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


SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH'S - SECTION ONE REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 14TH MAY, 1997-



05:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward

05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward

05:04.01 7 Elm Street, Lugarno (D.A. 48/97)
Detached Dual Occupancy
(Report By Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)

05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

05:05.01 13-19 Macmahon Street, Hurstville
Appeal Against Deemed Refusal Of D.A. 430/96 For A Multi Storey Commercial
And Residential Development (File No. 004926)

05:05.02 1/330 Forest Road, Hurstville
Appeal Against Council's Refusal Of D.A. 389/96 For A Brothel


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH'S
REPORT NO 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH & PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 05 14TH MAY, 1997-

SECTION ONE

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

THERE ARE NO WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS IN RESPECT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD

THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF HURSTVILLE WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD

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

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 7 ELM STREET, LUGARNO (D.A. 48/97)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Applicant : Ms. P. Orlando
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "A"
Owners : G. & C. Orlando
Existing Development : Two Storey Residence
Cost of Development : $120,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to construct a detached three level dual occupancy dwelling containing three bedrooms and an attached double carport.

2. The proposal does not comply with Council's Interim Residential Development Code with respect to private open space, height, number of storeys, boundary setbacks, sunlight provision and building envelopes.

3. Both the Manager, Building Services and Manager, Development Advice have raised minor areas of non-compliance.

4. One (1) objection was received from an adjoining resident during the notification period.

5. A previous Development Application for the erection of a Dual Occupancy on the site was refused under delegated authority on 15 November, 1995 (D.A. 339/95).

6. Subsequent to the refusal the applicant lodged an appeal to the Land and Environment Court, however following a mediation conference, the appeal was discontinued, pending the submission of a new Development Application.

7. It is recommended that the application be determined by Council.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The existing site accommodates a part two storey residence of brick/tile construction. A garage to the residence is located at the eastern side of the dwelling with direct access to Elm Street. The existing substantial dwelling and swimming pool is to be retained as part of the development.

The land is located on the southern side of Elm Street and is a steeply sloping allotment. The location of the proposed new dwelling is on a steep, heavily vegetated rear portion of the allotment and overlooks Hadfield Park, off Oak Street to the rear. The eastern boundary of the allotment adjoins a closed road section of Old Forest Road which also falls away significantly to Hadfield Park at the rear.

The housing in this locality is a mixture of mainly single detached dwellings of various designs and building materials.

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 the findings are tabulated in a later section of this report. The proposed development does not comply with the provisions relating to private open space, height, number of storeys, building setbacks, sunlight provision and building envelopes.

Application History

DATE
ACTION
17/7/95* Original Development Application DA 339/95 lodged with Council
* Development proposed comprised a 4 level, four bedroom dual occupancy dwelling to be erected on a steeply sloping portion of the site.
13-27/9/95* Notification undertaken
* 3 objections received from nearby residents
15/11/95* Development Application was refused under delegated authority for the following reasons :

1. the proposal does not comply with development controls under the Repealed and Draft Residential Development Control Plan, particularly with regard to private courtyards and building setback.

2. The design of the development provides for insufficient solar access to the new premises and courtyards being poorly located in a southerly position.

3. Insufficient information has been provided to justify the removal of mature trees located at the rear of the allotment.

4. The public interest and amenity of the neighbourhood.
22/10/96* In response to a request from the applicant a more detailed letter was issued outlining the areas of non-compliance and deficiencies which led to the refusal as follows :

1. A private open space area of 70.0 square metres was not provided for the proposed unit. (The Council's current code now requires this area to be 100.0 square metres)

2. The proposed unit will predominantly be in shadow and will overshadow any private open space area thus leading to an unsatisfactory amenity for future tenants of the residential unit.

3. Adequate natural light and ventilation was not provided to the family room.

4. Side boundary setback did not comply with the 2.0 metres requirement for two storey development.

5. The carport infringed the front boundary setback of 4.5 metres for dual occupancy development. Whilst there were single dwellings in the vicinity with garages at the front of sites this factor was seen as undesirable for multi-unit development.

6. There was no justification for removal of significant vegetation from the site.

7. The amount of excavation work was excessive.

8. The new unit would be visually intrusive above Hadfield Park.
22/10/96* Appeal lodged with the Land and Environment Court against the refusal by Council of the Development Application.
7/2/97* Mediation conference held, where it was suggested the applicant may wish to lodge a new Development Application addressing the matters raised in Council's letter of 22 October, 1996 and the Statement of Issues placed before the Court.
17/2/97* Land and Environment Court case adjourned pending Council's consideration of a new Development Application
19/3/97* New Development lodged (DA 48/97) for a three level detached, 3 bedroom dual occupancy with attached double carport.
14-28/4/97* Notification undertaken, one (1) objection received.

Proposed Development

The development involves the retention of the existing residence, swimming pool and recreational area and the erection of a three bedroom split level dwelling on the steeply sloping portion of the site.

At street level, approximately 1.0 metre back from the boundary is proposed a double carport, entrance foyer and main bedroom with ensuite. Stepping down the site the next level comprises bedrooms 2 and 3, and the lowest level contains the kitchen, dining and living rooms with direct access to a 2.5 metre wide deck which finishes approximately 900mm from the rear boundary.

Compliance with IRDC

IRDC REQUIREMENT
PROPOSED
COMPLIANCE
Density
315 m2 per unit
453 m2 per unit
Yes
Landscaped Open Space
55%
55%
Yes
Private Open Space
100 m2
approx. 67 m2
No
Principal Private Open Space
5m x 6m
"L" shaped area from 2.5-3.0m wide
No
Parking Area "B"
4 spaces
4 spaces
Yes
Front Site Height maximum
9.0 m
max. 9m
No
Rear Site Height maximum
6.0 m
max. 9m
No
Front Site Maximum Storeys
2
3
No
Rear Site Maximum Storeys
1
2
No
Front Boundary Setback
4.5 m
1.0 m
No
Side Boundary Setback
- Front Site
- Rear Site
2m for 2 Storey
1.35m for 1 Storey
min 1.2m
min 2.5m
No
Yes
Building Envelopes
3.5m/45%
Various
No

Areas of Non-Compliance

Landscaped Open Space

The overall calculation of landscaped open space complies with the IRDC requirement of 55%. However the code requires that of this total landscaped area, 40% or 199 square metres must be capable of growing substantial trees. The proposed dual occupancy does not meet this requirement.

Private Open Space

Council's IRDC requires that a minimum 100 square metres private open space be provided at ground level for a three (3) bedroom dwelling, with the minimum dimension of this open space being 3.0 metres. Taking into account the 3.0 metre restriction, the proposed dual occupancy does not comply with Council's requirement and the open space provided is not usable due to its slope.

Principal Private Open Space

Of the total private open space requirement of 100 square metres, the IRDC requires that a principal area of open space be provided which measures a minimum 5m x 6m for a three (3) bedroom dwelling. This area must not be steeper than 1 in 20 and must be directly accessible from the main living room. The proposed development provides a deck which has direct access from the living room, however, this area measures at its maximum 3.0 metres wide.

Height and Number of Storeys

Council's IRDC permits two storeys and a maximum height of 9.0 metres at the front of the site in Area "A". The proposed dwelling complies with this height limit, but not with the number of storeys, as for a horizontal distance of at least 4.5 metres the dwelling is three (3) storeys. This is made possible due to the substantial excavation of the existing ground levels.

At the rear of the site the development does not comply with either the height limit of 6.0 metres or the single storey restriction, due to the second storey dormer windows provided to both the second and third bedrooms.

Boundary Setbacks

The development fails to comply with both the front and side boundary setbacks as outlined in Council's IRDC. At the front of the site the double carport is situated in front of the building line, within 1.0 metre of the boundary. Along the western boundary the setback should be at least 2.0 metres for the two and three storey portion. The setback provided is less than 2.0 metres for approximately 40% of the length of the boundary.

Building Envelopes

As a consequence of the slope of the site and the non-compliance of the development with height, storey and setback provisions, building envelopes are also in non-compliance.

It has been recognised in other developments that steeply sloping sites make it difficult to totally comply with building envelope principles. A variation has been permitted in these cases provide the development complies with all other aspects of Council's requirements.

Sunlight and Overshadowing

Council's IRDC requires that dwellings be designed to enable living areas and private open space to receive at least four (4) hours of sunshine between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm in mid-winter. Information provided by the applicant, in particular shadow diagrams of the proposed dwelling indicate that the combination of the slope of the site and the height and number of levels of the dwelling mean that the living areas will not receive adequate sunlight and the private open space will be totally overshadowed during winter. Overshadowing of the adjoining property to the west also raises some concerns but as only morning sun is restricted and existing trees already cast similar shadows the overshadowing is not considered to have an adverse impact on the adjoining property.

Tree Removal

Approval of the development will result in the removal of trees and vegetation which presently complement the streetscape and tree canopy of Hadfield Park. Council must consider whether adequate justification has been provided for the removal of this vegetation.

Divisional Referrals

Manager, Building Services - The application was referred to the Manager, Building Services who advised that the Building Code of Australia requires a 1.5 metre boundary setback for three (3) storey development. The proposed dwelling does not comply with this requirement for a portion of the eastern boundary.

Manager, Development Advice - The application was referred to the Manager, Development Advice who advised that the applicant's proposal for the erection of a concrete headwall and "spreader" in the southwestern corner of the site to drain into the adjoining public reserve, is unacceptable. Should the application be approved the applicant will be required to direct all stormwater to Council's pipeline located in the unformed section of Old Forest Road.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to respond. One (1) objection was received and raised the following concerns :

i) Boundary setback encroachments.

ii) Compliance with fire provisions under the Building Code of Australia.

iii) Impact on trees and bushland.

iv) Non-compliance with building envelopes.

v) Impact on the construction of the concrete headwall for drainage purposes.

vi) Method of rock excavation and potential impact on adjoining residence.

vii) Overshadowing of adjoining residence.

Discussion of Issues

In determining this Development Application there are three (3) major issues which Council needs to consider and upon which it must make a decision :

1. Is the subject land suitable for a dual occupancy, taking into account the Heads of Consideration under S.90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act;

2. Is the development proposed acceptable, taking into account not only the provisions, but also the objectives of Council's IRDC and the reasons for refusal of the previous application; and

3. Will approving the development set a precedent in terms of the departures proposed from the IRDC and the potential cumulative impact on development in Lugarno.

Each of these issues are now discussed in detail.

1. Site Suitability

The portion of land proposed for the dual occupancy is subject to several physical and natural constraints. Due to the positioning of the existing dwelling and the way it stretches horizontally across the site, only an extremely narrow strip remains as vacant land on the western side of the dwelling. This strip of land, approximately 8-10 metres wide is also steeply sloping and is characterised by in-situ boulders and extensive vegetation, particularly tree cover. An inspection of the site suggests that this portion of the site has to date been left vacant for good reason - it is subject to substantial physical constraints to development. Therefore despite the fact that dual occupancy is a permissible use on the site and construction is possible from an engineering point of view, it may not be appropriate for the site in question to be developed to any degree greater than a single dwelling.

Section 90 of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act requires that every Development Application be assessed in respect of issues such as the following :

* environmental impact,

* character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design, external appearance,

* size and shape of the land, the siting of any building works thereon, the area to be occupied by the development,

* the relationship of that development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality,

* whether any trees or vegetation should be preserved,

* whether that development is likely to cause soil erosion.

An assessment of any one of these issues raises the appropriateness of the subject land is for further development. However, if Council can be satisfied that the land can be developed for the purposes of a dual occupancy, it must then consider the specific development proposed.

2. Development Acceptability

As detailed in earlier sections of this report the development proposed fails to comply with Council's IRDC in substantial ways. It is considered that the level of non-compliance both reflects and is a consequence of the fact that the subject site is not suitable for the amount of development proposed.

It is considered unlikely that any dwelling of the size proposed could be designed to fit within such a confined space and still comply with Council's code. In addition it is considered that no mitigating circumstances of any town planning substance have been put forward to justify the level of non-compliance.

However, if Council wishes to accept the principle that a dual occupancy may be accommodated on the site, the level of non-compliance may possibly be reduced by requiring the applicant to limit the development to two (2) levels. This could be achieved by locating all three (3) bedrooms on one level, and would have the effect of potentially eliminating the height, number of storeys and building envelope variations. It is questionable whether these changes would improve the compatibility of the development with the objectives of Area "A" which reinforce the low density, low scale, densely vegetated character of Lugarno.

3. Precedent

Council finally needs to consider the question of whether approving this development may set a precedent for the consideration of future applications. It would be of some concern if the application were to be approved with so many areas of non-compliance unless this can be clearly justified in planning terms. The question of whether Council will be faced with further similar proposals within Area "A" also needs to be considered.

Conclusion

In summary Council must decide whether the site in question is appropriate for the development of a dual occupancy. In addition Council should consider what improvements, if any, have been made to the plans submitted with this Development Application in comparison to the plans previously refused. An assessment of the detailed reasons given for refusal, reproduced earlier in this report suggest that the issues considered unacceptable in the original plans still remain. Finally Council must assess what potential precedent may flow on from approval of this application, both in terms of the level of non-compliance with Council's code and the replication of development proposals on sites such as this, throughout Lugarno.

The matter is recommended for Ward Councillor inspection and report to allow discussion on whether the site is suitable for further development and, if so, what variations may be permissible due to the extenuating circumstances of the site.




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 7 ELM STREET, LUGARNO (D.A. 48/97)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation 7 ELM STREET, LUGARNO (D.A. 48/97)
DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the matter of Development Application DA 48/97 for the erection of a dual occupancy development at No. 7 Elm Street, Lugarno be referred to Ward Councillors, interested Councillors and relevant officers for an inspection and report.

AND FURTHER THAT Council grant delegated authority to the General Manager to determine the application but only where such determination is in accordance with the recommendation of the majority of Ward Councillors.

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 13-19 MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST DEEMED REFUSAL OF D.A. 430/96 FOR A MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (File No. 004926)




Notice of the above Appeal was served upon Council on 16 April, 1997. The Appeal has been set down for hearing before the Registrar of the Land and Environment Court on 16-18 June, 1997.

Council's solicitors, Deacon, Graham and James, have been advised of the receipt of the Appeal and in concurrence with usual practice have been instructed to present Council and defend refusal of the consent.

The subject proposal involves the construction of two (2) multi storey buildings in the Hurstville City Centre Business zone. One building is proposed at eight (8) storeys and the other at eleven (11) storeys and both are proposed to have commercial use on the lower floors and residential use on the upper floors.

The appeal is based on a deemed refusal for not determining the application with forty (40) days. The matter was delayed due to the poor quality of plans submitted and the application has now been amended to propose a staged development. This amended application is undergoing advertisement and should be reported to the next meeting of Council.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 13-19 MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST DEEMED REFUSAL OF D.A. 430/96 FOR A MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (File No. 004926)


. Recommendation 13-19 MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST DEEMED REFUSAL OF D.A. 430/96 FOR A MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (File No. 004926)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the action taken to instruct Council's solicitors to represent Council in the Land and Environment Court and oppose the Appeal be confirmed.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.02 1/330 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF D.A. 389/96 FOR A BROTHEL




Notice of the above Appeal was served upon Council on 29 April, 1997. The Appeal has been set down for callover before the Registrar of the Land and Environment Court on 13 May, 1997.

Council's solicitors, Deacon, Graham and James, have been advised of the receipt of the Appeal and in concurrence with usual practice have been instructed to represent Council and defend refusal of the consent.

The subject proposal involved the use of the first floor of a commercial building as a brothel. The application was determined by Council at the Meeting held on 9 April, 1997 by refusal of the application due to issues of adverse effect, inappropriate use, parking, impact on adjoining properties and against the public interest.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1/330 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF D.A. 389/96 FOR A BROTHEL


. Recommendation 1/330 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE
APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF D.A. 389/96 FOR A BROTHEL



RECOMMENDATION


THAT the action taken to instruct Council's solicitors to represent Council in the Land and Environment Court and oppose the Appeal be confirmed.

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 05 14TH MAY, 1997-


06:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:04.01 1126 Forest Road, Lugarno (B.A. 818/96)
Additions And Alterations To Dwelling
(Report By Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)

06:04.02 87 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno (B.A. 199/97)
New Dwelling House
(Report By Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
SECTION 2


06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

THERE ARE NO WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS IN RESPECT OF BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR THIS MEETING.

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



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.01 1126 FOREST ROAD, LUGARNO (B.A. 818/96)
ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)




Applicant: Mr B Alexander (BA 818/96)

Proposed: Additions and alterations to dwelling - objection to provisions of clause 57 of Local Government (Approvals) Regulations.

Development Area: A

Referred for: - support for a section 82 objection to the provisions of clause 57 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulations.

The subject application proposes the following construction:

* a timber frame colorbond roofed carport over the vehicle driveway in the front yard of the existing dwelling.

* the construction of a timber pergola in the rear yard.

* the enclosure of the existing carport with a brick wall on the southern side boundary and glass sliding doors at the rear. (The carport is all ready fitted with a rolla-door.)

Approval could not be granted to the application for the following reasons:

(1) The adjoining property owner has objected to the brick wall enclosure of the carport.

(2) Clause 57 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation requires the wall of a dwelling to stand a minimum of 900 mm from the boundary and deems the wall of an enclosed garage attached to a dwelling to be the external wall of such dwelling.

An on-site inspection will reveal that the existing carport is at present enclosed with green polytarp material between the top of the fence and the soffit of the gable end. In discussion with the objector it appears that she would prefer not to look at a full brick wall on the boundary.

The applicant was advised of the above difficulties with her application and due to some urgency on her part, she requested that the application receive a staged approval pursuant to section 96 of the Local Government Act. Accordingly, on the 24 April approval was granted to the erection of the proposed new carport and pergola.


A condition was imposed on the approval in the following terms:

"15. No approval is expressed or implied to the brick wall and rear glass door/windows which are proposed to enclose the existing carport to form a lock-up garage. This work is subject to the prior concurrence of the Director General of Local Government pursuant to Section 82 of the Local Government Act.
Accordingly, no work shall commence on the enclosure of the existing carport unless the brick wall and glass door/window is approved as Stage 2 works."

The applicants submission under section 82 is quoted below:

"Further to our conversation/meeting on Friday, 18 April 1997 we are hereby lodging an objection pertaining to section 82 of the Local Government Act.

We understand the matter is to be heard at a Council meeting and then forwarded, hopefully with Council support, to the Local Government for a decision.

Before I commence relating my case to you it has become more necessary than ever to be able to house my car securely off Forest Road, as on Tuesday, 22 April 1997 a passing large truck loaded with earth and large sandstone rocks passed my house and a large rock dislodged and hit my car causing $1,500 to $2,000 damage. The incident was reported to Senior Constable Jamison of Riverwood Police.

I realise this is not a Council problem, but surely demonstrates my fear at having to park on the main road, exposed to the elements, in the turn circle from Koorabel Street and facing these other hazards.

Please refer overleaf for a summary of reasons which I would ask you to consider in my appeal.

Summary of Reasons to Amend Decision to Enclose Carport at 1126 Forest Road, Lugarno NSW 2210

1. There is no secure parking for my car and my son's car off the street.

2. The existing carport is exposed to the south and south-west and is wide open to storms, hail, wind, etc.

3. In an attempt to keep weather out I have stapled green plastic shade cloth up, which is now beginning to wear and tear and does not hold up to the elements. It is not aesthetically pleasant to look at.

4. My site is only small (409 sq metres) and there is no alternative location for a garage. There is no backyard to mention as it is a sub-divided block.

5. - The neighbour's house (on that side) is set well back from the fence (8.0 metres).

- Her house has two street access on a very large block, which is open and light with sunlight all day.

- It would be aesthetically more pleasant to see a nice matching brick enclosure than torn shade cloth (and a nice timber pergola with plants and greenery).

6. The existing carport roof does not block any light or sunlight to my neighbours premises at any time of the year.

7. To enclose in brick material is more:

(a) fireproof
(b) secure
(c) weatherproof
(d) aesthetical more pleasant to the eye and blending with existing landscape/environment.

8. The length of the carport to be enclosed represents a very small percentage of total fence length area, i.e. quarter of my property with 10% of her property boundary on one side only.

* Bearing in mind there is already a colorbond fence along the entire length of both properties which she is happy with at 1.6 metres high. Therefore, the gap between the fence and my carport roof is only 1.2 metres - that's all.

* We are talking about an area from her side of only 1.2 (high) x 5.2 (long) which is quite minimal in context with the huge size of her block of land running from Forest Road to Old Forest Road.

9. I was made aware of her complaint regarding the carport enclosure, but not against the adjoining pergola or additional carport. This to me is very inconsistent as the garage (proposed) will blend very attractively with the pergola and present a modern, aesthetically complete view from her side instead of looking in at my "rubbish" and the torn shade cloth.

Her complaint, without wishing to appear rude, is very inconsistent.

I ask for both Council's and Local Government's assistance in this matter and await your reply.

In determining an application for the wall of a dwelling to be sited as proposed in this application the Council must be satisfied that compliance "would be impracticable because of the levels or width of the allotment or other exceptional conditions of the site."

The subject allotment is Lot 2 in a strata plan of Dual Occupancy development approved pursuant to Development Approval 314/94. This consent proposed the erection of a new two storey dwelling in the rear yard of No. 1126
Forest road having frontage to Old Forest Road. The consent also proposed a carport at the side of dwelling 1126 Forest Road and it is this carport the application now proposes to make into a garage.

Subdivision of the site then reduced the allotment to a smaller site area of approximately 400 m2.

Inspection of the site will confirm that the site is almost level and is of ample width and therefore these grounds cannot be used to justify concessions being given under clause 57(2) of the Approvals Regulations. The only other "exceptional conditions of the site" might be the reduced size of the allotment in that there is no other accessible location on the site as now developed which could accommodate an attached or detached garage.

The applicants need for a garage is of some priority and the proposed garage enclosure will not have any more impact on the objector as a garage, than it does as a carport. Accordingly, it is submitted that Council accept that "exceptional conditions", namely the existing site development and small allotment area does not permit the sitting of a garage in compliance with clause 57(2) of the Approvals Regulations.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 1126 FOREST ROAD, LUGARNO (B.A. 818/96)
ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)


. Recommendation 1126 FOREST ROAD, LUGARNO (B.A. 818/96)
ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)



RECOMMENDATION


1. THAT Council support an objection lodged with it by the Applicant made under the provisions of Section 82 of the Local Government Act 1993 ("the Act") objecting to the application of the undermentioned provisions of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993 upon the undermentioned grounds of objection:

Provision Objected to:

Clause 57(2) which requires inter alia - "A wall of a Class 1 building must not be less than 900 mm from the boundary (in the case of a Class 1 dwelling containing one or two storeys)."

2. THAT Council grant delegated authority to the General Manager to determine the building application in the event that the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives is granted in respect of the subjection objection; and

3. THAT in the event of the building application being approved by the General Manager, the date of determination of the application and the date from which that approval operates shall be the date when approval was granted by the General Manager; and

4. THAT should the delegation contained in paragraph 2 hereof be contrary to or conflict with any previous delegation made by the Council under Section 377 of the Act or sub-delegation made by the General Manager under Section 378 sub-section (2) of the Act, then the delegation contained in this resolution shall prevail in respect of the determination of the subject application.

5. THAT the Objector be notified of Council's determination.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.02 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (B.A. 199/97)
NEW DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)




Applicant: Dr A Hassan

Proposed: Three-storey dwelling with elevated driveway, access ram and garages

Development Area: A

Referred for: - building exceeds 9 metre height limit;
- objections from two neighbours.

iNTRODUCTION

At its meeting held on 29 January 1997, the Council refused an earlier application for a two and three-storey building for the following reasons:

1. The maximum height of the building will exceed the nine (9) metre limited prescribed in the Code for Single Dwelling Houses as the highest point is 12 metres above existing ground level.

2. The windows and balcony along the north-eastern wall will overview the swimming pool area of the adjoining property.

3. The car parking structure is considered excessive in size and bulk, and will have an adverse impact on both adjoining properties with regard to privacy and glare of headlights.

4. There are no shadow diagrams for the car parking structure.

5. The "storeroom" is capable of being used for habitable purposes thus making the dwelling a three-storey dwelling.

6. No detail has been given for the method of constructing the building over the sewer main.

7. Generally, there are inaccuracies in the architectural drawings.

Council also resolved that it be noted that "existing ground level" in the refusal is not the natural ground level.

The application now before Council is for a dwelling and garage erected over four levels with the storeys stepped so as to have a maximum of three storeys in any part.

A comparison of the former application and the current application is submitted in the Table below. Because the location of the highest ridge line RL 98.2 of the rejected application was to be forward on the site (over the filled area) that structure, if erected, would result in an overall height of approximately 12 metres above the estimated original ground level. The heights shown in the Table are measured in different locations on the site and therefore cannot be directly compared:

Measure
Refused
Application
Current
Application
Council's Prescriptive Standard SFDP
Maximum height of ridge above original ground

Maximum height of ridge above existing filled ground
12 m
(estimated)


9.4m
11 m
(estimated)


9.9 m
9 m above natural ground (defined as level of land prior to any development)
Floor levels:
LGF
GF
FF
Garage/Entry
Garage
86.05
88.65
91.85
-
96.7
86.1
88.7
91.6
94.6
Side boundary setbacks:
East

West

Envelope:
East

West
1700-2800 mm

2500 mm



non-compliance

non-compliance
1500-3100 mm

1500-2500 mm



non-compliance

non-compliance
1500 mm

1500 mm



45o from a point
3.5 m above ground at boundary
Floor space ratio
0.26:1
0.32:1
0.45:1

In accordance with Council's policy the application was notified to the owner's of neighbouring properties. The owners of properties 85 and 89 Woodlands Avenue have again lodged objections. Copies of the letters of objection have been forwarded to the Peakhurst Ward Councillors. A summary of the objections and comments on same is submitted below for Council's consideration.

Objection 1

Exceeds Council height limit of 9 metres.

If the ground levels outside of the fill area are taken as being close to original levels the maximum fill on the subject site is in the order of 1.5 - 2 metres. This fill was apparently placed on the site some 18 years ago. The applicants argue, in any case, that the existing site levels should be considered as "Natural Ground Level" which is defined in Council's Code as "the level of land prior to any development taking place.

The proposed dwelling is a full storey lower than the bottom section of house number 85 and two and half storeys lower than the top section of that house. Similarly the proposed dwelling is from half to one and half storeys higher than the house at number 89. This seems to reflect the general direction of the slope of the land above the escarpment.

The applicants justify the proposed height on the following grounds:
* Council has approved a 12 metre height on the lower buildings on the large townhouse site which adjoins the allotment. These buildings are similarly situated near to the edge of the escarpment and have decks which actually extend over the escarpment.

* The house on 85 Woodlands Avenue will tower over the proposed dwelling.

* The house will not be visible above the skyline when viewed from the water. The ridge of the house is well below road level and well below the existing building and tree line level at road level.

* If the building were furnished with a low colorbond roof or flat terrace roof the height above estimated natural ground levels would not exceed 9 metres.

Comment has also been made concerning the height of the driveway/access ramp which is up to 5.7 metres above the ground level (5 metres above the pool coping at number 89). This structure has been designed with a maximum 20% grade to comply with Council's requirements and the recommendations in the relevant Australian Standards. The architect has properly integrated both the access and garage structure with the dwelling. This was totally unresolved on the previous application.

Objection 2 - Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams have been submitted, which indicate that property 89 Woodlands Avenue will receive winter sunlight up to 3.00 p.m. on windows and open space areas without additional impact by the proposed building. The dwelling at number 85 Woodlands Avenue is situated to the north-west of the proposed building and due to its high elevation is not overshadowed by the proposed building in any significant way. The large elevated deck at number 85 has a handrail height which is only 300 mm below the eave line of the garages for the proposed building. Winter sun will therefore be available on the deck at 8.30 a.m. and the existing elevated garage at number 89 will continue to have a more significant overshadowing impact on number 85 than the proposed building.

Objection 3 - Privacy

The relationship of the proposed building to the house and pool at number 89 does present some privacy concerns. This matter has been discussed with the applicant's architect who has prepared sketches to demonstrate how the privacy concerns may be addressed.

The following privacy concerns have been identified:

* Ground floor bedrooms (level 88.7) to swimming pool and ground floor windows in house number 89.

Comment: This is not a valid objection as the pool is at a higher level and the side fence will completely screen between the two dwellings.

* Upper floor kitchen/family room (level 91.6) to swimming pool and windows in house number 89.

Comment: The architect has prepared sketch plans illustrating the benefit of sill height external shelf screens to eliminate overviewing at lower levels. Some refinement of these sketches has been requested and should be available for distribution to Ward Councillors prior to the meeting at which this report is considered.

* Roof level and vehicle turning area (level 94.5) to house number 89.

Comment: The design provides for planter beds and screen walls to the roof terrace to prevent the occupiers by the proposed dwelling gaining an overview of premises 89 from the roof terrace areas. A problem does exist however, in respect of the vehicle turning area, the edge of which is proposed to be constructed to the boundary and 5 m above the swimming pool coping at number 89. The privacy problem in this area cold be resolved by the erection of a screen, however, such a screen, would only add to the visual impact of the structure onto the adjoining premises, number 89.

* The front balconies at levels 88.7 and 91.6 will allow overviewing of the rear terrace and glass walled additions of premises number 89. This problem could be addressed by the provision of a screen on the north-east end of the balconies or by vertical blinds in the room of house number 89.

There are no significant privacy considerations in respect of house number 85 from these front balconies.

Objection 4 - Loss of Views

* Comment: Adjoining house number 85 occupies a dominant position in the locality and as mentioned before towers over the subject land. The lowest level of this house has large timber deck facing east and south. Some views to the east from this deck will be obscured by the proposed garage structure which rises at roof ridge level about 1.7 m above the deck at number 85.

Adjoining house number 89 enjoys magnificent views over the river to the south and east and the subject building does not interrupt those views.

Objection 5 - Bulk and Size of the Proposed in Relations to Adjoining Buildings

* The building and its driveway access occupies most of the useable building area on the site. A total floor area including garages and storerooms of 600 m2 is realised by this proposal. This represents a floor space ratio of 0.32:1.

* The building design has been determined by providing safe access for vehicles and pedestrians to the house via a ramp in lieu of providing a detached structure with limited parking at a higher level (as has been done at number 89). The safe ramp gradient has determined the house roof level and it has been a design requirement that vehicles be able to turn and drive out from the site in a forward direction.

* The size of the building does impact on house number 89. However, the house at number 85 is not impacted upon to the same degree as it is itself a large imposing structure with ugly void areas under. These would be screened by the proposed building.

* When viewed from a distance it is considered that the subject building will merely fill a "hole" in the upper escarpment line and will not upset the foreshore scenic qualities of the locality.

* The impact on house number 85 is nevertheless relevant although it needs to be noted that the level differences as stated by the consultant planner for the objectors are not as great as quoted in his report. Some examples are given in the table below.

Building Feature
Quoted Height Difference
Actual Height Difference
    Carpark floor above
    pool at 85
5.7
and
7.2
4.9
    Overall height above filled ground
12 m
11 m
    Excess height over 9 m limit
3-5 m
0.9 m

A relevant issue under discussion with applicant is that of the envelope requirements of the Council's code. It was initially agreed with the applicant that the building envelope should be complied with on the eastern side (adjacent to number 89) and that the Council might exercise some discretion regarding the envelope on the western side.

The impact on house number 89 would be considerably lessened it the envelope requirements are met on the eastern side.

Objection 6 - Elevated Driveway and Associated Matters: Safety, Headlight Glare, Noise, Etc.

As previously mentioned the integration of the driveway, garages and house entry is considered to be a beneficial aspect of the overall design. The architect has been requested to review the design in this area and the applicant has been advised of the concerns. If the parking slab is setback 1.5 m - 2 m from the east boundary compliance with the envelope requirements could be achieved. Otherwise substantial wheel barriers should meet with relevant safety concerns.

Objection 7 - Possible Damage to the Escarpment Edge

The cliff edge is identified on the plans submitted and the terrace at the lower level appears to overhang the cliff edge in one part. Also, it is noted that the large edge boulders in some places cantilever over the cliff face below and will therefore require to be underpinned if a swimming pool excavation into the surface of these rocks is to be undertaken.

In discussion with the applicant it has been revealed that the engineer has advised that some rock stabilisation will be required and this work has been costed already as an additional $60,000. The question is, therefore, whether it is reasonable to allow any disturbance of the rock fall on the natural escarpment edge.

Conclusion

The proposed dwelling has been designed to meet the applicants requirements on this site, but due to its size has an unacceptable impact on house number 89 Woodlands Avenue. It is submitted by the applicant that the Code requirements for height of the structure should not dictate the design of the building, having regard for the height of house number 85 woodlands Avenue. Notwithstanding, the Code envelope requirements on the eastern side, and the privacy consideration on that side should both be satisfied if the application is to be approved. Some reduction in the size of the house to limit its projection forward towards the escarpment edge should also be considered. The sewer passing across the site represents a constraint on lowering the building and relocating the swimming pool.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (B.A. 199/97)
NEW DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)


. Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (B.A. 199/97)
NEW DWELLING HOUSE
(Report by Manager, Building Services, Mr. G. Young)



RECOMMENDATION


A. THAT the matter of Building Application No. 199/97 for the erection of a single dwelling at 87 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno be deferred and referred to Ward Councillors, interested Councillors and relevant officers for an inspection and for discussion with the applicant concerning a redesign to satisfy the following matters :

i) Privacy on eastern side between the proposed house, including access driveway and the house at 89 Woodlands Avenue.

ii) Compliance with building envelope on eastern side (also applies to parking deck).

iii) Reductions in size of balconies and lower terrace at the front of the building and the relocation of the swimming pool to ensure that the natural rock formation at the escarpment edge is not endangered or altered..

iv) Reduction in the size of the building as necessary to satisfy the above requirements.

B. THAT Council grant delegated authority to the General Manager to determine the application but only where such determination is in accordance with the recommendations of the majority of Ward Councillors.


* * * * *

Yours faithfully




D Beaumont
Divisional Manager - Development & Health