to DA 41/95 for the erection of a 3/part 4 storey residential flat building with basement car parking, containing 20 x 2 bedroom units at 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood, by deleting condition Nos. 1, 9, 14, 22 and 29 and replacing them with the following :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing Nos 3.127 1, 2, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6, 7A and 8A tables and documentation prepared by Huntington and MacGillivray Architects, dated 2 April, 1996, and marked amended 19 August, 1996 except where amended by the conditions of consent.

9. The proposed building shall not exceed RL 37.2 or 12.0 metres at the ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above the point.

14. The vehicular driveway and visitor carparking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council and details of this work shall be included with the Building Application.

22. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, the height and nature of all courtyard fencing, together with the surface treatment of all other areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

29. A garbage storage area shall be provided towards the front of the site in lieu of the basement garbage rooms. Such area shall be capable of holding 12 x 240 litre mobile bins and ten (10) recycling crates. Details of this work shall be included with the Building application.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

A) Details of the mechanical exhaust ventilation system in relation to the wet rooms where natural ventilation in accordance with Clause F4.6 of the Building Code of Australia cannot be provided to these rooms.

The details should include whether the mechanical ventilation ductwork will be taken through each floor and discharged above the roof surface or will be discharged to the sky at each floor level.

B) Details of a hose reel/s in the basement carpark level and a hydrant in accordance with Part E1 of the Building Code of Australia.

C) Details of the smoke hazard management measures installed in the building to satisfy the mandatory performance requirements laid down in Clause E2.2(a) of the Building Code of Australia.

D) Details of the ventilation to be provided in the basement carpark level to meet the requirements of Clause F4.5 of the Building Code of Australia.
NOTE : In the event that a mechanical ventilation system is provided to the carpark level, such system will be required to be dedicated for smoke control purposes under Part E2 of the Code. In addition the smoke control measures and ventilation systems will be required to be designed in such a manner that in the event of the air handling system for ventilation purposes being off, the systems will continue to operate for smoke control purposes should a fire occur in the basement level.

E) Details of the subsoil drainage system around the basement carparking level.

F) Details of the method of complying with Council's Guidelines on Sediment and Silt Control.

G) Details of site fencing during construction.

H) Details of the means of storing building materials, such as bricks, reinforcing steel, sand or other filling materials, etc., on the site, particularly at the early stage of building works.

I) Details of the measures to prevent mud being taken onto the road from trucks leaving the site during excavation works.

J) Details of the means of constructing the footings under the eastern wall of the carpark ramp and subsoil drainage system around this wall within the curtilage of the subject property.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 01 29TH JANUARY, 1997-


The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE

Dear Sir,

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


05.04.04A 121 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (79/96)
1X3 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE AND 2X3 BEDROOM VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)




ADDENDUM


Applicant : Mrs M Mourad
Proposal : 1X3 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE AND
2X3 BEDROOM VILLAS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "A"
Owners : Mrs. M. Mourad
Existing Development : Single Dwelling
Cost of Development : $400,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is for 1x3 bedroom townhouse and 2x3 bedroom villas
2. There have been changes to the proposal since Council last considered the matter.

3. There have been a total of 172 submissions from the community on this proposal. 33 of these have been on the amended plans.

4. Recommendation - Deferred Commencement Approval.


History
Council previously considered a report on this matter at its meeting of 7 August, 1996. At that time the Council resolved to defer the matter on the basis that there were outstanding concerns regarding the proposal. Council resolved as follows:

“That the matter be deferred for a redesign with attention to be given to the following: 1. Reduction in the height of the three (3) dwellings.
2. Overshadowing to adjoining properties.
3. Provisions of visitor car parking spaces in accordance with Council’s Code.
4. Reduction of overviewing into the adjoining properties.”

The only change made to the application was to reduce the height of the rear unit by 300mm and provide a visitor car space in the rear corner.

Following further discussions with the applicant the wall of the rear unit will be moved further from the southern boundary and back to the edge of the rock escarpment, an additional car space is to be provided in the landscaped area behind Unit 1 and amended shadow diagrams are to be prepared.


Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council’s Interim Residential Development code and its relevant amendments.

Tabled Information



ProposedRequiredDraft DCP
Site Area1011.6m2945.0m2Yes
Density3 dwellings3.2 dwellingsYes
Development Area A:
Building Height7.5/6.0m9.0/6.3mYes/No
Private Open Space100-128m2100m2 eachYes
Landscaped Area55% (556m2)55% (556m2)Yes
Building Setbacks:
              Front
              Side/Rear
4.5m
3.5-1.5/0.5m
4.5m
3.5-1.5/0.5m
4.5m
2.0-1.35/0.9m
4.5m
2.0-1.35/0.9m
Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes
Yes/Yes
Residential Parking64Yes
Visitor Parking
2
1Yes
Building Envelope
Front section of the site
Rear section of the site
3.5m/45o
1.5m/45o
3.5m/45o
1.5m/45o
3.5m/45o
1.5m/45o
3.5m/45o
1.5m/45o
Yes
Yes and No
Yes
Yes and No
Frontage20.115 m15.0mYes

Comments


Building Envelope and Height

The amended proposal also contravened the building envelope requirements, for the third dwelling at the rear of the site. The biggest variation is in the south western corner of this rear dwelling.

The overall wall height is also excessive at approximately 5 metres. Whilst this length of wall may appear to be short and consideration might have been given to a variation, it is also the most critical in terms of impact to the properties to the south. The building envelope controls require a setback of 3.5 metres based on a wall height of 5 metres. The proposed setback is only 1.5 metres.

Following discussions with the applicant on this issue it has been agreed to set this wall further back from the boundary and not to project it over the rock escarpment.


Excavation

The ground floor of Dwelling No. 2 is at RL 22.5 with a small portion of the dwelling being below the RL 19.5 contour. This means that the development is on the limit of the height allowed above ground for the ceiling of the basement car park. On the opposite side of the dwelling the excavation has exceeded the 0.5 metre limit set under Council’s policy. A small portion of the rock in the north eastern corner will have at least 1 metre excavation to maintain the RL22.5 level for the floor.

The third dwelling will have at least 1.0 metre of excavation plus requires excavation to allow the car parking to be under the south west corner of the dwelling. These levels of excavation arise from the sudden changes in topography of the site and whilst the garages under dwellings gives the appearance of two storey dwellings it is the terrain that dictates the practicality of providing garages under. This is typical of construction in the area.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

The proposal complies with the numeric landscaping requirement. There will be retaining walls in a number of areas around the site plus courtyard fencing and final details of this work will be included in the Building Application to ensure fence heights result in no overviewing.

Manager, Building Services

The proposal was referred to the appropriate building surveyor who raised no objections provided the following issues are endorsed:

* submission of a building application
* details of stormwater to be provided with the building application
* details of the retaining walls for the excavated embankments
* sedimentation and silt controls are to be applied during excavation of the site and construction of the dwellings


Manager, Development Advice

No objections were raised to the proposal provided the following issues are adhered to;

* stormwater is to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Myall Street and drainage amplification is paid
* a drainage easement is to be registered to benefit No. 124 Mi Mi Street at the rear
* replace the concrete crossings and construct the footpath in accordance with Council’s requirements.

Tree Inspectors

The proposal was referred to Council’s Tree Inspectors who raised no objections to the proposal. A detailed landscape plan will be required with the building application.

Public Notification and CommentAdjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. 106 copies of two pro forma letters and 33 individual letters were registered. The previous report on this mater responded to these concerns and is therefore reproduced below. They have been amended where considered appropriate.

i) The proposal does not comply with Council’s Interim Residential Development code in relation to the definition of “storeys”.

Comment: The practicalities of the site terrain encourage garages under giving the appearance of two storeys and the removal of these garages will not reduce the ground floor levels of the dwellings.

ii) The cul-de-sac is currently too narrow. There is a lack of street parking, it restricts emergency vehicles and trucks and makes it dangerous for children and pedestrians. This proposal will only add to the existing problem, particularly when they have not provided any visitor parking.

Comment: It is true that the proposal had not provided the one (1) visitor space required in cul-de-sac development, however to compensate for this the applicant provided a double garage for each dwelling totalling two (2) additional spaces in excess of what is required. This has been amended to include a visitor space at Dwelling No. 3 and another behind Unit 1.

iii) The proposal involves excavation into a rock shelf which may affect existing dwellings on that shelf. Who is responsible for any damage? Can we insist on prior dilapidation inspections.

Comment: A geo-technical report will be required to be submitted together with the building application, ensuring that no structural damage will occur to existing dwellings during the construction stage.

iv) The development is out of character with the surrounding “village” feel of Oatley. The density is too high and will result in a loss of scenic and environmental character to the area.

Comment: the adjoining property consists of a battle-axe block and a block fronting the street. There are dwellings in the vicinity that are two storey with some of them (including the adjoining) having parking underneath the main dwelling.

The density itself complies with Council’s Interim Residential Development Code, which allows for 3.2 dwellings on this site.

v) Loss of sunlight to our own private open space.

Comment: After an inspection of the sit and measuring the distance of adjoining dwellings, it is anticipated that on 22 June, Dwelling no. 121B (the front adjoining dwelling) will be affected by morning shadow across the north-eastern courtyard located at the rear of the building but the problem is no greater than that caused by the existing courtyard wall itself. This shadow has completely disappeared by 12.00 noon. The front northern side of the dwelling will be affected by shadow in the afternoon.

The adjoining dwelling at the rear, known as no. 121A will be affected by shadows in winter along the northern side. This is the dining/lounge room area of the dwelling. The window will receive shadow at 12.00 noon with the north-western part of the wall affected in the morning, the north-eastern part of the wall affected in the afternoon. With the wall of Unit 3 being relocated there will be a reduction in this overshadowing and amended shadow diagrams will first be required to prove this point.

vi) The proposal does not comply with the landscaping component.

Comment: The proposal provides 55% landscaping in accordance with Council’s Interim residential Development Code. Further, the applicant would be required to submit a detailed landscape plan with the building application. It is proposed to allow an additional parking space in this area using "grasscrete blocks" to improve parking facilities

vii) The proposal does not comply with the height requirements.

Comment: this has been addressed previously in this report.

viii) This will result in loss of views to the water and trees.

Comment: The proposal complies with Council’s height restrictions apart from a minor section in the roof of the rear dwelling as previously discussed. However, the front and middle dwellings are totally within Council’s height restrictions and could extend further on the block than the front townhouse does, thus possibly blocking more views.

ix) What about the additional water run-off, there are already problems in Myall Street in accordance with Council’s requirements. Further, the applicant will be required to pay a drainage amplification fee which will go towards improving Council’s drainage system.

Comment: All surface run-off will be required to drain to the kerb and gutter in Myall Street in accordance with Council’s requirements. Further, the applicant will be required to pay a drainage amplification fee which will go towards improving Council’s drainage system.

If the application is approved by Council, the applicant is then required to obtain approval through Sydney Water for connection, etc.

x) There will be loss of privacy to the southern adjoining properties due to the proposed porches, windows and on balcony.

Comment: Overviewing to take advantage of views is common in this area and whilst it will occur i this instance it is felt that the distance between dwelling is reasonable.

xi) There will be problems during the construction stage of storing building materials due tot he limited room on the site. Also the narrowness of the road will create havoc for any trucks that are required.

Comment: The applicant will be required to maintain all materials on the site.

xii) This area is a foreshore protection area and as such should not allow this type of development. It will set a precedent for the future.

Comment: The foreshore protection area was removed with gazettal of Council’s Local Environmental plan 1994, gazetted on 27 May, 1994. At the same time this area was zoned to allow this type of multi-unit residential development.

xiii) There is no market for this development as a number of similar developments in the are having trouble selling.

Comment: It is assumed that if there was no market for this type of development then developers would not propose this type of development.

xiv) This proposal will cause a loss of TV and radio reception to adjoining dwellings.

Comment: The impact of this development will be no different than that of a single dwelling on the subject property in regard to TV and radio reception.


Additional submissions

The second advertising period did not raise any new issues relating to the development. It was consistently argued that the amendments since the last meeting were extremely minor and that the issues of concern remained.


SummaryFollowing further discussions with the applicant as set out above, a deferred commencement approval is proposed for this application.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.04A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 121 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (79/96)
1X3 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE AND 2X3 BEDROOM VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)


. Recommendation 121 MYALL STREET, OATLEY (79/96)
1X3 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE AND 2X3 BEDROOM VILLAS
(Report by Town Planners, Hassell Pty. Ltd.)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority grant a "Deferred Commencement" consent for the construction of 1x3 bedroom townhouse and 2x3 bedroom villas at 121 Myall Street, Oatley, subject to the following conditions :

A. The submission to Council of amended details which include the following :

i) Relocation of the walls to unit 3 away from the southern boundary and back onto the top of the rock escarpment.

ii) Provision of visitor parking spaces on the southern side of unit 3 and behind unit 1 with the latter being "grasscrete" blocks in the landscaped area.

B. The submission to Council of shadow diagrams for the amended plans to be prepared by a consultant nominated by Council but paid for by the applicant and such diagrams will only be approved if there is a reduction shown in the amount of overshadowing.


This information is to be submitted within three (3) months from the date of the "Deferred Commencement" consent and the requirements above must be satisfied before the formal consent will be issued subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 1-6 tables and documentation prepared by Nuarch Design Studio, dated June, 1996 and submitted with DA 79/96, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $7,629 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $851 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.

The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,791 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

8. All stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Myall Street.

9. A 1m wide easement to drain water is to be created over the subject site to benefit the lands adjoining the rear boundary known as 124 Mi Mi Street to allow their stormwater to be drained to the kerb and gutter in Myall Street. The easement is to be registered prior to occupation of the dwelling or with any plan of subdivision prior to issue of a Building Certificate. Where the easement is located under a proposed garage the developer is to pipe that portion of the easement to the satisfaction of Council.

10. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by Nuarch Design Studio, the proposed dwellings shall not exceed RL 27.45 for Dwelling 1, RL 27.15 for Dwelling 2, RL 29.45 for Dwelling 3 at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

11. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

12. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

13. Excavated embankments being suitably retained. Details to be submitted with the building application.

14. Sedimentation and silt controls being applied during excavation of the site and construction of the dwellings. Details to be submitted with the building application.

15. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

16. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

17. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, from natural ground level to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

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

19. Applicant to pay Council to :
a) Replace the concrete strips with a 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
b) Construct a 1.52 metre wide by 80mm thick concrete footpath in Myall Street for the full width of the site.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

20. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.1 metres for all areas traversed by cars. At no point is the underside of the ceiling of the basement to extend more than 1.0 metre above natural ground level with the minor exception of the south-western corner of dwelling No. 3 as shown in the approved development application plans.

21. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

22. Perimeter planting along southern side and eastern rear boundaries shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining development. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.

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

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

25. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

26. All southern sides of the three entry porches are to be screened with a 1.8 metre high lattice screen and suitably coloured. Details to be included with the building application.

27. The private open space of Dwelling No. 3 extending from the south-eastern corner of the dining room to both the rear and southern boundaries is to remain at an RL of 24.9. Details are to be included with the building application.

28. A report prepared by a qualified and practising Geotechnical Engineer detailing the stability of the site and the potential impact caused by excavation and construction works on structures on adjoining properties. This shall be submitted with the building application.





HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.01 APPEAL TO LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT FOR 54 HOME UNITS
AT 47-67 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 282/95)




In 1996 the applicant, Valbabe Pty. Ltd., lodged an appeal against Council's refusal of the abovementioned development application.

The matter was the subject of a full hearing over four (4) days in November, 1996 and judgement was reserved.

The matter was heard before Conciliation and Technical Assessor, Mr. T. Bly, and judgement was handed down in favour of Council on 24 December, 1996.

The Appeal was dismissed and development application refused by the Court. Mr. Bly concluded as follows :

"For the reasons which I have given I conclude that the proposal in its present form is inappropriate for this area and location and a more careful consideration needs to be given to matters of privacy, noise, vehicular access and parking, garbage disposal, floor space ratio, the objectives of the zone and urban design. I thus determine the development application by refusing consent.

Orders

The orders of the Court are therefore that :

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Development Application for the erection of three four-storey residential flat buildings with a single shop and an interconnected semi-basement carpark at 47-67 Mulga Road, Oatley is refused."

Full copies of the judgement have been forwarded to each Councillor and are available to the public at Council's Enquiry Counter. Any person wishing to obtain a full copy will need to pay standard photocopying costs.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation APPEAL TO LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT FOR 54 HOME UNITS
AT 47-67 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 282/95)


. Recommendation APPEAL TO LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT FOR 54 HOME UNITS
AT 47-67 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 282/95)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the information be noted.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY



The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been Approved (Part A), Refused (Part B) or Withdrawn (Part C) under delegated authority from 2 December, 1996 to 13 January, 1997.

Part A

D.A. NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
RESULT DATE
13/95
57 The Avenue
Hurstville
Rhodes DevelopmentsSection 102 Amend
11/12/96
276/96
5 Percival Street
Penshurst
C & S Jabbour & Roumanos8x3 & 6x2 Bedroom Units
13/12/96
318/96
157 Belmore Road
Peakhurst
F JonesChildren and Adult Art Classes
9/12/96
368/96
130 Moons Avenue
Lugarno
Mr G K FardonSliprails for Boat Launch
17/12/96
374/96
22 Woodville Street
Hurstville
G A Zogher & D MaysonCoffee Shop/ Refreshment Room
31/12/96
381/96
100 Roberts Avenue
Mortdale
Hurstville City CouncilFirst Floor Addition to HCC Works Depot
23/12/96
383/96
113 Boundary Road
Peakhurst
L WaterfieldBathroom Equipment - Assembly, Storage & Wholesale Warehouse
23/1/96
391/96
165 Penshurst Street
Beverly Hills
M SeljanovskiFactory/Warehouse Unit
2/1/97
392/96
186 Belmore Road
Riverwood
C K NguyenShop Fitout
19/12/96
398/96
124 Forest Road
Hurstville
AdherettesSign
13/12/96
401/96
43 Norman Street
Peakhurst
C PentecostFibreglass Baths & Spas
10/12/96
403/96
227 Forest Road
Hurstville
Ippon SushiSign
4/12/96
405/96
472 King Georges Road
Beverly Hills
S C SiuSign
6/12/96
406/96
4 Penshurst Street
Penshurst
R BougiourasShop Fitout
16/12/96
407/96
113 Boundary Road
Peakhurst
E O HughesSign
4/12/96
409/96
3 Cross Street
Hurstville
S IrwinChange of Use
7/1/97
410/96
493 Forest Road
Penshurst
G TaniosSign
5/12/96
420/96
456 King Georges Road
Beverly Hills
L J HookerShop Fitout
10/1/97
421/96
284 Belmore Road
Riverwood
J SamaniShop Fitout
2/1/97
422/96
19/60 Morts Road
Mortdale
Sydneywide Real EstateChange of Use
3/1/97
424/96
22-24 Norman Street
Peakhurst
A & I Dist. Pty. Ltd.Warehouse Fitout
10/1/967
436/96
15 Penshurst Street
Penshurst
T H LamShop Fitout
3/1/97
441/96
16B Llewellyn Street
Oatley
P ZafiropoulosDeck Attached to Pool Below Mean High Water Mark
20/12/96

Part B

D.A. NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
RESULT DATE
1/96
2/10 Woodville Street
Hurstville
Tanseys Pty LtdDeli Coffee Shop
18/12/96
77/96
37 Forest Road
Hurstville
P DouroudisAddition to Premises
2/12/96

Part C

D.A. NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
RESULT DATE
286/96
1114 Forest Road
Lugarno
C. ConelianoTheatre Co-operative - Meetings etc.
23/1/96
357/96
329 Belmore RoadJ SamraniShop Fitout - Laundromat
5/12/96
362/96
1/1A Pritchard Place
Peakhurst
S AliPanel Beating Workshop
18/12/96


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY


RECOMMENDATION


THAT the information be received and noted.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 2 DECEMBER, 1996 AND 13 JANUARY, 1997



The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been received between 2 December, 1996 and 13 January, 1997.

D.A. NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTIONS
VALUE
411/96
1/53-55 Lorraine Street
Peakhurst
Podravka InternationalWarehouse Fitout - Dry Goods Food Items
Use
413/96
56 Orange Street
Hurstville
Southside Plan & DesignDetached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy
$130,000
415/96
299 Forest Road
Hurstville
F. ZahndUse of Public Footway for Restaurant Seating
Use
416/96
118 Moons Avenue
Lugarno
T SakoLand Reclamation, Ramp, Slip, Rails & Pontoon
$20,000
419/96
41 Shenstone Road
Riverwood
E Wahhab1x5 Bedroom Townhouse & 2x3 Bedroom Villas
$170,000
420/96
456 King Georges Road
Beverly Hills
L J HookerShop Fitout
Use
422/96
19/60 Morts Road
Mortdale
Sydnewide Real EstateChange of Use
Use
423/96
456 King Georges Road
Beverly Hills
L J HookerSign
Use
424/96
22-24 Norman Street
Peakhurst
A & I Dist. Pty. Ltd.Warehouse Fitout
Use
425/96
189 Belmore Road
Riverwood
Minnett Cullis-Hill PetersenInstallation of Underground LPG Tank
$100,000
426/96
65A Melvin Street
Beverly Hills
Westminister Homes4x3 Bedroom Villas
$300,000
429/96
23 Baumans Road
Riverwood
Cassdon Engineering3 Bedroom Detached Single Storey Dual Occupancy
$120,000
430/96
13 MacMahon Street
Hurstville
Caporale Designs2 Commercial/ Residential Unit Blocks - 1x10 and 17 levels
$6.5 million
433/96
710 King Georges Road
Penshurst
Shaheer Cobran4 Townhouses & 2 Villas - 5x3 and 1x4 Bedrooms
$550,000
434/96
423-425 King Georges Road
Beverly Hills
M Jo JoSign
Use
435/96
241 Forest Road
Hurstville
J AngeShop Fitout
Use
436/96
15 Penshurst Street
Penshurst
T H LamShop Fitout
Use
437/96
52 Broughton Street
Mortdale
Mrs & Mr Cirevski2x5 Bedroom Dual Occupancy
$240,000
439/96
10 Waratah Street
Oatley
Banatex Pty Ltd1x3 Bedroom Townhouse & 2x3 Bedroom Villas
$350,000
440/96
61 Kimberley Road
Hurstville
Mr P FotoulisShop Fitout
Use
441/96
16B Llewellyn Street
Oatley
P ZafiropoulosDeck Attached to Pool below Mean HighWater Mark
$5,000
442/96
87 The Avenue
Hurstville
Sydney Anglican Schools CorpAlterations to Heritage Building - Danebank Must Teaching Facility
$75,000
443/96
1 Forest Road
Hurstville
V Pisaturo4x2 Bedroom Dual Occupancies and 2x3 Bedroom Dual Occupancies
$450,000
445/96
3 Cross Street,
Hurstville
WestfieldShop Fitout
$5,000
446/96
90 Morts Road
Mortdale
F Serratory1x4 & 3x3 Bedroom Villas
$550,000
448/96
16-32 MacMahon Street
Hurstville
Optus VisionOffice Fitout - Television Studio
$40,000
453/96
329 Belmore Road
Riverwood
Ms J GilksBrothel/Swingers Club
Use
454/96
84 Penshurst Street
Penshurst
Petersham Pool Centre Holdings3 Storey Mixed Development
$1.4 million
456/96
8 Vivienne Street
Kingsgrove
Mr A S MazzuccoHome Activity - Mechanical Repairs
Use
1/97
43 Jersey Avenue
Mortdale
Mr P A TrethewyHome Occupation
Use
2/97
70 Broadarrow Road
Narwee
Mr & Mrs KotronisTakeaway Food Shop
Use


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 2 DECEMBER, 1996 AND 13 JANUARY, 1997

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 2 DECEMBER, 1996 AND 13 JANUARY, 1997


RECOMMENDATION


THAT the information be received and noted.

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


SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION TWO' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 01 29TH JANUARY, 1997-


06:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

06:01.01 5A Llewellyn Street, Oatley - New Dwelling (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:03.01 1A & 1B Garden Grove, Beverly Hills - 1.8M High Front And Side Boundary Fences And Boundary Retaining Walls (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 007932, 007981)

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:04.01 37A Clarke Street, Peakhurst - New Three Storey Dwelling (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

06:04.02 51 Lloyd Street, Oatley - Review Of Decision On Building Approval Pursuant To Section 100 Of The Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)

06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

06:05.01 Local Government Association Of Nsw - Supplementary Advice Regarding Payment Of Section 72 Waste Levies (Report By Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00026)

06:05.02 12TH WWM National Conference On Waste Management - Wed. 5Th - Fri. 7Th March, 1997 (File C/00073)

06:05.03 Delegate Report From Clr J Griffin For Cooks River Catchment Management Committee (File R/00580)

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
SECTION 2


06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.01.01 5A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - New Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 5A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - New Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

. Recommendation 5A LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY - New Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


RECOMMENDATION


1. THAT the building application be approved, subject to

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.02 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD

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

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.03 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.03.01 1A & 1B GARDEN GROVE, BEVERLY HILLS - 1.8m High Front and Side Boundary Fences and Boundary Retaining Walls (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 007932, 007981)


Comment:

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1A & 1B GARDEN GROVE, BEVERLY HILLS - 1.8m High Front and Side Boundary Fences and Boundary Retaining Walls (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 007932, 007981)

. Recommendation 1A & 1B GARDEN GROVE, BEVERLY HILLS - 1.8m High Front and Side Boundary Fences and Boundary Retaining Walls (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 007932, 007981)


RECOMMENDATION

2. THAT the objectors be advised in writing of Council's
determination.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.01 37A CLARKE STREET, PEAKHURST - New Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 37A CLARKE STREET, PEAKHURST - New Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

. Recommendation 37A CLARKE STREET, PEAKHURST - New Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.02 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)


Solicitor's letter dated 11th December, 1996 Owners' submission dated 14th November, 1996 Solicitor's letter dated 3rd January, 1997

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)

. Recommendation 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
ADDENDUM


06.04.03A 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Dwelling House (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 006502)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Dwelling House (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 006502)

. Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Dwelling House (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 006502)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.01 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF NSW - SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE REGARDING PAYMENT OF SECTION 72 WASTE LEVIES (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00026)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF NSW - SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE REGARDING PAYMENT OF SECTION 72 WASTE LEVIES (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00014)

. Recommendation LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF NSW - SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE REGARDING PAYMENT OF SECTION 72 WASTE LEVIES (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00014)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.02 12TH WWM NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT - WED. 5TH - FRI. 7TH MARCH, 1997 (File C/00073)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 12TH WWM NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT - WED. 5TH - FRI. 7TH MARCH, 1997 (File C/00073)

. Recommendation 12TH WWM NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT - WED. 5TH - FRI. 7TH MARCH, 1997 (File C/00073)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.03 DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580)

. Recommendation DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580)


RECOMMENDATION

* * * * *

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.04A DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - SEDIMENT COMMITTEE GROUP MEETING (File R/00580)


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

HEADING: Recommendation DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - SEDIMENT COMMITTEE GROUP MEETING (File R/00580)

. Recommendation DELEGATE REPORT FROM CLR J GRIFFIN FOR COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - SEDIMENT COMMITTEE GROUP MEETING (File R/00580)


RECOMMENDATION