agenda: application assessment panel · controls: c3, c10 and c11. 5. windows, doors, shutters and...

Agenda: Application Assessment Panel

Date: Tuesday 11 December 2012

Time: 3.00pm

Item: D1 to D2

H:\Application Assessment Panel\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\dec11-12aapage.docx

Outline of Meeting Protocol & Procedure:

The Chairperson will call the Meeting to order and ask the Panel/Staff to present

apologies or late correspondence.

The Chairperson will commence the Order of Business as shown in the Index to the

Agenda.

At the beginning of each item the Chairperson will ask whether a member(s) of the

public wish to address the Panel.

If person(s) wish to address the Panel, they are allowed three (3) minutes in which to do

so. Please direct comments to the issues at hand.

If there are persons representing both sides of a matter (eg applicant/objector), the

objector speaks first.

At the conclusion of the allotted three (3) minutes, the speaker resumes his/her seat and

takes no further part in the debate unless specifically called to do so by the Chairperson.

If there is more than one (1) person wishing to address the Panel from the same side of

the debate, the Chairperson will request that where possible a spokesperson be

nominated to represent the parties.

The Chairperson has the discretion whether to continue to accept speakers from the

floor.

After considering any submissions the Panel will debate the matter (if necessary), and

arrive at a resolution.

Note: Matters where there is a substantive change to the recommendation of the Council

Officer are referred to the next appropriate meeting of the Application Assessment

Panel.

Note: Matters can be “called” from this Panel Meeting to the Development Control

Committee (DCC) by Councillors subject to the following requirements:

- Calling requires one Councillor

- A Councillor may call a matter by written or oral request by 3.00pm on the business day

preceeding the meeting at which the item is listed

- A Councillor who is in attendance at the Application Assessment Panel meeting may

call a matter at any time prior to the completion of the meeting by orally advising the

Panel Chairperson.


WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting

3 December 2012

To: General Manager

Director – Technical Services

Director – Planning & Development

Manager – Compliance

Manager – Strategic Planning

CC: The Mayor

All Councillors

Application Assessment Panel Meeting – 11 December 2012

In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, I request your

attendance at a Meeting of the Council’s Application Assessment Panel to be held in the

Thornton Room (Committee Room), 536 New South Head Road, Double Bay, on

Tuesday 11 December 2012 at 3.00pm.

Gary James

General Manager

Woollahra Municipal Council

Application Assessment Panel 11 December 2012


Meeting Agenda Part One of One Part

Item

Subject

Pages

1

2

3

Apologies

Late Correspondence Note Council resolution of 27 June 2011 to read late correspondence in conjunction

with the relevant Agenda Item Declarations of Interest

Items to be Decided by this Committee using its Delegated Authority

D1 Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 4 December 2012 1

D2 DA331/2012 – 263 Glenmore Road, Paddington – Unauthorised

work, replace front door with glazed timber door – 18/10/2012

*See Recommendation Page 14

2-34

Woollahra Municipal Council

Application Assessment Panel 11 December 2012

H:\Application Assessment Panel\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\dec11-12aapage.docx 1

Item No: D1 Delegated to Committee

Subject: Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 4 December 2012

Author: Les Windle, Manager - Governance

File No: See Application Assessment Panel Minutes

Reason for Report: The Minutes of the Meeting of Tuesday 4 December 2012 were

previously circulated. In accordance with the guidelines for

Committees’ operations it is now necessary that those Minutes be

formally taken as read and confirmed.

Recommendation:

That the Minutes of the Application Assessment Panel Meeting of 4 December 2012 be taken

as read and confirmed.

Les Windle

Manager - Governance

DA 331/2012/1 Application Assessment Panel

263 Glenmore Road PADDINGTON 11 December 2012

H:\Application Assessment Panel\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\0017DAREP13A.docx 1

SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION REPORT

ITEM No. D2

FILE No. DA 331/2012

ADDRESS: 263 Glenmore Road PADDINGTON 2021

PROPOSAL:

Unauthorised work: replace front door with glazed timber door

DATE DA DETERMINED: 5 October 2012

SUBJECT OF REVIEW: Refusal

DATE S82A REVIEW

APPLICATION LODGED:

18/10/2012

APPLICANT: Ms K E McFarlane

OWNER: Ms K E McFarlane

REVIEW OFFICER: Mr T Wong

DOES THE APPLICATION INVOLVE A SEPP 1 OBJECTION? YES NO

LOCALITY PLAN

Subject

Site

Objectors

North

Locality

Plan

Paddington Society




1. SUMMARY

Reason for report

The Section 82A is required to be determined by the Application Assessment Panel in accordance

with Council’s adopted review of the operation of delegations of the 14 June 2011 as the DA was

determined by staff delegation.

Issues

Impacts upon Heritage Conservation Area

Unauthorised works

Objections

Two objections have been received.

Recommendation

The original determination to refusal granting development consent be upheld.

2. BACKGROUND

DA331/2012 for unauthorised work: replace front door with glazed timber door was refused on 5

October 2012 under delegated authority for the following reasons:

1. Aims and Objectives of Woollahra LEP 1995

The unauthorised work is inconsistent with the objective 2 (2) (g) (ii) of the Woollahra

LEP 1995 which provides:

… ensure that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to

and does not detract from the heritage significance of heritage items and their

settings and of heritage conservation areas.

2. Clause 8(5): Aims and Objectives of the Zone

The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 8(5) which prescribes that Council

shall not grant consent to development unless it is satisfied that the work is consistent

with objectives of the Woollahra LEP 1995. In particular, the unauthorised works are

inconsistent with objective 3 (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone which provides:

… to maintain the amenity and existing characteristics of areas predominantly

characterised by dwelling-houses.




3. Clause 28 (1) (a) and (2) of Woollahra LEP 1995

The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 28 (1) (a) and (2) of the Woollahra

LEP 1995 which prescribes that a person shall not, in respect of a heritage

conservation area, demolish or alter a building or work within the area and that

Council shall not grant consent to an application in sub-clause (1) unless it has taken

into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the development would affect

the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. The unauthorised work is

uncharacteristic and does not enhance the distinctive shared characteristics of the

terrace row group, therefore, the unauthorised work is considered unacceptable.

4. Principal building form and street front zone of significant buildings (Part 4.1.1)

The unauthorised work is non-compliant with the following objectives and controls of

Part 4.1.1 of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan

2008:

Objectives: O6 and O7.

Controls: C3, C10 and C11.

5. Windows, doors, shutters and security (Part 4.2.3)

The unauthorised work is non-compliant with the following objective and control of


2008:

Objective: O2.

Control: C2.

6. Materials, finishes and details (Part 4.2.8)



2008:

Objective: O2.

Control: C4.

7. Building types (Multi-storey terrace houses) (Part 4.3.2)



2008:

Objective: O4.

Control: C1.

8. The public interest

The unauthorised work is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C

and would not be in the public interest.




The door in question was erected without prior Council consent. Therefore, it is unauthorised work.

As a result, Recommendation Parts B and C of the original assessment report state:

PART B

The unauthorised works are to be removed and the following remedial works are required to

be undertaken within 28 days of the date of this determination:

The installation of a four-panel late-Victorian domestic front door with heavy fielded

panels.

The door (as detailed in the aforementioned bullet point) shall be painted in a recessive

colour.

PART C

That this matter be referred to the Manager – Compliance to take appropriate action under

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s

Enforcement Policy for failure to obtain Council’s consent prior to carrying out the

unauthorised works.

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL SUBJECT OF REVIEW

Unauthorised work: replace front door with glazed timber door

4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REVIEW

The applicant seeks Council to review the determination of DA331/2012 which was refused on the

5th

October 2012. While there have been no modifications made to the original proposal, the

applicant submitted the following further justifications (in summary) in support of the review:

(b) The previous front door had deteriorated badly overtime and the replacement door clearly

identifies the premises as a non-residential use.

(c) The design respects the proportions of traditional timber and glazed front doors that are

evident in residential Victorian terrace dwellings and reflects the proportions of the French

doors on the upper level of the building.

(d) The original fanlight is retained.

(e) The choice of clear glazing is to acknowledge the non-residential nature of the dental practice

with patients using the front door frequently throughout the day.

(f) The clear door also significantly improves safety as the previous door frequently caused

conflict between patients standing close to the door and about to leave and those entering the

building and not realising others were inside.

(g) While the frontages of 259-267 have a strong similarity in their characteristic features the

front door is one of the inconsistent features. (h) Within close vicinity of the subject site are a number of non-residential uses within Victorian

terrace building, located within the 2(a) residential zone, which have clear glazed front

doors.




5. COUNCIL’S STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER S82A

Under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, an

applicant may request Council to review a determination of a development application, other than

for:

(a) designated development,

(b) integrated development; or

(c) state significant development

The request for review must be made within 6 months after the date of determination and the review

must occur in the following way:

(a) If the determination was made by a delegate of Council – the review must be undertaken by

Council or another delegate of Council that is not subordinate to the delegate who made the

determination, or

(b) If the determination was made by full Council the review must also be undertaken by full

Council.

Upon making a determination of the review application, the following must be undertaken:

If upon review, Council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of a

development consent, it must endorse on the notice of determination the date from which the

consent, or the consent as varied by the review, operates.

If upon review, Council changes a determination in any way, the changed determination

replaces the earlier determination as from the date of the review.

Council’s decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

6. CONSIDERATION OF REVIEW

6.1 The applicant’s submission

While there have been no modifications made to the original proposal, the applicant submitted the

following further justifications (in summary) in support of the review:

a) The previous front door had deteriorated badly overtime and the replacement door clearly

identifies the premises as a non-residential use.

Assessment:

Objectives O6 and O7 and Controls C3, C10 and C11 in Part 4.1.1 - Principal building form and

street front zone of significant buildings of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area

Development Control Plan 2008 state:

O6 To retain the distinctive shared characteristics of groups of buildings.

O7 To retain, restore and promote the significance, contribution and relationship of a

building within the context of a group of buildings.

C3 Where a building forms part of a group, any work to the principal building form must

be designed to retain the contribution and relationship of that building to the other

buildings or building which comprise the group.




C10 When works are proposed in the street front zone, Council encourages, but may require

reconstruction or restoration of missing elements or reversal of uncharacteristic

elements.

C11 Where a building forms part of a group, any work in the street front zone must be

designed to retain the contribution and relationship of that building to the other

buildings or building which comprise the group.

The front door of the subject building prior to its replacement (source: Applicant’s Statement of

Environmental Effects dated August 2012)




The existing replacement front door of the subject building

As shown in the photo above, the front door prior to its current replacement door was a traditional

solid four-panel door. The new replacement door with two vertical glazed panels and a large

knob/handle has no regard with the shared characteristic within the group in the street front zone. A

replacement door shall be designed to retain the contribution and relationship of that building to the

other buildings or building which comprise the group, in order to comply with Controls and achieve

the intents of the Objectives. Both the original and reviewing Heritage Officer do not consider the

new replacement door acceptable. It is recommended that a four-panel late-Victorian domestic

front door be reinstated. Therefore, the new replacement door fails on this aspect.

b) The design respects the proportions of traditional timber and glazed front doors that are evident

in residential Victorian terrace dwellings and reflects the proportions of the French doors on

the upper level of the building.

Assessment:

As discussed above, the design of the new replacement door has no regard with the shared

characteristic within the group in the street front zone. As recommended by both the original and

reviewing Heritage Officer, a four-panel late-Victorian domestic front door shall be reinstated.

c) The original fanlight is retained.

Assessment:

This is acknowledged.




d) The choice of clear glazing is to acknowledge the non-residential nature of the dental practice

with patients using the front door frequently throughout the day.

Assessment:

The non-residential nature of the use of the building shall not compromise the visual appearance of

the shared characteristic within the group. The non-residential nature has already been clearly

identified by the metal plaque to the side of the front door.

e) The clear door also significantly improves safety as the previous door frequently caused

conflict between patients standing close to the door and about to leave and those entering the

building and not realising others were inside.

Assessment:

As discussed above, the design of the new replacement door has no regard with the shared

characteristic within the group in the street front zone. There would be other appropriate

mechanical device (e.g. a door bell) to be installed with a four-panel late-Victorian domestic front

door to alleviate the alleged conflict, if any.

f) While the frontages of 259-267 have a strong similarity in their characteristic features the

front door is one of the inconsistent features.

Assessment:

This point is not agreed with. The original door forms one of the shared characteristics within the

group. The replacement door does not conserve the principal building form.

g) Within close vicinity of the subject site are a number of non-residential uses within Victorian

terrace building, located within the 2(a) residential zone, which have clear glazed front

doors.

Assessment:

The examples raised by the applicant include Nos. 13, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 44 Gurner Street, and

No. 31 Norfolk Street.




It is noted that all these examples are either shops or galleries and have generally non-residential

designs. These premises incorporate glazed front door within the design of their shop fronts which

have already been altered. These commercial premises are different in nature from the subject

premises which has been used as a dental surgery within an intact group of Victorian terraces. As

discussed above, the design of the new replacement door has no regard with the shared

characteristic within the group in the street front zone and is not acceptable.

6.2 Review of the reasons for refusal


The unauthorised work is inconsistent with the objective 2 (2) (g) (ii) of the Woollahra LEP

1995 which provides:

… ensure that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to and

does not detract from the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings and

of heritage conservation areas.




Review Assessment:

As discussed throughout the report, the design of the new replacement door has no regard with the

shared characteristic within the group in the street front zone. The new door is not sympathetic and

will detract from the heritage significance within the group. As such, the new door is inconsistent

with the objective 2 (2) (g) (ii) of the Woollahra LEP 1995


The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 8(5) which prescribes that Council shall

not grant consent to development unless it is satisfied that the work is consistent with

objectives of the Woollahra LEP 1995. In particular, the unauthorised works are inconsistent

with objective 3 (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone which provides:



Review Assessment:

The new door does not maintain the existing characteristics of area predominantly characterised by

dwelling-houses, in this case, the group of Victorian terrace row.


The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 28 (1) (a) and (2) of the Woollahra LEP

1995 which prescribes that a person shall not, in respect of a heritage conservation area,

demolish or alter a building or work within the area and that Council shall not grant consent to

an application in sub-clause (1) unless it has taken into consideration the extent to which the

carrying out of the development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage

conservation area. The unauthorised work is uncharacteristic and does not enhance the

distinctive shared characteristics of the terrace row group, therefore, the unauthorised work is

considered unacceptable.

Review Assessment:

The new door is uncharacteristic and does not enhance the distinctive shared characteristics of the

terrace row group.


The unauthorised work is non-compliant with the following objectives and controls of Part

4.1.1 of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008:



Review Assessment:

As discussed above in Section 6.1, the design of the new door has no regard with the shared

characteristic within the group in the street front zone.





The unauthorised work is non-compliant with the following objective and control of Part 4.2.3

of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008:

Objective: O2.

Control: C2.

Review Assessment:

Objective O2 and Control C2 in Part 4.2.3 - Windows, doors, shutters and security of the

Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008 state:

O2 To reinstate traditional windows, doors, and shutters consistent with the architectural

style of the building on significant elevations facing streets.

C2 When works are proposed to the street front elevations on the principal building form

and on side elevations facing the street, unsympathetic windows and doors on those

elevations are to be removed and replaced with windows and doors that are consistent

with traditional elements of known earlier configuration in terms of size, proportion,

materials and detail.

As discussed throughout the report, the new door is unsympathetic and shall be removed and

replaced with a four-panel door as recommended by both the original and reviewing Heritage

Officers in accordance with the above objective and control.




Objective: O2.

Control: C4.

Review Assessment:

Objective O2 and Control C4 in Part 4.2.8 - Materials, finishes and details of the Paddington

Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008 state:

O2 To promote high quality design, materials, finishes and detailing which is appropriate

to the architectural style, building type, and historic context.

C4 New materials, finishes, textures and details on the principal building form and

elevations visible from a public space must be traditional and appropriate to the

architectural style of the building.

As discussed throughout the report, the design of the new door is not appropriate to the traditional

architectural style of the terrace row group of which the front elevations are visible from the public

domain.







Objective: O4.

Control: C1.

Review Assessment:

Objective O4 and Control C1 in Part 4.3.2 - Building types (Multi-storey terrace houses) of the

Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008 state:

O4 To retain the shared distinctive characteristic of groups of buildings.

C1 Refer to relevant objectives and controls in Clauses 4.1 and 4.2.

As discussed throughout the report, the design of the new door has no regard with the shared

distinctive characteristic of the terrace row group.

7. SUBMISSIONS

In accordance with clause 4.5 of Woollahra Municipal Council’s development Control Plan for

Advertising and Notification of Development Applications and Applications to Modify

Development Consents, the applicant has completed the statutory declaration [see correspondence

on file dated 6 April 2010] declaring that the site notice for DA 331/2012/1 at 263 Glenmore Road,

Paddington was erected and maintained during the notification period in accordance with the

requirements of the DCP.

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and

Notifications DCP. Submissions were received from:

Paul Murray of No. 267 Glenmore Road; and

The Paddington Society.

The above objectors also lodged their objections to the original DA. The re-submission raised the

same concerns which were discussed and assessed under the original assessment report. The

concerns raised have been reviewed and agreed with. The Section 82A review is recommended for

refusal.

In addition, the applicant has provided a petition signed by 43 regular patients in support of the new

door and two letters of support have been received from:

Pilar Lorenzo

Antonia Georgas

These submissions made general comments in support of the new door in terms of its function,

safety, aestheticism and its distinguishable outlook from other residences.

Notwithstanding the supportive arguments, as discussed throughout the report, the design of the

new door has no regard with the shared distinctive characteristic of the terrace row group. As such,

the DA is recommended for refusal.





The unauthorised work is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and

would not be in the public interest.

Review Assessment:

For the reasons outlined and discussed above, the now door is not acceptable as it has detrimental

impact upon the heritage significance of the terrace row group and is therefore considered not to be

in the public interest.

7. CONCLUSION

As a result of the above review assessment, the Section 82A review application is not considered to

be satisfactory to addressing the reasons for refusal to the proposal.

8. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Under S.147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 there have been no

disclosure statements regarding political donations or gifts made to any councillor or gifts made to

any council employee submitted with this development application by either the applicant or any

person who made a submission.

9. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979

THAT Council, as the consent authority, having considered the application for review of its

determination, resolve to maintain its refusal of development consent to Development Application

No. 331/2012 for unauthorised work: replace front door with glazed timber door on land at 263

Glenmore Road Paddington, for the following reasons:


The unauthorised work is inconsistent with the objective 2 (2) (g) (ii) of the Woollahra LEP

1995 which provides:

… ensure that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to and

does not detract from the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings and

of heritage conservation areas.


The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 8(5) which prescribes that Council shall

not grant consent to development unless it is satisfied that the work is consistent with

objectives of the Woollahra LEP 1995. In particular, the unauthorised works are inconsistent

with objective 3 (a) of the Residential 2 (a) zone which provides:







The unauthorised work is inconsistent with Clause 28 (1) (a) and (2) of the Woollahra LEP

1995 which prescribes that a person shall not, in respect of a heritage conservation area,

demolish or alter a building or work within the area and that Council shall not grant consent to

an application in sub-clause (1) unless it has taken into consideration the extent to which the

carrying out of the development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage

conservation area. The unauthorised work is uncharacteristic and does not enhance the

distinctive shared characteristics of the terrace row group, therefore, the unauthorised work is

considered unacceptable.


The unauthorised work is non-compliant with the following objectives and controls of Part

4.1.1 of the Paddington Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan 2008:






Objective: O2.

Control: C2.




Objective: O2.

Control: C4.




Objective: O4.

Control: C1.


The unauthorised work is unacceptable against the relevant considerations under s79C and

would not be in the public interest.




Mr T Wong George Fotis

REVIEW OFFICER TEAM LEADER

ADVISINGS

RIGHT OF APPEAL

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months of the

date on which you receive this Notice.

ANNEXURES

1. Original assessment Report

2. Heritage Referral (Section 82A review)

3. Plan, sections and elevation

agenda: application assessment panel · controls: c3, c10 and c11. 5. windows, doors, shutters and...

Documents