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 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-


05:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

05:01.01 19 Douglas Haig Street, Oatley (D.A. 332/95) Detached Dual Dwellings

05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward

05:02.01 235 Forest Road, Hurstville (D.A. 211/96)
Modification Of Condition 2 Of Development Consent D.A. 211/96
(Report By Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

05:02.02 126 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville (D.A. 321/96) Attached Dual Occupancy
(Report By Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison)

05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward

05:03.01 65A Melvin Street, Beverly Hills (D.A. 426/96)
Erection Of Four (4) Single Storey Dwellings Consisting Of 3 Bedrooms In All Dwellings With Associated Car Parking (Report By Town Planner, Mr T. Moody)

05:03.02 5-7 Macquarie Place, Mortdale (D.A. 348/96) Residential Flat Building

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward

05:04.01 10B Llewellyn Street, Oatley (D.A. 146/95)
Section 102 Modification - Dual Occupancy Development
(Report By Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)

05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

05:05.01 Development Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority Between 13 January 1997 And 28 February 1997

05:05.02 Development Applications Received Between 13 January 1997 And 28 February 1997

05:05.03 12-14 Yarran Road, Oatley (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) Appeal Against Council's Refusal Of Da's 238/95 & 239/95 For A Ten (10) Townhouse/Villa Development

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH & PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 03 19TH MARCH, 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 & Planning Committee:-


05.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.01.01 19 DOUGLAS HAIG STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 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


This application has been reported to Council on the 27 March 1996, 11 December 1996 and 29 January 1997 and at the last meeting the Council resolved as follows:

"THAT the matter be deferred for inspection and report by the Ward Councillors and appropriate Officers".

Since this meeting, there has been a site meeting with Clrs Sanson, Smith, Stewart and Lynch and further discussions with Ward Councillors. Also on the 10 March 1997, the applicant lodged coloured drawings for the proposed development. These matched the floor layout submitted to the last meeting, but showed the roof design returned to the curved style of the original concept.

To re-acquaint Councillors with the details of this application the report, as considered by Council on the 29 January 1997, is reproduced below:

"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: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

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


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



RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.01 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
MODIFICATION OF CONDITION 2 OF DEVELOPMENT CONSENT D.A. 211/96
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation 235 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 211/96)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.02 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison)




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison


. Recommendation 126 CARRINGTON AVENUE, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 321/96)
Report by Development Assessment Planner, Mr Neil Harrison



RECOMMENDATION



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 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
ERECTION OF FOUR (4) SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS CONSISTING OF 3 BEDROOMS IN ALL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
(Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody)




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody


. Recommendation 65A MELVIN STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 426/96)
Report by Town Planner, Mr T. Moody



RECOMMENDATION



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.02 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING





HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
Report by Divisional Manager, Mr D. Beaumont


. Recommendation 5-7 MACQUARIE PLACE, MORTDALE (D.A. 348/96)
Report by Divisional Manager, Mr D. Beaumont



RECOMMENDATION



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO:
.

DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.04
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04.01 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)





HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)


. Recommendation 10B LLEWELLYN STREET, OATLEY (D.A. 146/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager Building Services, Mr G. Young)



RECOMMENDATION


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 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997


DA NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTIONS
RESULT DATE
532/95
39 Dora Street
Hurstville
Kaz Kuczma ArchitectsSection 10 Amend
Existing Heritage Building to be Health Consulting Rooms
11/02/97
253/96
121 Belmore Road
Riverwood
A Day
Peakhurst West Public School
Basketball/Netball Courts
13/02/97
272/96
33 Pritchard Place
Peakhurst
Mrs J SharanChild Care Centre
17/01/97
283/96
337 Belmore Road
Riverwood
A G HuangElectronics Repair Shop
11/02/97
320/96
1038 Forest Road
Lugarno
Kawawl Constructions3 Attached Villas with Attached Garages - 3x2 bed - 4 x parking spaces
17/01/97
325/96
23 Stanley Street
Peakhurst
Hai Cheng XiangFurniture Manufacturing
16/01/97
333/96
51 Park Street
Peakhurst
S Anderson3x3 Bed Villas with 6 Parking Spaces - Single Storey
05/02/97
361/96
35 Mountview Avenue
Beverly Hills
Westminster Developments3 Detached & 2 Attached Villas - 5x3 Beds - 7 x Parking Spaces
28/01/97
380/96
1 Pitt Street
Mortdale
Caldis Cook GroupAddition of Poker Machine Lounge to Lower Basement - Mortdale Hotel
16/01/97
388/96
55C Penshurst Street
Penshurst
Mrs G M BurnsAdditions to Detached Dual Occupancy (Granny Flat)
23/01/97
411/96
1/53-55 Lorraine Street
Peakhurst
Podravka InternationalWarehouse Fitout - Dry Good Food Items
14/01/97
416/96
118 Moons Avenue
Lugarno
T. SakoLand Reclamation, Ramp, Slip Rails & Pontoon
29/01/97
425/96
189 Belmore Road
Riverwood
Minnett Cullis-Hill Peterson Pty LtdInstallation of Underground LPG Tank
14/02/97
440/96
61 Kimberley Road
Hurstville
Mr P FotoulisShop Fitout - Repair of Second Hand White Goods & Spare Parts
17/01/97
448/96
Marna
16-32 MacMahon Street
Hurstville
Optus VisionOffice Fitout - Television Studio - Optus Vision Pty Ltd
16/01/97
2/97
70 Broadarrow Road
Narwee
Mr P Kotronis & Mrs H KotronisShop Fitout - Takeaway Food
13/02/97
4/97
366 Forest Road
Hurstville
W K WongShop Fitout - Bookshop
14/02/97
6/97
11/17-37 Lorraine Street
Peakhurst
M SmithFactory Fitout - Joinery & Cabinet Making
14/02/97
17/97
2/8-10 The Avenue
Hurstville
S YazarFormal Wear Hire
19/02/97


Part B

DA NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTIONS
RESULT DATE
46/96
7 Mavis Avenue
Peakhurst
Mrs A Khodr & Mr K Khodr2 Storey Attached 3 Bed Dual Occupancy
16/01/97
199/96
103 Mulga Road
Oatley
Mrs A RumseyHairdressing Salon
24/02/97
435/96
241 Forest Road
Hurstville
J AngeShop Fitout- Hurstville Adult Book Exchange
04/02/97
456/96
8 Vivienne Street
Kingsgrove
Mr A MazzuccoHome Activity - Mechanical Repairs (Carburettors)
04/02/97


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997


DA NO.
PROPERTY
APPLICANT
DESCRIPTIONS
VALUE
2/97
70 Broadarrow Road
Narwee
Mr P Kotronis & Mrs H KotronisShop Fitout - Takeaway Food
Use
3/97
19 Clarence Street
Penshurst
Mrs D RomanousDetached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy with attached Double Garage - 2x4 bedrooms
$200,000
4/97
366 Forest Road
Hurstville
W K WongShop Fitout - Bookshop
$50,000
5/97
6/438-452 Forest Road
Hurstville
Mr G N ZhaoShop Fitout - Mixed Business
Use
6/97
11/17-37 Lorraine Street
Peakhurst
M SmithFactory Fitout - Joinery & Cabinet Making
Use
7/97
174 Lugarno Parade
Lugarno
Fibrent Pty LtdDetached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy Forward of Existing Dwelling - 3 x bed and 2 x parking
$170,000
8/97
43 Norman Street
Peakhurst
Mr R FengCleaning & Separation of Brass (Metal)
Use
9/97
15 Wright Street
Hurstville
Mr S Saade3 Storey Unit Block with Basement Parking - 14x3 bedrooms - 127 parking spaces
$1,200,000
10/97
803 Forest Road
Hurstville
Mr R Squadrito & Mrs F SquadritoAttached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy with Attached Double Garages - 2x4 bedrooms
$200,000
11/97
47 Josephine Street
Riverwood
J & V Alliance Pty Ltd3 Storey Unit Block with Basement Car Parking - 7x3 Bed, 7x2 Bed, 1x4 Bed - 23 Parking Spaces
$980,000
12/97
32 Mavis Street
Peakhurst
Mr J Apostolovski & Mrs N ApostolovskiDetached Single Storey Dual Occupancy with Attached Single Garage - 2xbed
$85,000
13/97
24 Flora Street
Narwee
Mr G Fares1x5 bed Townhouse & 2x4 Bed Villas with basement car parking
$245,000
14/97
92 The Avenue
Hurstville
Mr K Atkinson & Mrs L AtkinsonWall/Heritage
$9,487
15/97
33 Dora Street
Hurstville
G.J. Taylor Pty LtdAdditions to Heritage Building & Fitout for Restaurant
$150,000
16/97
165 Penshurst Street
Beverly Hills
Baycel Pty LtdFactory Fitout - Metalwork (Wrought Iron) Manufacture
Use
17/97
2/8-10 The Avenue
Hurstville
S. YazarFormal Wear Hire
Use
18/97
182 Forest Road
Hurstville
D. WongShop Fitout
Use
19/97
3/176-184 Belmore Road
Riverwood
Mr T. CosicHairdressing & Beauty Salon
Use
20/97
305 Forest Road
Hurstville
Mr M RizviShop Fitout - Tobacco & Spices House
Use
21/97
3 Patrick Street
Hurstville
ADI SignsOffice Fitout - Computer Graphics
Use
22/97
3 Patrick Street
Hurstville
ADI SignsCommercial Sign - ADI Signs
Use
23/97
342 Forest Road
Hurstville
Mr H Nasser & Mrs Z NasserAddition of Staircase to First Floor Office & Alterations to Shop Front
Use
24/97
243A Forest Road
Hurstville
L R Burcher Pty LtdRefurbishment of Post Office to 4 Separate Retail Usages
$200,000
25/97
1/176-184 Belmore Road
Riverwood
Mrs J JurkovicShop Fitout - Hairdressing Salon
Use
26/97
1/81 The Avenue
Hurstville
Archvision DesignHeritage Building Additions
$60,000
27/97
5 Hardwicke Street
Riverwood
Mr R BozinovskiAttached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy 2x3 Bed
$180,000
28/97
1 Bayside Drive
Lugarno
Mr R Sleiman & Mrs Z SleimanSunroom Addition to Rear of Heritage Dwelling
Use
29/97
29 Argyle Street
Penshurst
City Growth ServiceDetached Dual Occupancy 2x3 Bed
$50,000
30/97
47 Lorraine Street
Peakhurst
Mr C YipWarehouse/ Wholesale
Use
31/97
245 Belmore Road
Riverwood
I KhouryGrocery Shop
Use


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997

. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 13 JANUARY 1997 AND 28 FEBRUARY 1997


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.03 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT

. Recommendation 12-14 YARRAN ROAD, OATLEY (File Nos. 005928 & 006289) APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA's 238/95 & 239/95 FOR A TEN (10) TOWNHOUSE/VILLA DEVELOPMENT


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
ADDENDUM TO
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-


The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE

Dear Sir,

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


05.05.04A WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.04A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)

. Recommendation WHITE PAPER AND EXPOSURE DRAFT BILL ON "INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT" (File No. T/01273)


RECOMMENDATION



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 03 19TH MARCH, 1997-


06:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

06:01.01 50 Moons Avenue, Lugarno - New Split Level Dwelling

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

06:05.01 Review Of Green Paper - Protection Of The Environment Bill 1996 (Report By Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

06:05.02 Waste Levy To Southern Sydney Waste Planning And Management Board (File W/00028)

06:05.03 Delegates Report - Cooks River Catchment Management Committee (File R/00580) (Report By Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

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 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling

. Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling


RECOMMENDATION


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

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PENSHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PEAKHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

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 REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)

. Recommendation REVIEW OF GREEN PAPER - PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1996 (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration, Mr B Daintry)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.02 WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)

. Recommendation WASTE LEVY TO SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD (File W/00028)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.03 DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)

. Recommendation DELEGATES REPORT - COOKS RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (File R/00580) (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal)


RECOMMENDATION